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

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.

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.

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

When has any second-term President went totally apeshit?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

sigh...
 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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).

What if the Earth stops rotating?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

so if the majority decides to kill all blacks, it is right?

This is a little lengthy, but I found it interesting.


Kerry supporters seek therapy in South Florida

Boca Raton trauma specialist has treated 15 patients

Published Tuesday, November 9, 2004
bySean Salai


More than a dozen traumatized John Kerry supporters have sought and received therapy from a licensed Florida psychologist since their candidate lost to President Bush, the Boca Raton News learned Monday.

Boca Raton trauma specialist Douglas Schooler said he has treated 15 clients and friends with “intense hypnotherapy” since the Democratic nominee conceded last Wednesday.

“I had one friend tell me he’s never been so depressed and angry in his life,” Schooler said. “I observed patients threatening to leave the country or staring listlessly into space. They were emotionally paralyzed, shocked and devastated.”

Schooler’s disclosure comes after the weekend discovery of a Kerry volunteer’s corpse at Ground Zero in New York City. Georgia resident Andrew Veal, 25, reportedly killed himself with a shotgun blast to the head due to Kerry’s loss and a girlfriend problem.

Some mental health professionals in South Florida said Monday they have already developed a new category for the Kerry-related stress reactions. Because Palm Beach County voted heavily for Kerry, the therapists said, many residents hurt themselves by so anxiously expecting the Massachusetts senator to win – especially those who maintained unrealistic recount hopes after their candidate’s concession.

“We’re calling it ‘post-election selection trauma’ and we’re working to develop a counseling program for it,” said Rob Gordon, the Boca-based executive director of the American Health Association. “It’s like post-traumatic stress syndrome, but it’s a short-term shock rather than a childhood trauma.”

Gordon, the first American Red Cross psychotherapist sent to Ground Zero after the 9/11 terror attacks, said therapists’ main concern is to prevent the recurrence of Kerry-related suicides like the one in New York City.

“There are definitely people depressed by John Kerry’s loss, and this can easily lead to suicides like the one we saw up in New York this weekend,” Gordon said. “Luckily, it can be treated if people seek help. We’re urging people to call us immediately if they feel depressed or know anyone who is seriously stressed out.”

Also in Boca, at least one counseling center and an emotional support group were preparing for an influx of Kerry supporters at their first post-election meetings today.

“We’ll let the Kerry voters talk about it and let off some steam, and by listening to other people’s stories, we’ll help them refocus and surrender to the things in their life which they can’t possibly change,” said a spokeswoman for Emotions Anonymous, a recovery group meeting tonight at Glades Presbyterian Church.

“We’re referring people with election-related stress to the Democratic National Committee,” said Karen Jacobs of the Center for Group Counseling. “We’ll do what we can for anyone who shows up for our support group programs this week, but we haven’t implemented a specific program for Kerry-related trauma.”

Schooler, practicing in Boca since 1984, said he treated his 15 patients last week with hypnosis-based rapid response trauma therapy. This week, he is charging a sliding fee to non-clients who feel they need the one-time “election therapy” session. South Floridians can contact him at 561-395-3033.

“A lot of Kerry voters don’t know what to do with their anger, because there was no recount, so they’ve kept it bottled up,” said Schooler, who also is a certified sex therapist. “I help them transform the anger into more positive emotions.”

Asked to describe symptoms of the post-election trauma, Schooler said, “They include feelings of extreme anger, despair, hopelessness, powerlessness, a failure to function behaviorally, a sense of disillusionment, of not wanting to vote anymore – that sort of thing. We’re talking about a deep, unhealthy personal suffering that can best be remedied by intensive short-term therapy.”

Interesting take. So slavery was ok, then it wasn't? Absolutely NO absolutes? Not sure that the majority would agree that there is no such thing as right and wrong. How ironic.


Want to answer the question about how the arguements are different between Interracial marriage and gay marriage?

So if the minority decides killing blacks is OK, but the majority votes to ban it, it is not alright?

