I'm tired of the "Bush will run rampant and oppress me for the next 4 yrs." syndrome

[Sen]

I'm already tired of hearing how Bush will run rampant with his conservative ideolgy and oppress everyone for the next 4 yrs. because he doesn't have to worry about re-election.

Doesn't anyone understand that:

a.) Bush may not be able to run for re-election, but he won't want to go overboard to the extent that he screws it up for whichever Republican does run.

and

b.) Even if he wanted to, and had total disregard for the Party's ability to hold the White House in 4 yrs., there are still the Party leaders in the House and Senate (Some of whom will be considering a run for the White House themselves) that wouldn't allow the President to succeed in an agenda if they ultimately thought it would jeopardize their own re-elections or possible ascention to higher office. (That was one hell of a sentence...geez)

We've survived 2nd term Presidents before...get over it already.

[DelayedReaction]

The problem isn't that he doesn't have to run for reelection, the problem is that he now has a public mandate. The majority of Americans voted for a Republican President, Senate, and House of Representattives. This makes the President's job significantly easier, and will allow him to push many items through the legislature that wouldn't normally make it through because of partisan politics.

Another concern is that as many as four of the Supreme Court Justices are in a position to retire very soon, and that means that Bush may be able to significantly change the dynamic of the Supreme Court. This has many people concerned that abortion may be made illegal, as Bush has repeatedly indicated that the kind of judges he would like are the kind that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

So I think these fears are at least slightly valid.

[ShaniFaye]

Originally Posted by Sen

We've survived 2nd term Presidents before...get over it already.

Yep I made it through 8 years of Clinton without slitting my wrists, leaving the country, or becoming a complete anarchist.

[Cadwiz]

When has any second-term President went totally apeshit?

[irateplatypus]

just let things calm down a bit. i've been slowing down my posting somewhat until the hysterics tamp down. a lot of people had a deep emotional investment in the election... but i'm sure they'll return to a more sober outlook on life soon.

[Sen]

Originally Posted by DelayedReaction

...the problem is that he now has a public mandate. The majority of Americans voted for a Republican President, Senate, and House of Representattives. This makes the President's job significantly easier, and will allow him to push many items through the legislature that wouldn't normally make it through because of partisan politics.

Since when is a public mandate a problem? I thought that was the whole point of representative democracy. As far as I'm concerned, he should be able to use his mandate to accomplish an actual agenda instead of always being bogged down in partisan politics. There shouldn't be anything wrong with that since the majority of Americans elected the Senators and Reps he will have to work with. At the end of the day, however, I don't think either chamber will allow the President to push an agenda that would endanger the viability of the Party in the immediate future.

[roachboy]

we'll have to see what bush does with the cabinet first.

then we'll have to see how he intends to pay back the christian right, which has organizationally already made it clear that they expect to be paid.

we'll have to see how this expectation of payment plays out across supreme court appointments for example.

but at this point, there is nothing obvious that would prevent one from drawing the conclusion that bush will shift further to the right in his second term. but equally as obviously the show has not yet started to drop.

[irateplatypus]

what is meant by "getting paid"? in what way is "getting paid" different from addressing the concerns of your voting constituency?

[prb]

I don't expect any Republicans in Congress to check Bush and his right-wing conservative ideology as applied to policy. Where are the moderate Republicans who would do so? The party has been hijacked by Deep South, bible-thumping, anti-labor fanatics who never have understood why any minority shouldn't bow to majority will and have never met a civil right they respected.

Hang on. The next four years (and probably more) will be very ugly indeed.

[host]

Originally Posted by Sen

Since when is a public mandate a problem? I thought that was the whole point of representative democracy. As far as I'm concerned, he should be able to use his mandate to accomplish an actual agenda instead of always being bogged down in partisan politics. There shouldn't be anything wrong with that since the majority of Americans elected the Senators and Reps he will have to work with. At the end of the day, however, I don't think either chamber will allow the President to push an agenda that would endanger the viability of the Party in the immediate future.

