NationStates Jolt Archive

A big thanks to various voters around that country to the south for giving me the gift of acknowledgement that people are finally waking up and smelling the coffee. Virginia run by a Dem? Unheard of! And the good citizens of Dover chucking out all but one of the school board members that tried to stick their kids with theology in the science classroom. That was a thing of beauty. The court case is now thankfully irrelevant, but it also did a wonderful job of showcasing just how ridiculous the ID movement is.

Arnie with egg on his face?


Well, let us just start calling him the one-term-inator. And to think that when he was first elected some people started talking about a Constitutional Amendment so that he could have a crack at running for the White House.

He still can.

Janitorial positions in Washington ARE elected are they not? :D

All I know is that a lot of GOP members must have been hanging out in bars consoling each other last night, having to firmly acknowledge that the tide is shifted. the people can cherry pick policies to agree with or not and still follow a party out of loyalty, but when the public trust gets broken it takes a while to get that back. And frankly, the trust IS circling the drain - along with much of the loyalty.

Net change in seats, Dem vs. Rep?

Effectively zero. And the Dem who won in Virginia might as well be a centrist Republican. Quite vocal about believing in God - far more vocal than you would tolerate in any leader. Will enforce the death penalty (a very vocal campaign promise). Won't touch the gun laws. Fiscal conservative (and his service under the previous Dem governor proves it - they both are very conservative in that regard).

Kaine has a lot of views that Schumer would regard as "out of the mainstream".

You are quite welcome. :)

Net change in seats, Dem vs. Rep?

Effectively zero. And the Dem who won in Virginia might as well be a centrist Republican. Quite vocal about believing in God - far more vocal than you would tolerate in any leader. Will enforce the death penalty (a very vocal campaign promise). Won't touch the gun laws. Fiscal conservative (and his service under the previous Dem governor proves it - they both are very conservative in that regard).

Kaine has a lot of views that Schumer would regard as "out of the mainstream".

You are indeed correct.

I am surprised the people are actually hailing this victory. It is not surprising in all reality.

Net change in seats, Dem vs. Rep?

Effectively zero. And the Dem who won in Virginia might as well be a centrist Republican. Quite vocal about believing in God - far more vocal than you would tolerate in any leader. Will enforce the death penalty (a very vocal campaign promise). Won't touch the gun laws. Fiscal conservative (and his service under the previous Dem governor proves it - they both are very conservative in that regard).

Kaine has a lot of views that Schumer would regard as "out of the mainstream".

Doesn't matter, it is still sending a message, one that will be heard I will wager very loudly in 06 and 08!

I'm surprised that Stephistan didn't know that Virginia already had a Democratic governor - before the election.

Probably knows very little about US politics, other than what she reads on the Internet.

Doesn't matter, it is still sending a message, one that will be heard I will wager very loudly in 06 and 08!
A resounding "Meh" hurled down the halls of time. Truly, years from now people will look back at this day as the day that people stood to their feet and said "Why bother?" and then went back to political napping.
But in a dynamic manner, of course!

I'm not surprised nobody's tackling the ousting of ID fans for evolutionists. That one's much harder to rationalize away than a right-wing Democrat not making much difference to the Republicans. :)

A resounding "Meh" hurled down the halls of time. Truly, years from now people will look back at this day as the day that people stood to their feet and said "Why bother?" and then went back to political napping.
But in a dynamic manner, of course!
Someone with more energy than me should sig that right now. I think. ^_^

Doesn't matter, it is still sending a message, one that will be heard I will wager very loudly in 06 and 08!

It isn't sending any messege Stephistan.

I'm surprised that Stephistan didn't know that Virginia already had a Democratic governor - before the election.

Probably knows very little about US politics, other than what she reads on the Internet.

And New Jersey had a Democratic Governor too.

Doesn't matter, it is still sending a message, one that will be heard I will wager very loudly in 06 and 08!

Yes, heard in the anguished moans from the Democrats in psychiatrists offices getting diagnosed with "post-election stress syndrome"... again. :D

Effectively zero. And the Dem who won in Virginia might as well be a centrist Republican. Quite vocal about believing in God - far more vocal than you would tolerate in any leader. Will enforce the death penalty (a very vocal campaign promise). Won't touch the gun laws. Fiscal conservative (and his service under the previous Dem governor proves it - they both are very conservative in that regard).
Since when does "vocal about believing in God" automatically go towards Republican qualification? I'm sure there are few in this forum who at this point don't know at least a little about my beliefs concerning God, and I challenge you to find THREE people who can honestly say "She might as well be a centrist Republican". Same goes for the death penalty -- a lot of people I know see it on a similar level as abortion....they don't personally support it (ie if they were on a jury they wouldn't go for death) but they're not actively against it. Personally, I support the death penalty in terms of horrendous crimes. Still doesn't seem to work me into a Republican state of being.

As a matter of fact, from what I know about the promises of the campaign, there are VERY FEW differences between what I'd like to see somebody do and what he's promising. I daresay I'm quite liberal and definitely non-Republican, so I fail to see how those points support the claim. Even some of the most socially liberal Dems in the country recognize that with current economy as it is, fiscal conservativism is prudent.

I'm not surprised nobody's tackling the ousting of ID fans for evolutionists. That one's much harder to rationalize away than a right-wing Democrat not making much difference to the Republicans. :)

yeah, but the whole basis for ID is that what people believe in/want DOESN'T matter. it's all god's divine plan, human thought doesn't enter into it ;)

I'm surprised that Stephistan didn't know that Virginia already had a Democratic governor - before the election.

Probably knows very little about US politics, other than what she reads on the Internet.

LMAO..

Yes, I know nothing at all..lol

After William Mahone and the Readjuster Party lost control of Virginia politics around 1883, the Democratic Party held a strong majority position of state and federal offices for over 85 years. In 1970, Republican A. Linwood Holton Jr. became the first Republican governor in the 20th century. In the years there after, Republicans made substantial gains, and for a time, controlled both houses of the Virginia General Assembly, as well as the Governorship from 1994 until 2000.

As of October 2005 Republicans held both seats in the U.S. Senate, 8 of 11 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, held a majority in the Virginia House of Delegates, and a Republican was Virginia's Attorney General.
Democrats controlled the remaining 3 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and held a majority in the Virginia Senate. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor were both Democrats. Incumbent Virginia governors cannot run for reelection under the state constitution.

In the November 2005 election, the race to succeed Democratic Governor Mark Warner, Democrat Timothy M. Kaine beat Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore (Scott County), and State Senator Russ Potts (Winchester) (long a Republican) running as an independent.
The tide has shifted you can feel it. It wasn't just in Virginia either. ;)

Simonist']Since when does "vocal about believing in God" automatically go towards Republican qualification?

Why don't you ask Senator Chuck Schumer why he thinks that being vocal about believing in God is a bad thing?

LMAO..

Yes, I know nothing at all..lol


Not until you just looked it up. ROFL

No, thank you! For being so easy to please. A couple of democrats replaced a couple of democrats and California is still shooting itself in the foot as they will probably lose their federal education dollars and most certainly their federal highway funds.
So what's the facination with American politics I wonder. With all the different angles, twists and turns in Canadian politics, I would think there would be much more interesting stuff going on with them. How many different parties do you all have anyway?

Why don't you ask Senator Chuck Schumer why he thinks that being vocal about believing in God is a bad thing?
Why don't you answer my question, as I was asking based on your statement, not Senator Schumer's?

Simonist']Why don't you answer my question, as I was asking based on your statement, not Senator Schumer's?

Yes, I'd like to hear that answer too.

Simonist']Why don't you answer my question, as I was asking based on your statement, not Senator Schumer's?

I am saying it because quite a few Democratic Senators have been quite vocal about the idea that anyone who vocally expresses their faith in God are unfit for public office, or are Republicans. The derision level from Schumer in particular is quite high.

I, personally, don't believe that people who profess faith in God more frequently than Bush does are crazy, but I do believe the Democratic Party is an unfriendly venue for them.

So what's the facination with American politics I wonder. With all the different angles, twists and turns in Canadian politics, I would think there would be much more interesting stuff going on with them. How many different parties do you all have anyway?
I'd like to know as well. Candian politics are much more interesting then watching Republicrats have it out over whatever paper-tiger they've created lately to conceal their similarities and lack of originality.

No, thank you! For being so easy to please. A couple of democrats replaced a couple of democrats and California is still shooting itself in the foot as they will probably lose their federal education dollars and most certainly their federal highway funds.
So what's the facination with American politics I wonder. With all the different angles, twists and turns in Canadian politics, I would think there would be much more interesting stuff going on with them. How many different parties do you all have anyway?

It's their damn media blackout... neither Americans nor Canadians ever hear about all the bullshit and corruption that goes on up their. Most Canadians know more about American politics then they do their own. Sinuhue had a thread about this phenomenon a little while ago I think.

I am saying it because quite a few Democratic Senators have been quite vocal about the idea that anyone who vocally expresses their faith in God are unfit for public office, or are Republicans. The derision level from Schumer in particular is quite high.

I, personally, don't believe that people who profess faith in God more frequently than Bush does are crazy, but I do believe the Democratic Party is an unfriendly venue for them.
I think it's more a matter of whether or not they're sensible to realize that religion shouldn't play into politics. Whether or not they choose to believe shouldn't have a damn thing to do with whatever party they're a part of -- it just depends on their own political capabilities.

I especially like that Canadian logic - net change of zero = massive sea change = turning of the tide

I am saying it because quite a few Democratic Senators have been quite vocal about the idea that anyone who vocally expresses their faith in God are unfit for public office, or are Republicans. The derision level from Schumer in particular is quite high.

I, personally, don't believe that people who profess faith in God more frequently than Bush does are crazy, but I do believe the Democratic Party is an unfriendly venue for them.

Yeah, because Jimmy Carter is so against religion..lol Who doesn't know there US political history again?

There is a difference between being a religious person and trying to push those beliefs on a secular country.

Simonist']I think it's more a matter of whether or not they're sensible to realize that religion shouldn't play into politics. Whether or not they choose to believe shouldn't have a damn thing to do with whatever party they're a part of -- it just depends on their own political capabilities.

Then tell me why so many Democrats are hostile to people who believe in God.

Whether elected officials, or Stephistan, or anyone else in between, most Democrats believe that people with religious beliefs are less than capable.

A deeply held religious belief ALWAYS plays a part in your judgment. It's just that Schumer thinks it's always a negative factor.

No, thank you! For being so easy to please. A couple of democrats replaced a couple of democrats and California is still shooting itself in the foot as they will probably lose their federal education dollars and most certainly their federal highway funds.
So what's the facination with American politics I wonder. With all the different angles, twists and turns in Canadian politics, I would think there would be much more interesting stuff going on with them. How many different parties do you all have anyway?

There have been topics started on Canadian politics, and the interesting stuff going on with it lately... some have been popular, some not. I think it's because everyone is watching America, as a lot of people dislike the Bush admin, but Canada's just sorta there... stuff's going on, but it's mostly internal, so the rest of the world just goes, "Meh. What's America up to?" :P

I especially like that Canadian logic - net change of zero = massive sea change = turning of the tide

There will always be die-hard's that no matter what their party does will vote for them, you must be one of them, have you checked out any American polls lately? The tide has shifted, you don't need a degree in political science to figure that out, although I do have one if you'd like to know anything else. ;)

Simonist']I think it's more a matter of whether or not they're sensible to realize that religion shouldn't play into politics. Whether or not they choose to believe shouldn't have a damn thing to do with whatever party they're a part of -- it just depends on their own political capabilities.


Ditto on all counts, and I personally haven't heard "quite a few Democratic Senators" denouncing Democrats that would speak publically about being religious. Got several quotes from several Dems to show this to be true WL?

Yeah, because Jimmy Carter is so against religion..lol Who doesn't know there US political history again?

There is a difference between being a religious person and trying to push those beliefs on a secular country.

I don't see Bush pushing anything. Do you see him forcing anyone to pray?

Carter has even been criticized for his recent remarks concerning religion - you would think that the Democratic party thought he was their crazy old grandfather spouting off about God again...

There have been topics started on Canadian politics, and the interesting stuff going on with it lately... some have been popular, some not. I think it's because everyone is watching America, as a lot of people dislike the Bush admin, but Canada's just sorta there... stuff's going on, but it's mostly internal, so the rest of the world just goes, "Meh. What's America up to?" :P
But shouldn't Canadians care about internal Canadian politics? Or maybe its just that other country's politics are automatically more interesting then your own.

There will always be die-hard's that no matter what their party does will vote for them, you must be one of them, have you checked out any American polls lately? The tide has shifted, you don't need a degree in political science to figure that out, although I do have one if you'd like to know anything else. ;)
If you're talking about the ABC poll that has a sample composed of 66 percent Democrats for starters, I've already seen the poll.

But shouldn't Canadians care about internal Canadian politics? Or maybe its just that other country's politics are automatically more interesting then your own.
No, Stephistan wants to tell Americans who to vote for. I should rephrase that - she wants the UN to tell Americans when to get up, lay down, and speak.

Then tell me why so many Democrats are hostile to people who believe in God.

Whether elected officials, or Stephistan, or anyone else in between, most Democrats believe that people with religious beliefs are less than capable.

A deeply held religious belief ALWAYS plays a part in your judgment. It's just that Schumer thinks it's always a negative factor.
No, MOST Democrats are against the religious who try to push it on others unconstitutionally. SOME Democrats are against all the religious people.

Or, y'know, just keep with the sweeping generalities. That'll make people like you and listen to your opinions with respect and tolerance :rolleyes:

Simonist']No, MOST Democrats are against the religious who try to push it on others unconstitutionally. SOME Democrats are against all the religious people.

Care to show me where Bush is pushing it on us unconstitutionally?

Any Supreme Court cases up where it's ACLU vs. Bush on something religious?

Eh?

I don't see Bush pushing anything. Do you see him forcing anyone to pray?

Carter has even been criticized for his recent remarks concerning religion - you would think that the Democratic party thought he was their crazy old grandfather spouting off about God again...


I saw Bush pushing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Are you sayign that had nothign to do with his religious beliefs? You did just say that if you are religious is plays a part in all of your decisions, did you not?

Care to show me where Bush is pushing it on us unconstitutionally?

Any Supreme Court cases up where it's ACLU vs. Bush on something religious?

Eh?
Care to show me where MOST Dems have a problem with Bush SIMPLY because he's religious? No? That's right, it's because they actually dislike him more for his policies and actions than his religious beliefs.

Good try.

I saw Bush pushing for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Are you sayign that had nothign to do with his religious beliefs? You did just say that if you are religious is plays a part in all of your decisions, did you not?

And? Is that unconstitutional? Do the majority of Americans think that's crazy?

Right or wrong, it would pass most states and become part of the Constitution.

Or do you believe Texas is a fluke?

But shouldn't Canadians care about internal Canadian politics? Or maybe its just that other country's politics are automatically more interesting then your own.