That is incorrect. The Majority decides what is going to be DONE and who is going to do it in a democracy, not literally what is right and wrong. It is possible for them to make a mistake (ie. the election of Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter). In this country they should not have the right to decide what is right and wrong. Judges are arbiters of the law, not morality. These are supposed to be two seperate things in this country by way of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

The point being made is that just because most of the people want something, it does not automatically imply a moral correctness. Morality is not a matter to be determined by the greater or lesser number of people. In fact, its not even something to be determined by the government at all. The government and laws are present to ensure a relative amount of order.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

As I have said before on a different thread, it is my firm belief that Bush will continue his extreme right wing agenda in his second term. He pushed it when a) he did not recieve the majority of the popular vote and b) had a second term election still upcoming. Imagine what he will do with neither of these factors to worry about.

The reason people are so upset is not just because he is so radical, but because he is supported by so many radicals. In the most recent (November) issue of National Geographic there is an article on Charles Darwin. In this article they state that a 2001 telephone survey was conducted (as it was in '82, '93, '97, '99) which found that: "no less than 45 percent of respopnding U.S. adults agreed that 'God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.'" 45 percent of adults in the U.S. don't believe in Evolution!! If someone doesn't know any better on this matter, it is easy to see how they could be persuaded on other matters (gay marriage, abortion). If they have such a closed-minded view of life, then those of us who believe in fossils, natural selection, genetic adaptations and the dinosaurs have no choice but to be appalled; and extremely fearful of what the next four years will bring.

My concern precisely. He was able to advance his agenda under the dubious results of the 2000 election. I do think that 9/11 had more to do with that then anything else. However, now that the majority has endorsed his illogical agenda, he will feel free to push even harder. I actually doubt that its HIS agenda so much as his backers, but for simplicity's sake I will refer to the agenda as his, considering he is the most public mouthpiece for it.

Remember, many people hear "theory of Evolution" and discount it due to the fact that it's "just a theory". Many people lack a basic understanding of the scientific method and when someone calls something a theory that means that there is a huge amount of evidence in support of it. They associate it with a story that fits the available facts, not the results of intense study and experimentation. As a result, they feel more comfortable with the concept of stuff just sprining into existence via supernatural means. It seems just as plausable as the theory of Evolution because they really don't understand what Evolution really means. Remember, religon, regardless of flavor, tells people that they are special and somehow different from every form of life on this planet. It's comforting and a boost to the self-esteem. I'll even agree that humans are different from every other form of life on Earth. However, we have certain common characteristics that mark us as animals. We're really good animals, biologically speaking, but we are just animals.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

I think this thread has somewhat been hijacked a number of times, but this needs to be addressed. I think it's very condecending to assume that everyone who disagrees with the theory of evolution lacks the understanding to make a rational decision based on available data. I, for one, believe that microevolution happens and that is all that the available scientific evidence has been able to support. Not once can anyone point to a seemless fossil record of one major shift from one group of animals evolving into a completely different group, i.e. fish to amphibians, reptiles to birds, or even one group of mammals into another; like marsupials to primates or whatever. There is always an elusive "missing link." The sheer diversity of life on the planet defies logic that they all decended from one single celled organism no matter how much time has elapsed. Furthermore, why would some primates evolve into humans, while other primates are stuck at the same level of evolution for thousands or millions of years: or perhaps a clearer illustration would be to look at all of the "lesser" life forms and why haven't they progressed. Why do we still have insects that we can see in the fossil records right next to the dinosaurs. Why haven't they evolved into something else by now.

That being said, I've started another thread that discusses the idea of majority rule and morality as it relates to the theory of evolution. This seems pretty far from President Bush and whether or not the rhetoric of him trashing the country in the next four years is called for.

I respectfully disagree. When the question is asked why people are upset about the prospect of another four years under a religious ("god wants me to be president"), extremely conservative executive this is exactly why. When we have parts of several states (like GA) attempting to ban or significantly modify the teaching of evolution in classrooms because of religion, and you have a president who tacitly support this activity there is every reason to feel "oppressed."