Whatever Bushco does in the next two years, they'll own it. Should be
something to see....if we survive what happens next!

<a href="http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10115579.htm?1c">http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/10115579.htm?1c</a>
"I'm sure millions of Americans voted for George W. under the honest impression that he stands for moral values -- family, patriotism, faith in God. I'm sure it's the Democrats' fault that such a silly ruse is allowed to stand.

What Bush does stand for is nicely summed up by a rather common news story that got stuck on the business pages lately.

In September, Merck & Co., the huge drug manufacturer, pulled Vioxx off the market. Vioxx was a popular painkilling, anti-arthritis drug, but Merck said it was putting patients' safety first. A new study from the Federal Drug Administration showed that high doses of Vioxx triple the risk of heart attack and sudden cardiac death.

From there, the story bifurcates. Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa revealed that the FDA had tried to silence the author of the study: Dr. David Graham, associate director of science in the Office of Drug Safety. Grassley said the FDA first sat on Graham's study and that then he was "ostracized" and "subjected to veiled threats and intimidation."

The Wall Street Journal followed the other fork, finding internal memos from Merck showing that company officials may have been aware of the dangers of Vioxx as long ago as 1996, including a memo apparently instructing its sales reps to "dodge" the question when doctors asked about the cardiac record of Vioxx.

We have a toothless regulatory agency in the pocket of the industry that it is supposed to patrol. We have an administration-wide contempt for science and plain facts.

The allegation against the folks at Merck is that they were making such enormous profits on a drug that killed people that when they knew or suspected that it was killing people, they kept right on selling it. When the information that Merck had known for a long time about Vioxx and heart attacks became public, the company's stock fell by 9.6 percent.

That's the system that Bush stands for -- one in which a corporation can knowingly kill people for profit, and when it finally comes out, everyone knows the penalties will be so light that the company doesn't even lose a tenth of its worth. Hey, just a little bump in the road.

We don't want any of that terrible, burdensome government regulation to control that kind of behavior, do we? We don't want an FDA that listens to its own scientists and acts promptly, do we? We don't want anyone to sue these monster corporations, do we?

If it were possible to compare the odds of an American getting killed by a negligent regulatory agency and rapacious corporate behavior vs. an American getting killed by a terrorist, it would turn out that we need to be a lot more scared of rank greed and its enablers than we do of terrorists. That's not counting what the corps -- that's short for corporations; say it like corpse -- steal and mess up."

[roachboy]

irate: it is pretty much a function of how the demand was phrased. we helped you, you owe us. hardball rhetoric. when i have more time, i'll try to find a link.

because these folk want to play political hardball. and there is nothing standing in the way of their getting paid in full. not from bush. not in a second term. they will go after roe v. wade. they will go after basic civil rights as they pertain to peoepl who happen to be gay. they will get paid. it is a question of how much they will manage that is worrisome.

[aliali]

Wow. It all looks pretty bad, and foreseeable at that. How did we all let this happen? JFKerry was there to save us from all this and we blew it.

[Kadath]

It's not just that Bush got elected, it's that the Republicans soldified their control of Congress and the religious right agenda was given tremendous support by the 11 for 11 defeat of gay marriage on a state level. I do find it funny that "less than half of people who are allowed to vote" is considered a mandate.

[DelayedReaction]

Originally Posted by Sen

Since when is a public mandate a problem? I thought that was the whole point of representative democracy. As far as I'm concerned, he should be able to use his mandate to accomplish an actual agenda instead of always being bogged down in partisan politics. There shouldn't be anything wrong with that since the majority of Americans elected the Senators and Reps he will have to work with. At the end of the day, however, I don't think either chamber will allow the President to push an agenda that would endanger the viability of the Party in the immediate future.

Just because the majority of Americans voted President Bush in doesn't mean I have to enjoy who he is or what he does. It may not be a problem for the majority of Americans, but it's a problem for me. Partisan politics is good; it ensures that the minority opinion is heard and that the end decision is a result of compromise. You'll have to excuse me if I'm not too happy that his agenda will be streamlined, as many of the items in his agenda (particularly related to abortion, sex, science, civil liberties, and many other items) are things I disagree with.

