2004 Election Rant
 

Ok, nobody else dared, so here I go.

It's almost over, YAY!!! Whoever gets elected - GET TO WORK!!!!! :evil:

I voted on an absentee ballot, so I did not have to worry about getting to my polling place early or after work today. I heard the wait at Galena was 3 hours! :shock: In this day & age, and where the major parties have 'lawyers waiting on-hand' to challenge issues with voting, it is absolutely ludicrous to have a breakdown of equipment slow down the process this much.

I am sick of political ads, on tv & in my mailbox. They better be done today. I should have marked every single mail item, 'Refused', and put it back in the mail system. But I didn't -- I was afraid I might be put on some 'subversives list'.

Ohio Ohio Ohio, give me a flippin break! What's their problem that they could not get their votes counted by the same time as their neighbors??? :x The only ones we should be waiting for at this point are Alaska & Hawaii. We can send a robot out to deep space, or the deep ocean, and we can transplant a brain - ok maybe not -- but we can't measure a simple yes/no question?!

And here's my final question on this: for those wrx/sti drivers who have Kerry/Edwards, or Bush/Cheney stickers on your bumper, you're not going to leave those on there after the election, right?! :P

Re: 2004 Election Rant
 

My guess is the ones with the winning team on the bumper will. :P

Re: 2004 Election Rant
 

Relax...it's fallen to the level of entertainment, which explains the marketing pressure and manipulation.

I've been getting 3-6 calls per day for half a week from Democrat answering machines "reminding me to vote", even though I'm registered NP. That alone will drive you crazy. Utter garbage.

Great. Now it looks like it could drag out for 2 weeks or so again.

According to NPR this morning, kerry conceded the election

Kerry conceded, Bush is re-elected.

BUSH for teh WIN!!!!! :banana:

now get to work :D

on the Ohio thing I was thinking that with all the layers in place they could have finished with a hand count and not say we will start again tomarrow :?

I'm sure all the media people wanted an anwser last night and would have done anything to get the votes in!!! but we all waited :lol:

repent? :lol:

This election clued me into somthing that I should have noticed last election. We are a country divided, and we're divided along some very old lines. If you look at the red v. blue map of the election, you can almost see the Mason Dixon line... yes, this country is *still* fighting the Civil War, 150 years later.

I guess it was something I've always known unconsciencly. Southerners still feel like "them city folk" look down on them and consider them second class citizens. And to be honest, I think most Northerners (and to a lesser extent West Coasters) do think of Middle America and the South to be inferior.

The problem this creates, is that the South ended up voting for Bush simply because Kerry is a Northerner. Nevermind both candidates went to the same Ivy League school, nevermind their qualifications and experience (or lack thereof)... Southerners feel like they identify with Bush's constant ridicule by the "big city" media, and vote for him because of it. Frankly, it's a rediculous reason to pick a President... it's like picking your doctor because you like his car. I've even heard people say they like Bush because he seems like "one of the guys you'd meet at the local bar and have a beer with". How quaint... however, I'm pretty sure I don't want any of the people I've met at a bar to be running the free world... I'd like someone a bit more qualified.

Many Bush supporters in the South cite "moral convictions" and "religious beliefs" as their reasons for picking Bush, but IMO anyone that uses those reasons is either fooling themselves or plain stupid. Bush has a record of being a drunk party animal... not exactly made of some ideal moral fiber. Plus I can only imagine the things he must have to tell his priest at confession every Sunday considering all the semi-truths we get out of the Whitehouse regarding Iraq and the war on terror. Most people that voted for Bush on moral and religious grounds are either following the directions of the fundamentalists/evangelicals to simply "vote Repulican" or are simply using morals and religion as an excuse to justify not voting for a Northerner.

Now, I'm not saying that Kerry would have been able to fix all our problems, I just personally have no confidence in Bush's ability to run this country. The last four years have seen our country's economic and forign relation fronts collapse. We took a huge budget surplus and the unparralleled world unity that followed 9/11 and squandered it into the largest deficit on record, and probably the most hostile international environment ever.

Bush or Kerry aside, what *really* worries me is how split this country is. During the Civil War, President Lincoln recognized that a split Union would never amount to what a united Union could. It was the vast agricultural base that was the platform for which our industrial/technological grew on. Without unification, the US would have probably been something akin to England or France with regards to world power, while the Confederacy would have been something like Canada is to England. The greatness of the US, and our "Super Power" status would have never been realized. Without the North, the South would just be farms, and without the South the North would have just been a Trade state unable to be self-sufficient.

