The Takeover Begins
 

To all those who told ME that the chances that my human rights would be infringed upon should Bush get re-elected were slim, I have this to show you:

link

We have a second-term president who caters to the conservative religious right. We have conservative religious leaders who wish to stamp out our human rights in favor of their 'holy' vision of decency.

I'd like to say something really vicious right now, but I know I've gotta keep that inside for now. It's really terrible for me to see people give more power to a party who has no interest in protecting your freedoms, only your fragile, fleeting, short little lives.

Some of the best "conservative" appointments have turned out surprisingly moderate: Sandra Day O'Conner for example.

Once they have the lifelong position, you never know how they might surprise you ;)

As Monty Python says, "always look on the bright side of life." :thumbsup:

I'm trying to remain optimistic. At the very least, bush doesn't need to pander to anyone anymore, so i don't know if he'll chug the cock of the christian right as much as he used too. Ashcroft will be gone soon, and i think whomever replaces him will be an accurate show of what bush's agenda will really look like in the coming years.

At this point, i think it is counterproductive to spend too much time speculating about all the different ways america could hypothetically be fucked right now. America deserves whatever it gets, and canada is only a plane ticket away. Besides, if bush goes too far he might just fuck his own party out of power.

It could be very scary indeed, but like SecretMethod suggested, I'm keeping my hopes up that it won't be as bad as it could be.

Like I said in another post (that has enough logic behind it apparently) the Republicans have a very large rope now. They will hang themselves with it.

I've written a little rant about this on my site.. antipartisan.org

Personally, I believe him when he says this, "I told the people on the campaign trail that I'll pick somebody who knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. You might have heard that several times. I meant what I said."

Why don't you?

Like all politicians he's a liar.

As more and more GOP members speak its becoming very clear that they intend to abuse their power as much as possible. As they assume that ALL americans are up for pushing the republican agenda instead of having the intelligence to realize that most of the moderates voted against kerry they will soon begin to anger the mainstream of american populace. In 2006 there will be another round of elections. If the moderate americans do not step up to the plate and run against the GOP as independents then we will see even more abuses of this fragile political state.

It's apparent to me that the democrats will soon be voted out of office altogether since the only thing they seem to think is wrong is that they are not far enough left.

To president bush, and all the other republicans I voted for, don't make us wish we'd voted for kerry.

Really? When has he lied? News to me.

Well, there's the whole prescription drug plan, where he lied to many members of his own party. Maybe you could pawn that off on one of his lackeys.

There was his assertion during the debates that he never said he wasn't concerned with the whereabouts of one osama bin laden. He got busted on that real quick.

These are off the top of my head. I'm sure there are hundreds of lists scattered accross the net if you google.

If you want to take the president's word as gospel, then by all means do so. Just don't be so quick to question somebody who doesn't, because the precedent of dishonesty is there.

If you have not been able to identify any lies that either candidate has used to press their case, then you have not been nearly critical enough of your candidate.

Thank You Halx.
I don't take anything any politicians says too serious because they will say one thing to one group then something else to another.
I am worried that the 48 percent that didn't vote for Bush are going to see very little in the next four years to change their minds.
Half the country mad at their leader is a bad sign no matter how you look at it.

You know, this is like if Kerry had won and anti-war groups came out saying they were excited because Kerry was going to pull out of Iraq right now.

Just because someone says something doesn't mean it is going to happen like that.

What is the difference between personal opinion and interpretation?

I don't see what, in his statement, I am supposed to believe or disbelieve. His statement is incongruent with itself.

Yes, but anti-war groups aren't proposing a limitation on my personal freedoms.

Although there is the existing possibility that things will not "happen like that" - your analogy doesn't work. Bush has endorsed the same messages as those coming from the people in the article. There is a higher degree of probability that he will follow through with that than there is in him distancing himself from it and therefore alienating the people that swung the vote his way.

But Kerry had never endorsed the anti-war message of pulling the troops out now. They voted for him (if they voted for him) even with the recognition that Kerry was already distant from them.

Example of a personal opinion: abortion is wrong, and no one should have one.