I respect the Office of the President, and I respect that he was elected with a public and electoral mandate. That isn't going to stop me from disagreeing with his policies, or the logic he uses to support them.

[irateplatypus]

Originally Posted by Kadath

It's not just that Bush got elected, it's that the Republicans soldified their control of Congress and the religious right agenda was given tremendous support by the 11 for 11 defeat of gay marriage on a state level.

by your own admission, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman was given tremendous support. if it has tremendous support... when does the issue stop becoming part of the "religious right agenda" and start becoming the national agenda? seems you're cutting off the branch you're standing on.

[mwscircle]

Bush... should um .. forfeit .. .. more money on war less money on scholarship C mon im running low on money ... and having good grade for scholarship... step down plx bush

[Lebell]

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

by your own admission, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman was given tremendous support. if it has tremendous support... when does the issue stop becoming part of the "religious right agenda" and start becoming the national agenda? seems you're cutting off the branch you're standing on.

I happen to be firmly on the side of allowing gays to marry and I would have to agree with this.

The religious right doesn't have enough votes to pass the messures that passed (if they did, abortion would be illegal).

Clearly this is a main stream issue with alot of people, like it or not.

[drawerfixer]

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

by your own admission, defining marriage as being between a man and a woman was given tremendous support. if it has tremendous support... when does the issue stop becoming part of the "religious right agenda" and start becoming the national agenda? seems you're cutting off the branch you're standing on.

I'm personally scared of the "religious right agenda" becoming national agenda. Writing discrimination into the constitution and withholding 1048 rights from homosexuals that are granted to heterosexuals doesn't sit well.

I honestly don't care if 49 states passed anti-homosexuality laws. I would still consider it wrong and do my all to battle against it.

[frogza]

The real problem is that the media has been in feeding frenzy mode for so long that they can't seem to come back to reality, they still hunger for some drama. As usual when things are calm they will take anything, regardless of probablity, and wrok themselves all up. One outlet will start it then another will try and one-up them and so on until: 1) They realize how silly they look (This is the rarest) 2)They get something "real" to frenzy over.

My poor grandma is stuck in her house due to failing health. Thanks to CNN and other big media outlets, she thinks we're on the brink of civil war. She doesn't understand that the responsible journalism of her youth has given way to the sale-your-mother's-soul-for-something-to-run-with journalism of today.

I don't think Bush is going to go nuts, desptite the media's over dramatizing. Even though he won't be running again, he doesn't want to get kicked out by the voice of the people either.

[djtestudo]

Here is an interesting question.

What if Bush, after being re-elected and not having to run again, decides that he doesn't have to "pay back" the religious right, and goes on his own way? Basically having used the evangelicals who won the election for him.

[DDDDave]

1. The President does not select Supreme Court justices.

2. If the President is such a liar, why isn't he lying to the Moral Majority about furthering their agenda? (Ha, ha, jokes on you)

3. Oregon and Illinois, two states that Kerry won, voted overwhelmingly for the gay marriage ban. (Maybe most Dems agree with the ban too.)

[kurty[B]]

Alaska oil drilling back on agenda

Republicans in the House and Senate said this week they plan to push for Alaska refuge drilling legislation early next year, and they predict success, given the 55-44-1 GOP Senate majority in the next Congress. Democrats and some environmental activists say continued protection of the refuge has never been as much in doubt.

<sarcasm>Now that Republicans have the majority I can't wait to see Alaska's beautiful wilderness littered with oil drilling rigs (environmentally safe or no).</sarcasm>

Even though they claim to do it in the name of bringing down oil prices I will not be surprised when oil prices remain the same, and the extra profits sink into some buddy buddy lobbyist's pocket as they search for the next oil rich land to pillage.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by djtestudo

Here is an interesting question.

What if Bush, after being re-elected and not having to run again, decides that he doesn't have to "pay back" the religious right, and goes on his own way? Basically having used the evangelicals who won the election for him.