But the combination of our corruption-riddled two-party system and our divided population has resulted in garbage candidates and in-fighting. It honestly fear we're riding a knife edge right now. If the Republican majorities in the Whitehouse and Congress don't make great strides over the next 4 years... hell, over the next 4 months... we may slip down the slope towards another Civil War. We're as divided as we've ever been right now. George Bush ran in 2000 under the pretense of being a "great unifier"... it's been four years and nothing's been unified (just look at the 2000 red v. blue map next to this years), he needs to get to work on healing the division in our nation. The War on Terror, the War in Iraq, they're all just smokescreens... the real war is here at home.

And for the record, I'm not posting this to incite or continue the Bush v. Kerry debate. The election is over... true I'm a little bitter, but only because the election results tells a tale of our nation that's scary to listen to. The fact that people are willing to overlook the facts of the current administration and say "yes, let's do it for 4 more years" based on emotional reasons rather than rational ones speaks of a fundamental division in our nation.

</rant>

Interestingly, Kerry had that message to Bush on his consession phone call --

'Kerry told Bush the country was too divided, the source said, and Bush agreed. "We really have to do something about it," Kerry said, according to the official.'

Another thing that bothers me, is knowing that some of the people who haven't bothered to try to understand, or don't care, or it is simply above their ability to understand - and just voted the party line - used that same consciousness when voting on other issues like proposed changes to the law. :roll:

Scott - you way off on your rant. Its not North vs. South, it comes down to morals. Kerry wants partial birth abortion. Kerry wants to tax small business to death. Kerry wants to cut defence. Kerry wants gay marriage. Kerry wants to remove God from this country. Kerry is the biggest pupet I have ever seen run for president with views that change for everything, but a party he will obey. I voted for a persident not a party.

Democrates are going to need to understand that the rest of the world already views us as a Chistian country and the more we fall from the Christian values the worse we look to the rest of the world.

http://www.themessengersofhope.com/m.../view?id=93492

http://www.themessengersofhope.com/m...93539&id=93539


I voted for Clinton in both elections and do not vote the party but the person. If you watch these clips and keep an open mind you might see why people voted the way they did. these things can not be coved up in small towns but in the big cities the media contols the weak minded.

Ugh... this is exactly the argument I didn't want to get into. I certainly don't was to rehash the whole point by point Bush vs. Kerry crap, bottom line, they're both party driven idiots. My point was that there are two very different factions in the US, and that these factions can be geographically grouped along the same old North vs South lines from the Civil War.

You're right about the Christian thing though. The world does view us as a Christian country. The problem is that we are not a Christian country. The US was *founded* on religious freedom... that means we each have the right to believe what we want to believe. We have the right (and responsibility) to make moral decisions for ourselves. If you turn moral and/or religious issues into law, you violate one of the fundamental principles our country was founded on.

Moral and religious convictions are fine and dandy... and if you subscribe to a particular set of moral and religious convictions, feel free to live your life by those convictions. But don't try to push them on others. As soon as you attempt to make your belief set law, you undo the very fabric of the US Constitution. When religion invades politics you end up with Fundamentalist governments... that's what the Taliban was for example. People need to be free to make their own moral decisions... the consequences of their choices are between them and their maker.

What scares me is that much of our nation believes that their religious beliefs superceed those of the rest of the nation. That's exactly the type of thinking that ends in revolution.

<relaxing interuption>It's snowing. Yay! Take a breather and go outside to eat snowflakes. :D </relaxing interuption>

Then you can continue on your rant.

haha Dems cant finance a revolution without taxing the Reps :lol: you lose, not to mention 80% of this country would claim to be Christian :wink:

btw - all faith in this country no matter witch faith it is, is still in God or Jesus! Love all is our first commandment. Why wouldnt that be good for all to have? People without faith = reckless and they need our love that much more. If I can plant the seed God will water it! If I turn my head and ignore those people then I let God down and the devil in. Morals are what we should vote for or we will fall flat on our faces.

Why would you support gay marriage? to please 2% of the popullation? that is like spitting on all the good that marriage is in a Godly union, for Marriage is in the Bible as a man and a woman as one in God.

It seems most people on this forum are Dems and Indy's and I respect that. but one day you might realize you have to vote for yourself and not a party, unless your part of a union or a state worker then you have to vote for the Dems :P

I know I'm keeping this responce short and probly not helping anyone with my words but it is real hard for me to say this in an open forum because I'm not the best at putting my words down in print but am better at talking on the issues.