Example of interpretation of the law: abortion is legal under given circumstances.

Arlen Specter, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania and likely the next Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, warned the President not to try to appoint overly conservative judges. In other words, I wouldn't be too concerned about the first Supreme Court appointment. The media will really be focusing on it, so the Republicans won't have an opportunity to appoint a neo-conservative.

I'm glad I'm not the only one around here who realizes what's going on in this country.

There's a disturbing amount of people (even here on this board) who feel it's perfectly okay to limit someone else's freedoms and privileges as a citizen in this country because of their own moral values - and they think there's nothing wrong with this.

What's funny is most of them have the nerve to retort accusing those of us who encourage personal freedom of "shoving our lifestyles down their throats." Hm, there's no limitations in personal freedom the last time I checked! Yet, they don't realize that by imposing limitations on others (whether it's abortions, gay marriage, legalizing drugs, etc), they are the ones shoving their morals/lifestyles down everyone's throat.

The levels of hypocrisy are baffling and very very disturbing.

Arlen Specter denied the allegations that he warned the President.

So if that information in anyway influences your lack of concern, I suggest reanalyzing the situation.

Even in the debates, Bush was using code words to tell the anti-abortion right that his judges would be firmly anti-abortion. The puzzling reference to the "illegal Dred Scott decision" is one such. Refer to my post in another thread, which includes a supporting article:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...9&postcount=54

why can't people see...Judges shouldn't give a damn if their rulings are popular or not..They should NOT be in "tune" with the voters. They are their to interpret the constitution. I highly doubt that brown vs. board would have made it very far if the judges were "in tune" with the voters. They are supposed to be able to put their politics aside and be as impartial as possible. hopefully those appointed can try and live up to that.

The same thing can be said about the left. Clearly the freedoms that one group holds dear the other has little respect for. This is truly a one-way street with traffic attempting two-way travel. To bad there can't be some sort of compromise, it appears it's all or nothing!

Your example of interpretation is identical to this personal opinion:

In some circumstances, abortion is wrong.

Judges constantly make rulings. A ruling is their personal opinion on the legality of an event. Judges do nothing other than express their personal opinions (they're called judgements). They are afforded this power because the person or people that give it to them have deemed them capable of handling that power. The political leanings of the person or people that assign/nominate a judge are quite obviously going to affect the type of person who is assigned/nominated.

Bush has simply said that he will assign/nominate people who have records that demonstrate rulings (personal opinion) that he agrees with. But he has phrased his stance as if judges who make rulings that he does not agree with are manipulating the system and judges that he chooses will not. Bush calls judges who make judgements that are in opposition to Bush's personal opinions, "activist" judges.

It is a deceit or a lack of knowledge on the part of Bush. Take your pick.

That's exactly what freedom is: all or nothing. Freedom isn't something that's measured by degree. One is either free or not free. It's paradoxical to state, "You're free to do whatever makes you happy, except for this list of things you're not allowed to do."

I think arguing the amount of freedoms we have or don't have is missing the point. What we should instead be arguing is how much control the government wishes to exert over its private citizens. The government under the Bush administration seems to be quite fond of micromanaging the lives of private citizens.

I find this odd coming from the party that claims it wants less governmental intrusion into our lives.

looks like we're not as divided as some suggest
 

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/...erica_2004.gif


Please keep in mind the popular vote had a lot to do with large numbers of people from cities like I live in only because they were told lie's and believed them.

You need to consider that not only did Bush win, but a lot of Dem's lost, in the senate and in congress, and in state houses.

It's not the next few years of Bush you need to be concerned about. It's that, as the map shows, most of America is finnished with the Demectratic party. You need to take that seriosly, because this country needs an opposition party, and the dem's are too far from the mainstream right now.

It is specious to claim the Democrats are "too far from the mainstream right now". For one, the vote was incredibly close, but most importantly - the "mainstream" would assuredly include non-voters, and I see no reason to presume they would break along the same lines as voters.

And as an aside - I can't seem to reconcile your avatar and your statements.

What do the black sections on the map represent warfrat?