Canadians do care about it. Are we not allowed to care about both political systems at the same time? I've posted comments under both thread topics. But I see a lot more International attention in the America threads, not to mention just a lot more Americans posting... because most Americans don't know what's going on in Canada, so just ignore the threads about it.

I am saying it because quite a few Democratic Senators have been quite vocal about the idea that anyone who vocally expresses their faith in God are unfit for public office, or are Republicans. The derision level from Schumer in particular is quite high.

I, personally, don't believe that people who profess faith in God more frequently than Bush does are crazy, but I do believe the Democratic Party is an unfriendly venue for them.There are also a number of republican Senators who have been quite vocal that the ability to torture captives is necessary to our national security (not to mention the Vice President of the US)--is that a mainstream Republican value as well?

Face it, Deep Kimchi--you're all straw men and Limbaugh-like statements about the Democratic party. You wouldn't know the facts about the Democrats if they smacked you dead in the face.

Simonist']Care to show me where MOST Dems have a problem with Bush SIMPLY because he's religious? No? That's right, it's because they actually dislike him more for his policies and actions than his religious beliefs.

Good try.

You're the one who said that someone was pushing religion on people in an unconstitutional manner - you're also the one who in the quotes above offered no evidence of such.

But shouldn't Canadians care about internal Canadian politics? Or maybe its just that other country's politics are automatically more interesting then your own.

i'm deeply interested in canadian politics. and on my canpoli board i debate them. here, however, it's a more international (read: american/environmental/trade issues/war) forum, and canadian politics doesn't get the same sort of traction, interest wise.

plus, there's nothing particularly compelling on the block in parlament at the moment, and i sometimes need a break from watching the canadian party leaders continue their months-long staring contest. once somebody finally blinks, i'll see what's going on.

I don't see Bush pushing anything. Do you see him forcing anyone to pray?

Oh, okay, so faith based initiatives are just a figment of my imagination, got ya!

But shouldn't Canadians care about internal Canadian politics? Or maybe its just that other country's politics are automatically more interesting then your own.


Didn't know that it was an "either-or" situation!

Amazingly enough, some people have this nifty ability to converse with knowledge on multiple subjects. It's an interesting trait, and yes- it does take a bit of time and mental accuity to stay current on multiple subjects.

But still, some of us manage to do it.

The dems are hypocrits. The reps are psychotics. I'm not sure which one is the worst.

It's their damn media blackout... neither Americans nor Canadians ever hear about all the bullshit and corruption that goes on up their. Most Canadians know more about American politics then they do their own. Sinuhue had a thread about this phenomenon a little while ago I think.

Oh my. That explains much. I feel kind of bad for them now. I didn't realize they didn't have freedom of speech.

There are also a number of republican Senators who have been quite vocal that the ability to torture captives is necessary to our national security (not to mention the Vice President of the US)--is that a mainstream Republican value as well?

Face it, Deep Kimchi--you're all straw men and Limbaugh-like statements about the Democratic party. You wouldn't know the facts about the Democrats if they smacked you dead in the face.

The number of Republicans who would allow torture is probably very high - even though the recent vote to ban torture included most Republicans. However, the vote was not for the record. I would bet that most Republicans would be willing to turn a blind eye to it if McCain were not so adamant.

Face it, the Democratic Party is viewed as a religion-hostile party - whether you want to admit it or not.

Canadians do care about it. Are we not allowed to care about both political systems at the same time? I've posted comments under both thread topics. But I see a lot more International attention in the America threads, not to mention just a lot more Americans posting... because most Americans don't know what's going on in Canada, so just ignore the threads about it.

Exactly! :cool:

And? Is that unconstitutional? Do the majority of Americans think that's crazy?

Right or wrong, it would pass most states and become part of the Constitution.

Or do you believe Texas is a fluke?


So you really completely missed the point? Didn't you just say that Bush wasn't trying to push his religious beliefs on the country?

So you really completely missed the point? Didn't you just say that Bush wasn't trying to push his religious beliefs on the country?

You didn't prove it was part of his religious beliefs, did you? Nope.

Canadians do care about it. Are we not allowed to care about both political systems at the same time? I've posted comments under both thread topics. But I see a lot more International attention in the America threads, not to mention just a lot more Americans posting... because most Americans don't know what's going on in Canada, so just ignore the threads about it.
Consider me rebuffed then. I don't post on threads about Canadian politics because I know nothing of value about Canada, but I generally find Canadian politics to be much more interesting. Same goes for British politics.
I just don't see why people with much more interesting local set-ups really pay that much attention to strictly internal things of little to no consequence outside US territory (gay marriage for instance) or to the political party who may or may not be losing.

You're the one who said that someone was pushing religion on people in an unconstitutional manner - you're also the one who in the quotes above offered no evidence of such.
I'm still waiting on your "evidence", more so than biased ignorance and the opinions of Republicans you probably wish you were as rich and influential as. And, to clarify, because clearly everything I'm saying is going over your head, I never said that somebody was pushing religion unconstitutionally. I said, and I quote:
"No, MOST Democrats are against the religious who try to push it on others unconstitutionally. SOME Democrats are against all the religious people."
That does not mean "There are people pushing religion unconstitutionally", that means that a majority of Democrats are going to simply be against those people. Twisting my own words when I'm still here to defend them isn't going to do you ANY good.

And? Is that unconstitutional? Do the majority of Americans think that's crazy?

Right or wrong, it would pass most states and become part of the Constitution.

Or do you believe Texas is a fluke?

Considering they are the 19th STATE to recognize marriage between a Man and a woman only, it is no fluke.

BTW: California was one of those states.

The number of Republicans who would allow torture is probably very high - even though the recent vote to ban torture included most Republicans. However, the vote was not for the record. I would bet that most Republicans would be willing to turn a blind eye to it if McCain were not so adamant.

Face it, the Democratic Party is viewed as a religion-hostile party - whether you want to admit it or not.

does the fact that they're viewed that way mean it's true? both US parties talk about religion more than any party here ever would (if harper said the word "jesus" as often as even a moderate democrat, the conservative party'd immediately start looking for a new leader, it just wouldn't fly)

The number of Republicans who would allow torture is probably very high - even though the recent vote to ban torture included most Republicans. However, the vote was not for the record. I would bet that most Republicans would be willing to turn a blind eye to it if McCain were not so adamant.

Face it, the Democratic Party is viewed as a religion-hostile party - whether you want to admit it or not.
There's a difference between "viewed as" and "actually are". Your ignorance is proving why people can't differentiate.

Oh, okay, so faith based initiatives are just a figment of my imagination, got ya!

He isn't forcing those on people who don't want them.

For God's sake Steph! Learn the friggin difference.

You didn't prove it was part of his religious beliefs, did you? Nope.


As I pointed out in a previous post... You said it yourself. But go ahead and talk in circles. Presenting too much information at once seems to be confusing you so I will let you have at your twists and turns with the others.

Simonist']
"No, MOST Democrats are against the religious who try to push it on others unconstitutionally. SOME Democrats are against all the religious people."

SOME is enough for MOST religious people to dispense with the Democratic Party.

SOME is enough for a candidate who is religious to choose another party to belong to

Thank you for proving my point.

Simonist']There's a difference between "viewed as" and "actually are". Your ignorance is proving why people can't differentiate.

In reality, there isn't a difference.

SOME is enough for MOST religious people to dispense with the Democratic Party.

SOME is enough for a candidate who is religious to choose another party to belong to

Thank you for proving my point.
"SOME" could equal as little as "two".

Thank you for continually proving to me that you don't appear to wish to debate at a level above "moronic".

Consider me rebuffed then. I don't post on threads about Canadian politics because I know nothing of value about Canada, but I generally find Canadian politics to be much more interesting. Same goes for British politics.
I just don't see why people with much more interesting local set-ups really pay that much attention to strictly internal things of little to no consequence outside US territory (gay marriage for instance) or to the political party who may or may not be losing.

well, there's a lot in "local" american politics that has a much more national scope than other countries could manage (off the top of my head, should the US economy collapse, it'd bring a lot of economies with it, the US's environmental record affects the world, the american policy toward war contributes to/destroys any hope of the rest of our security, etc.) so that's likely why so many people are interested in what party's in power down there as well...

He isn't forcing those on people who don't want them.

For God's sake Steph! Learn the friggin difference.

I know the difference, perhaps if you looked up the 1st Amendment you would too!

The number of Republicans who would allow torture is probably very high - even though the recent vote to ban torture included most Republicans. However, the vote was not for the record. I would bet that most Republicans would be willing to turn a blind eye to it if McCain were not so adamant.

Face it, the Democratic Party is viewed as a religion-hostile party - whether you want to admit it or not.Viewed by you as religion hostile--or I guess that of the 60 million or so people who voted Democratic last year, none of them were religious, huh? That's a pretty stupid assumption. An avowed atheist can't get elected town leper in the US, for fuck's sake, DK, and you know it. No major electoral party in the US is religion-hostile, and it's stupid for you to keep pushing that line.

I know the difference, perhaps if you looked up the 1st Amendment you would too!

I know what the 1st Amendment says. He isn't forcing religion nor is he establishing a religion.

He isn't forcing those on people who don't want them.

For God's sake Steph! Learn the friggin difference.


No, but if you start taking money away from secular social program providers and put it into religious ones as part of these initiatives, then for the people that need the help - you are, to some extent, forcing them to take a sermon along with their support.

Simonist']"SOME" could equal as little as "two".

Thank you for continually proving to me that you don't appear to wish to debate at a level above "moronic".

I tell you what - why don't you listen to Air America, the ostensible voice of the Democrats - and see how many times in a week you can count anti-religious sentiment.

Or go through Schumer or Feinstein's speeches and hear the same?

Even Harry Reid!

Now, go back and listen to a comparable Republican radio show -- and you try and find Republican officials who are just as vocal as Schumer about being anti-religious.

Ever wonder why the hatred of Democrats in rural areas is so deep today? Because of the constant ridicule of religion.

I tell you what - why don't you listen to Air America, the ostensible voice of the Democrats - and see how many times in a week you can count anti-religious sentiment.

Or go through Schumer or Feinstein's speeches and hear the same?

Even Harry Reid!

Now, go back and listen to a comparable Republican radio show -- and you try and find Republican officials who are just as vocal as Schumer about being anti-religious.

Ever wonder why the hatred of Democrats in rural areas is so deep today? Because of the constant ridicule of religion.
Okay, this is the last time I'm going to attempt to dumb this down for you, because you're too thick and intentionally obtuse to understand.

THEY ARE NOT THE EXCLUSIVE VOICE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
NOT ALL DEMOCRATS THINK LIKE THAT

If that doesn't bust through somehow, you're beyond help and I honestly hope you stick to the threads more along the lines of "Whats your favourite band" where you can sound a little less pig-headed.

I tell you what - why don't you listen to Air America, the ostensible voice of the Democrats - and see how many times in a week you can count anti-religious sentiment.

Or go through Schumer or Feinstein's speeches and hear the same?

Even Harry Reid!

Now, go back and listen to a comparable Republican radio show -- and you try and find Republican officials who are just as vocal as Schumer about being anti-religious.

Ever wonder why the hatred of Democrats in rural areas is so deep today? Because of the constant ridicule of religion.
Harry Reid?! The Mormon/Pro-Life/Minority Leader Senator from the state of Nevada? Do you have any idea just how asinine that charge is? Apparently not.

By the way, if you want to see an example of just how popular Democrats can be in rural areas, look at Montana.

And? Is that unconstitutional? Do the majority of Americans think that's crazy?

Right or wrong, it would pass most states and become part of the Constitution.

Or do you believe Texas is a fluke?

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is. It's the first Amendment of the Constitution, which promises all Americans freedom of religion -- and that no religion shall be designated as the state religion and pushed down their throats.

See? And me a Democratic Christian.

What's the difference between the democrats and the republicans anyway?
They're just two competing oversized gangs aimed at taking over the USA.

I know what the 1st Amendment says. He isn't forcing religion nor is he establishing a religion.

Do you understand the 1st Amendment at all? :rolleyes:

He's not allowed under the American constitution to even involve religion in government.

Keep taking those poli-sci courses Corneliu, they don't seem to be teaching you much! Maybe it's not your niche.


Anyway, this thread was to thank the American public who are finally waking up. I don't care what the die-hard Republicans say, we can all feel it, the tide has shifted, the public trust has been broken in a much bigger way than any blow-job could result in, they can't see it because they've been viewing the world with their rose coloured glasses so long, they wouldn't know it to see it anyway.

Viewed by you as religion hostile--or I guess that of the 60 million or so people who voted Democratic last year, none of them were religious, huh? That's a pretty stupid assumption. An avowed atheist can't get elected town leper in the US, for fuck's sake, DK, and you know it. No major electoral party in the US is religion-hostile, and it's stupid for you to keep pushing that line.

Exactly. I'm reading this thread and I'm floored. I hate democrats and republicans, but how can some people be this obtuse. What religion is Kerry? Anyone? Anyone? Everyone here knows his religion because he talked about it all the time.

To Deep Kimshi - won't allow them to violate the constitution and force particular beliefs on the rest of the population = religious-intolerant

Consider me rebuffed then. I don't post on threads about Canadian politics because I know nothing of value about Canada, but I generally find Canadian politics to be much more interesting. Same goes for British politics.

I just don't see why people with much more interesting local set-ups really pay that much attention to strictly internal things of little to no consequence outside US territory (gay marriage for instance) or to the political party who may or may not be losing.


Canadians probably focuses more on both the domestic AND foreign policies of our neighbour than most countries because we are affected by them both so much more than most other cases you might care to think of.

They aren't just the local superpower, the Canada-US trade is still (I believe) the largest dollar-value trading partnership in the world.

As such, their domestic policies also affect us as they often relate to issues that affect their economy which in turn affects ours. And social trends will impact economy over the long term - especially in areas such as education.


Gay marriage in Texas? You're right - it doesn't really affect me. However I DO have an opinion on the subject as mot people do, and once you find yourself following the domestic politics it gets hard to cherry-pick exactly which issues you follow - especially if you follow the electoral process.

A big thanks to various voters around that country to the south for giving me the gift of acknowledgement that people are finally waking up and smelling the coffee. Virginia run by a Dem? Unheard of! And the good citizens of Dover chucking out all but one of the school board members that tried to stick their kids with theology in the science classroom. That was a thing of beauty. The court case is now thankfully irrelevant, but it also did a wonderful job of showcasing just how ridiculous the ID movement is.

Yeah well Kaine was runing a more positive campaign. Less mud-slinging at his opponent. Kilgore refused to sing a note saying he would not do negative campaign for a length of time: So Kilgore likes mud.

Plud all the negative campaigning backfire: I like Kaine eating my taxes. It means less for me to get :cool:
I think it was suppose to imply he gives big taxes so he can eat them, but either way he eats them~.

All I know is that a lot of GOP members must have been hanging out in bars consoling each other last night, having to firmly acknowledge that the tide is shifted. the people can cherry pick policies to agree with or not and still follow a party out of loyalty, but when the public trust gets broken it takes a while to get that back. And frankly, the trust IS circling the drain - along with much of the loyalty.
But remember Texas now has the ban on Same sex marriage so not total victory. It also bans Common law marriages which is only goofd thing to come out of it.
I'm against common law ones(just because live together): you need to be marrired to be married; seems to lazy to allow other way.

