Astonished at the election result

Try spinning the two parties in that little scenario 180º, just for giggles. It sounds very familiar to me.

Any idiot can see the problem with that statement. There *is* no such thing as a "non-partisan observer".

"Morbo congratulates our gargantuan cyborg president. May death come quickly to his enemies!"

--Morbo

You state that "Most non-partisan observers agree the Democratic Party’s prescriptions for the country more closely match the polity’s economic and practical interests."

The problem with that statement is that the election just proved it wrong.

Also... "present a factual issue-based position"... you really think that the Democrat Campaign Machine presented facts? The campaign was two-pronged: "W bad" and "I have a plan"... never did we hear what the plan was and the reasons Bush was bad turned out to be nothing but half-truths, exagerations, or flat-out lies.

BTW, just so's ya know, I voted for three Republicans, 5 Democrats, a Libertarian and an Independent on my ballot. I subscribe to no party, i just vote my heart and mind.

What really astonishes me is that it's over. I am glad that it was a decisive enough victory that we did not have to go through all the crap we did four years ago.

 Eudimorphodon wrote:

You're wrong, there are many observers who've offered intelligent, thoughtful and non-partisan commentary on this contest. Perhaps y'all might want to widen your horizons a tad. Fox News, MSNBC and CNN do not the political-observation-world make!

In any case, my argument assumes a larger knowledge of the world, and of the historical nature of the US's two major political parties. To base one's Presidential choice on the ridiculous campaign rhetoric from both sides defies common sense. The Republican party is not and never will be the party of the working person. Yeah, my opinion, having paid considerable attention to national issues since I first voted in 1978.

How many AF-ites saw any real benefit from Bush's much vaunted tax cut? A few dollars here or there, but to the very wealthy those tax cuts were worth literally billions. Who pays the piper in the end? Why all us working class taxpayers, that's who.

And take that Iraq war, folks! Please! {badda bing!} Seriously, who doesn't recognize how badly it's gone, and and how much more it's gonna cost, both in US soldier's lives and our hardearned tax dollars. Eh?? Well, apparently ol' GWB thinks it's going swimmingly well . . . don't you? Mistakes? Hah hah hah, he laughs at the thought!

How much more reality can y'all avoid before it comes dumping down on your head? I guess we're gonna find out aren't we, over the next four years.

And Eudi . . . yoose callin' me an idiot?

dan k

Dude my friend dave's dad was and is going back over to Iraq and he said what the news shows is not everything that goes on there. The news programs only show mostly bad points of the war cause the failures of the war make better tv than all the good points will.
if they olny showed positives and not negatives thay would lose there ever so important rateings.

Rev D wrote:

That's precisely my point, logic didn't determine the outcome, emotion did, in spite of logic.

Rev D also wrote:

It is to laugh! To think you got your information about Bush's incompetence from political ads only reinforces my point. Those who saw just this campaign's rhetoric and not the larger picture were dreadfully ill-informed! How about incorporating some historical perspective, eh?

I forget now who said this (Mussolini?), and I'll have to paraphrase:

"Socialism is government controlling industry, fascism is industry controlling government."

Things have been rather more like the latter since the GOP took the White House in 2000. And now we can look forward to four more years of more of the same.

Anyone still buying that old hoary chestnut "What's good for GM is good for America!"?

Hey look, I know I'm not going to sway anyone's opinions. I'm really just venting. Four more years of that smirking halfwit lapdog of industry in the White House is tough to contemplate.

dan k

Balderdash. It sounded intelligent, thoughtful, and non-partisan to you because you agreed with it.

Quote:

And Eudi . . . yoose callin' me an idiot?

No, but I am saying you have an opinion, and you're deluding yourself into thinking you didn't by making the bigoted assumption that your opinion was "indisputably correct", and thus the only "reasonable" and "intelligent" position. Which in addition to being delusional is insulting to the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you.

I'm not going to bother offering rebuttals to any of your specific "factual" gripes, other then note that, believe it or not, there are good, rational reasons with sound intellectual footing for laughing at all of them.