Seperation of Chruch and State

When did the line get blurred?

Precisely. I have problems with anyone who will choose a judge because of their opinion of abortion one way or the other.

Guess I am an Optimist.....I hold out hope that the next four years will see some change in the previous direction this Administration was headed. There will be quite a bit of change in the lineup of advisors in the next year....and thus the power behind Bush, as we all know those with the ear of the Prez hold most of the power.

That said, I am also a Realist....and am therefore quite worried that my optimism will be dashed upon the rocks of reality before too long. I am resigned to giving Bush and Co. another chance....as I really have little choice anymore.

I totally agree with you Halx. They are not protecting anything of our way of life or rights in this country, they are just going about their own agenda, that is not right, and not the way this country works, we do what is best for all people not just their group. And honestly, if Kerry would have won by say 75% to 25% in the popular vote, it wouldn't matter because the electorial college vote just takes over and hey guess what Bush wins that way. Our votes don't even count, it's just who they want in there to begin with and the whole majority vote thing for Americans is just a shirade to make us think we're doing something. On a local scale, hell ya your vote counts, for congressmen, local bills, mayors, ect. sure that counts, but on the national scale like this, it means nothing and either you know it or your lying to yourself and are easily fooled by the media and don't see the truth. Who here agrees with me? Yay or nay? We didn't land on America, America Landed on Us.

Um, you do realize that the only times the popular vote winner was not the electoral vote winner were in EXTREMELY close races, right? I'm not going to bother rehashing the basis for the electoral college here 1) when it's not part of this thread and 2) when I've done so numerous times elsewhere, but I do suggest you please do a search and read what has already been posted regarding it. I am a huge proponent of voting reform. I think there are numerous problems with voting in America. However, the electoral colelge is not one of them. While not perfect, nothing is, and it is the best of the options. I do support *certain* reforms, but this concept that it renders your vote meaningless is just rubbish.

And now back to your regularly scheduled discussion...

I share tecoyah's optimism and realism. The truth is, if the Republican party pushes too far in the next 4 years, it *will* fall apart after all the moderates abandon it. They know this.

I think it's important to make a point that seems to me to be overlooked by opponents of those who hold core beliefs counter to theirs and who declare that the opposition is all about forcing their beliefs on the rest of us, etc.

It does appear to me that, for example, secularists, secular humanists, and others do not comprehend that they themselves are part of a faction of true believers who attempt to legislate, and adjudicate their agendas on everyone else in the same fashion they accuse Christan fundamentalists and neo-conservatives of doing.

Textbooks are everywhere rewritten to include concepts that are anathema to their opponents, court decisions that reflect secular humanist and liberal agendas are and have been the trend for decades.

When I hear those who decry the tendency of their opponents to force, foist, legislate, and adjudicate their will, their beliefs on the rest of us, I wonder why it is not self-evident that both sides are equally adamant and activist and guilty of this absolutist behavior.

Claims that the liberal, secular agenda is not about forcing core beliefs on others - or that it is about protecting freedom - do not evidence an awareness that it is indeed no different in action than those they oppose.

What we have is a battle of core beliefs, nothing more and nothing less.

You should know I have no use whatsoever for fundamentalist or any other sort of religion. And I am in favor of homosexual rights and abortion rights. This post is about the fact that I do not see those who have a record of legislating, adjudicating, and being politically activist for secular and liberal causes as being any different from fundamentalists or conservatives who want to do the same things from their side.

Call it what it is - a battle of core beliefs - not a movement for freedom, rights, or justice. Those terms and others like them are conditioned by one's core beliefs. And secularists, humanists, and liberals are no less activist and absolutist about theirs than are conservatives and fundamentalists.

Thank you, Art.

I believe you have articulated the crux of the matter.

A few examples that I can think of where the left do this are affirmative action, the rewriting of history books, political correctness, and the current rage of "no-tolerence" in our schools where bringing a butter knife can get you suspended.

I recall not that long ago when some California legistlator (San Francisco?) wanted to spend tax funds on Feng Shui so that the legistlature would have better "energy".

How do you think middle America perceives something like that?