Then they will be pretty much screwed, because they won't switch to the Democrats.

My parents are hard-core Christian-right, they felt that their only option was to vote for Bush. They have this pre-conceived notion that Roe v. Wade will be overturned (something I think will never happen, regardless of how extreme the president is) with the right candidate in office.

A Democrat was never an option and will never be an option for them and people like them.

They might be a little more picky about who they back though, i.e. someone that has a real history that matches their side/cause.

[KMA-628]

Originally Posted by kurty[B]

Even though they claim to do it in the name of bringing down oil prices I will not be surprised when oil prices remain the same, and the extra profits sink into some buddy buddy lobbyist's pocket as they search for the next oil rich land to pillage.

I am for this, by the way. I don't know about you, but I think we need to do something to get the price of oil down. Also, imagine what it will do to the economy of the Middle East if there is a better and cheaper source of oil for the Western Hemisphere.

People tend to not understand the process for drill/refining/delivering to market. Even if they open up Alaska/Anwar, it will take several years for us to feel the effect (yes, we would feel the effect).

I am surprised we aren't doing more internally in the states. The primary reason for the oil depression was the price. It was cheaper to get it somewhere else than to get it domestically.

With the price as it is, I am really surprised we aren't doing more domestically.

Also, there is a new development coming out of Canada that might further decrease our need for OPEC oil. I forgot the name, but it has to do with a new way of getting oil out of sand (which Canada apparently has a lot of resources for).

[Manx]

Originally Posted by djtestudo

What if Bush, after being re-elected and not having to run again, decides that he doesn't have to "pay back" the religious right, and goes on his own way? Basically having used the evangelicals who won the election for him.

What if the Earth stops rotating?

[guy44]

Originally Posted by DDDDave

1. The President does not select Supreme Court justices.

2. If the President is such a liar, why isn't he lying to the Moral Majority about furthering their agenda? (Ha, ha, jokes on you)

3. Oregon and Illinois, two states that Kerry won, voted overwhelmingly for the gay marriage ban. (Maybe most Dems agree with the ban too.)

1. The President selects Supreme Court Justice nominees. Then they have to be approved by the Senate. But nobody else picks them.

2. The President being a liar doesn't mean that he's lies indiscriminantly. He just lies when it suits him, which happens to be often. And he doesn't need to lie to the Christian Right (moral majority is misleading in at least two ways, see if you can guess what they are!) because they are his base, they will always be voting for him and not Democrats.

3. Oregon did go blue, but passed a gay marriage ban because of the state's odd mixture of civil libertarian values, conservative social mores, and strong conservationist tendencies. I don't know what you are smoking, but Illinois did not ever pass a gay marriage ban, and I'll bet my life savings that it never will.

[adam]

I'm tired of conservatives telling me not to get upset. It isn't as though someone like me is going to listen to advice from a conservative in any case, so you're just flapping your gums.

[roachboy]

what annoys me is that issues that are obvious conservative are now bieng presented as though they are not--anti-gay marriage initiatives are entirely, exclusively the purview of the far right. it is a disgusting issue as well.

i know many many christians who are not of that particular variant of christianity who are not opposed to folk who happen to be gay enjoying the same legal protections as anyone else.

the position is simply not one shared by other-than conservative folk--it is not identical with christianity as a whole...it is a particular position, advanced by particular people with a particular agenda in mind.

apparently emboldened in deatchment from reality by the conflating of a 3% margin with a vast popular mandate, folk from the right are now busily trying to act as though particular elements of their particular politics are somehow national issues.

[JimmyTheHutt]

I still think the concerns over the next four years are fairly valid. Admittedly, it's what the majority of the population seems to want (order, security and moral authority over freedom), but it's still pretty contrary to the principles the nation was founded on.