Incedentally, I don't listen to CNN's political commentary. I do occassionally read "The National Review". I don't agree with all of it, but it's generally intelligent, thoughtful, and makes absolutely no pretense of being non-partisan. Something I find refreshing, frankly.

Vent all you want, I'm sure you're entitled. You might just want to keep in mind that every time you resort to calling the majority of the American public "Idiots" who "Should know better!" you undermine your intellectual position, your claim to "rationality", and your chances of swaying the electorate your way the next time around. Nobody likes a sore loser.

--Peace

P.S. (edit) Frankly, your posts read like an impeachment of the entire democratic process. Why should we allow the idiots out there in the electorate interfere with the decisions of a "properly informed and non-partisan" Technocracy? Clearly they're too simpleminded, too emotional, too easily swayed by political rhetoric to be trusted to help determine the country's destiny by voting. Obviously everything would be better if we just had a self-annointed intellectual elite making all the calls.

Anyway.

Your post reminds me of the famous quote attributed to Pauline Kael, former film critic for the NY Times. Upon learning of Nixon's victory over McGovern in '72, she reportedly exclaimed "Nixon can't have won; Nobody I know voted for him."

This caused wide ridicule and is an excellent example of the need to hang out with a wide variety of people.

A ratio of about 2 to 1 Canadians supported Kerry.
Why? Hell if I know. The man is a protectionist and would likely have made trade between our two countries that much more difficult - for Canada, I mean.

As I've said before, I'm no fan of Bush now, but Kerry...

Frankly, I found the man to be an empty shirt. Even the Democrats didn't seem to be able to identify with him, because there really was no John Kerry...he was just some shell that vomited up whatever the polls seemed to be saying, even if contradicted what he'd said before. He's probably the only pro-choice Catholic. Now, Bush, and in fact all politicians do this to an extent, that's the nature of the politics, but I never heard anything from Kerry that sounded remotely like it was his own idea, or anything that he really believed strongly in without making some exception when challenged. The whole Democrat campaign ran on dislike for Bush, rather than on its own ideology or platform. It's not a 'working man's' party, it's nothing but an anti-republican party.

Dankephoto, I'm a bit surprised by the strength of your convictions. After all, the two parties aren't exactly radically different in practice. Kerry made his own statements about the possibility of going into Iraq right up to election. His only caveats were that he would have the operation more closely tied with the UN.

Me. I work for a small computer software company here in Texas. I have seen three raises in my pay in the last four years, and only one of them was from my job. The other two were due to tax cuts. My company is paying significantly less taxes, which means I may get a bonus of about an iMac this year. Also, the owner of the company is paying less in taxes, and therefore more inclined to put more money back into the company and match a greater percentage of the 401(k) contributions, which he has already agreed to do based on the election. He's one of those "wealthy" that you mentioned and if it were not for him, I wouldn't have a house, two dogs, a nice car, food, etc.

Regarding war:

I don't like the idea of war. I never have. But I never once assumed that war would not be necessary, would not be messy, would not be quick. Here's what I have to say about war:

In the eight years of the Clinton Administration, there were 7 terrorist attacks. We got two jail sentences.

In the four years of the Bush Administration, there was one terrorist attack. We have killed many of Al Quaeda, the Taliban, and the Baathists. We have freed two countries, and are on the way to freeing more.

So there. I'm done. You can PM me to continue.

It's incorrect to interpret my words as implying I think all those "red" folks should have someone else make the choice for them. I merely (!!) lament the failure of the Democratic Party to provide as compelling a sales pitch as did the Republican Party. What's gone so wrong with the national Democratic Party where they failed so miserably?!?!

Along this line, NY Times OpEd writer Nicholas Kristof distilled the difference between the partys' approaches - "...Democrats peddle issues, and Republicans sell values."

http://nytimes.com/2004/11/03/opinion/03kris.html
- (mirrored here as a text file):
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dankephoto/files/vote_rich.txt

re: my forceful convictions

Perhaps those who see only the surface consider the two parties practically interchangable, however there are many real and considerable differences. IMO these differences are significant and important.