There are many more examples I could list.

Response to the original post: First, I'm a Christian that agrees with conservative ideology(Money cannot fix a problem. Only changing human nature). I tend to vote Republican. My beliefs about life are more that of a deist than most theological christians. I didn't support the Republican senator elected from my state, David Vitter. I felt that many things about his campaign were wrong especially his "Lets all buy drugs from Canada!" plan.

My first problem is, my beliefs and concerns are not completely represented by any political candidate. I belief this was the case of the presidential race for many people.

Second, I can tell you that I fall into the same category as millions of other Americans. Like most of you, I'm part of middle class America. My concern is that the 2 presidential candidates that we were able to select from represented less than 1% of our population. They cannot identify with virtually any American. They cannot identify with most of us. I don't think the problem is with who wins the president, I believe it is with the type of people that run our nation.

The Senate is often referred to as the millionaire's club. And just look at. The fact that these senators have depend on constituent's words or other polls and studies by close advisors says alot about the state of our political sate. Our democracy is starting to shape up all too much like that described by Aristotle who placed democracy as the worst form of government, which in its natural state is run by rich and corrupt officials. I think we are at that stage.

Did anyone else feel like they were following a class president this election? It feels like this candidates toss out money at us, have us argue over who is the cooler person and cheer defeat as our candidate wins the election(presidency). Or have us complain over the conditions at which the winner won the competition.

I think we may actually see that a lot of "republicans" elected to Congress are Dems that saw the party go to far and knew if they wanted to win they needed to switch parties. So I think there'll be a lot of in party fighting and the Dems will lay low and try to restructure themselves for '06 and '08.

Remember Clinton had this great "Mandate" in '92-94 and it didn't work at all for him either.

I just wanted to take issue with this part of your post. While affirmative action and PCness are surely leftist policy, BOTH sides interperet history just as much as the other. "Rewriting history" is one of those slippery terms that people like to throw around. Yes it has some validity when anybody with an agenda specifically warps events to push it, but on the other hand, there is no such thing as 100% objective history; it is always an interperetation of the facts available against the current climate of opinion.

Also, I don't think the "zero-tolerance" rage is purely a left-thinking phenomena either. At least at the schools I have been involved with, feelings about this definitally go both ways for people on both sides of the political spectrum.

If you want some antecdotal evidence from just my experience alone, I have found that it's usually more conservative parents that are more concerned with this type of thing in our schools; commenting on whether kids who were "spikes" and kids who think they are gangsters are the ones who are out to kill their children. They are also the ones who get huffy when schools have a "winter celebration" instead of a Christmas one. Although it was a leftist-impetus that attempted to de-religionize schools in the first place, I see conservatives making more complaints about the lack of an x-mas tree than I see liberals complaining when there is one.

One last example I'd like to give was for last Halloween. One school district here cancelled there Halloween celebration, stating three reasons. 1) It wastes time, 2) It's unfair to poor kids because they can't afford nice costumes and may feel embarrased, and 3) Don't want to offend anybody of the Wiccan religion by dressing up as witches.

What was interesting about this last one is that lots of people were up-in-arms about run-away political correctness with the Wiccans. This was coming from BOTH sides. What was really fascinating is that the district didn't actually contact or get contacted by any of the Wiccan families in question, they came up with the policy on their own (perhaps to preempt some leftist lawsuit, perhaps out of good intentions, who knows). But that wasn't reported in the news. All that was focused on were the Wiccans and how those damn liberals are ruining yet another holiday for everyone.

SO in conclusion, I just wanted to pick at 2 of your generalizations which I have attempted to shed some light on.

*Also about the zero-tolerance thing: I think you will find any rational-thinking parents (regardless of political orientation) thinks that a child being expelled for having a squirt gun or a butter knife is retarded. But you have to understand that schools are in a tough situation because they are legally responsible for the children's safety. Zero-tolerance is unfortunately an extreme that school districts are forced to resort to in order to cover their asses and keep kids safe at the same time. If somebody wants to bring this topic up in another thread, I'll be glad to discuss it more, but I fear I am digressing from the main topic too much already.