Kaine says his catholic beliefs make him against the death penalty, but his responsibilities make him enforce it as long as it is law: sounds reasonable to me.

In reality, there isn't a difference.

Because SOME Republicans are corrupt, arrogant idiots, that then means, following your logic......?

Anyway, this thread was to thank the American public who are finally waking up. I don't care what the die-hard Republicans say, we can all feel it, the tide has shifted, the public trust has been broken in a much bigger way than any blow-job could result in, they can't see it because they've been viewing the world with their rose coloured glasses so long, they wouldn't know it to see it anyway.

You're gonna have to walk me through this one. I can see how you can think the tide is shifting, but I don't see how you can present this as evidence of it. How is a net change of zero evidence the tide is shifting?

Incidentally, I see a shifting tide as well, just not in this thread.

I know what the 1st Amendment says. He isn't forcing religion nor is he establishing a religion.

If you enshrine religious values in law even if a majority votes for it's still FORCING it on the minority. The Constitution protects from tyranny of the majority. If it didn't Bush would be President.

Do you understand the 1st Amendment at all? :rolleyes:

I know more about it than you do Stephistan.

He's not allowed under the American constitution to even involve religion in government.

No that isn't it. He CANNOT establish NOR prohibit religion. That is all the 1st Amendment says Stephie

Keep taking those poli-sci courses Corneliu, they don't seem to be teaching you much! Maybe it's not your niche.

HAHA! This is so funny. Excuse me while I die laughing.

Anyway, this thread was to thank the American public who are finally waking up.

Steph? They haven't woken up. This is nothing new. This was expected.

I don't care what the die-hard Republicans say, we can all feel it, the tide has shifted, the public trust has been broken in a much bigger way than any blow-job could result in, they can't see it because they've been viewing the world with their rose coloured glasses so long, they wouldn't know it to see it anyway.

1) Nice run on sentence. I guess you failed english class?

2) Who said I was a diehard republican? I'm a member of the republican party yes. I won't deny it however I have looked at democratic candidates. If I feel they deserve the position, I'll vote for them.

well, there's a lot in "local" american politics that has a much more national scope than other countries could manage (off the top of my head, should the US economy collapse, it'd bring a lot of economies with it, the US's environmental record affects the world, the american policy toward war contributes to/destroys any hope of the rest of our security, etc.) so that's likely why so many people are interested in what party's in power down there as well...
Well, enjoy yourselves then. Most USians aren't going to listen to you, so it seems sort of like critiquing the policies of a wall, but I suppose that it keeps you busy on time that might be otherwise spent doing something potentially destructive.
I'm still going to say its like walking across the street too watch Leprechaun 4 when you're already in a theatre playing The Godfather though.

Now, here's a concept:

Maybe the changing of the tide (so to speak) is not at all based on political parties but based on the public's distrust with those who are in power. It, amazingly, covers both the aspect of no net change in political party power and the aspect of so many incumbents losin their reelection bids.

But, OMG NOEZ!!!!!111 that makes sense and isnt extremely Repulican or Democrat in opinion...we cant have that here on NS

I know more about it than you do Stephistan.

If you think so. :D

I know more about it than you do Stephistan.

Hmmm... let's see if this is true.

No that isn't it. He CANNOT establish NOR prohibit religion. That is all the 1st Amendment says Stephie

... and right there your first statement is falsified.

Hmmm... let's see if this is true.



... and right there your first statement is falsified.

Wrong! It has been fasified.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You're gonna have to walk me through this one. I can see how you can think the tide is shifting, but I don't see how you can present this as evidence of it. How is a net change of zero evidence the tide is shifting?

Incidentally, I see a shifting tide as well, just not in this thread.

Well, as I see it and most pundits that I've been following on the news & the net as well, feel that yesterday was a test. Had the Republicans come out with big wins in mostly Virginia and New Jersey it would be telling that the trust had not broke given that in 2004 New Jersey went big for the Republicans. Agreed, not the Governor seat, but it was still telling. Given the feeling of the American public which is reflected in the polls, not just one, but poll after poll.

Same being true of the Democrats, if they won big last night (which they did) it could certainly be seen as an indicator that backs up the polls on the scandals that are plaguing the GOP.

So in the final analysis, the polls are accurate as backed up by the various elections that happened last night. Now people are saying there were no net loses or gains, true, but that is what 06 will be about. It represents the "shift" and given that it's been one scandal after another for the Republicans, they either have to start drastically distancing themselves from the White House or they will lose their seats in 06. As for the White House, I think it's fair to say, the gig is up. You're looking at a lame duck president with 3 years left to serve.

Doesn't matter, it is still sending a message, one that will be heard I will wager very loudly in 06 and 08!
And the message essentially is not to Godwin your campaign commercials. Which on the national level the Dems will have a hard time sticking too. As for NJ, it's almost as corrupt as chicago, so who the fuck cares.

Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Funny, I see no mention of making laws that enforce moral standards...(whether you agree with them or not, obviously enough people do in 19 states...)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Do you know what this means, Corn? Apparently not. Fortunately, there is this thing called legal precedent to help you figure it out. Current precedent says that a law cannot be faith-based. It has to serve another fundamental public purpose. A thing called the Lemon Test was created just to prevent faith-based measures.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm

There that should help.

Now, here's a concept:

Maybe the changing of the tide (so to speak) is not at all based on political parties but based on the public's distrust with those who are in power. It, amazingly, covers both the aspect of no net change in political party power and the aspect of so many incumbents losin their reelection bids.

But, OMG NOEZ!!!!!111 that makes sense and isnt extremely Repulican or Democrat in opinion...we cant have that here on NS

I'm quoting myself simply because I think people are ignoring my point - whether because it's me, or simply because they dont want to admit that I'm right and actually have to discuss the issues at hand rather than fight over political party platforms...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Do you know what this means, Corn? Apparently not.

Yes I know what it means.

Fortunately, there is this thing called legal precedent to help you figure it out.

Don't start to flamebait me.

Current precedent says that a law cannot be faith-based. It has to serve another fundamental public purpose. A thing called the Lemon Test was created just to prevent faith-based measures.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/eclause2.htm

There that should help.

/violin

Well, as I see it and most pundits that I've been following on the news & the net as well, feel that yesterday was a test. Had the Republicans come out with big wins in mostly Virginia and New Jersey it would be telling that the trust had not broke given that in 2004 New Jersey went big for the Republicans. Agreed, not the Governor seat, but it was still telling. Given the feeling of the American public which is reflected in the polls, not just one, but poll after poll.

Same being true of the Democrats, if they won big last night (which they did) it could certainly be seen as an indicator that backs up the polls on the scandals that are plaguing the GOP.

So in the final analysis, the polls are accurate as backed up by the various elections that happened last night. Now people are saying there were no net loses or gains, true, but that is what 06 will be about. It represents the "shift" and given that it's been one scandal after another for the Republicans, they either have to start drastically distancing themselves from the White House or they will lose their seats in 06. As for the White House, I think it's fair to say, the gig is up. You're looking at a lame duck president with 3 years left to serve.
I'm gonna have to shake my head on that one. So your argument is that the status quo is evidence that the tide is shifting? I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that. I would say it's evidence that the that those who projected it would be different are wrong (profound, that statement is).

0 change = big shift?

Yes I know what it means.



Don't start to flamebait me.



/violin
It categorically shows you to be wrong and your answer is /violin? Your skills at debate are overwhelming. Must... think... of... a... retort... that... is... on... par... :rolleyes:

It categorically shows you to be wrong and your answer is /violin? Your skills at debate are overwhelming. Must... think... of... a... retort... that... is... on... par... :rolleyes:

My debating skills are fine. However, I do take offensive to be dumming down too. I am highly intelligent person. Unlike half the people on this board.

Those reps and dems are still as boring as the last time.
I don't understand how you can argue for so long about something so insignifiant. On the one hand, you have the reps telling us that the deps are corrupted and that they are anti-religion. On the other hand, the dems are defending themselves that they are not anti-religion and that the reps are even more corrupted. Then they argue about the 1st ammendment. They both argue and argue and they fight and they fight but they all agree indeed. No one will argue that they support anti-religious parties because they all agree with their american PC. They will just accuse each other of breacking from american values, but none of them will ever put those american values in doubt. I find that so boring. It's even less interesting than supporting a basketball team.

I'm not quite sure why this is being called a victory for the Democrats. In Virginia, we gained a Republican Attorney General, while keeping a Democratic Governor. There was little net change, and in fact, a slight gain in favor of the Republicans.

I guess when you're used to losing, a tie is a great thing. :p

I'm gonna have to shake my head on that one. So your argument is that the status quo is evidence that the tide is shifting? I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that. I would say it's evidence that the that those who projected it would be different are wrong (profound, that statement is).

0 change = big shift?
It wans't a zero change--that's the important part. The Democratic party picked up some seats in the VA Legislature, and a Democrat won the governorship in a state that went to Bush in 2004 by 8 points. Yes, Kaine replaced a popular Democrat, but this has been considered a strong red state for a while, so in that sense, it's a trend toward blue.

As I said in the beginning of another thread on this topic, however, I wouldn't want to wager too much on this being a sign of a trend nationwide. It might be, but it could also be another case of "all politics is local." You've got to be careful not to jump on a trend that may not be there. The one thing that made me sit up in Virginia was that Bush got involved at the end, and then Kaine went and blew past the last polls. Ravenshrike is probably right that the "Kaine wouldn't execute Hitler" ads hurt Kilgore some, but I'd guess that Bush's poor popularity didn't do him any favors either.

I'm gonna have to shake my head on that one. So your argument is that the status quo is evidence that the tide is shifting? I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with that. I would say it's evidence that the that those who projected it would be different are wrong (profound, that statement is).

0 change = big shift?

Perhaps I'm having trouble trying to articulate it. It happens some times..lol There are a ton of variables for example that lean towards the Democrats should not of won the Governor's seat in New Jersey last night. A ton of precedent that says by all accounts of history, the Republicans should of taken Virginia as well. But it didn't happen. It is telling.

I would have to write a small novel to make it all make sense..lol I'll just accept that you disagree with me. As I don't have the will at the moment to work really hard on trying to explain what I seen based on my training in politics.

So, I will be more than happy to agree to disagree with you. I suppose we shall see if I was right in 06. :)

The thread wasn't really meant to stir as much debate as it has, I know General, so I should of known better..lol But I did want to say Thank You to America. I do have my reasons to believe what I do.

My debating skills are fine.

Ahh, given your history with my husband and I, I'm going to have to go with what Jocabia has said.

As I said in the beginning of another thread on this topic, however, I wouldn't want to wager too much on this being a sign of a trend nationwide. It might be, but it could also be another case of "all politics is local." You've got to be careful not to jump on a trend that may not be there. The one thing that made me sit up in Virginia was that Bush got involved at the end, and then Kaine went and blew past the last polls. Ravenshrike is probably right that the "Kaine wouldn't execute Hitler" ads hurt Kilgore some, but I'd guess that Bush's poor popularity didn't do him any favors either.
What you have to look at is the difference in votes for governor vs Lt governor. About 70,000 or so, more than enough to put kilgore over kaine, albeit by a relatively small margin. The question becomes why did it break like that, and the only major difference in the campaigns was the godwined ads.

My debating skills are fine. However, I do take offensive to be dumming down too. I am highly intelligent person. Unlike half the people on this board.
Hmmm... I think you mean "offense" and "dumbed down to". "Too" means "also", "offensive" is the wrong form, and "dumming" doesn't match the subject. Anywho, back on topic, you made a statement that is not true and I showed that it isn't. I take it you accept my proof. Good. I'll take that as evidence that you are highly intelligent as you stated. No sarcasm, either. It takes a lot to admit when one is wrong. Nothing sillier than continuing an argument you can't support.

Ahh, given your history with my husband and I, I'm going to have to go with what Jocabia has said.

Steph, I try and not to argue to much because it doesn't do anyone any good. Especially those that are literally blind to facts and are set in there ways.

Hmmm... I think you mean "offense" and "dumbed down to". "Too" means "also", "offensive" is the wrong form, and "dumming" doesn't match the subject. Anywho, back on topic, you made a statement that is not true and I showed that it isn't. I take it you accept my proof. Good. I'll take that as evidence that you are highly intelligent as you stated. No sarcasm, either. It takes a lot to admit when one is wrong. Nothing sillier than continuing an argument you can't support.

Has the faith-based things been challenged in court and overturned during the Bush Administration?

Perhaps I'm having trouble trying to articulate it. It happens some times..lol There are a ton of variables for example that lean towards the Democrats should not of won the Governor's seat in New Jersey last night. A ton of precedent that says by all accounts of history, the Republicans should of taken Virginia as well. But it didn't happen. It is telling.

I would have to write a small novel to make it all make sense..lol I'll just accept that you disagree with me. As I don't have the will at the moment to work really hard on trying to explain what I seen based on my training in politics.

So, I will be more than happy to agree to disagree with you. I suppose we shall see if I was right in 06. :)

The thread wasn't really meant to stir as much debate as it has, I know General, so I should of known better..lol But I did want to say Thank You to America. I do have my reasons to believe what I do.

Oh, I think there is a shift and I don't think you're doing a poor job of articulating your point, but I don't read the 'evidence' in the same way you do. I think people who think that local politics is evidence of federal politics are often incorrect. Take FL for instance. The whole state is swarming with Republicans majorities and a Republican who just happens to be GWB's brother. Yet that state was decided by a hair. Anyone looking at more local politics and based their projection on that, it seems the outcome should have been a lock for GWB. And, no, let's not hijack the thread with arguments about what happened. I was living there and I've had my fill of it.

Especially those that are literally blind to facts and are set in there ways.

I already know that about you Corneliu, you didn't have to tell me.

I already know that about you Corneliu, you didn't have to tell me.

I know I'm not set in my ways. I freely admit I'm a republican. However, I am also on the record that I would've voted for Lieberman if he was the Presidential nominee.

Despite what you may think Steph, I actually listen to all sides and base my decision on who I think can do the better job of protecting and defending the nation I love. If that means I'll vote for a Dem, I will and vice versa.

Has the faith-based things been challenged in court and overturned during the Bush Administration?

The 'things' haven't made it to the court yet, but you know they don't pass the Lemon Test. However, if you think those 'things' do pass the Lemon Test feel free to demonstrate that here. I'll wait. It should be no problem for you to do so, if one were to believe your self-proclamations.

The 'things' haven't made it to the court yet, but you know they don't pass the Lemon Test. However, if you think those 'things' do pass the Lemon Test feel free to demonstrate that here. I'll wait. It should be no problem for you to do so, if one were to believe your self-proclamations.

Since they have not been challenged and ruled on, they are Constitutional until the courts say otherwise.

Since they have not been challenged and ruled on, they are Constitutional until the courts say otherwise.