I guess I must be part of what many would consider to be a cultural elite, if that means I'm a thoughtful, educated open-minded person who applies a modicum of thought to my choices. Funny how the uneducated/unthoughtful consider knowledge, thought and tolerence to be elite.

dan k

. . . your quote summed it up nicely. Everything from D.C. to Boston is one big suburban bedroom community and support infrastructure for NYC. If you don't believe me, just fly into the Big Apple at night. The liberal folks in NY and the Northeast just can't get it thru their heads that the rest of the country can have well thought out, logical positions that are 180° away from the op-ed pages of the NYTimes.

You'd think that after dealing with upstate for so many years, they'd have a clue, but nooooooooo!

. . . whatever!

What I found most interesting about the election results was that the folks who were worried about the war, the economy and were "generally" younger voted for Kerry in droves. However, those actually old enough to have lived thru several wars and cycles of recurring campaign "promises" to mend a cyclic economy were "generally" more concerned with terrorism, moral values and voted for Bush in equivalent numbers.

Just food for thought.

jt

..but here is the caveat to all of this. This thing, this process, these arguements are what the framers and the founders had in mind when they built this country. Open, public debate of the issues and facts is one of the greatest political freedoms we are afforded under the Constitution and under a multi-party system that really does work, when unimpeded by blatant whining and crying about how unfair some election snafu or lack of understanding of how the voting process works. The real truth is that there are winners and losers in every contest, so acknowledge, move on, and don't whine about it.

I voted for Bush. I am proud that I did. I have many many friends in the military--I work in northern Tennessee, near Ft. Campbell, KY--home of the 101st Airborne. They are proud to serve and 99% of them voted for Bush. They are not simply voting from emotion--but they are the real movers and shakers of this war, and they know which candidate would have their backs when the s**t goes down. Judging by Kerrys performance in front of Congress way back when, I would guess that the only reason that he would even know where their backs are is so that he would know where to stick the knife...but I digress...

Here's the thing--the American people are not automatons. As crazy as this country can be, its people are capable of voting and making decisions using their hearts AND minds, using emotion as well as logic, balancing the two and figuring out what's best for them. I guess the bottom line is more of us saw what we needed--emotionally and logically-- in Bush than in Kerry. In reality, on some of the "hot button" issues they really have not been that far apart, no matter how much Kerry spun his views to the left. Both oppose gay marriage--not that I agree with them; in fact that was what made it a harder decision for me than I thought it would be. They both support the war in Iraq--take a look back at what Kerry said when the war started for his mildly "un-spun" statements. They disagreed on economic issues but when in the histories of both parties have they ever been together on that issue anyway? And don't get started on tax issues for the wealthy Dankephoto--the richest one percent of americans carry a HUGE percentage of the tax burden for this country. If the idea should be that when someone is wildly successful with an idea/process etc. that they put their blood, sweat and tears into to make it work, the government should immediately and without remorse take it away from them in HUGE chunks simply because they can, then what incentive are they providing for people who want to crawl out of the morass of mediocrity to become the next Bill Gate(sorry AF) or Steve Jobs? Well, I guess for example they are taking those huge chuncks of money from the "haves" and doling them out in bits and pieces to the "have-nots"--why buy the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" cow when they can get the "ill gotten government gains from the people who stretched those bootstraps to their limits" milk for free?

Dankephoto, the fact that you have been voting since '78 does not make you expert in politcs--it simply means that you have been voting longer! Strom Thurmond voted for..well, longer than most humanoids ever do--did that make him the go-to guy for advice on the why's and the for whom's of the voting process? There is no right or wrong answer--except to the person who has to make the decision.

Anyway, don't mean to be the polemicist of this thread. Just wanted to put this out there.
Oh, and one more thing...
...way to go "Dubya"!

Peace

jt wrote:

And another thing, those who live in America's "heartland" probably fail to understand the fantastic variety of culture and experience in immigrant-rich metropolitan areas. Whenever I step out into middle America I'm struck by its monoculture. I think this may be a key to understanding the different result from center to coasts.

re: Gotta say I agree with with ya, Rev..

jamie37187 wrote:

Well put, and so very obviously true.

dan k

I believe that the word that best describes your comments is "elitist" not "elite".