Art, I am not clear how it can be determined that secularists (liberals, humanists) are forcing anything on Fundamentalist Christians. This strikes me as the same argument that allowing gay marriage is discrimintation against people who oppose gay marriage.

Secularists are not attempting to forbid Fundamentalists from living their life as they choose. For instance, if a Fundamentalist wishes to teach their children creationism instead of evolution, they are more than welcome to do so. If they do not wish to have abortions, they are more than welcome to not have abortions. The will of the Fundamentalist Christian is not being legislated by allowing others who do not share their beliefs to live according to their own will. Except in so far as an aspect of the will of the Fundamentalist Christian is to limit the will of everyone. That is their act of discrimination. I fully support the discrimination against discrimination - it is a very different course than one of pure discrimination. It is, in fact, the struggle for freedom.


Also - Is there something we can do about the large map image above? The size of it makes this thread hard to read. Maybe shrink it down or link to it?

It's just like when the liberals foisted desegregation upon the segregationists. It's a shame that the racists were forced to live in a society that didn't codify their ignorance, :rolleyes:. Apparently, demanding equal rights for minority groups is exactly the same as demanding that minority groups have their rights stepped on.

I think the issue here is a confusion, primarily on the part of the conservative, over what is a liberal "ideal".

Evolution is not a liberal concept.
Non-discrimination to minorities is not a liberal concept.
Seperation of church and state is not a liberal concept.
A woman's right to control her body is not a liberal concept.

But these are some of the many things that liberals fight for when they are legislated out of existence.

In no way is segregation laws a legitimate defense of gay marriage. I'm sorry, but it just isn't so.

Comparing the struggle against oppression to the struggle to oppress is only accurate in that both are struggles to exert a will on the population at large. Beyond that, any meaningful comparison is lost and you slip into the realm of moral relativism(conservatives can use it when it suits their purpose) where fighting for your rights are bad because in doing so you deny your oppressors their right to oppress you. It matters little whether one side is acting in a way counter to the spirit of our nation's constitution. Martin luther king had no right to complain about the oppression of blacks, after all, he was attempting to oppress whites by denying them their god given right to treat all minorities like trash.

:rolleyes: Fucking give me a break.

Generally when you make an assertion you back it up with some sort of logic or rationale.

I dont get you at all.

Which of your rights, that you have currently are in jepordy?

The claim was made that there is a conflict between core beliefs between liberals/humanists/secularists and fundamentalists.

This is only true if evolution is nothing more than a core belief. If the concept of non-discrimination is nothing more than a core belief.

But neither of those concepts or others like them, are core beliefs. Evolution is not a belief like creationism is a belief. Evolution is. Creationism is a concept derived from "the word of God".

It is not an equally valid/equally invalid belief system vs. belief system. It is the way things are vs. the way someone wants to perceive things (and wants others to perceive things).

Given the above statement.....is it not simply your "belief" that evolution simply is. As perception is much like a belief in God , in that it cannot be shown to another, merely explained in a language that is not capable of fully getting the reality across.
Mind you....I am playing the devils advocate here, as I actually agree with most of what was said.

Why does it require logic? It's a false analogy. We're talking natural rights vs. privledges.

But, lets just consider it as a right.
Logic for you:

All United States Citizens have the right to be married.
A gay man is a United States citizen.
A gay man has the right to be married.

Yes, that is a true statement if marriage is a right and it's parallel with civil rights laws.

No human should be a slave to another man.
A black man is a human.
A black man should not be a slave to another man.

Personally, I think the government is more justified than eliminating marriage than eliminating the abolition of slavery. Maybe you don't?

I've always wondered that if the argument for gay marriage is that the government has no right to dictate private behavior, then why are they not trying to just get legal recognition of marriage to be eliminated?

All of those which clash with the christian view of life, and more importantly, all of those which I do no have yet, but am fighting for.

The common arguement is "that could never happen" - but I see it differently. Life is spent in the progression toward an end. Whatever end you progress toward is essentially your 'goal'. You may never reach it, but your world will begin to take on characteristics of your goal as you progress.