The problem is consists of three things. First, he has a solid majority in both House and Senate, ensuring fairly easy passage of his proposed legislation. Second, some of the Supreme Court Justices are primed for retirement, and his majority in the House and the Senate allow him to push forward candidates that are more likely to go along with his agenda. Third, this is what America wants, or at least 51% of it. They aren't going to complain too loudly about what he does. Even if they do, what can they really do about it at this point? Bush is a firm believer in the conservative christian agenda. I'm fairly certain he will push it forward pretty heavily. Given that is what his base wants, they will support whoever is chosen as his successor. I doubt the GOP primary race will be very interesting in 2008 as most of them will fall in line rather than rock the boat. They are all getting what they want, so a full change of administration is not likely unless it is even more in line with what they want. The more moderate side of the GOP house (of which there are VERY few these days) will shrink even farther, and those that don't fall in line (like John McCain) are going to be severly marginilized over the next term.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

[sailor]

Originally Posted by JimmyTheHutt

I still think the concerns over the next four years are fairly valid. Admittedly, it's what the majority of the population seems to want (order, security and moral authority over freedom), but it's still pretty contrary to the principles the nation was founded on.

Precisely. Just because he won the election doesnt mean one can no longer be concerned about his policies. And just because he won the election and its what the people want also doesnt mean its the right thing either--dont forget, Hitler was legally elected.

*That is NOT to compare him to Hitler--dont twist my words or meanings. What it is is an example that the will of the people is not necessarily always a good thing.

[Boo]

Originally Posted by kurty[B]

Alaska oil drilling back on agenda



<sarcasm>Now that Republicans have the majority I can't wait to see Alaska's beautiful wilderness littered with oil drilling rigs (environmentally safe or no).</sarcasm>

Even though they claim to do it in the name of bringing down oil prices I will not be surprised when oil prices remain the same, and the extra profits sink into some buddy buddy lobbyist's pocket as they search for the next oil rich land to pillage.

I was born and raised on Colorado. I enjoy the Alaska Wilderness a WHOLE BUNCH. I also want Alaska to have economic growth. The trickle down theory would affect the lower 48 also. We would need steel, supplies, etc....

I am for opening ANWR to exploration. Lets find out what is in the ground and then determine if/when to open it to actual production. An informed decision is based on facts, not emotion. A large majority of Alaskans want this to happen.

I cannot wait for the greenies to get wind of all the mining that is in the near future.

I also find it hard to digest when someone from one of the polluted states has objections to an Alaskan enterprise. When I was in NC they polluted the Neuse/Trent River System so bad the fish would die 500,000 at a time! Maybe we should start telling them to stop hog, chicken, turkey, and other agricultural farming. Do you think that would effect their economy?

We have alot to lose if we trash our state. Why would we allow it to happen.

The profits statement makes me wonder if you want anyone to make money. I read it alot in these forums. Yes, people make money off of large projects, they also risk alot of their money.

[onetime2]

Originally Posted by host

Whatever Bushco does in the next two years, they'll own it. Should be
something to see....if we survive what happens next!

Blaming the Bush administration for the FDA and Vioxx? Please. Utterly ridiculous. The FDA is nowhere near "in the pockets of the industry" and is a tougher critic of pharmaceutical testing and US drug firm practices than any other organization on earth.

The US is probably the most difficult market to get drug approvals in and yet your article decries the regulators as being coerced. The facts fly in complete opposition to the story you posted.

You want to complain about the whole methodology of drug testing, I'm right there with you. Pharma companies use carefully chosen panels of patients that are not representative of the patient population at large and base their tests on, at most, maybe a thousand or two patients. Inevitably you are going to see drugs proven to be dangerous when the number of people exposed to them is enlarged to the xth power. And yet the rigors here in the US are far greater than what we see in the rest of the world. But attempting to place the blame on the Bush administration is downright dishonest and flawed.

[JimmyTheHutt]

Originally Posted by sailor

Precisely. Just because he won the election doesnt mean one can no longer be concerned about his policies. And just because he won the election and its what the people want also doesnt mean its the right thing either--dont forget, Hitler was legally elected.

*That is NOT to compare him to Hitler--dont twist my words or meanings. What it is is an example that the will of the people is not necessarily always a good thing.

