election (9 Viewers)

[oh shit]

it's true, america is a fundamentalist state, consistently acting in violation of international law, and harbouring terrorists.

let's roll.

 

[snakybus]

so what, so 22% of Americans are missing the point and playing into Bush's hands

it's your opinions that people are taking issue with here, not 22% of Americans - that's a separate debate

 

[Pantone247]

agreed, dean would have been a stronger candidate than kerry. but they didn;t like him... because he was too angry? some blame to be laid at the door of the democrats for (once again) not picking a strong enough candidate, perchance?

The blame also has to be laid at Kerry's door for running a very dirty campaign against Dean. Kerry's supporters were making intimidating phonecalls at midnight to Dean supporters, running some really derogratory advert campeigns against Dean too.

IMHO Kerry was basically all the heavy shit of Republican with a tasty easy to swallow Democrat coating

 

[Anthony]

 

[brikelly]

What a depressing morning. I shudder to think about the effect of Bush's reelection on this country and the rest of the world.

I am ashamed of and embarrassed for the 51% of Americans who voted for Bush.

Moral Issues? This has been the most immoral and downright evil president in the history of the USA. A sugarcoating of anti-abortionism and anti-gay marriage sentiments don't make him the more moral candidate. He has been responsible for more misery and pain around the world and in his own country than any other president, and there is more shit to come now that they have control over the House, Senate and probably the Supreme Court too.

Voting for Bush because he is anti-abortion is like voting for a person who comes into your home, kicks you in the teeth, steals your possessions, sets fire to your basement, shits in your sink, demolishes your roof, pisses on your furniture, but does it with a smile on his face.

Fuck George Bush and all that he represents.

 

[ElderLemon]

Okay, but you still haven't made it clear why you think it's more important to support Bush for his pro-life stance than to be against him as president for all the shit he's done. Especially since it seems, for you, also to cancel out the fact that Bush, as governor of Texas, executed more criminals than any other governor in history.

I believe in the sanctity of human life, which is why I believe I can be trusted to make decisions about my own body. Both of my parents are pro-choice, and they had two intelligent pro-choice kids, both of whom love children and want families of our own someday. We'd just like to make that decision for ourselves.

Why is being against my freedom of choice so much more important to you than feeding and housing the poor?

I have a theory about voter choice, and that is that there are two different models that people use when coming to a decision - a rational one or an emotional one.

People who use a rational model can't understand how some people can prioritise one of may issues above all others. Ditto, people who use an emotional model don't understand the need to consider all issues, and not just they could consider of fundamental importance.

Of course, that could be all bullshit, but that's my view of it anyway.

It's because it's who I am. I believe that abortion is intrinsically wrong; maybe it's because I was brought up a Catholic (although I'm no longer religious), maybe it's because I was brought up in rural Ireland. Either way, I became pro-life when I was a teenager, and have remained that way since.

As you said, you come from the leftiest county of the leftiest state, therefolre it was always more likely (though not of course inevitable) that you would be pro-choice.

 

[jane]

I didn't imply that it was unfair that Kerry was 'wicked smaht' (You were saying something about my spelling?). What I said was that he originally had difficulty connecting with voters. A given rule of politics anywhere is that an intelligent politician who wears his intelligence easily will always play better with voters than an intelligent politician who likes to flex his intellectual muscles.

As I've said above, the exit polls showed 'moral issues' was the most important issue for 22% of all voters. In other words, 25 million voters yesterday cast their vote for George Bush or John Kerry due to their feelings on abortion, gay marriage or other 'moral issues'.

And you think that's a good way to choose a president? Just because a small fraction of voters do?

So 78% voted for other reasons, then, didn't they?

Are you saying that George Bush 'wears his intelligence easily'? If so, where does he wear it?

Oh, and 'wicked smaht' is a Boston expression, and is spelled perfectly.

 

[ElderLemon]

so what, so 22% of Americans are missing the point and playing into Bush's hands

it's your opinions that people are taking issue with here, not 22% of Americans - that's a separate debate

The fact that you say that 22% of Americans - and we are talking about supporters of every candidate here, pro-life Bush supporters, pro-choice Kerry supporters, etc. - are missing the point demonstrates that you don't understand what motivates then. I've discussed voter choice elsewhere, but suffice it to say that different people will have different priorities.

 

[egg_]

I have a theory about voter choice, and that is that there are two different models that people use when coming to a decision - a rational one or an emotional one.

People who use a rational model can't understand how some people can prioritise one of may issues above all others. Ditto, people who use an emotional model don't understand the need to consider all issues, and not just they could consider of fundamental importance.

Of course, that could be all bullshit, but that's my view of it anyway.

I think your theory is a good un
Presumably your model is the emotional one? Makes you easier to manipulate, I would think

 

[jane]

I have a theory about voter choice, and that is that there are two different models that people use when coming to a decision - a rational one or an emotional one.

People who use a rational model can't understand how some people can prioritise one of may issues above all others. Ditto, people who use an emotional model don't understand the need to consider all issues, and not just they could consider of fundamental importance.

Of course, that could be all bullshit, but that's my view of it anyway.