Or perhaps "effete psuedo-intellectual elitist"?

I am going back and forth between the two--wow, I have never related to Kerry more than now. If only the election were today! Maybe I can sue to have it moved? Hmmm...

...must be all that tolerant culturedness clogging up the works.

Love the choice you made in the part of my comments to quote. clever, and typically soundbyte-esque.

BTW, the NYT is perhaps the most liberal paper in the country, but they still know that circulation has to stay up, hence the inclusion of the token Conservatives.

Anyway, gotta go to that Bush victory party we thought would have to wait for..well, at least ten days!

Let's not get insulting here! =8-/

IIRC, the most entertaining example of cultural elitism would have to be New York Magazine, the writers for which shamelessly hype the lifestyles of the actual "elite" while none of them could ever afford to actually live that kind of lifestyle. LOL!

As for the NYTimes, it's obviously and perhaps overwhelming, if not uniformly, liberal in its op-ed slant. Those who read it regularly and cannot conceive of it as such would be the NYProvincials of which I spoke.

Look, dude, your conclusions based on what you *think* NY Magazine implies would be similar to me making references about your locale based on viewing "Dukes of Hazzard" or "Deliverance." Or "Fargo." Or whatever. The fact is you don't know Jack about NYC and maybe you might find some other lightning rod for that ill-concieved and badly articulated "Liberal" reactionary swill. I'm really trying to stay out of this. I don't care about the rest of the country. New York City really isn't part of America and that's just jake with me.

Do you even bother to read back what you've written? If you think you come across as "tolerant", "open-minded", and "thoughtful", ("thoughtful" defined as: "

1. Engrossed in thought; contemplative.
2. Exhibiting or characterized by careful thought
3. Having or showing heed for the well-being or happiness of others and a propensity for anticipating their needs or wishes.

), you're sadly mistaken. To a casual observer the words "bigoted", "elitist", and "angry" seem more descriptive.

Seriously. Calm down, read what you've written, and try to understand how rediculous you look. You basically have made clear that you can't possibly accept that someone could have an intellegent reason to disagree with you, and thus the only reason someone might possibly do so is that:

A: They're stupid
B: They're gullible
C: They're malicious

(pick one or more)

If you really believe that's how the world works, then it's your prerogative to keep on believing it, of course. But it makes you look like a fool. Further, that attitude is guarunteed to leave you marginalized in any debate you undertake, since, well, everyone knows there's no point arguing with a fool.

(Which is why this is the last thing I'm adding to this thread.)

Look, you just have to let it go, and accept that perfectly reasonable and open-minded people are going to disagree from time to time. If they didn't, then the world would be a pretty uninteresting place.

--Peace

Ahem . . . . . . I just moved out of NYC after having lived there, worked in, and then run a business in Chelsea and later in the Meat Market from long before either were "hot" areas. My own family (ex & son) and ex-in-laws are all die-hard, Times reading NYC liberals and I've been thru this same discussion countless times with them. I have read the Times and New York Magazine as well as the Post and Daily News for many years and know well of what I speak, thank you very much.

Before that, I lived in Endicott and then Syracuse, so I'm also familiar with upstate NY.

jt

Obviously not.

..and the cynics come in...

Let's start off by taking all the lawyers, and use them as an alternative fuel source. This would alleviate the dependency on foreign oil.

Next, let's take our troops, pull them out and then carpet-bomb them f*$%er with nukes. Screw them iff they cannot take a joke!

Next establish a firm foreign policy involving swift action and extreme prejudice in specific regard to any entity that infringes upon the civil rights of any US citizen - meaning we go in, get them out, and bystanders be dammed. If enough folkks are killed (non US citizens) in the recovery and rescue of our citizens, perhaps folks will be less inclined to take them as barganing chips.