Not at all. I think you make an excellent point. It's like the quote from Men In Black, "A person is smart. People are dumb." Unfortunately, many people have forgotten the words of one of the Founders: Those who would trade Liberty for Security will receive and deserve neither. Or something to that effect anyway.

Do I really believe that things will go completely crazy over the next four years? No. But I do feel that Bush and the fundamentalist Christian agenda are in position to make some serious changes to the way things work in this country. The FCC is already doing some of their work for them. The Patriot Act and Patriot II both work to keep people in line. I'm sure that these people believe that its for a good cause (at least some of them), but what they are trying to achieve cannot be brought about by legislation, fines, and intimidation.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

[JimmyTheHutt]

Originally Posted by onetime2

Blaming the Bush administration for the FDA and Vioxx? Please. Utterly ridiculous. The FDA is nowhere near "in the pockets of the industry" and is a tougher critic of pharmaceutical testing and US drug firm practices than any other organization on earth.

Absolutely true. But there is a certain political factor involved in some of these drug approvals and disapprovals. No government organization can escape those clutches, despite the numerous number of altruistic people working for them and the intensity of their efforts.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

[cbr9racr]

Wow. Just wow. I'm really new to the forums, and its hard for me to believe how differently people view the same circumstances, depending on party.

I support the president. Is he perfect? No. Was Kerry perfect? No again. But Bush represents MORE of what I think our country needs...common sense "realistic" policies. Is religion bad for government? Hell no. Look what it did for our countries origin!

** I am NOT religious at all, but I think America needs a little more religion. Have you seen MTV lately? Jesus.

If you don't think Bush has a mandate, have you seen the breakdown of red and blue states by county? Take a look:

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/show...roduct_ID=1737

Geographically, America has REALLY spoken. Sure, the "urban" areas went blue, but it makes me smile to see THAT much red.

>>>Admittedly, it's what the majority of the population seems to want (order, security and moral authority over freedom), but it's still pretty contrary to the principles the nation was founded on.<<<

LOL. Yeah, yer right....(chaos, insecurity, and immorality) is what this country needs. This DOES sound more like on what the country was founded. Huh? Is this what you believe? It seems to me that too many people are bashing Bush just to bash, whether or not something he stands for actually makes sense. Its a sad day.

[JimmyTheHutt]

Originally Posted by cbr9racr

Wow. Just wow. I'm really new to the forums, and its hard for me to believe how differently people view the same circumstances, depending on party.

It's not always a matter of party. I was a Republican before I was able to vote. However, recent views of the party's platform and agenda have caused me to become independent. It's not the party which makes the difference, its what each individual values. I value my privacy and personal freedom to do what I want, watch what I want, and say what I want, more than I value the government's ability to keep me safe.

Originally Posted by cbr9racr

I support the president. Is he perfect? No. Was Kerry perfect? No again. But Bush represents MORE of what I think our country needs...common sense "realistic" policies. Is religion bad for government? Hell no. Look what it did for our countries origin!

More than anything, money made this country what it is. SOME of the colonies (like Massachusetts) were founded by Puritanical religous organizations trying to avoid the Anglican Church. After all, those organizations had lost a conflict with the Royalists and really didn't want to be around that. Other colonies were formed as business opportunities, while others were formed as penal colonies. More than anything, the one thing in common in the actual founding of this nation (not in the origins of the colonies) was the desire for freedom. That is why 13 colonies of disparate origins, beliefs, and economic systems were able to do what they did. Despite the use of the word "God" in the official documents of the day (like the Consitution) the more important and consistent point they stress are the RIGHTS that free people posses.

Therefore, Religon is certainly bad for THIS government. Not all of the people in this nation are Christian, and it is a violation of the founding principles of this nation to make them so through legislation. The First Amendment to the Constitution says "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." This means that legislating one religon into government policy is a violation. Violating these principles, which are what make this nation something once admired, is dangerous and wrong.