Actually, I'm a Republican and a Catholic. Does that mean I believe in the Republican line, or everything in the Bible? Obviously not. when it comes to politics and religion, I think everyone should make up their own minds. It's very irritating to me to be told what to believe.

I support Gay marriage for one simple reason, I don't consider myself high enough to decide how other people should live their lives. Are you? What gives you the right to decide another person's happiness? If God truely hates they Gays, isn't that between them and God? What right do you or I have to step inbetween? (BTW: 10% of the US population is gay, and possibly far more would come out if religion didn't persecute them so much. In fact, statistically speaking there's probably at least 1 person in SECCS that's gay.)

I agree with you that if people in general were closer to faith, or morally strict we'd live in a better country with fewer problems. The problem is that there is no one faith that fits all people. You say everyone in America believes in God and/or Jesus. That's far from the truth. There are *many* other religions, are they all wrong? There are many people that believe in reason and science over faith (not to say they can't co-exist), do these people's beliefs have no weight because they don't match yours? Should these other perspectives be outlawed?

The fundamental building block of our nation is that no one group of people gets to decide for another. We all have a voice. I'm just concerned that the majority of our country has decided that they're morally superior because they're in the majority. That's very dangerous territory.

here we go again. Scott with his famous last word to make someone feel like an ass by adding question and making me defend myself :cry:

I'm not high enough to decide how others sould live their life, however I would like to protect the way of life we live and the way we repreasent America. Yor right it is between gay's and God, but does that mean we should make it marriage by term a holy blessing legal? Its still "America in God we Trust".

Scott your an ass if you support gay marriage in the American Constatution and I'm sorry if that afends people. Now gay unions that get the beifits of there respective party that doenst get a Merriage blessing such as state marriage; ok.

Now think about this if its ok for gays to marry legally what would be next? Maybe Utah would say it ok to marry mutible spouse's? I don't think you understand the hole moral story that lays with what the issue is? you think it ok to be gay fine so do I, but how its done will make things easier for others to then have mutible spouses? is that what you want for America?

lol *many* but lets not count cults :lol: I dont know what *many* religons you have in mind but ok, the main religions in this country all read from the bible and we will continue to pray for the *many* others

I'm not trying to say we need to outlaw others beliefs but as America we need to protect "In God we Trust" or it we be "In Hell well Burn". Don't you agree? Have you really read the bible for yourself or did you just attend the Catholic mass? How do you really think God feels about the direction of America's people with the moral bible issues? think our loving father will punish us if we stray to far?

The fundamental building block of our nation has been getting eaten away at even sence it was writen and every time we change the Constitution youve eaten more too what end? Do you realy think your making a better America by note respecting "In God we Trust". We all have a voice and its scary that someone like you and your voice would incite a stament like this "I'm just concerned that the majority of our country has decided that they're morally superior because they're in the majority. That's very dangerous territory", what a great out look you have to incite hestriara, have some faith

man I hate typing this much :P

Very true

Very false.

The rest of the world thinks that the right wing religious factions of this county have far too much influence over the government. The popular view of america lists religious freedom as one of the main selling points, but the dominance of christianity, and the inability to separate state and religion in american politics say the exact opposite.

At the risk of starting a flame war, this statement is just plain wrong. Hinduism, buddhism, animism, paganism, whatever native americans believe ... etc etc, none of these religions believe in jesus or the christian god.

Do you consider me reckless?

Funny, I thought freedom of religion meant each person is free to choose their own religion.

Each religion has a set of morals, but that doesn't make morals a religous concept.

We don't need religion, we have Darwin

I'm not gonna start an arguement, or a Master's thesis, just throw out something to consider:


In spite of what today's educators would claim, this country was set up based on principles derived from Christianity. Viewpoints espoused by the founding fathers outlined that the inherent error in humanity is not to be trusted (thus, a republic was formed, not a democracy). The encouragement of relativism or moral anarchy could be considered a dangerous strategic error if nothing else. This country did not come to be great by such vehicles, and the effects of this kind of thinking are very visible now. No, the population doesn't know best.


I know, I know, don't speak about POLITICS, RELIGION, or HER. That's why I'm not going any further. :wink:

separation to the degree of imorallity? I dont think a country that is founded on christian values should have to sway away from those values to appeal to others.

Even to think that most non-believers still ask for forgiveness before they die.