I'll take that as a "no, I can't." Accepted.

I'll take that as a "no, I can't." Accepted.

Until the courts render a decision, the acts of congress are constitutional. That is basic judiciary.

Since this has not gone to the courts, it is (so far) Constitutional. It will remain so till the Supreme Court says it isn't.

Oh, I think there is a shift and I don't think you're doing a poor job of articulating your point, but I don't read the 'evidence' in the same way you do. I think people who think that local politics is evidence of federal politics are often incorrect. Take FL for instance. The whole state is swarming with Republicans majorities and a Republican who just happens to be GWB's brother. Yet that state was decided by a hair. Anyone looking at more local politics and based their projection on that, it seems the outcome should have been a lock for GWB. And, no, let's not hijack the thread with arguments about what happened. I was living there and I've had my fill of it.

More than fair Jocabia and I could be completely off base. It just seems to me that more is at stake these days than in at least our life times. That is not to say that America hasn't had her fair share of battles. But this one seems to be on fundamental principles about what America stands for as a country, which is being tested to it's very core. I freely admit I can be idealistic and want to see the best in people, so I have to believe that the American people as a whole (or enough to stop this insanity as I see it) will come out of this very testing time in history that would make the framers proud.

Until the courts render a decision, the acts of congress are constitutional. That is basic judiciary.

Since this has not gone to the courts, it is (so far) Constitutional. It will remain so till the Supreme Court says it isn't.

Actually, they are not constitutional or unconstitutional until they are ruled on. They are treated as constitutional until the court rules. If the court rules they are unconstitutional, if they violate the Constitution, they always did. It will be treated as such. You don't appear willing to debate or support your points at all. Interesting tactic, this being a debate forum and all.

I'm going to put my two cents worth in. Sorry if this is a rehash of earlier posts, but I've only read the first and last pages. I have an extremely slow VSAT connection.

I think there can be way too much read into this election. Right now, there are too many folks that make their living on politics and need the hype that a big election generates. Not having a big election, they need to manufacture the hype.

Here's some history of the Virginia and New Jersey elections, courtesy of the WSJ. There's not much to indicate that these two races are precursors of things to come.

1989. Democrats won open seats in both races. In 1990 Democrats made modest gains: one Senate and eight House seats.


1993. Republicans won both races, with incumbent Jim Florio going down to defeat in New Jersey. (Virginia governor's races are always open, as the governor is limited to a single term.) In 1994 Republicans won a victory that actually was stunning, taking control of the Senate for the first time in eight years and the House for the first time in two generations.


1997. New Jersey re-elected Republican Christine Whitman, and Virginia also elected a Republican. In 1988 the Democrats gained a handful of House seats, while the Senate was a wash.


2001. Democrats reclaimed both governorships, at a time when President Bush's approval ratings were in the stratosphere. In 2002 Republicans made modest gains, which were sufficient to retake the Senate from Jim Jeffords.

Only in 1993 were the New Jersey and Virginia races a precursor of major change. In 1997 and 2001 the parties that lost the two governorships went on to make gains in the following year's midterm elections. The only pattern we can see here is that in every election for the past 20 years, the president's party has lost both the New Jersey and Virginia governorships.

Thank you for what, precisely?:confused:

Actually, they are not constitutional or unconstitutional until they are ruled on.

Exactly.

They are treated as constitutional until the court rules. If the court rules they are unconstitutional, if they violate the Constitution, they always did. It will be treated as such. You don't appear willing to debate or support your points at all. Interesting tactic, this being a debate forum and all.

I just proved my point. It isn't Unconstitutional till the courts say it is.

Harry Reid?! The Mormon/Pro-Life/Minority Leader Senator from the state of Nevada? Do you have any idea just how asinine that charge is? Apparently not.

By the way, if you want to see an example of just how popular Democrats can be in rural areas, look at Montana.

Really he is a Latterday Saint? Sheesh, than I know his reasoning. It is interpretation: not founded on the Prophet or God's word, but interpretation.
You see we aren't supposed to "commit murder or anything like it".

Apparently he infers that abortion is something like murder.

The 'things' haven't made it to the court yet, but you know they don't pass the Lemon Test. However, if you think those 'things' do pass the Lemon Test feel free to demonstrate that here. I'll wait. It should be no problem for you to do so, if one were to believe your self-proclamations.

Why the Lemon test? The Court has been shying away from it more and more and using entirely different methods to analyze establishment, and is even recognized as one of the most criticized tests.

In fact, in Lee v. Weisman (505 US 577), the Court went out of its way not to use the test. And Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas has said of the test:
" As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District."
(Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 398, Scalia, J. dissenting).

It's been critized by Constitutional scholars and both current and former Justices, including Burger, Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, and White. In fact, as Justice Scalia points out in Lamb's Chapel, the court uses the test when it wants to invalidate a law, and ignores it when it doesn't. "The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will". Lamb's Chapel, 508 U.S. at 399. In fact, the Court has expressly declared that it has never considered the test to be binding: "[W]e have repeatedly emphasized our unwillingness to be confined to any single test or criterion in this sensitive area." Lynch v. Donnely, 465 U.S. 668, 679.

Applying it to any situation proves nothing other than some action does or does not violate a test which the Court does not find to be binding. Especially considering the changes occurring on the Court, it's likely to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Exactly.



I just proved my point. It isn't Unconstitutional till the courts say it is.
Not what you said, first of all. Second of all, when they find it unconstitutional, it will show that it was ALWAYS unconstitutional. The constitution didn't change, the 'thing', as you so eloquently put it, didn't change, so if it is unconstitutional it was always unconstitutional. It's not going to pass the Lemon Test. I mean, if a self-proclaimed highly-intelligent, first amendment expert like you can't show why it's constitutional, then what hope is there for the rest of the world? And before you suggest that's flame bait, I'm not trying to bait you into flaming, I'd like to think you're more mature than that. I'm trying to bait you into choosing to stop acting like a greased pig and claiming victory because no one can catch and actually offer up some support for your as-yet-unsupported claims.

Not what you said, first of all. Second of all, when they find it unconstitutional, it will show that it was ALWAYS unconstitutional. The constitution didn't change, the 'thing', as you so eloquently put it, didn't change, so if it is unconstitutional it was always unconstitutional. It's not going to pass the Lemon Test. I mean, if a self-proclaimed highly-intelligent, first amendment expert like you can't show why it's constitutional, then what hope is there for the rest of the world? And before you suggest that's flame bait, I'm not trying to bait you into flaming, I'd like to think you're more mature than that. I'm trying to bait you into choosing to stop acting like a greased pig and claiming victory because no one can catch and actually offer up some support for your as-yet-unsupported claims.

I'll wait for the Supreme Court to rule on this matter in regards to Bush's Faith-Based initives.

Why the Lemon test? The Court has been shying away from it more and more and using entirely different methods to analyze establishment, and is even recognized as one of the most criticized tests.

In fact, in Lee v. Weisman (505 US 577), the Court went out of its way not to use the test. And Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas has said of the test:
" As to the Court's invocation of the Lemon test: Like some ghoul in a late-night horror movie that repeatedly sits up in its grave and shuffles abroad, after being repeatedly killed and buried, Lemon stalks our Establishment Clause jurisprudence once again, frightening the little children and school attorneys of Center Moriches Union Free School District."
(Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U.S. 384, 398, Scalia, J. dissenting).

It's been critized by Constitutional scholars and both current and former Justices, including Burger, Scalia, Thomas, Rhenquist, O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, and White. In fact, as Justice Scalia points out in Lamb's Chapel, the court uses the test when it wants to invalidate a law, and ignores it when it doesn't. "The secret of the Lemon test's survival, I think, is that it is so easy to kill. It is there to scare us (and our audience) when we wish it to do so, but we can command it to return to the tomb at will". Lamb's Chapel, 508 U.S. at 399. In fact, the Court has expressly declared that it has never considered the test to be binding: "[W]e have repeatedly emphasized our unwillingness to be confined to any single test or criterion in this sensitive area." Lynch v. Donnely, 465 U.S. 668, 679.

Applying it to any situation proves nothing other than some action does or does not violate a test which the Court does not find to be binding. Especially considering the changes occurring on the Court, it's likely to be relegated to the dustbin of history.

Uh-huh. Are these 'changes' you so ominously referred to the appointments made by GWB? I actually believe his first appointment is going to rule according to the constitution and we'll see him be very firm on first amendment violations. Although, there is little evidence either way, he appears to be one who puts law above personal belief. I certainly hope that he is what he appears to be.

The fact that conservative judges don't like it, isn't surprising, since it helps separate the church and the state. I happen to believe that's to the benefit of both religion and our government. Only one who is short-sighted would wish otherwise.

I love how you list the dissenting opinions as if that makes a difference. They dissented, thus their evaluation of the case was over-ruled. Hardly damning evidence against the Lemon Test.

I'll wait for the Supreme Court to rule on this matter in regards to Bush's Faith-Based initives.

I knew what you meant the first time you wrote that and I said as much. No need to keep repeating it.

snip

Just a word of advice from someone who's had to try and keep up with Corneliu's cat and mouse game since he started on this forum, you're wasting your time. I know, I do it too. My husband use to nail him daily and he still would rationalize it to himself some how. I suppose I still take a shot at it because he is young and perhaps not a total lost cause yet. My husband does not share my opinion.. he gave up on Corneliu some time ago. All I'm saying is you'll get no where with Corneliu if it goes against his parents dogma, it be religion or politics.

Just a word of advice from someone who's had to try and keep up with Corneliu's cat and mouse game since he started on this forum, you're wasting your time. I know, I do it too. My husband use to nail him daily and he still would rationalize it to himself some how. I suppose I still take a shot at it because he is young and perhaps not a total lost cause yet. My husband does not share my opinion.. he gave up on Corneliu some time ago. All I'm saying is you'll get no where with Corneliu if it goes against his parents dogma, it be religion or politics.

Knock it off Stephistan. This is nothing but slander and defamation and you know it.

Jocabia, I can be persuaded however I do not tolerate political hackery. I have had intelligent debates on here with people from the opposite side without mud being thrown and we both acknowledge when points are made. Stephistan here is trying to tell you differently. Don't listen to her.

Knock it off Stephistan. This is nothing but slander and defamation and you know it..

No, this is my opinion based on my dealings with you since you started on this forum, my opinion is much nicer than that of my husbands. I assure you.

No, this is my opinion based on my dealings with you since you started on this forum, my opinion is much nicer than that of my husbands. I assure you.

Its a character attack and I don't tolerate attacks on my character.

Its a character attack and I don't tolerate attacks on my character.

Corneliu, lets think about this okay, I was a moderator when you started on this forum, had I simply held some type of grudge or whatever towards you, you would of been deleted long ago, I could of found a reason. Although I never did. Nor am I saying that you've said anything to be deleted. I'm just saying don't make this out like a personal unfounded attack. It's simply my opinion.

Doesn't matter, it is still sending a message, one that will be heard I will wager very loudly in 06 and 08!

Democrats wont gain much ground in '06. They have no message. Until they get a message, abandon Hillary as a presidential candidate. They are not going anywhere.

Uh-huh. Are these 'changes' you so ominously referred to the appointments made by GWB? I actually believe his first appointment is going to rule according to the constitution and we'll see him be very firm on first amendment violations. Although, there is little evidence either way, he appears to be one who puts law above personal belief. I certainly hope that he is what he appears to be.

The fact that conservative judges don't like it, isn't surprising, since it helps separate the church and the state. I happen to believe that's to the benefit of both religion and our government. Only one who is short-sighted would wish otherwise.

I love how you list the dissenting opinions as if that makes a difference. They dissented, thus their evaluation of the case was over-ruled. Hardly damning evidence against the Lemon Test.


Actually, Lynch v. Donnely which considered the test not to be binding was the main opinion, so was the sidestepping seen in Lee v. Weisman. The dissents illustrate merely the gist of the criticisms, as Scalia has such a way with words when it comes to being blunt. And if you should so desire, you could look and see what cases he collects as to the disagreements and problems with the test which have been recognized by both dissenting, concurring, and plurality opinions. But don't take my word for it... Try Constitutional Law: Fifteenth Edition by Sullivan and Gunther and published by Foundation Press, 2004 (See p. 1546-47).

The fact that "conservative" judges don't like it is actually quite telling, as the test is not settled law and we now have a new Chief Justice and will soon have a new associate justice... both of whom have been described as "conservative." They can apply the law, while at the same time, recognizing as many scholars and supreme court justices have, that the test is inherently flawed. The Lemon Test is aptly named, and as even the Supreme Court has recognized in Lynch, it is far from "the" test. It is a test which is applied only when the Court feels like it, and increasingly it is one which has been relied on less and less.

Again, though... why take my lowly word for it?

N.B. The following lists include federal courts only... which would be bound to uphold a Supreme Court decision.

The following courts have refused to follow the test:
1.) Elewski v. City of Syracuse, (N.D.N.Y. Jan 19, 1996) (NO. 95-CV-1830 (FJS))

The following have recognized that the decision has been disapproved:
1.) Barnes v. Cavazos, 966 F.2d 1056,(6th Cir.(Ky.) Jun 05, 1992)
2.) Matter of Colleen Russman, by Patricia, Paul Russman v. Board of Educ. (N.D.N.Y. Jun 24, 1994) (NO. CIV. 93-CV-905 RWS)
3.) Miller v. Benson, 878 F.Supp. 1209 (E.D.Wis. Mar 14, 1995)
4.) Herdahl v. Pontotoc County School Dist., 887 F.Supp. 902 (N.D.Miss. Apr 18, 1995)
5.) Bauchman for Bauchman v. West High School, 132 F.3d 542 (10th Cir.(Utah) Dec 18, 1997)
6.) Freethought Soc. of Greater Philadelphia v. Chester County, 334 F.3d 247 (3rd Cir.(Pa.) Jun 26, 2003)

The following have called the test into doubt:
1.) Doe v. Duncanville Independent School Dist., 994 F.2d 160(5th Cir.(Tex.) Jun 16, 1993)
2.) Warner v. Orange County Dept. of Probation, 827 F.Supp. 261 (S.D.N.Y. Jul 29, 1993)
3.) Helms v. Cody, 856 F.Supp. 1102 (E.D.La. Jun 10, 1994)
4.) Fordham University v. Brown, 856 F.Supp. 684 (D.D.C. Jun 29, 1994)
5.) Peck v. Upshur County Bd. of Educ., 941 F.Supp. 1465 (N.D.W.Va. Sep 30, 1996)
6.) Granzeier v. Middleton, 955 F.Supp. 741 (E.D.Ky. Feb 27, 1997)
7.) C.H. v. Oliva, 990 F.Supp. 341 (D.N.J. Dec 30, 1997)
8.) Helms v. Picard, 151 F.3d 347 (5th Cir.(La.) Aug 17, 1998)
9.) Grutzmacher v. County of Clark, 33 F.Supp.2d 896 (D.Nev. Jan 07, 1999)
10.) Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School Dist., 168 F.3d 8065th Cir.(Tex.) Feb 26, 1999)
11.) Adland v. Russ, 307 F.3d 471(6th Cir.(Ky.) Oct 09, 2002), rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc denied (Nov 22, 2002)
12.) Child Evangelism Fellowship of New Jersey, Inc. v. Stafford Tp. School Dist., 233 F.Supp.2d 647 (D.N.J. Dec 10, 2002)

By contrast, perhaps the most controversial modern case, Roe v. Wade, has only been called into doubt twice, has never been declined to be followed, nor has any disapproval been recognized.