Originally Posted by cbr9racr

** I am NOT religious at all, but I think America needs a little more religion. Have you seen MTV lately? Jesus.

Nope, but that's because I don't watch Television. Its generally pretty stupid regardless of the aim of the content. And remember, just because you find something offensive does not give you the right to decide for the rest of us that it is. That's why there is an off button.

Originally Posted by cbr9racr

If you don't think Bush has a mandate, have you seen the breakdown of red and blue states by county? Take a look:

http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/show...roduct_ID=1737

Geographically, America has REALLY spoken. Sure, the "urban" areas went blue, but it makes me smile to see THAT much red.

LOL. Yeah, yer right....(chaos, insecurity, and immorality) is what this country needs. This DOES sound more like on what the country was founded. Huh? Is this what you believe? It seems to me that too many people are bashing Bush just to bash, whether or not something he stands for actually makes sense. Its a sad day.

Belief is immaterial. I can look it up in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. I am not bashing Bush just to bash. I strongly disagree with the direction he inteds to take this country in, and I'm not alone. Admittedly, I am in the minority. However, the marvelous thing about the Consitution and The Bill of Rights is that, because of it, I have the right to say so without being shot by the government. This nation, created by the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution are based on the right of every citizen to the pursuit of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness". Morality enters into it only so far as causing harm to others. If my activities do not cause harm to another, then I should have the right to pursue them, be it watching porn, playing violent video games, etc. It does not guarantee the right for other citizens or the government to tell me what I can and cannot do. Liberty is a precious gift, and once surrendered, nearly impossible to recover. This is the fundamental reason why I disagree with Bush's agenda. Do I think he is wrong for believing what he does? Not at all. I think he is wrong for trying to force me to behave in what he deems is an acceptable manner. It's also why I disagree with the majority of the country at this point. They do feel its acceptable for him to do so. They have the right to believe that. If they want to live their lives in the way he wishes, they are perfectly willing to do so. They do NOT have the right to make me do so. They are willing to surrender Liberty for Security. In the end they will have neither. Because of this, Bush's agenda is not something that "makes sense for once". Its overall aim of making America a better place to be will fail because at the end, we will have surrendered our Freedom, and still be just as unsafe as we were before 9/11. It costs to much for achieving too little.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

[guy44]

Originally Posted by cbr9racr

Geographically, America has REALLY spoken. Sure, the "urban" areas went blue, but it makes me smile to see THAT much red.

I guess its too bad the founding fathers thought that the president should be elected by the people, not geographic localities.

Yeah, yeah, I know EC and everything, but I'm trying to make a point here. All that red doesn't mean a thing. It's all about the population baby.

[JimmyTheHutt]

Originally Posted by guy44

I guess its too bad the founding fathers thought that the president should be elected by the people, not geographic localities.

Yeah, yeah, I know EC and everything, but I'm trying to make a point here. All that red doesn't mean a thing. It's all about the population baby.

Unfortunately, the population has spoken. What they desire is more order and more enforced morality. Even by popular vote, George W. Bush was re-elected.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

[boatin]

Originally Posted by Lebell

I happen to be firmly on the side of allowing gays to marry and I would have to agree with this.

The religious right doesn't have enough votes to pass the messures that passed (if they did, abortion would be illegal).

Clearly this is a main stream issue with alot of people, like it or not.

And if interracial marriage had been subject to a vote in the 20s (or the 50s, for that matter), the population would have been overwhelmingly against that, too.

This is the aspect of this vote that makes my head hurt. I see interracial marriage in the early days of last century as perfectly analagous to gay marriage. I have yet to see anyone attempt to explain how (aside from obvious physical factors) the arguments agains gay marriage are any different from the arguements against interracial marriage.

Anyone want to take a crack at it here?


The majority can be wrong.

[cbr9racr]

Originally Posted by boatin

The majority can be wrong.

Actually, in a democracy, the majority cannot be wrong. Its the majority that decides what is right or wrong. If a judge rules against the majority, he/she can be replaced, possibly resulting (eventually) in the overturning of that ruling. Its just that easy.