Why did some mammals evolve into dolphins and not whales? The theory of Evolution is certainly more credible, simply because it HAS evidence. It's not a scientific law yet anyway, but there is more evidence supporting it then any other thoery present. Not all life decended from one single celled organisms. The original batch of organisms were likely identical, but exposed to different environmental effects, resulting in different mutations, resulting in different forms of life. Using Occham's Razor allows us to see that this is the more probable explanation for life on Earth, especially considering the evidence involved. There is no actual evidence to support conflicting viewpoints. "Intelligent Design" is simply re-worked creationism, which is dependent on the Bible for its support, which is not exactly the most reliable text for factual presentations.

How can it not be called for? By way of the First Amendment, we have the right to complain about him endlessly, even after he is out of office. We disagree with his goals and agenda, and are using our rights to voice those disagreements. Just because he is the President does not mean he is immune.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

The real problem with Intelligent Design is not so much that it is based on Creationism, rather, the problem is simply that it is the opposite of logic. Essentially, it is a principle that says "we don't know some things, therefore we should just forget about trying to learn those things and wrap everything up in a nice little bow called 'higher power'".

It's nothing more than an "I don't know. I give up." mentality.

And this is a problem because the people that support this mentality are making headway in getting it implemented in our educational system.

And our government, courts, bedrooms...

Truly depressing. I had heard a debate on "Intelligent Design" on NPR's Talk Of The Nation, many moons ago, but didn't follow up on it. I appreciate the clarification on it. Now it sounds even worse.

I used to think they were just desperate people clutching at straws. Now, I am afraid that they are the riptide of the future.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

The Fact of the matter is evolution is just as unprovable as anything else. Sure, you can make those leaps of faith in evolution and try your best to connect the dots in your head, but in the end you're making the same leap of faith as people that believe in creationism (that's the definition of a theory).

There is a way for you to find out if you're right though - just find some way to end your life. For most people though, they either have faith in god and this precludes them from killing themselves or they don't and they're to scared to end their existence or more correctly don't have enough faith in their belief to find out.

In any event my previous points are off topic. I think if you don't like the way the country is headed you can always take a pilgrimage to your homeland - France, Sweden, Germany, Russia or take your pick. There you can enjoy their perfect unemployment rate, their immense influence in the world, and their inability to take a position on anything important (other than non-participation). There you can recharge your pesimistic batteries and come back with more resolve to turn this country into the New Sweden. On top of that you can do it knowing George Bush will not stop fighting for your security in the world - even if you don't like him.

Yes, but the scientific method leaves in a device for correction, and gladly replaces old data with new. You cannot say the same about most religions. Specifically not with creationists. They're right, so they say, end of story.

Ah yes, the "love it or leave it" argument. I'm amazed people still think this way.

This is beside my point: Intelligent Design is a philosophy of giving up. Evolution is a philosophy of research and investigation.

Intelligent Design says: We don't know, so we're just going to say it's all beyond our comprehension.

Evolution says: Why is this like this?


Which has a place in our education system? If you think the former mentality has a place in education, you must not understand the purpose of education.

"a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

This is what a theory is. It is not a "leap of faith". It has documented evidence to support it, while remaining capable of incorporating new data that alter the predictions it makes.

Why is it you automatically assume that we hate America? If we did not have an emotional attachment to our country, like, say, patriotism, why would we be so concerned about the way we see it developing?

How is George Bush fighting for my security? All his policies have done is turn Iraq from a third world country into the largest terrorist recruitement center and training ground ever. We are not one iota safer as a result of Iraq, in fact we are in greater danger then ever before. His actions provide weight to the arguments of terrorists, "See? We told you America was imperialistic and evil!" I do not wish the country that I LOVE to be perceived or act in this way, so I try to change it.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

I was of course disappointed to see Kerry lose, but consoled myself in the fact that the election looked legit and Bush won by a clear margin, albeit by the smallest of any sitting President except for Wilson. I think many Kerry voters reacted with fear, confusion, and doubt about America. And you'll see these reactions more often because there were more voters out there than ever before. I think concern is justified, particularly for the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge, the next Supreme Court appointment, Fallujah, and the upcoming transfer of power in Iraq.