Knock it off Stephistan. This is nothing but slander and defamation and you know it.

Jocabia, I can be persuaded however I do not tolerate political hackery. I have had intelligent debates on here with people from the opposite side without mud being thrown and we both acknowledge when points are made. Stephistan here is trying to tell you differently. Don't listen to her.

I base my opinions on my experiences and not the experiences of others. My experiences with you thus far are that you make unfounded assertions and then refuse to provide evidence. I've seen you do so in the last two threads I've seen you in. "It's true because I say it's true" doesn't really do much to garner respect or to support your claims of poly-sci knowledge and being highly intelligent. I wonder if your professors are okay with you not supplying evidence.

"There is no God"
By Corneliu
Hypothesis:
There is no God.
Support:
Prove me wrong.

F

Corneliu, lets think about this okay, I was a moderator when you started on this forum, had I simply held some type of grudge or whatever towards you, you would of been deleted long ago, I could of found a reason.

And you sucked at it considering you attacked me and my character and flamed. Not what I expected from a moderator.

Corneliu, lets think about this okay, I was a moderator when you started on this forum, had I simply held some type of grudge or whatever towards you, you would of been deleted long ago, I could of found a reason.

And you were the one that talked shit about me?

But enough stealing the show here....

I base my opinions on my experiences and not the experiences of others. My experiences with you thus far are that you make unfounded assertions and then refuse to provide evidence. I've seen you do so in the last two threads I've seen you in. "It's true because I say it's true" doesn't really do much to garner respect or to support your claims of poly-sci knowledge and being highly intelligent. I wonder if your professors are okay with you not supplying evidence.

I always supply my evidence in class. I'm always prepared to debate in class. In 2004, I was in an American Government Class and me and this one girl (staunch anti-bush) was always debating. However, it became apparent that she was being spoonfed information and she always backs down when challenged. I've been challenged by other people but I stand my ground and was usually correct.

I always supply my evidence in class. I'm always prepared to debate in class. In 2004, I was in an American Government Class and me and this one girl (staunch anti-bush) was always debating. However, it became apparent that she was being spoonfed information and she always backs down when challenged. I've been challenged by other people but I stand my ground and was usually correct.

This proves what exactly? Oh, right, another "take my word for it"..lol

What you have to look at is the difference in votes for governor vs Lt governor. About 70,000 or so, more than enough to put kilgore over kaine, albeit by a relatively small margin. The question becomes why did it break like that, and the only major difference in the campaigns was the godwined ads.
Sorry--Kaine beat Kilgore by more than 100,000 votes. Not enough to make up the difference. I posted this once in a reply to you somewhere--on this thread or another, I can't remember. We can go to the website and look at it if you like.

Doesn't matter, it is still sending a message, one that will be heard I will wager very loudly in 06 and 08!

The message being that the only way the Democrats can win is by becoming the party of Zeke Miller and Ed Koch once more? :)

Just a word of advice from someone who's had to try and keep up with Corneliu's cat and mouse game since he started on this forum, you're wasting your time. I know, I do it too. My husband use to nail him daily and he still would rationalize it to himself some how. I suppose I still take a shot at it because he is young and perhaps not a total lost cause yet. My husband does not share my opinion.. he gave up on Corneliu some time ago. All I'm saying is you'll get no where with Corneliu if it goes against his parents dogma, it be religion or politics.


Agreed.

Okay, now assuming that this information is accurate--I know nothing about the Philadelphia area and can't confirm any of it, though I trust the site this is coming from (and righties don't)--this may be some actual indications that there's a political sea change underway. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/9/232436/862)
The elections of Tim Kaine and Jon Corzine were great, but to me the really exciting pickups yesterday were not in Governor's Mansions but in small towns. I cannot speak as to whether or not this pattern was replicated across the country, but I would like to quickly share with you the results of some local elections here in my corner of the Philadelphia suburbs:

* tomcurry's diary :: ::
*

This is a very Republican area. Reading the local election results I could not believe my eyes. It was a long list of one Democratic upset after another, read a few:

Hatboro, PA: The Democrats have not held a single seat on Hatboro Council in 14 years. In one day, yesterday, they took a super-majority on the council and upset a Republican Mayor who had been in office for two decades.

Doylestown Borough, PA: As of Monday, all nine members of Doylestown's council, and its mayor, were Republicans. After election day, Democrats took three of those seats and the mayorship.

Doylestown Twp, PA: Two Democrats defeat Republicans for open supervisor seats in very conservative township.

Hatfield Twp, PA: Republicans lose their 4-1 grip to a 3-2 Democratic Majority.

Chalfont, PA: Two Democratic challengers took spots on the borough council.

Warminster, PA: A Democrat wins the job of township supervisor for the first time in more than a decade.

Warrington, PA: The board of supervisors was 4 for 4 republican. After big upsets last night, it stands at 2-2.

Quakertown, PA: Republican Borough Council President ousted by a Democratic challenger.
These are local races, and individually don't denote anything on a national level, but together they note a change in Pennsylvania politics. If we see similar returns from other states, then we may have something to talk about.

Okay, now assuming that this information is accurate--I know nothing about the Philadelphia area and can't confirm any of it, though I trust the site this is coming from (and righties don't)--this may be some actual indications that there's a political sea change underway. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/9/232436/862)

These are local races, and individually don't denote anything on a national level, but together they note a change in Pennsylvania politics. If we see similar returns from other states, then we may have something to talk about.

1) Philadelphia is primarily a democrat town. It is by no means a republican stronghold.

2) My university sits in a republican stronghold. It pretty much stayed that way.

3) Your seeing the same shift as we saw at the national level 11 years ago. That it is time to see what the otherside can do. I do not know how long the republicans have been in power in most of these areas, but apparently it is time to give the other side a chance.

I'm not going to read to much into this.

Universities should demand better written language skills from students.

Universities should demand better written language skills from students.It would certainly make my life easier if they did.

The message being that the only way the Democrats can win is by becoming the party of Zeke Miller and Ed Koch once more? :)
Does this means I have to challenge you to a duel now?

It would certainly make my life easier if they did.
It would certainly make everyone's lives easier if they did. Well, less unpleasant, anyway.

I think of poor writing as a vexation upon the soul.

It would certainly make everyone's lives easier if they did. Well, less unpleasant, anyway.

I think of poor writing as a vexation upon the soul.
I think of it as the bane of my existence, when it's coming from my students.

I think of it as the bane of my existence, when it's coming from my students.
I must admit I would most likely derive no small amount of glee from each and every failing grade I'd be dishing out in your shoes.

I must admit I would most likely derive no small amount of glee from each and every failing grade I'd be dishing out in your shoes.

Everyone needs to do their part to combat illiteracy. Some are just able to find ways to do so in a manner in which they can delight - in this case, the suffering of their students.

I must admit I would most likely derive no small amount of glee from each and every failing grade I'd be dishing out in your shoes.
Actually, being the hippie liberal I am, I do my level best to make sure that they're no longer committing atrocities against the English language by the time they leave my class. I am, however, relentless when it comes to plagiarists--they get fucked, and not in the good way.

Democrats wont gain much ground in '06. They have no message. Until they get a message, abandon Hillary as a presidential candidate. They are not going anywhere.

a very true, profoundly depressing statement. the democrats need to get over their crippling fear of standing for anything, realize that hillary is an albatros (she mobilizes republicans and leaves progressives cold-ish, as far as i can tell) and quit running the gore/kerry style aimless, meandering campaigns they've gotten used to if they want to win. or at least, that's where it looks from here.

Actually, Lynch v. Donnely which considered the test not to be binding was the main opinion, so was the sidestepping seen in Lee v. Weisman. The dissents illustrate merely the gist of the criticisms, as Scalia has such a way with words when it comes to being blunt. And if you should so desire, you could look and see what cases he collects as to the disagreements and problems with the test which have been recognized by both dissenting, concurring, and plurality opinions. But don't take my word for it... Try Constitutional Law: Fifteenth Edition by Sullivan and Gunther and published by Foundation Press, 2004 (See p. 1546-47).

The fact that "conservative" judges don't like it is actually quite telling, as the test is not settled law and we now have a new Chief Justice and will soon have a new associate justice... both of whom have been described as "conservative." They can apply the law, while at the same time, recognizing as many scholars and supreme court justices have, that the test is inherently flawed. The Lemon Test is aptly named, and as even the Supreme Court has recognized in Lynch, it is far from "the" test. It is a test which is applied only when the Court feels like it, and increasingly it is one which has been relied on less and less.

Again, though... why take my lowly word for it?
Comparing the new Chief Justice to the current style of conservative in control of this country is like saying that Mother Theresa and Pat Robertson are alike because they both believe in Christ as the savior. I can't wait to see a return to constitutional law and the end of bending and twisting the constitution until it confesses to crimes it didn't commit. Now, if you think constitutional law is going to allow the Neo-Cons to shift the tide to taking away religious freedom and encoding religious beliefs into law, I strongly suspect you're in error. I can't wait to see the DOMA come up against the new court. That thing is going to be shot down faster than a twin-engine headed for the White House. Chief Justice Roberts was just as much a mistake as Bush's second choice was, only this mistake plays in our favor.

I think some people confuse the constitutional law conservatives for states' rights and smaller federal government and the new conservatives that pretty much expand the federal government any way they can so long as it benefits big business in some way. Bush and his buddies are in trouble because all of the real Christians who believe faith should be spread through love and kindness and not law are done allowing these idiots to drag Christianity through the mud until people spit the name out like it's the newest swearword.

It's been suggested that Democrats are anti-religion but I can't think of anything more anti-religion than pounding other nations in the butt and then saying, "This message brought to you in the name of Jesus Christ. We'll be here all week. Try the veal."

The tide is turning and I can't wait to see the all the dead fish that it washes up.

Predictable. The democrats make big gains, and the cons here try desperatly to marginalize them. Petulance and defiance seem to be a standard MO.

Like I said before: The war on brains continues

Actually, the Arnie thing in California is less a sign of anti-conservatism as it is voter ignorance. Polls indicated that the actual ideas that the Propositions would implement were supported...but the Propositions themselves were not! Why? A massive media campaign on part of the left simply distorted the issues.

Predictable. The democrats make big gains, and the cons here try desperatly to marginalize them. Petulance and defiance seem to be a standard MO.

Like I said before: The war on brains continues

Predictable - a net change of zero seats is a big gain...

Predictable - a net change of zero seats is a big gain...

You're naturally ignoring victories in Arizona, Maine, and Washington state, as well as other things because you want us all to focus on two races that, while important, allow you to claim that nothing really happened. Sad really, just sad.

You're naturally ignoring victories in Arizona, Maine, and Washington state, as well as other things because you want us all to focus on two races that, while important, allow you to claim that nothing really happened. Sad really, just sad.

I live in Virginia, which is all I really care about.

We already had a Democratic governor. He was a fiscal conservative.

He didn't make a habit of trying to raise taxes, insult peoples' religion, or pass more gun laws. And he carried out the death penalty.

His successor ran on a platform of doing the same.

Rather than go partisan, I voted for the status quo - even though I'm a Republican.

There's more to voting for someone than the inane national party they represent.

You're naturally ignoring victories in Arizona, Maine, and Washington state, as well as other things because you want us all to focus on two races that, while important, allow you to claim that nothing really happened. Sad really, just sad.

Maybe your one of those people who just vote party line, no matter what stupid things are coming out of their mouths, and no matter what you believe that they don't.

A massive media campaign on part of the left simply distorted the issues.

So what are you saying? The Democrats are taking plays out of the GOP play book? Because the Republicans have been distorting the issues (truth) for the last 5 years.

Maybe your one of those people who just vote party line, no matter what stupid things are coming out of their mouths, and no matter what you believe that they don't.:rolleyes:

I'm lucky enough to live in a place where people I agree with run for office. On a national level I tend to prefer dems to repos because they represent me better. Why make sweeping generalizations like that? I don't hate republicans in general, I find it easier to hate individuals, less paperwork...;)

:rolleyes:

I'm lucky enough to live in a place where people I agree with run for office. On a national level I tend to prefer dems to repos because they represent me better. Why make sweeping generalizations like that? I don't hate republicans in general, I find it easier to hate individuals, less paperwork...;)

I make the generalization because I look at voting records. Not what comes out of their mouths.

The generalizations on some issues are valid. Gun control, for instance, is the sole domain of the Democratic Party - only in certain states and rural areas will a Democrat not follow his party's norm.

I make the generalization because I look at voting records. Not what comes out of their mouths.

The generalizations on some issues are valid. Gun control, for instance, is the sole domain of the Democratic Party - only in certain states and rural areas will a Democrat not follow his party's norm.

I also pay attention to endorsements. Find out who's paying for a campaign, and you can gleen more info than from any speech or vote.

So what are you saying? The Democrats are taking plays out of the GOP play book? Because the Republicans have been distorting the issues (truth) for the last 5 years.

As opposed to the Democrats distorting the truth for the last 5 years?

You do know that both parties distort the truth right Stephistan?

I also pay attention to endorsements. Find out who's paying for a campaign, and you can gleen more info than from any speech or vote.

Then maybe you would be interested in my pet theory:

Nations are now only proxies for groups of multinational corporations. And some multinationals control more than one country.

Oh, they don't bother with the day to day stuff - they let that alone. But for environmental regs, tax breaks, wage standards, battling unions, and even resolving contract disputes through war, they run the planet.

There once was a time when banana republics were run by United Fruit.

We've come a long way since then.

The nice thing is that if anything goes wrong in the public's mind, the corporation never gets the blame - a politician or two gets fried - but that's the extent of the damage.

As opposed to the Democrats distorting the truth for the last 5 years?

You do know that both parties distort the truth right Stephistan?

No one is going to argue that, but look at what the distortions from repos have wrought as compared to the dems. When the repos lie, they go BIG. That's what I have a problem with.

So what are you saying? The Democrats are taking plays out of the GOP play book? Because the Republicans have been distorting the issues (truth) for the last 5 years.
Because the Democrats owned the media for the previous 40 years, and were doing the same thing.

They all do it... :rolleyes:

No one is going to argue that, but look at what the distortions from repos have wrought as compared to the dems. When the repos lie, they go BIG. That's what I have a problem with.

And when the Dems lie, they lie big too. I have a problem with that.

So we are back to the origional premise. Both parties distort the truth.

You do know that both parties distort the truth right Stephistan?

You were discredited yesterday by Jocabia and have been discredited many times by my husband and myself. I think I will do as my husband and stop bothering engaging you in pointless debate that you don't understand. I doubt that I will be so inclined to listen to anything you have to say today. Sorry, I just grow tired of your circle jerk logic.