The Conservative Christian way of life is a sheltered, controlled march through our living days. Anti-gays. Anti-abortion. Anti-euthanasia. Anti-drugs. Anti-sex. Anti-deviance. Regardless of if they ever succeed in having their ultimate Christian government, the progression toward it is enough to make me puke.

I'm trying to propose a progression in the other direction, towards a goal where more and more freedoms are given to people so that they may live their own lives how they please without Big Brother breathing down their neck.

As a little aside, I find it ironic that you will find more Christian republicans in areas of spread out residences, where they essentially do have the freedom to do whatever they wish without the authority of the government scrutinizing them. However, in densely populated areas where authority can more easily be asserted, you will find more liberals. Well, perhaps it's not ironic, but an example of struggle.

Manx, if you are asking for my opinion. There is nothing that has been enumerated here that is not simply a core belief. As I indicated, there exists a struggle over core beliefs - nothing more, nothing less.

Halx you are having after election over reaction.

If all 59 million Bush voters were conservative Christian, you might be right, but they arn't. If Bush attempted to set things back to 1850 he would lose both congress and the senate in 2006, making him impotent.

Defining marriage as male+female only MAY well happen, but because it is a majority issue more then a political one. Even people who would not vote Bush still voted for the marriage amendments.

In 2008 you will still be making porn if you want.

seems to me that the biggest discussion here is over too much religion in government.

let me just post some of my feelings about this (quoted from my posts in another forum)

You just managed to ignore everything I said.

You are correct. I overstated. I did not understand Halx's comment. The post he responded to was simply pointing out that evolution is not a liberal concept, it is a scientific concept. That it is questioned so emphatically by many variations of social conservatives does not place it on one side of political polarization.

If you think your freedoms are being eroded in America due to George Bush's policies, think how some of the rest of the world feels because of his tendencies to 'do the right thing.' Actually at times some Americans must get really pissed off since he spends more time running other countries than his own. Kind of like the guy at work who doesn't do his job but has all the time in the world telling you how to do yours.

If you want to change society, then take it to 'the people' and get them to side with those changes. Thats why we have elections. If you expect judges to do it for you, you are in the wrong political system.

Fifty years ago "the people" thought it was okay for blacks to be treated as second class citizens. Today gays have taken their place. It wasn't right back then, and it isn't right now.

Actually you are wrong, with the Supreme Court being final say short of an amendment, judges and lawsuits are the only way for true change to happen. Especially when you have such nasty partisan political games that the only change that will happen is set to thumb it's nose at the "losing" side.

But I'm willing to see what happens within the next 2 years. And I hope I am wrong but I see the GOP trying to take this country backward in almost every aspect. And the Libertarians who voted for Bush and Conservatives who believe in less government need to be ashamed for supporting a man that quite possibly will be making laws on morals left and right.

Of course by setting extremely high fines and changing the laws so fast companies don't have time to adjust, it would be one way to make up for lower taxes.... and you may force some of those "liberal" broadcasting companies to go bankrupt.

The Christian Right owns the Republican party. Anyone who opposes their agenda but voted republican is a tool and deserves to have their rights stripped away.

It's obvious that 'the people' are easily mislead nowadays. And by the way, you guys are here as part of my society, so I'm going to start with you. I'm probably barking up the wrong tree though, because you've managed to sidestep my material completely to this point. Do YOU want to have the responsibility of being the start of a better way of life for everyone? Or are you content to side with the party that pleases your needs and not your neighbors'?

morals aren't bad....and not all freedoms are good. Somewhere there's a balance.

My feelings on this:

Breath this paid for line
Make me see your imagined path
As this road is drawn by writers quill
Fabricated belief is propogandas’ birth
Oh, how you feel my countrys’ ache
A crowd at a time
Tell us plans of future times
Knowing full well, what is the chance
Proclaim your love and show ill will
For such fortitude as needed for my earth
Is beyond your reach to take
And this indeed, is crime

Fail me, as you will
I am but one, amongst this mass
But in the end all will fail
If yours is set to pass