I'm not suggesting that those who supported Kerry shouldn't have the right to be concerned for their viewpoints or be able to voice their opinions. Obviously, it sucks to be in the minority. I remember when the Republicans were in the minority and I wasn't happy then either. However, I don't think it's justified to go into panic mode and continually gripe about how bad the next 4 years are going to be and that there will be immense damage to the country and constitution. It just doesn't make any sense either politically or historically that those things will happen. Sure, those in the minority won't get their way for a while, but it won't be a political steamroller.

I think part of the growing acrimony in this counrty is due to this "you're in the minority, take your medicine" mindset purpetrated by many conservatives nowdays. It is inappropriate to compare other two term presidents like Clinton, for instance, since Clinton was a Moderate politically and did not enjoy a partisian majority in the Congress. The fact that we have never had such a conservative in the white house with an agreeable congress means that there are no precidents, which is exactly why so many people are terrified about the damage he will do.

Right, like your side was cool and collected when conservatives claimed that Clinton's BJ not only disillusioned every child on earth, but was the deathknell for "values" in America. Histrionics are fun, and I don't see why my bitching at your shitty, shitty, shitty, fucking awful leader even matters to you. You guys could go nuts all you wanted in the '90's, it didn't need justification or my blessing. I ignored the Religious Right's bitching, you can ignore ours.

But isn't this what evolutionists say? They don't say "we don't know" they say "we can't prove evolution, but we are sure that's the way things came to be and all other viewpoints are wrong". Just because they revise their current theory, doesn't make them right. This is really funny, as one of the critisicms often leveled at Christians is how often the bible is revised, how it can be interpreted differently, etc. Apparently revision is only accepted for evolutionists. Do I think schools should be teaching intelligent design? Not really, but if a community believes that their children should be presented the theory, that is up to them. Is it really hurting anyone? Both views are being taught, it's not like evolution is being banned.

And more on the thread's topic, Bush being reelected has already given a great boon to the economy. The demand for violins has skyrocketed to accomodate all the sad songs liberals have been singing.

There are plenty of huge holes in the theory of evolution, and just because people continue to hold onto the theory and continue to try to find that essential fossil to prove their THEORY into law doesn't make it more true. It gives them a nifty hobby which I guess is better than smoking pot and playing XBox, but it's no more valid or important than someone going to church. Sure you can keep telling yourself it's more noble because "I haven't given up on trying to find solid evidence of my beliefs", but in the end your just trying to make your THEORY better than someone else's beliefs which at the current time they're not. Don't get me wrong - I'm not argueing for creationism and if you go read my post I never did, I'm just saying in the end both THEORIES are just that THEORY.

Oh, and I didn't say take it or leave it, but you kinda have to since you're in the minority - unless you move to France, Germany .... (ah the beauty of democracy). Don't fret though, maybe the country will become enlightened in the next four years and you'll have the President you want, and when that time comes people of faith won't be nearly as depressed as people that hinge their whole existence on whether or not abortion is legal or if we should drill for oil in Alaska. You see people of faith have their eye on a different prize, and maybe that's why they bother you so much.

But, keep displaying your superior intellect to me - I don't mind

Ah, exactly the kind of reasoned discourse that is needed to "heal the rift" in this divided country.

If you remember, when Clinton was elected to his first term, he did have a Dem House and Senate. In those first 2 yrs. he began trying to push his leftist agenda and in 2 yrs. he lost both the House AND Senate. So far, Pres. Bush has always enjoyed expanding majorities during his time in office. Sure, there was the tied Senate at the beginning, but that quickly changed. There's no, "take your medicine," simply policy that is responsive to those who are electing the leaders.

Again, that is not my point.

It is not a question of which one is right or even if either of them is right. It is an issue of underlying philosophy towards education. Intelligent Design says: "You don't know? Well that's ok - the answer is a higher intelligence did it, so of course you don't know". Evolution says: "Let's see if we can figure this out."

ID masks failure behind "the unknowable". Evolution uses failure to advance study.