And when the Dems lie, they lie big too. I have a problem with that.

So we are back to the origional premise. Both parties distort the truth.

Name the last "big" lie the democrats told (And, blow jobs don't count as "big" BTW), and I'll bet it'll be easy to find five from the other side to match it.

Name the last "big" lie the democrats told (And, blow jobs don't count as "big" BTW), and I'll bet it'll be easy to find five from the other side to match it.

Can't say it's "big" enough for you, but this one was big enough for me.

"Reducing the number of assault weapons will reduce crime. Increasing the number of assault weapons will increase crime."

When in fact, after the passage of the ban, the number of semiautomatic rifles with large magazines increased substantially (because of the stupid way the law was written). A 50 percent increase over time in the number of weapons - and a 63 percent drop in violent crime and murder.

Department of Justice stats. I've posted the links over and over and over again.

You were discredited yesterday by Jocabia and have been discredited many times by my husband and myself. I think I will do as my husband and stop bothering engaging you in pointless debate that you don't understand. I doubt that I will be so inclined to listen to anything you have to say today. Sorry, I just grow tired of your circle jerk logic.

Great. Presented with facts that both parties distort the truth and you go off on a character assassination.

You were discredited yesterday by Jocabia and have been discredited many times by my husband and myself. I think I will do as my husband and stop bothering engaging you in pointless debate that you don't understand. I doubt that I will be so inclined to listen to anything you have to say today. Sorry, I just grow tired of your circle jerk logic.

No, you just can't stand to have people point out something that's true.

No, you just can't stand to have people point out something that's true.

Look up Corneliu's history. Nuff Said!

As for you, well you're having your own hard time trying to keep your thread together by changing the subject. So you're no one to talk either.

So what are you saying? The Democrats are taking plays out of the GOP play book? Because the Republicans have been distorting the issues (truth) for the last 5 years.
Of course they have. It's sad, really, that issues in this country aren't decided upon their merits, but on the ability of those in power to lie and distort them.

Isn't it depressing when people vote against something they support? California's proposition votes are basically the final testament to the media's power over this "democracy."

Of course they have. It's sad, really, that issues in this country aren't decided upon their merits, but on the ability of those in power to lie and distort them.

Isn't it depressing when people vote against something they support? California's proposition votes are basically the final testament to the media's power over this "democracy."

I can't argue with you, you're right. Sadly it is how the system in most democracies work, if not them all.

I can't argue with you, you're right. Sadly it is how the system in most democracies work, if not them all.
That doesn't mean we just throw up our hands and devolve into a game of "who lied most." There's got to be something we can do---and that something can't be just going to back to Ol' King George.

Isn't more a fault of the people themselves that they let themselves get screwed over like this? If any of them had bothered to even look at what the California propositions were about, instead of just listening to 30 second TV spots...

*Sigh* You know, I've always been a proponent of democracy, cheering every one of Dubya's regime change efforts on...But if the people don't even care enough to vote for what they support...Am I the only one losing faith in democracy?

Of course they have. It's sad, really, that issues in this country aren't decided upon their merits, but on the ability of those in power to lie and distort them.

Isn't it depressing when people vote against something they support? California's proposition votes are basically the final testament to the media's power over this "democracy."

This is unfortunately true. Its sad really. :(

That doesn't mean we just throw up our hands and devolve into a game of "who lied most." There's got to be something we can do---and that something can't be just going to back to Ol' King George.

Isn't more a fault of the people themselves that they let themselves get screwed over like this? If any of them had bothered to even look at what the California propositions were about, instead of just listening to 30 second TV spots...

*Sigh* You know, I've always been a proponent of democracy, cheering every one of Dubya's regime change efforts on...But if the people don't even care enough to vote for what they support...Am I the only one losing faith in democracy?

I understand and share your frustration. And yes, I do believe the people who elect these fools to office do hold some of the burden. To me, I live in Canada, and I don't just consider voting a right, but an obligation to the many men and women who died in WWII to protect those rights. I owe an informed vote to them and to my country.

So what has gone wrong? In three words? Special interest groups! The average politician no matter what side of the isle doesn't really care about the average American or Canadian or any other person who is lucky enough to live in a democracy, all they care about is who gave us the most money during the election and who's wallet is open if we need it. Call me a skeptic, but that is really what I believe has happened.

I also believe that most people who take the time to become informed feel this same skepticism that I do. I mean in both your and my country we are lucky to get 60% of the voting public out to vote, why is that? It's not all that they are uneducated idiots, some are just fed up with governments being corrupt. (some more than others) There also seems to be no real method of accountability for these politicians when they do f*ck up.

I don't claim to have the answers how to fix it, because I don't. I just every election try to think which is the lessor evil to vote for. As I'm sure most of us do.

Doesn't matter, it is still sending a message, one that will be heard I will wager very loudly in 06 and 08!
You should be aware that Arnold will be reelected next year. So I wouldn't get my hopes up for a socialist victory in America.

This is unfortunately true. Its sad really. :(
But what do we do? Democracy is worth fighting for---the people deserve to rule their own country. Then why won't they do it?!?

We can't just give up on democracy and ask the King Of England to step back in. There's got to be something done to make people less apathetic, less inclined to vote on random TV slogans, something to make them consider the facts!

But what...?

I understand and share your frustration. And yes, I do believe the people who elect these fools to office do hold some of the burden. To me, I live in Canada, and I don't just consider voting a right, but an obligation to the many men and women who died in WWII to protect those rights. I owe an informed vote to them and to my country.

Good for you Steph. Always inform yourself. That also means listening to the other side without prejudice.

So what has gone wrong? In three words? Special interest groups! The average politician no matter what side of the isle doesn't really care about the average American or Canadian or any other person who is lucky enough to live in a democracy, all they care about is who gave us the most money during the election and who's wallet is open if we need it. Call me a skeptic, but that is really what I believe has happened.

Steph, Its not everyday I agree with you but here, I will agree with you because you are right.

I also believe that most people who take the time to become informed feel this same skepticism that I do. I mean in both your and my country we are lucky to get 60% of the voting public out to vote, why is that? It's not all that they are uneducated idiots, some are just fed up with governments being corrupt. (some more than others) There also seems to be no real method of accountability for these politicians when they do f*ck up.

*applauds*

I don't claim to have the answers how to fix it, because I don't. I just every election try to think which is the lessor evil to vote for. As I'm sure most of us do.

Steph, for once, you have spot on post.

But what do we do? Democracy is worth fighting for---the people deserve to rule their own country. Then why won't they do it?!?

The only thing we can do is hammer our elected officials. We voted them in and we can vote them out. We can use our power to change the system. It is time we send the messege to the hill to stop selling the nation to special interest groups. Say NO to special interest groups.

We can't just give up on democracy and ask the King Of England to step back in.

No we don't want the King of England to be back here. Odds are, we'll have another revolt against them. :D

There's got to be something done to make people less apathetic, less inclined to vote on random TV slogans, something to make them consider the facts!

But what...?

We ourselves could go on TV and bring awareness to what is happening. We can take out ads ourselves and go on TV to send the messege to the people. Not to mention we can use the full power of the internet to assist us.

Who is with me to change America?

So what has gone wrong? In three words? Special interest groups! The average politician no matter what side of the isle doesn't really care about the average American or Canadian or any other person who is lucky enough to live in a democracy, all they care about is who gave us the most money during the election and who's wallet is open if we need it. Call me a skeptic, but that is really what I believe has happened.


I don't claim to have the answers how to fix it, because I don't. I just every election try to think which is the lessor evil to vote for. As I'm sure most of us do.

Special interest groups are to blame, but mainly it's the people themselves. The Special Interest Groups are simply exercising their freedom of speech when they barrage us with ads and media---it is the fault of the people for listening. The politicians want to get re-elected---if they see that the money they get from serving special interests does them no good because people actually research the facts and come up with an intelligent opinion, they'll stop.

But isn't that corrupting the very nature of democracy? The fact that we don't choose who we want---we choose who we hate the least. I'm a conservative independant, and supported Bush. But do I like the man's policies? Hell no.

The only thing we can do is hammer our elected officials. We voted them in and we can vote them out. We can use our power to change the system. It is time we send the messege to the hill to stop selling the nation to special interest groups. Say NO to special interest groups.

We ourselves could go on TV and bring awareness to what is happening. We can take out ads ourselves and go on TV to send the messege to the people. Not to mention we can use the full power of the internet to assist us.

Who is with me to change America?

You know what Corneliu? You're right. Enough bitching---I'm not going to let this country die. It's time to do something, time to start raising money and awareness. It's time to get people off their asses, and to actually review the issues at hand.

But I'm only 16...Damn!

Special interest groups are to blame, but mainly it's the people themselves. The Special Interest Groups are simply exercising their freedom of speech when they barrage us with ads and media---it is the fault of the people for listening. The politicians want to get re-elected---if they see that the money they get from serving special interests does them no good because people actually research the facts and come up with an intelligent opinion, they'll stop.

But isn't that corrupting the very nature of democracy? The fact that we don't choose who we want---we choose who we hate the least. I'm a conservative independant, and supported Bush. But do I like the man's policies? Hell no.


Well in America it really is out of control. I'll give my country this much, in Canada there are spending caps on elections, but make no mistake special interest is in there. I suppose if there was a way to convince people to not re-new that membership to the NRA, just accept the fact that you have the second amendment and stand on that, or don't re-new your membership to the ACLU and just accept that your constitution protects your civil liberties, etc, etc... the problem is people are so divided. There is no one right answer. How do you get the pro-life people to agree with the pro-choice? How do we get the separation of church and state people to reconcile with the intelligent design folks? It's not as simple as people might think when you consider all the variables.

I guess the only way to truly have a real democracy is to be a libertarian. How else do you really ever have freedom to make the choices that YOU agree with?

I, personally have theories, but I don't believe there is a one size fits all Band-Aid or cure. Thus, the nature of democracy.

You know what Corneliu? You're right. Enough bitching---I'm not going to let this country die. It's time to do something, time to start raising money and awareness. It's time to get people off their asses, and to actually review the issues at hand.

But I'm only 16...Damn!

Well now, that can be a problem. Actually no. As far as I know (and lawyers correct me if I'm wrong please) there is no law that says you can't bring awareness. You can assist in the process but you just cant vote. When I was younger, I handed out flyers near the polls before I was even eligible to vote.

I believe you can still help bring change though but I would like a lawyer to verify this.

I guess the only way to truly have a real democracy is to be a libertarian. How else do you really ever have freedom to make the choices that YOU agree with?

I, personally have theories, but I don't believe there is a one size fits all Band-Aid or cure. Thus, the nature of democracy.

Unfortunately, when you have lawyers, politicians, judges, etc. who abuse those rights that we "stand on" , large organizations like the ACLU and the NRA are needed to represent the numbers as a group.

Then you get into the definition of "special interest". Which is more of a "special interest", an organization of 4+ million members or 50K - members w/ more money available?

And you are correct, there is no one size fits all bandaid for the problems.

Can't say it's "big" enough for you, but this one was big enough for me.

"Reducing the number of assault weapons will reduce crime. Increasing the number of assault weapons will increase crime."

When in fact, after the passage of the ban, the number of semiautomatic rifles with large magazines increased substantially (because of the stupid way the law was written). A 50 percent increase over time in the number of weapons - and a 63 percent drop in violent crime and murder.

Department of Justice stats. I've posted the links over and over and over again.

Sounds you should for them to pass more of these laws. You just said it had the right effect. And would have been against that law, but now that you showed the law worked, I'll know to support next time anyone asks. Thanks for enlightening me that gun control laws work even if they don't decrease the number of weapons.

EDIT: In case it's not obvious, I'm just kidding around. I don't believe in gun control.

Special interest groups are to blame, but mainly it's the people themselves. The Special Interest Groups are simply exercising their freedom of speech when they barrage us with ads and media---it is the fault of the people for listening. The politicians want to get re-elected---if they see that the money they get from serving special interests does them no good because people actually research the facts and come up with an intelligent opinion, they'll stop.

But isn't that corrupting the very nature of democracy? The fact that we don't choose who we want---we choose who we hate the least. I'm a conservative independant, and supported Bush. But do I like the man's policies? Hell no.

It's hard to blame the people when they don't hear anything else. My grandmother thinks that the ads on TV are true because she can't read anymore and can't work a computer. So she uses the only information she has access to. All of us hear on the internet would like to believe that everyone has access to the information we do, but that's simply not true. So they're exposed to hyperbole from both sides and they basically have to vote for whoever scares them the least.

Unfortunately, when you have lawyers, politicians, judges, etc. who abuse those rights that we "stand on" , large organizations like the ACLU and the NRA are needed to represent the numbers as a group.

Then you get into the definition of "special interest". Which is more of a "special interest", an organization of 4+ million members or 50K - members w/ more money available?

And you are correct, there is no one size fits all bandaid for the problems.

One has to wonder if when democracy was first thought of many, many moons ago if they had even considered the things to come? I suspect not. But I also don't believe that the ideal of democracy is a pie in the sky thing either.

I suppose that is why we call our constitution's "living documents" because the world is not static, nor should the rules be. We live in a dynamic world that never stops evolving and changing and we either go back to the dark ages or we, the people do what we can to help people become informed.

Of course we all come with our own idealistic idea's of what a perfect world might be like or look like, but as we get older, we tend to settle for stability and just hope that we can pass onto our children what we might of come to learn, misguided or not. As long as the free flow of idea's never ceases, either will democracy.

Sounds you should for them to pass more of these laws. You just said it had the right effect. And would have been against that law, but now that you showed the law worked, I'll know to support next time anyone asks. Thanks for enlightening me that gun control laws work even if they don't decrease the number of weapons.

EDIT: In case it's not obvious, I'm just kidding around. I don't believe in gun control.

I'm a strong beleiver in gun control: A nice tight centered grouping is the best result of control there is.

One twisted part of my mind wants these laws in SF to stand allowing crime and underage pregnancies & associated problems to increase. A viscious "I told you so" in a sense.

One has to wonder if when democracy was first thought of many, many moons ago if they had even considered the things to come? I suspect not. But I also don't believe that the ideal of democracy is a pie in the sky thing either.

I suppose that is why we call our constitution's "living documents" because the world is not static, nor should the rules be. We live in a dynamic world that never stops evolving and changing and we either go back to the dark ages or we, the people do what we can to help people become informed.

Of course we all come with our own idealistic idea's of what a perfect world might be like or look like, but as we get older, we tend to settle for stability and just hope that we can pass onto our children what we might of come to learn, misguided or not. As long as the free flow of idea's never ceases, either will democracy.

Well then, if you take Mccain-Fiengold, we're losing our Democracy. The hijacking of the media during election times by special interest groups funded almost exclusively by single individuals and the proposed injunctions against politically motivated bloggers.