It's because it's who I am. I believe that abortion is intrinsically wrong; maybe it's because I was brought up a Catholic (although I'm no longer religious), maybe it's because I was brought up in rural Ireland. Either way, I became pro-life when I was a teenager, and have remained that way since.

As you said, you come from the leftiest county of the leftiest state, therefolre it was always more likely (though not of course inevitable) that you would be pro-choice.

Actually, that's just where I'm currently registered. I spent my early years in a town that was about as right-wing as you are. My family was run out of our local (Catholic) church for our views on abortion, Ronald Reagan, and 'the blacks' (who were summarily run out of town if they even thought about moving there). Lots of lefty parents raise right wing kids, and vice-versa, so it's not a sufficient explanation for why I think the way I do.

You sure have a lot of 'theories'. You a philophoser or sumpin?

 

[snakybus]

no that doesn't suffice at all

it's a very simple point that's being debated here - whether or not it's a good thing or a bad thing that Bush won. As far as I can see, you say it's a good thing on the basis of a single issue - abortion. What I say is that, regardless of what you believe about this issue, to centre the debate around that is simplistic in the extreme. It's a red herring.

I do understand what motivates American voters. That's not the point here.

 

[ElderLemon]

And you think that's a good way to choose a president? Just because a small fraction of voters do?

So 78% voted for other reasons, then, didn't they?

Are you saying that George Bush 'wears his intelligence easily'? If so, where does he wear it?

Oh, and 'wicked smaht' is a Boston expression, and is spelled perfectly.

It's not a better or worse way, it's simply a way. There's no point in railing against it. People have a vote, and can do with it as they please.

Yes 78% did. But 'moral issues' was the single most cited concern - albeit barely, I think Iraq and the economy were at 21% each. I can understand you not wanting to base your vote on 'moral issues'; but I can't understand why you rail against others that do.

I've very little knowledge of Bostonese, and so bow to your judgement.

 

[ElderLemon]

I think your theory is a good un
Presumably your model is the emotional one? Makes you easier to manipulate, I would think

Arguably. Though not me personally.

 

[jane]

It's not a better or worse way, it's simply a way. There's no point in railing against it. People have a vote, and can do with it as they please.

Yes 78% did. But 'moral issues' was the single most cited concern - albeit barely, I think Iraq and the economy were at 21% each. I can understand you not wanting to base your vote on 'moral issues'; but I can't understand why you rail against others that do.

I've very little knowledge of Bostonese, and so bow to your judgement.

You have as little knowledge of Bostonian as you do of any politics outside your own, which seem to centre entirely on abortion, and thus, women's bodies.

You know what they call people who are so obsessed with women's bodies that it seems to consume their every thought? Perverts.

 

[snakybus]

jeez Jane, steady on

the guy's being reasonable

 

[guy of the tiger]

ahh jane! lettin yourself down there. that was just childish!

You have as little knowledge of Bostonian as you do of any politics outside your own, which seem to centre entirely on abortion, and thus, women's bodies.

You know what they call people who are so obsessed with women's bodies that it seems to consume their every thought? Perverts.

 

[sarah]

You have as little knowledge of Bostonian as you do of any politics outside your own, which seem to centre entirely on abortion, and thus, women's bodies.

You know what they call people who are so obsessed with women's bodies that it seems to consume their every thought? Perverts.

I know you feel strongly about this issue, but you are getting way to
aggressive, when though I disagree with his opinions completely,
elderlemon is being polite and reasonable in expressing his viewpoint.
I don't see how getting this worked up promotes any sort of discussion,
only slanging match.

 

[jane]

It's not a better or worse way, it's simply a way.

This doesn't really make any sense.

It's a great trick you have, stringing loads of words together in to a sentence that has, as sentences are wont to do, a subject, an object, a verb, and even a dependent clause. And yet, it means nothing at all. Amazing. Are you magic?

 

[brikelly]

Abortion according to Steve Albini - a position I completely agree with:

"Anti-abortionists equate abortion with murder. This is based on the belief that life as a human begins at fertilization, and ending it any time after that by choice is murder.

The basic flaw in this argument is that in no part of our society has anyone genuinely held the predicate belief, and even those who think they do, do not really hold it:

There are no cemeteries for miscarriages.

There are no funerals or wakes (or even weeping) for post-fertilization zygotes that are not implanted and thus are eliminated during menstruation.

The "cause" does not extend to birth control pills, which cause such elimination, except among fringe thinkers, from whom the anti-abortionists regularly differentiate themselves.

There is no debate about whether or not an embryo is defiled before God as a suicide if it aborts, or whether an expectant mother should be held legally accountable for not eating well enough, or lifting a box too heavy, and as a result losing her child (although a certain few freakish zealots have prosecuted extreme cases recently). In such cases, we as a society (rightfully) sympathise with the woman, not the fetus."

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3804&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

 

[avernus]

looks like Hilary in 2008 for the democrats

I really doubt that she'd get in. considering the vast amount of retarded evangelical pyschos..it seems we can look forward to a "god willing" massacre of the planet. so good then.

I stayed up all night...just to watch Bush casually take Florida and see the people on FOX News, 100% unbiased as they are, claim Ohio for Bush too. how thrilling to watch the decline of the western civilisation blow by blow.