But we cannot stop there. We have too many ignorant celebrities trying to push their political views onto the common man. Incidentally (and this is a proven fact), the more vocal ones are also the ones with poor education records, haven never gone past high school and in some cases, never hacing finished. The ones having attended some college and holding debrees from said are surprisingly less vocal about their political views. These folks are merely entertainers and worth nothing more outside of that context. They are handsomely rewarded for the job the do, but if anyone really cared about their personal opinion, they would be in public office. 'Ah-nahld' is a good example of a successful cross-over, obvioulsy someone was interested in his point of view, but the Sean Penns of the world need to have a Coke and a smile and shut the f*%& up.

Now, having cleared the air a little, lets take a look at the borders. Anyone over the age of 25 should be very hard pressed to justify their application for a 'student visa'. Anyone caught crossing our borders should be congratulated for their good work and perserverance and then sent home with a pen and an application for a travel visa. No exceptions.

The price of bullets should be raised to $5000/bullet. The extreme cost would help ensure anyone who wants to kill someone will be very serious about it. Not practical, but a good start.

The legal drinking age should be aligned with the legal age to vote and serve in the military. If you are old enough to contribute to the decision making process and old enough to die for this land, then you desrve a good stiff drink at your leisure.

Taxes should be flat 10% regardless, no exceptions (save for justifiable tax-exempt entities as understood today). The very rich should pay no more than 10%, it is not fair to punish someone for being successful and achieveing the 'American Dream'. The very poor should be strongly encouraged to get off of public funding, taxed 10% on their earnings, and limited to how long they can be on the dole. I have first hand experience with too many individuals whom have had more children to get more money and set their ambitions no higher than to just 'get by' and in the process hurt the programs designed to help others I have seen really try to better themselves.

Minorities should not be called so. These people are Americans living in America and are not minorities. Giving someone special treeatment and privilege due to some archaic throw-back too less enlightened times helps no one. Moving on and not repeating the past is the only right action. It is an ill-concieved idea at best to no offer formal apologies and even financial retribution for ills a century-plus old. No one alive today was a slave, nor owned slaves. Yet our payment for the ills of our past and discriminations against others of foreign descent will extend to the third and fourth generation. There should be laws against treating people unfairly due to things they cannot help (race, creed, sex), but they should never be given special advantage because of such. Specifcally, I speak of racial quotas and gender balanced employment practices. I am trying to start my own company, and if the listed owner is a feamle of African descent, the loans and grants will flow much better than if the listed owner is a male of caucasian descent. Other ethnicites vary in between.

--Take note that I have never disclosed my ethnic background (could be Hispanic, Scottish, African, anything, or a mix), or the time at which my citizenship began (could be birth, could be this year). Consequently, anyone who wishes to take my remarks in a 'biggoted' context will lack the fundamental, foundational anchor to justify my position as being shallow and easily dismissed as hateful.--

And gay marraige. Oh boy, that's a prickly pear! Plain and simple, marraige is one man plus one woman and no church should recognize anything other than that. If two people of the same sex wish to join in a legally sanctioned bond, fine, they should be entitled to a civil-union. But do not call it a marraige. Homo-sexuals are entitled to every right as hetero-sexuals. Marraige is not a 'right', it is a 'rite', a Holy Sacrament. I am all in favor of civil unions for this purpose (as well as heteo couples seeking a non-church 'wedding'). But do not twist the definition of marraige to use it as a blanket term to justify unions.

But these are just my humble opinions. I will not monitor this post for replies, or retorts, nor will I seek the outcome of this thread. But thanks for reading if you made it this far!

--DDTM

Obviously not? How so? Because you disagree with my opinions?

Remember to keep it civil, gang!

jt

Did I call anyone here an idiot or stupid? If the shoes fit wear 'em, but I certainly didn't intend them for anyone here. I was surprised though how many took my remarks personally. Please be assured any insults intended toward me are not taken.

I have found the reactions to this thread very instructive. I'm still struggling to understand how others don't see what appears plain to me, however I acknowledge my POV is only one of many. I'm quite sure of my own POV, but I accept I need to better understand those of the loyal opposition.

thank you for all your input,

dan k

If I was in a situation that I was fearing for my life of someone who wanted to blow me up to get a US Soldier killed, I would rather not know what is happening to me when I was killed. Then we can start over in the country. (we could give it to the Kurds which Hussein was trying to get rid of.)