Well in America it really is out of control. I'll give my country this much, in Canada there are spending caps on elections, but make no mistake special interest is in there. I suppose if there was a way to convince people to not re-new that membership to the NRA, just accept the fact that you have the second amendment and stand on that, or don't re-new your membership to the ACLU and just accept that your constitution protects your civil liberties, etc, etc... the problem is people are so divided. There is no one right answer. How do you get the pro-life people to agree with the pro-choice? How do we get the separation of church and state people to reconcile with the intelligent design folks? It's not as simple as people might think when you consider all the variables.

I guess the only way to truly have a real democracy is to be a libertarian. How else do you really ever have freedom to make the choices that YOU agree with?

I, personally have theories, but I don't believe there is a one size fits all Band-Aid or cure. Thus, the nature of democracy.

People are divided, and that IS a major problem, because instead of looking at an issue by its merit, they simply turn to whatever their party or side says. Sorry to overuse this example, but California's voting pattern was just sickening. They voted against what they actually believed in, because their side said so!

And Corneliu: I do try to raise awareness myself (I, erm, actually control the local Polish-American voting bloc...^_^), but let's face it: I have neither the money nor the age to start a national campaign to spread awareness. Hmm...But still, we should start an organization, raise money, and fight fire with fire. The Special Interests use TV ads, and so should we.

Isn't it depressing when people vote against something they support? California's proposition votes are basically the final testament to the media's power over this "democracy."
Wait, if they vote againnst it...doesn't that mean they don't support it?

Or used to support it, but no longer do so.

Some of the proposals I'd vote against like making teachers work longer.

I mean people aren't static: some of us change beliefs/ideals.

Well then, if you take Mccain-Fiengold, we're losing our Democracy. The hijacking of the media during election times by special interest groups funded almost exclusively by single individuals and the proposed injunctions against politically motivated bloggers.

There is a difference between this happening and being aware that it is happening. Being aware is the side I try to stay on, although I not unlike anyone else have my own beliefs and lack of as well.

On that note I must jet. Things to do. Have a nice day! :)

It's hard to blame the people when they don't hear anything else. My grandmother thinks that the ads on TV are true because she can't read anymore and can't work a computer. So she uses the only information she has access to. All of us hear on the internet would like to believe that everyone has access to the information we do, but that's simply not true. So they're exposed to hyperbole from both sides and they basically have to vote for whoever scares them the least.

Come on now, your grandmother is an exception---most people can read and they can work a computer. They can find the right information out there, they can directly read what laws and propositions say. There are good, non-biased sources of information out there---one just needs to look. And hell, even incredibly biased sources are good, if you have one from each side.

Anything is better than a 30 second TV spot.

A big thanks to various voters around that country to the south for giving me the gift of acknowledgement that people are finally waking up and smelling the coffee. .

You're quite welcome, although it's none of your business who we elect.

I am very proud of Virginia, I live in pennsylvania as of now but Virginia is a very beautiful place as well and with a Democratic government is seems like a great place to live.

Wait, if they vote againnst it...doesn't that mean they don't support it?

Or used to support it, but no longer do so.

Some of the proposals I'd vote against like making teachers work longer.

I mean people aren't static: some of us change beliefs/ideals.

...Again, ignorance. The proposition did not make teachers work longer; it made them have to wait five years for tenure instead of two. That way bad teachers can be weeded out.

But you misunderstand---a poll taken right before election day asked two series of questions: first they asked people about the things the propositions hoped to implement, and the majority agreed. When asked about the propositions themselves, they said no!

Simply put, most Californians had no idea what they were voting against.

After William Mahone and the Readjuster Party lost control of Virginia politics around 1883, the Democratic Party held a strong majority position of state and federal offices for over 85 years. In 1970, Republican A. Linwood Holton Jr. became the first Republican governor in the 20th century. In the years there after, Republicans made substantial gains, and for a time, controlled both houses of the Virginia General Assembly, as well as the Governorship from 1994 until 2000.

As of October 2005 Republicans held both seats in the U.S. Senate, 8 of 11 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, held a majority in the Virginia House of Delegates, and a Republican was Virginia's Attorney General.
Democrats controlled the remaining 3 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and held a majority in the Virginia Senate. The Governor and Lieutenant Governor were both Democrats. Incumbent Virginia governors cannot run for reelection under the state constitution.

In the November 2005 election, the race to succeed Democratic Governor Mark Warner, Democrat Timothy M. Kaine beat Republican Attorney General Jerry Kilgore (Scott County), and State Senator Russ Potts (Winchester) (long a Republican) running as an independent.


One should always cite his or her source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia

One should also always redistribute copyrighted material only according to the terms and conditions of the copyright holder:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License

People are divided, and that IS a major problem, because instead of looking at an issue by its merit, they simply turn to whatever their party or side says. Sorry to overuse this example, but California's voting pattern was just sickening. They voted against what they actually believed in, because their side said so!

Unfortunately accurate :(

And Corneliu: I do try to raise awareness myself (I, erm, actually control the local Polish-American voting bloc...^_^), but let's face it: I have neither the money nor the age to start a national campaign to spread awareness. Hmm...But still, we should start an organization, raise money, and fight fire with fire. The Special Interests use TV ads, and so should we.

Well I'm glad you control the local Polish-American voting bloc :)

Your right, we should start an organization and raise money to get things out of the hands of the special interest groups. However, wouldn't that make us a special interest group too? :p

Come on now, your grandmother is an exception---most people can read and they can work a computer. They can find the right information out there, they can directly read what laws and propositions say. There are good, non-biased sources of information out there---one just needs to look. And hell, even incredibly biased sources are good, if you have one from each side.

Anything is better than a 30 second TV spot.

I think you grossly overestimate the public. What demographic has the highest percentage of people who vote? Meh, I don't know, but the eldery must be way up on the list ;) I work with engineers and scientist who treat computers like they're some alien that just ran up to them and said, Boop, beep! Let's face it. We see the world differently because we're more tech saavy than the average American, and without the internet, hell, with the internet, it's hard to get at certain information. It's hard to see through all the hyperbole even if you want to. And for those of us that do, more often than not, we're disenchanted. I use my vote. Every election, every time. And my vote ALWAYS goes to the best man or woman for the job in my opinion. I have never voted for the lesser evil and if I feel no one is suited for the job, I abstain. But I am way more of an exception that my grandmother is.

Unfortunately accurate :(



Well I'm glad you control the local Polish-American voting bloc :)

Your right, we should start an organization and raise money to get things out of the hands of the special interest groups. However, wouldn't that make us a special interest group too? :p
Not really; we're not advocating one side or another. All we want is for people to look at the FACTS.

I guess you could say our special interest is truth.

(And by God, that is a good catchphrase! :D )

And I find the fact that a sixteen year old kid has control of a fairly significant voting bloc both hilarious and frightening...Well, at least they're voting the right way...my way. ;)

Kidding of course.

I think you grossly overestimate the public. What demographic has the highest percentage of people who vote? Meh, I don't know, but the eldery must be way up on the list ;) I work with engineers and scientist who treat computers like they're some alien that just ran up to them and said, Boop, beep! Let's face it. We see the world differently because we're more tech saavy than the average American, and without the internet, hell, with the internet, it's hard to get at certain information. It's hard to see through all the hyperbole even if you want to. And for those of us that do, more often than not, we're disenchanted. I use my vote. Every election, every time. And my vote ALWAYS goes to the best man or woman for the job in my opinion. I have never voted for the lesser evil and if I feel no one is suited for the job, I abstain. But I am way more of an exception that my grandmother is.

Most people do vote for the lesser evil, however. Still, newspapers and TV, if one sifts through the BS also provide the basic facts, and the local election boards usually offer both sides' arguments, delivered straight to one's home.

Not really; we're not advocating one side or another. All we want is for people to look at the FACTS.

Ok. That makes me feel better :D

I guess you could say our special interest is truth.

(And by God, that is a good catchphrase! :D )

We should use that as our slogan :)

And I find the fact that a sixteen year old kid has control of a fairly significant voting bloc both hilarious and frightening...Well, at least they're voting the right way...my way. ;)

Kidding of course.

LOL of course :D

Most people do vote for the lesser evil, however. Still, newspapers and TV, if one sifts through the BS also provide the basic facts, and the local election boards usually offer both sides' arguments, delivered straight to one's home.
They'll vote for evil that's presented most palatably - and that goes beyond media. That presentation can occur on any number of levels, but there's no level quite like the grassroots level.

In my (non-American) electoral riding, the party I worked on behalf of last year doubled its' showing in numbers. Of the three major parties competing for votes, we made a great point of engaging area residents, door-to-door, for the most part unscripted - in male/female pairs whenever possible, with young volunteers whenever possible.

It amazed me to what degree a couple of clean-scrubbed young faces could instill a sense of voting goodwill on a local level, particularly among retired voters.

A big thanks to various voters around that country to the south for giving me the gift of acknowledgement that people are finally waking up and smelling the coffee. Virginia run by a Dem? Unheard of! And the good citizens of Dover chucking out all but one of the school board members that tried to stick their kids with theology in the science classroom. That was a thing of beauty. The court case is now thankfully irrelevant, but it also did a wonderful job of showcasing just how ridiculous the ID movement is.

Arnie with egg on his face?


Well, let us just start calling him the one-term-inator. And to think that when he was first elected some people started talking about a Constitutional Amendment so that he could have a crack at running for the White House.

He still can.

Janitorial positions in Washington ARE elected are they not? :D

All I know is that a lot of GOP members must have been hanging out in bars consoling each other last night, having to firmly acknowledge that the tide is shifted. the people can cherry pick policies to agree with or not and still follow a party out of loyalty, but when the public trust gets broken it takes a while to get that back. And frankly, the trust IS circling the drain - along with much of the loyalty.


Yes, glorious day!! FINALLY, we are seeing the trend turn, and hopefully, it'll be fifty or sixty years of good progress before the likes of Bush and the neo-cons ever have a chance to dupe us again. By then, I'll be beyond working age, and maybe even in the grave and won't give a shit anymore. But, for the love of God, please...let the rest of MY life...or the rest of my life that MATTERS...be ruled by a Democratic majority! Goodbye, evil fucking Republicans!!

Can't wait till 2006, when Prick Santorectum will finally bite the dust! A Quinnipiac University poll last month put Bob Casey Jr, the likely Democratic candidate EIGHTEEN POINTS ahead of Santorectum!

I haven't forgotten the day I went to Washington, on appointment, to see Rick Santorum, on appointment, as a constituent, to discuss Federal legislation I had an interest in...and Santorum, of course, opposed. He actually threatened to have me physically removed from his office by Capitol Security if I would not leave! He literally threw me out of his office...and I was a constituent, and had an appointment! But, because he did not want to hear what I had to say, that day in 1997, he threw me out of his office. IT WAS HIS FUCKING JOB TO LISTEN TO ME, AS A CONSTITUENT!! But he chose to do otherwise.
I have been long time waiting for my chance to show him WHOSE OFFICE it really is, and to throw HIS ass out of that office!

Prick Santorectum, we are coming for YOU!! I haven't forgotten, I haven't forgiven, and I shall never do either. I will not forgive, nor forget. In 2006, I get to kick you out of OUR office! It belongs to Pennsylvania, you dickhead!

Go back to Virginia, where you belong, Prick! Word is, they don't much want the likes of you even in Virginia anymore!! HEE HEE HEE HEE!!!!

Fuck you, Republicans, you are going DOWN!!! And I couldn't be happier!!

...Again, ignorance. The proposition did not make teachers work longer; it made them have to wait five years for tenure instead of two. That way bad teachers can be weeded out.

But you misunderstand---a poll taken right before election day asked two series of questions: first they asked people about the things the propositions hoped to implement, and the majority agreed. When asked about the propositions themselves, they said no!

Simply put, most Californians had no idea what they were voting against.

Again, wrong: working more years for tenure is working longer for same thing. I said work longer: I was right.
You lost that point.

Polls are misleading: What kind of poll was it? The different types of polls like stratified, etc change the answers alot.
Like if I did a poll in a place that everyone was republican: I'd expect most to be in agreement.

How good was the poll done?

Fuck you, Republicans, you are going DOWN!!! And I couldn't be happier!!

And when the Republicans win in 2006 I'll be bringing this up.

Lyric, if you actually believe poll numbers then you really do need to get a life. The only poll numbers I go by are those on election night.

Yesterday shows nothing in conservative districts. The dems that were running are just as conservative as the republicans. Come 2006, who will the conservatives be voting for on a national level, that is the question.

And don't forget Lyric, Casey Jr. had a double digit lead in the Governor's primary in 2002 and lost by 10 points in the Primary. Never go by poll numbers. The Senate race will be tight and not a blow out as you are expecting.

Simonist']Since when does "vocal about believing in God" automatically go towards Republican qualification? I'm sure there are few in this forum who at this point don't know at least a little about my beliefs concerning God, and I challenge you to find THREE people who can honestly say "She might as well be a centrist Republican". Same goes for the death penalty -- a lot of people I know see it on a similar level as abortion....they don't personally support it (ie if they were on a jury they wouldn't go for death) but they're not actively against it. Personally, I support the death penalty in terms of horrendous crimes. Still doesn't seem to work me into a Republican state of being.

As a matter of fact, from what I know about the promises of the campaign, there are VERY FEW differences between what I'd like to see somebody do and what he's promising. I daresay I'm quite liberal and definitely non-Republican, so I fail to see how those points support the claim. Even some of the most socially liberal Dems in the country recognize that with current economy as it is, fiscal conservativism is prudent.


Actually, I am glad to see a Democrat who is "vocal about believing in God!"
It is time we took our God back from those who have twisted and preverted His words to serve THEIR agenda! There is no fucking WAY Jesus would EVER be a Republican...not with what the Republicans endorse!!

Don't take my word for it...go to
http://www.JesusNoRepublican.com

A big thanks to various voters around that country to the south for giving me the gift of acknowledgement that people are finally waking up and smelling the coffee. Virginia run by a Dem? Unheard of! And the good citizens of Dover chucking out all but one of the school board members that tried to stick their kids with theology in the science classroom. That was a thing of beauty. The court case is now thankfully irrelevant, but it also did a wonderful job of showcasing just how ridiculous the ID movement is.
I don't see what's so great. Just because they're Democrats doesn't mean that they're any better than the Republicans they defeated. The two parties are so similar anyway.

Then tell me why so many Democrats are hostile to people who believe in God.
Republicans don't particularly respect religious people any more than Democrats do. Talk is cheap. All that Republicans have over Democrats regarding religion is that they talk more about it rather than act on it.

Yes, glorious day!! FINALLY, we are seeing the trend turn, and hopefully, it'll be fifty or sixty years of good progress before the likes of Bush and the neo-cons ever have a chance to dupe us again. By then, I'll be beyond working age, and maybe even in the grave and won't give a shit anymore. But, for the love of God, please...let the rest of MY life...or the rest of my life that MATTERS...be ruled by a Democratic majority! Goodbye, evil fucking Republicans!!
Good little troll.

Then tell me why so many Democrats are hostile to people who believe in God.