Thanks for the post. I note you failed to say anything of import, though. Religion has claimed to have found the ultimate truth, science has not. And don't get me started on who has killed countless people in the name of their "theory."

I take it you figure it is pointless to try and change the thing you love, and it's better to accept it how it is, failure though it may be.

Last I checked. no one here professed to having a superior anything. Have some sort of inferiority complex?

To address the evolution/creation issue I'll paraphrase someone I doubt you've heard of. "I got a one word question for you: dinosaurs."

You are failing to grasp what a scientific theory is. It is not just a convenient story made up to fit the facts, which is how you are describing it. A theory, via the scientific method has been tested and tested until reasonable sure of its ability to predict an outcome, which leaves a margin of error and the ability to encompass new data as it modifies those predictions. The simple fact of there being ACTUAL EVIDENCE in favor of evolution, regardless of the fact that it does not state every single point in the chain, makes it instantly more logically credible then Creationism. Creationism is a matter of faith, the theory of Evolution is one of science. If data comes to light that is sufficient and plentiful enough to completely discard it, then that's what science will do. Creationism cannot be discarded because of new evidence, because there is no such evidence. It's not a scientific theory at all. Intelligent Design is in the same boat.

I somehow doubt that those are the actual issues that upset people so much. The greater concern, the thing I do hinge my existence on, is FREEDOM. Put simply, they are trying to take it away because it does not jibe well with the Bible. The other issues are symptamatic. I, for one, am never going to have an abortion, most notably because its impossible for me to have one. That does not, however, preclude me from being concerned when others attempt to restrict other people from doing so. Freedoms are easier to hold on to then they are to recover. Therefore, it makes more logical sense to guard those freedoms fiercly. The concern about ANWR is actually an expression of a larger concern about the environment. Admittedly, the science behind much of environmentalism is suspect, but I can understand wanting to preserve the natural beauty of ANWR rather than fill it with Oil drilling facilities. These are legitimate, far ranging concerns about the quality of my life and the life of any children I might someday have. While some might worry only about heaven, it seems more sensible to try and make THIS world a free, more satisfying place to live in, regardless of whether or not there is an afterlife.

Yes, people who want to mix their religous rules with my government scare me. The two things are mutually exclusive and should remain so.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Not sure this is the thread for this, but I thought I'd respond to this specific comment. The idea that government and religion are completely mutually exclusive is a fairly recent concept in American History, beginning in the 1950's and 60's. Why do you think there are Bible verses inscribed in stone all over Washington DC? Why did the Supreme Court quote the Bible in rulings for the early part of our country's history? Why did the founding fathers so liberally use scripture as justification for doing things the way they did?

Again, probably a subject for a separate thread, but just something to think about. (and yes, I'm aware of Jefferson's letter where the whole subject of a wall of separation of church and state originated.)

The most succint answer I can give you in this thread is because all of those people needed to hinge their ideas on an authority the people at the time would listen to. In the case of the earliest people you wonder about, their projects were in direct contradiction to other traditional authorities.

Should we conclude that they believed in what they were quoting or merely machiavellian in their habits?

I don't see anything today that would detract from the notion that those in power will use whatever beliefs those under them will listen to in order to maintain their priviledged positions--regardless of their personal beliefs.

I wonder if hell trash the WhiteHouse like clinton ?

That were the years when the seperation was weakend. "one nation under god was added 1954, one year later "In God We Trust" was made mandatory on coins.

http://www.creationtheory.org/Morali...nistCode.shtml

bush is already showing signs of inclusiveness on social issues. the 22% says: grrrrrrr.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedi...ines-frontpage

And people wonder why we are afraid....He is totally beholden to those people now, along with some less than stellar business interests. He MUST advance their agenda if he wants his party to maintain it's majority. Although I really would like to see them try to split off and form their own party, with the resulting loss of power and voice, but that will never happen. The GOP likes being in charge and will do what it takes to stay there.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Que Serra. If advancing their agenda maintains the majority, then so be it. That's what democracy is all about. Your basically admitting that there are more of them than you. I still don't think it will be to such a degree as to be destructive to the country. If it is, they won't retain the majority.