The problem with this is that if OUR government falls and another country invades, We would have now way of being able to defend ourselves if we have no way of being able to keep a stash..

Here, here. If I was in the military and got shot and wanted to taste wine before I die, I bet lawyers would jump out and prosecute me for under-aged drinking. In Europe, I don't believe they do have a drinking age. (you can correct me if I am wrong!) But the problem here is the industry pushing it on minors as "drinking is fun" and "If I drink, I'll be able to F^ck all night long" They are the ones at fault for the the curtail on drinking.

I also believe that the the taxes should be the same for everyone. However, there should be a point that if you earn x amount of money, then they should withdraw 1% extra and give it to charities, like helping fund hospitals with mental patients instead of them getting put on the street where their life quality would be $#!4.

The minority excuse is a way the minorities can cop-out with their responsibility on helping making the world better. My Mom teached at a deaf school and her kids say

I hate to say this. In true Psychology, Homo-sexual is not a natural thing. It is a learned behaviour and is learned through society. It is not part of the natural reproductive nature, because if animals don't do it, Humans shouldn't do it either. I shudder at the thought of having to say the words "Mr. and Mr. Smith" or "Mrs. and Mrs. Smith." You can be a homosexual, but don't push your opinions onto people who find it offensive. If I were married, I wouldn't go and push the fact I'm married and you should accept it.
Churches should be condemned for allowing gay's to be married "under" God.

I have said my piece and won't go any farther

I was gonna post the classic "Arguing on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics" image. But I think you get the idea.

... is a joke, right? You're kidding, aren't you? You can't be serious. Yes?

In case you are serious...

While many people experiment sexually at certain points in their lives, homosexuality in general is not a choice. It's just who people are. And "true psychology" doesn't say homosexuality isn't natural, and hasn't said so for more than 30 years.

And if animals don't do it humans shouldn't either? Animals don't reason, or pray to God, or drive cars, or have sex when they're not in heat, or watch porn on the internet. Humans do all those things, and a heck of a lot more.

You can shudder all you want at saying "Mr. and Mr. Smith," but you shouldn't worry about it, because gay and lesbian couples are not likely to associate with someone as obviously homophobic as you.

And as for SSI, well, SSI doesn't provide anyone with enough money to live on. Lots of people have problems that prevent them from holding steady jobs, and if you want to blame those people for their problems, fine. But it's not SSI and other government benefits that are keeping them from working.

Finally, I shouldn't even have to say this, but just for your benefit, I'll clarify that I'm heterosexual myself.

Matt

The New York Times is not liberal. If there's any consistent and obvious editorial slant in the NYT, it's got to do with Isreal, and more generally with a center-right brand of Zionism. (And before anyone goes calling me an anti-Semite, let me say that I'm Jewish.)

As for "token" conservatives, this too is just bunk. The NYT has regular columnists who are conservative, and has for years (William Safire, anyone?).

What the NYT is, is urban, urbane, relatively upscale, and cosmopolitan. Neoconservative politics in the US in the last 30-odd years has equated these characteristics with liberalism, and liberalism has in turn been equated with moral bankruptcy and political naivete. This shift has not come as a result of a conspiracy, but nor has it been a "natural" shift. It began in some ways with Goldwater in '64 and the West Coast evangelicals he energized, but in my opinion it really got going with Nixon's Southern Strategy in '68, when he used conservative populism (including racism) to break the South apart from the Democratic coalition of which it had been a part since the days of FDR's New Deal. VP Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism" speeches of the time ('68), in which he slammed the east coast establishment and the media elite, are probably the seminal moment for this development in terms of an explicit paper trail.

At any rate, survey after survey has shown that the working press are about as liberal/conservative as the American public in general--and there is no liberal/left counterpart to something like FOX TV, which is unabashedly rightwing and has a huge nationwide audience.

If you want a liberal publication, you should check out _The Nation_. That's liberal. The NYT is not liberal or conservative in any consistent or intentional way.