Actually...we AREN'T!! We are hostile to those who CLAIM to believe in God...and whose ACTIONS show that they don't.
We are hostile to those who try to force, thru our civil law, their morals, and their views, on those of us who do not share them.
We are hostile to those who use God and Jesus as a justification for hurting others.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Actually...we AREN'T!! We are hostile to those who CLAIM to believe in God...and whose ACTIONS show that they don't.
We are hostile to those who try to force, thru our civil law, their morals, and their views, on those of us who do not share them.
We are hostile to those who use God and Jesus as a justification for hurting others.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

As opposed to people who want to force the opposite onto us? You do know that flows both ways right?

And? Is that unconstitutional? Do the majority of Americans think that's crazy?

Right or wrong, it would pass most states and become part of the Constitution.

Or do you believe Texas is a fluke?

The rights of people (especially minorities) should NEVER be subject to a vote.
The constitution is supposed to protect the unpopular minority against the tyranny of the majority...and you would support a man who, if he had his way, would write discrimination INTO the Constitution??
You are seriously misguided, and mean-spirited.

You are seriously misguided, and mean-spirited.

As opposed to you? You are very mean-spirited. You attack those that disagree with your way of thinking and want to force your views onto us.

Again, wrong: working more years for tenure is working longer for same thing. I said work longer: I was right.
You lost that point.

Making them work longer for tenure. You don't really need tenure. But that's beside the point and I really don't care. It's this...


Polls are misleading: What kind of poll was it? The different types of polls like stratified, etc change the answers alot.
Like if I did a poll in a place that everyone was republican: I'd expect most to be in agreement.

How good was the poll done?
I don't get the feeling you understand. Based on referencing the effect or the name, the same people thought differently. They didn't understand what they were voting for or against.

Oh, okay, so faith based initiatives are just a figment of my imagination, got ya!

And let us not forget that Bush also wanted to be allowed to circumvent state and municipal non-discrimination laws in the administration of his Faith BIASED Initiatives?
He also wanted the charities to be allowed to proseltyze to those who would recieve help...and also allow charities to refuse to help those that they found "morally repugnant" i.e. say, homosexuals. Or transgender people like me. Yep, he wanted to make it so that a charity could turn ME away, even though I needed help...just because that particular religious charity had some reason to believe that I was undeserving of help or charity.

Bush is a serious asshole!

The rights of people (especially minorities) should NEVER be subject to a vote.
The constitution is supposed to protect the unpopular minority against the tyranny of the majority...and you would support a man who, if he had his way, would write discrimination INTO the Constitution??
You are seriously misguided, and mean-spirited.

Then you are clearly opposed to the handgun ban in SF as well as the restrictions preventing doctors from informing parents about minors having abortions?

Then you are clearly opposed to the handgun ban in SF as well as the restrictions preventing doctors from informing parents about minors having abortions?

Nah, she'll be for that. :D

Because SOME Republicans are corrupt, arrogant idiots, that then means, following your logic......?

Actually...try replacing "SOME" with "MOST" and you'll be a lot closer to reality.

Actually...try replacing "SOME" with "MOST" and you'll be a lot closer to reality.

And you'll be shocked to know that MOST Democrats are just as corrupt or do you believe that they are saints?

2) Who said I was a diehard republican? I'm a member of the republican party yes. I won't deny it however I have looked at democratic candidates. If I feel they deserve the position, I'll vote for them.

I call BULLSHIT on you, Corny! Name the last DEMOCRAT you voted for!!

I call BULLSHIT on you, Corny! Name the last DEMOCRAT you voted for!!

Since I have only voted in 2 elections and seeing the people they have put up, I couldn't vote for them.

When they actually put up a candidate that I can believe in, I will vote for them. I was leaning to voting Democrat in 2004 but he didn't get the nomination. :(

Now let me ask you, have you ever voted republican?

Since I have only voted in 2 elections and seeing the people they have put up, I couldn't vote for them.

When they actually put up a candidate that I can believe in, I will vote for them. I was leaning to voting Democrat in 2004 but he didn't get the nomination. :(

That would be Dean I take it? I felt the same way.

That would be Dean I take it? I felt the same way.

No it wasn't Dean. It was actually Lieberman. However, I guess he was to conservative for the Dems so they didn't nominate him :(

He actually believes in national Security and defense. The two things I look for in a leader.

I know I'm not set in my ways. I freely admit I'm a republican. However, I am also on the record that I would've voted for Lieberman if he was the Presidential nominee.

Despite what you may think Steph, I actually listen to all sides and base my decision on who I think can do the better job of protecting and defending the nation I love. If that means I'll vote for a Dem, I will and vice versa.

Yeah...and Lieberman might as WELL be a Republican. He's no Democrat. He's a DINO...Democrat In Name Only.

Yeah...and Lieberman might as WELL be a Republican. He's no Democrat. He's a DINO...Democrat In Name Only.

And this was predictable. You have something against Conservative Democrats?

Just a word of advice from someone who's had to try and keep up with Corneliu's cat and mouse game since he started on this forum, you're wasting your time. I know, I do it too. My husband use to nail him daily and he still would rationalize it to himself some how. I suppose I still take a shot at it because he is young and perhaps not a total lost cause yet. My husband does not share my opinion.. he gave up on Corneliu some time ago. All I'm saying is you'll get no where with Corneliu if it goes against his parents dogma, it be religion or politics.

I'll second that. I gave up on Corny ages ago, which is why he's on my Ignore list.
When the subject is anything but politics, though, Corny can be a good guy to talk with on the Forums. We've had nice discussions about baseball and bowling. But I won't talk politics with him...he is, indeed, a lost cause.

As opposed to people who want to force the opposite onto us? You do know that flows both ways right?
Forcing the opposite to what? Lyric just said "forcing their morals". Do you mean Democrats forcing their uhhh.... non-morals?

Do you also oppose the use of God and Jesus as a justification for helping others?

I'll second that. I gave up on Corny ages ago, which is why he's on my Ignore list.
If he's on your ignore list then why do you respond to his posts?

I'll second that. I gave up on Corny ages ago, which is why he's on my Ignore list.
When the subject is anything but politics, though, Corny can be a good guy to talk with on the Forums. We've had nice discussions about baseball and bowling. But I won't talk politics with him...he is, indeed, a lost cause.

And yet more slander.

Would it surprise you that I have had intelligent debates with people I disagree with in regards to politics. There was no mud slinging and no insults thrown. We both talked the issues and we were both willing to listen to one another and we acknowledge eachother on good points. When it was done, we looked forward to our next debate knowing that it would be curteous.

Forcing the opposite to what? Lyric just said "forcing their morals". Do you mean Democrats forcing their uhhh.... non-morals?

Do you also oppose the use of God and Jesus as a justification for helping others?

I always believe in helping our fellow man. If that means through church then so be it.

Would it surprise you that I have had intelligent debates with people I disagree with in regards to politics. There was no mud slinging and no insults thrown. We both talked the issues and we were both willing to listen to one another and we acknowledge eachother on good points. When it was done, we looked forward to our next debate knowing that it would be curteous.
I think that's a bit of a stretch. Like most people, I find it frustrating to debate with a poster who has an entirely predictable set of opinions in his effort to be a "straight ticket" Republican.

Okay, now assuming that this information is accurate--I know nothing about the Philadelphia area and can't confirm any of it, though I trust the site this is coming from (and righties don't)--this may be some actual indications that there's a political sea change underway. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/9/232436/862)

These are local races, and individually don't denote anything on a national level, but together they note a change in Pennsylvania politics. If we see similar returns from other states, then we may have something to talk about.

I'll give you another couple...

Northampton County, PA...just gained a Democratic majority on county Council...and Lehigh county, PA...County Executive went to the Democratic challenger, rather than the Republican incumbent.
And Northampton and Lehigh are pretty red areas of the state, too. I know, I live just north of Northampton and Lehigh.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. Like most people, I find it frustrating to debate with a poster who has an entirely predictable set of opinions in his effort to be a "straight ticket" Republican.

Someone needs to tell my dad that. He's a straight party ticketer. My mother actually had more of an influence on me in regards to politics. She taught me to look into what both sides are saying and to continue to dig for the truth.

I always believe in helping our fellow man. If that means through church then so be it.
I just found it funny that Lyric said, "I oppose those who use God and Jesus as a justification for hurting others!"

And you replied "well I oppose those who force the opposite!" Implying that you oppose those who use God and Jesus as a justification for helping others.

But what do we do? Democracy is worth fighting for---the people deserve to rule their own country. Then why won't they do it?!?

We can't just give up on democracy and ask the King Of England to step back in. There's got to be something done to make people less apathetic, less inclined to vote on random TV slogans, something to make them consider the facts!

But what...?

How about letting them go unemployed and uninsured through most of the Republican years...and actually have decent, good quality jobs and medical insurance through Democrat years, and they will get the message real fast. Hell, it's worked for me!

Iam an avowed Democrat, because, economically, I have always done better when Democrats were in power.

Forcing the opposite to what? Lyric just said "forcing their morals". Do you mean Democrats forcing their uhhh.... non-morals?



If it's anybody pushing for Dr's not to be allowed to contact parents when their underage daughters get a medical procedure done, I consider that to be immoral (that's the word you were looking for.)

Someone needs to tell my dad that. He's a straight party ticketer. My mother actually had more of an influence on me in regards to politics. She taught me to look into what both sides are saying and to continue to dig for the truth.
Wow, I can't imagine what your dad must be like. I'm struggling to think of issues on which you differ from the stereotypical Republican list of opinions.

Since I have only voted in 2 elections and seeing the people they have put up, I couldn't vote for them.

When they actually put up a candidate that I can believe in, I will vote for them. I was leaning to voting Democrat in 2004 but he didn't get the nomination. :(

Now let me ask you, have you ever voted republican?

Yes. I voted for Arlen Specter. He EARNED my vote. Only Republican who ever did.

Then again, Specter is sorta a RINO.

That would be Dean I take it? I felt the same way.

Nah...for him, it would be Lieberman. The one "Democrat" who is anything BUT.

Oh, wait...gotta include Zell Miller in that, too.

Yes. I voted for Arlen Specter. He EARNED my vote. Only Republican who ever did.

Then again, Specter is sorta a RINO.

I can respect that. Just like Lieberman would've probably earned my vote.

And this was predictable. You have something against Conservative Democrats?

Yes. I do. They aren't REAL DEMOCRATS!!!

Nah...for him, it would be Lieberman. The one "Democrat" who is anything BUT.

Oh, wait...gotta include Zell Miller in that, too.

I wouldn't have voted for Zell Miller.

I can respect that. Just like Lieberman would've probably earned my vote.

Would you like to know HOW and WHY Specter earned my vote??

Would you like to know HOW and WHY Specter earned my vote??

To be honest with you, I don't. It really is none of my business why you choose to vote for a certain candidate.

And once again I will post my opinion on politics:


What the FUCK does it matter which party they claim to belong to? It's about what the fuck they do when they're in office, not which party they say they're with.

Jesus, quit playing partisan politics and mud-slinging. Debate the issues, not the parties.

How about letting them go unemployed and uninsured through most of the Republican years...and actually have decent, good quality jobs and medical insurance through Democrat years, and they will get the message real fast. Hell, it's worked for me!

Iam an avowed Democrat, because, economically, I have always done better when Democrats were in power.

-_-...

YOU MISSED MY POINT COMPLETELY!

Sorry for yelling. But it's true. I was not advocating the Democrats! I was saying that I'm tired of people not analyzing the issues at hand and instead voting straight on the party line, and then you go on to plug a party! Switching blindly to one party is not going to solve America's problems, it is one of the causes of America's problems!

As opposed to you? You are very mean-spirited. You attack those that disagree with your way of thinking and want to force your views onto us.
- Oh how I wish I had some chintzy GIF of a pot calling a kettle black to link to. Hoo hoo.

- Oh how I wish I had some chintzy GIF of a pot calling a kettle black to link to. Hoo hoo.
Here ya go......

http://davensjournal.com/images/Kettlitis.gif

Virginia run by a Dem? Unheard of!
*cough*Mark Warner*cough*

I'm actually disappointed that some of Arnie's bills didn't get through. California's public sector is a disgrace, their public schools a shambles, and SOMEONE needs to do something about it. Ah-nuld tried, and the voters decided "meh, we'll go with mediocrity."

Since I have only voted in 2 elections and seeing the people they have put up, I couldn't vote for them.

When they actually put up a candidate that I can believe in, I will vote for them. I was leaning to voting Democrat in 2004 but he didn't get the nomination. :(

Now let me ask you, have you ever voted republican?

I've only voted in two elections. Gore lost and so did Kerry. I wanted Dean really.
I kinda liked McCain for a while till I found out after researching he was as bad as the rest of politicians. Good guy in general, but not enough for me to vote for him.

Plus, I always find Republicans mud--sling more in their campaigns: case in point Kaine and Kilgore. More mud came from Kilgore. Granted the mud was funny and back fired.

I mean, Kaine is eating our taxes? Good for him; I don't want them anyway. My mom liked Kaine ever since seeing that Attack AD. :p

I voted for a republican for sherrif if that counts?

I'm actually disappointed that some of Arnie's bills didn't get through. California's public sector is a disgrace, their public schools a shambles, and SOMEONE needs to do something about it. Ah-nuld tried, and the voters decided "meh, we'll go with mediocrity."

Meh. Arnold tried to end-run the legislative process. He assumed he was so popular that the normal rules didn't apply to him. He was wrong.

Among other things, his proposals would have made California's public schools much worse.

Come on now, your grandmother is an exception---most people can read and they can work a computer. They can find the right information out there, they can directly read what laws and propositions say. There are good, non-biased sources of information out there---one just needs to look. And hell, even incredibly biased sources are good, if you have one from each side.

Anything is better than a 30 second TV spot.

Sure they can read all of the laws and propositions. They can also learn how to be their own mechanic. Or they can pay people to be experts on the laws that represent their values and they can pay mechanics to keep their cars running, so they have just a little bit of free time to spend with their loved ones and earning a living. Expecting people to do research on every politician that represents them and what they have and haven't voted for isn't very realistic.

Some of the proposals I'd vote against like making teachers work longer.

The proposition did not make teachers work longer; it made them have to wait five years for tenure instead of two. That way bad teachers can be weeded out.

Again, wrong: working more years for tenure is working longer for same thing. I said work longer: I was right.
You lost that point.

And here why have why it's so frustrating to debate on these forums. "I'm a poor communicator so if you REALLY wanted to you could read what is actually true in what I said, so I declare victory." Yes, let's all make unclear assertions that could ten different things so we're never wrong. That will help :rolleyes:

You could have meant work longer days, work longer until retirement, work longer work years (shorter summer breaks), work long class periods, etc. One would really have to reach to assume you meant work longer until tenure without you saying it.

"Do you think I would ever vote for Pat Robertson for President?!?"
"Yes, you would."
"Yes, I would... if my brain packed up and left town and somebody attached electrodes to my nipples that jolted me if I voted for ANYONE else."
"Exactly my point. I said yes you would and you said yes you would. I WIN!!!"