I never thought for a moment that there were less Christian Conservatives then liberals/libertarians/anyone else. The numbers in this case speak pretty clearly on where the population lays. However, the focus of the disagreement is with the sensibility of their agenda. This agenda is contrary to the principles the nation was founded on, and pretty heavily anti-liberty.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Why in the world is Bush "beholden" to his religious supporters? He's in office now...they can't remove him. They can EXPECT him to perform for them, but because its already Bush's second term, he's in a GREAT position. He doesn't need to worry about reelection, and can just go about his business. Seems pretty obvious to me.

yeah, i don't think he is going to come through with far-right results. all bush has mentioned about his agenda is privatizing SS and reforming the tax code. even if he gets some gay marriage action in congress, he claims to support civil unions...not exactly righteous anger.
the article i posted showed that people are concerned that he won't come through and threatened to abandon the next candidate. well, it took them long enough...how many politicians have claimed to be anti-abortion just to get votes? four years later, the same crowd falls for the same rhetoric.
also his appointments aren't going to bring civilization to it's knees. not all republicans share the views of evangelicals. specter has mentioned this publicly, and despite the softening of his stance, it is a valid point.

Actually privatizing the Social Security system and reforming the tax code in the way that he had pushed would be pretty far right-wing. And don't forget the "separate but equal" status of civil unions will not pacify most of those who seek actual marriage.
Regarding Arlen Spector, I am interested to see how this plays out. I have the feeling that the Republican machine that Mr. Spector is threatening by behaving in a more moderate or concilliatory way, will have something to say if he interferes too much with what they feel is their "mandate".

As for not being beholden to the religious right, he's already jumped right back on the same-sex marriage ban amendment train. As for a centrist Bush? I've read numerous articles in the media since the election musing that with the election past and being prohibited from seeking another term, Bush can do as he wishes, but as most of you know, it's not like that in politics. Just because he doesn't need votes any more, he's still beholden to those who put him there. And if he didn't repay them, they could make it more difficult for him to get his agendas passed. The social and religious conservatives are an extremely powerful force right now--as evidenced by the outcome of the election itself--and they will have sway over their representatives who can make it hard or easy for Bush in his second term.

Personally, given the erosion of civil liberties under Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, et. al., I am very concerned about the coming four years. Already I read an article about not just the conservatives' anti-abortion crusade but now their anti-contraception mission. If they want to promote abstinence, I don't think anyone's going to call that a poor approach. But it's the abstinence-only slant that I have a problem with.

This country is founded on certain freedoms, not on certain restrictions. People may choose to live as conservatively as they like, but don't legislate your narrow morality on the rest of the country. A 4 million vote margin out of 114 million votes does not grant the Right a mandate for that kind of oppression.

if you libs are so unhappy why dont you move to canada with moore.

However, for continued support from and for his party, he will have to continue to pursue their agenda. Thinking long term, he is just the first agent they have put into position. To maintain that position for his party beyond his administration, he will have to continue to win their loyalty. Therefore, he will push their agenda. He has so far attempted to push other items, but this is already causing them to become irate. Sooner ore later, he will start spewing the party line.

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Because I love my country and do not wish to see it damaged by nonsensical agendas. Pretty simple, eh?

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

ok. i'm not saying he will be centrist. this thread addressed the idea that bush is going to be an unchecked wacko for four years.

i tried to imply that his main objectives were not social issues like gays and abortion. he wants to republicanize social security and tax laws, ho hum. my point was that no one voted for him based on those two issues; i don't recall much debate on them either. by now we know that bush and morals are like salt and pepper. but there are not obvious moral aspects attached to his stated monetary reforms.

civil unions? how is this different from kerry? evangelicals are not pleased. if civil unions grant sufficient rights, what is the point of an amendment banning marriage? maybe it's not ideal for gays, but civil unions are better than what they have now.

and what about abortion...when (and HOW) was he going to end that again? i don't see it happening under realistic circumstances. but i guess time will tell.

sure he's going to do some things that are controversial. i just don't think bush will be as evil as some people say.