Matt

Hmmm. 51 to 48 percent would indicate that YOU represent the opposition. Anyway, the words "appears plain to me" and "quite sure of my POV" show your opinion. A democracy as large as the USA will have have quite the variety of cultural views, and this is what not so much re-elected President Bush as voted against Senator Kerry. I traveled a lot this past year and I sensed a lot of fear of a Kerry Administration. Sure, Bush has made some mistakes, but no politician will admit that in an election year. Bush was right to invade IRAQ. Not just to get rid of Hussien, but to surround IRAN, the real nuclear threat. Let's see, now with Iraq to the west, Turkey and Armenia to the north, and Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan to the east, we have IRAN, who yesterday celebrated the hostage situation of 1979 and burned American flags and effigies of Bush, completeley surrounded. You never hear much about Iran, ruled by Ayatolllahs and 3 times the size of Iraq, with a UN confirmed nuclear weapons program, but they're the real threat now, and the Bush Administration has been quietly trying to contain it. Yes, I am in the military, 18 year veteran.

Beside the previous point, I voted for President Bush despite his opposition to abortion and stem cell research, mostly because I know what course he will take on the war on terrorism. Economic matters are cyclic and are on the upswing. The Governator will take care of the stem cell issue (By the way I'm a Type 1 Diabetic, hoping for a stem cell cure).

I just wanted to clarify something that seems to have become a prevalent bit of misinformaiton: President Bush does not oppose stem cell research. In fact President Bush is the FIRST President to federally fund stem cell research. No other president allowed federal funds to pay for stem cell research. If I say this enough different ways, maybe someone will understand. President Bush SUPPORTS stem cell research.

What President Bush opposes is the fertilization of new embryos, then the subsequent destruction of said embryos, to be used in that research. His decision was based on his faith, true, and I may not agree with the process he used to come to the decision he made, but I don't have a problem with the resulting decision. Also, given the fact that adult stem cells (stem cells harvested from fully formed, healthy people) have produced more results than embryonic stem cell research has, and has not been going on as long, that means that we don't have to destroy fertilized embryos in order to conduct federally funded research.

Now, privately funded research can do whatever they hell they want. But do not confuse opposing some types of research with opposing stem cell research. I'll just say it one last time - President Bush is the first President to allow federal funding for stem cell research.

Oh, and I have asthma, and also hope that stem cell research is fruitful. That's why I've done my research...

EDIT:
I just saw the following story. Talk about timing...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/11/03/stem.cells.tumor.ap/index.html

The research in the afforementioned article was done with adult stem cells.

On the internet, everyone can hear you whine. I heard on the radio this morning that thousands of Democrats are threatening to move to Canada. I hope they don't slip on the big white line while crossing the border.

I sure hope they do. We've got more than our quota of liberals. Send them to France (Just when is Alec Baldwin making his move there?).

Amazing fact: The union head of one of the largest Canadian steelmakers, Stelco, is an admitted Marxist. Hammer and sickle, the whole nine yards, And the union members still voted him in. The company is asking for concessions from its members to stay afloat, but the union is driving them into the ground. Why? Because the union head wants state control of the steel industry, and too bad about your jobs he was supposed to be fighting for, guys. You think you've got morons down there...we've got 'em beat.

Amazing fact #2 (Collect 'em all!): The federal Liberal government, during its past two terms in office has wasted:
1) One billion dollars on a federal grants program that couldn't produce receipts or justifications for where the money went.
2) Over One billion dollars on a federal gun registry that's completely ineffective and unmanageable, and just a touch over its original $20 million budget. Even the anti-gun folks wonder what's going on.
3) Over one billion dollars on a sponsorship scandal where companies would receive grants for displaying the Canadian flag, promotions, etc. Again, few receipts or paper trails and a flurry of grants for friends and cabinet ministers showing up in corporate stadium box seats.

What did Canadians do in the last election? Why, we voted them in again by a narrow margin, because we were at least too smart to elect the true socialists, and too scared to elect the right-centrist party.

Oh, and we have some weird thing going about only electing Prime Ministers if they're from Quebec. You'd think it'd be the opposite...

But this has gone waaaaay off topic, and for far too long. Just wanted everyone to know that idiocy knows no borders.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320

Damn eggheads, think they know so much! Harumph!

dan k