Way to contribute productively.....

Rookie mistake....letting it slide

>>>As for not being beholden to the religious right, he's already jumped right back on the same-sex marriage ban amendment train.<<<

This was his policy before the election...not exactly new.

>>>People may choose to live as conservatively as they like, but don't legislate your narrow morality on the rest of the country.<<<

Its not that easy. If you want conservative values in your home, and then your children get bombarded with liberal ideas at school and on TV, one must try to push conservative values outside the home. You can't be JUST conservative in your own home and expect that the world around you won't influence you and yours. *I have no kids*

>>> A 4 million vote margin out of 114 million votes does not grant the Right a mandate for that kind of oppression. <<<

So we've been oppressed since this country's inception? Seems like conservative values are what was pervasive throughout the country, only until recently...no?

well, if you look at bush's nominee for attorney general--the guy who wrote the famous position paper that argued people held at guantanamo were not prisoners of war so the geneva convention did not apply--they could be held without trial, without council, without being charged, indefinitely, could be tortured if the whim arose--who argued that creating this kind of black hole is legal---a guy who referred to the geneva convention as "quaint"--then you can look at the relation of the first and second terms like this:

first time round you got a neocon core with a couple extremely conservative but ultimately ineffectual guys in the mix--ashcroft.

this time round, you'll get the real fascists--gonzalez.

what's to worry about?

Or better yet, "What, me worry?", given Dubya's resemblance to a famous icon....

Veritas en Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

hey hey hey, i was just testing you... to see if you would catch me... good job BTW:)

seriously, this thread isnt anything but trash from the far left to try and make more people hate bush frther dividing our country. if people disagree, let them but dont let them make stuff up and give crazy theories as fact.

well, this site works because people convene and share and debate ideas. Perhaps you could contribute something besides calling posters "far left Bush haters" with "crazy theories" and made up stuff. Like the reason moderate democrats should not be fearful of a conservative right-wing president who appears determined to undermine the constitution.

Are you trying to say no one has been killed by communism? If that's your best point about the nobility of evolution (an easier belief to be held by socialists or communists) you should really look at more history.

Did you read my post? Did I say "just give up - you loose!" I just said to go recharge your socialist battery in a socialist country so you can feel better. I'm just trying to give a sense of hope.

The best you can do is to attack me personally? Ok, yes I feel inferior to you - you got me (do you sense the sarcasm?).

The question of dinosaurs doesn't provide the "slam dunk" to your argument that you might think. There are plenty of ways to explain that away within the limits of creationism - the most plausible being the idea that God's creation of the earth in Seven Days was more of a simile than a literal statement. There are also suggestions from people that maybe god used parts of other worlds to create this one. Another one might be the simple faith challenge this "mystery" would bring to the less devout. In any event Dinosaur fossils only prove there are Dinosaur fossils. Let me put it this way, if there was a person on earth that demonstrated the same powers as Moses was purported to demonstrate. Say he performed some of the same miracles as were performed in that movie The Ten Commandments - would everyone accept this as proof? Of course they wouldn't, they would accept them just as Ramsees did - as sheer miraculous coincidence (those people would probably believe in evolution). Do I blame those people for their beleifs? No I don't - because I see believing in evolution as equatable to a religious belief.

So do you think you're proving your point yet? The funny thing is - I have yet to try and prove creationism to anyone or even say that evolution is an inferior arguement to creationism - I don't, no one theory is better than another. And to believe one is, is a mistake.

Back to the core arguement - the idea that somehow the re-election of GWB somehow brings this country closer to the bringing together of church and state is a big leap of faith on behalf of the "progressive left" (pun intended). All I know is I saw John Kerry in many more churches (this may have been biased news coverage, but the arguement still remains) campaigning for his election than George Bush - where was the concern/outrage? There wasn't much, mainly in my opinion, because everyone knows John Kerry has no christian beliefs - he's a poser. It was the same when he went duck hunting - did he sway the NRA to think he was pro gun rights? The fact is liberals know that GWB isn't a poser - and that scares them because when they see someone believe in religion they automatically equate that to "killing and oppression in the name of God/Allah." Instead maybe they should look at the benefits of Christian Charity to the world, or Jesus's admonition about peacemaking or turning the other cheek. But they don't because having an agnostic outlook at life is the same as having a pesimistic view of life.

Yes, that's exactly what I said in my post, isn't it? Oh, wait... no, it's not.

Yeah, sure. "Love it or leave it" has long since died. And please point out where I said I am a socialist. Oh, wait, I didn't...

Please point out... yeah, yeah, you get the point. You know, for someone who asks if I read your post you sure seem to fail to do it yourself.

The point about dinosaurs is that creationists claim the bible covers all of history (about 10,000 years). Surely someone in that time would have mentioned dinosaurs, hence they'd be in the bible. The only other option is that god put the fossils in the earth to fuck with our minds? Yeah, that makes sense.

Again, you cannot place evolution on the same plane as creationism. Creationism has 0 evidence for it. Evolution may very well be incorrect, or partially inaccurate, but the mounds of evidence for it are hard to ignore once the bilnders are off.

Liberals = agnostics? Nice leap there.

No, the surge of the power of the religious right started a little more than 30 years ago specifically in response to the abortion issue, then expanded to embrace a whole range of social issues. Our culture at the inception of our country was just as liberal for its time as it is now, perhaps more so. We are now the oldest secular republic in existence. The culture continues to progress and, like any growing organism, to test its boundaries against accepted norms. In reaction to this trend, the social conservatives have decided that everyone should live like them. The opposite view--the one that I promote--is we should all be free to live as we wish. Religious conservatives are free to worship in their way and be as open about their beliefs as they wish while respecting my right not to be. They have no right to censor my tastes no matter how it may offend them.

If Liberals (and I mean those people that would consider voting for John Kerry, someone who doesn't believe in abortion but won't stand against it, which is like saying I don't believe in murder but let's make it legal) aren't agnositc (and if you don't know what the word means go google it and then come back to this post) then they wouldn't be liberal. It's like saying I'm a conservative that wants to vote for Kerry (which makes no sense). In other words you should read the word agnositic in a book of synonomous terms when you look up liberal (this is kind of sarcasm of course because they don't technically mean the same thing, I'm sure not all liberals are agnostic, but if you're a self-defined agnositic you're definately liberal - like it or not). If you are a Liberal and are not agnositic - you are either very young and naive or confused.

Sen: It's called checks and balances. Basically, no-one in govenment has enough power to unilaterally dictate a course of action. Obviously, in some instances (Pear harbor, september 11, 2001), the country and the government is galvanized of immediate reaction, but in the long run, any one part of the three banches of government can stop the other two (The supreme court can strike down a federal law, the persident can veto, and the combined senate can vote down either of those two).

Yeah, these two sentences make sense. :confused:

I would suggest that you look up the definitions of words you profess to know.

If you have any kind of US banked savings you might want to convert them to Euros yesterday. I think all the paranoia is pretty well justified. Rampant is the understatement of the century.

Do you understand what a conservative really is? Because I AM A CONSERVATIVE and I VOTED FOR KERRY. A conservative, in political terms, subscribes to the belief that the government that governs best, governs least. Can you explain to me how GWB's policies support that agenda? Because they don't, in any way, shape, or form. And four more years of the mockery he and his cronies have made of true conservatism should have scared any true conservative away from the GOP. If you are endorsing GWB then you are not a conservative, because supporting his agenda is against everything a true conservative stands for.

Oh, yeah, BTW, I'm an atheist too. So are most of the other conservatives I know. There is not automatically a relationship between the existence of faith and one's political leanings. If you look at the actions of Christ, he was a liberal, technically speaking.

Veritas En Lux!
Jimmy The Hutt

Would you care to explain the logic underlying that conclusion?

In order to be liberal one has to be uncertain as to the presence of a "higher being" of some sort? Why? What made you think this? Who told you this? What planet are they from?

And so forth.