It's not my intention to make you or anyone else feel like an ass. I'm stating my opinion, and attempting to respect yours even if I disagree. Nowhere have I personally attacked you, and if I disagree with your beliefs, I attempt to explain why I disagree, while understanding there's a very good posibility that we may never agree. In either way, I'm not judging you based on this stuff... I consider you a friend, and respect you regardless of our political and religious differences. I don't really think that I'll change your mind, but I do think that dialog about these kinds of differences can be beneficial to both parties, as long as there is mutual respect.

I understand the wish to protect what is important to you. However, I can't think of one single tangible consequence to gay marriage. First, the only thing I'm talking about is the recognition of marriage by the state, and only the state. Laws should have nothing to do with religion. The Church can go ahead and say marriage can only be between a man and a woman. But in the eyes of the state, it's plain old discrimination to say only men and women can wed. You might as well say "marriage can only be between white people", it's the same thing. And as far as the Constitution is concerned, gay marriage is already legal, since there's nothing about it in the Constitution, and that's how I think it should remain. Years from now when we as a nation (hopefully) stop looking down on gay people, all these anti-gay marriage laws are going to be a dark smear on many state constitutions.

Why shouldn't we count cults? As far as the state's concerned all religions are allowed. Besides, it was about 2000 years ago that this weird branch of Judaism with 13 members started... look what it's become today. Not to mention the thousands of Christian sects in this country that are just as "cultish" as the "real" cults. Once again, it's not my place, or the government's place to make decisions about what's religiously acceptable, so we have to allow all religions, no matter how cult-like they are.

No where in the Constitution or the Ammendments does "In God we Trust" apear. Check for yourself:


http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html

"In God We Trust" is on our money, but that's only been there since the mid 1800's... it's certainly *not* one of the founding priciples of America. http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-...we-trust.shtml

(Edit: Also, regarding the Pledge of Allegiance... the "Under God" portion wasn't added until 1954... http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm, yet another example of church and state losing its seperatism over the years. It seems that it's not the loss of religious beliefs that are erroding the fundamentals of our government, it's the inclusion of religious beliefs that are erroding the fundamentals of our government.)

I'm not trying to incite anything. My point is that there are a lot of people that want to remove the seperation of church and state. If that occurs, and one person loses their freedom, then we lose our freedom. Once someone is required to believe and act in a way that they didn't choose, we're no longer a free country. Things like religious fundamentalism, the Patriot Act, laws to uphold moral beliefs... they all lead down the road to revolution. Those were the *exact* things our Consitution was created to protect us against, since those are the *exact* reasons the forefathers came to America.

Gay or ghey? Cause JC is GHEY!!!! :lol:

ok Im done

This is exactly the problem nowadays with the American government. Religion has become too much a part of the decision making process, and because the majority religion is Christianity, that's what all the laws are becoming based upon. This is exactly what the founders of our nation were trying to avoid, and why the Constitution is very general in nature, so that people can decide for themselves.

Remember, there is no god, we are all on our own. The only faith is faith in yourself.

i.e. 'laws to uphold moral beliefs' - or, 'Once someone is required to believe and act in a way that they didn't choose, we're no longer a free country.':

Purely & simply, we're already NOT a free country if this is the definition of free. There are some good reasons why certain laws need to govern the morals of our society, even if those laws intrude on some of the population's freedom to choose. For example, you cannot be legally married if you are under the age of majority (in most cases). In some other countries this is the accepted norm. in this case, a 'moral majority' has decided what is best for the benefit of the many.

You are correct... a "totally free" society would have no laws and would simply be anarchy. Now if people could control themselves 100% of the time, then this would be fine. But that's not reality.

To me the difference between what should be limited by law and what should be self-limited by morals is how an act effects others. I should legally be allowed to smoke, drink, cuss, act like an ass, worship the devil, eat raw sticks of butter, cheat on my girlfriend, paint my house orange, and wear black socks with shorts. All those things only effect me (except perhaps in extreme circumstances) so I should be allowed to choose for myself how to live. I don't do those things because I've decided that's not how I want to live my life... making those decisions are morals.

Let's apply this to the gay marriage issue:

If I believe that gay marriage is wrong or right, that's my own moral decision, and I can choose to either participate or not in a gay marriage. However, to make it a law one way or the other is wrong, because it tells people how to live their lives when the alternative effects only those involved.

My rights end where yours begin, so to speak. Since marriage is between me and whoever I marry, why should the government have any say in who I marry. Now if I want my marriage to be recognized by my church, that's a different story, I will have to abide by the churches rules, but that's certainly *not* a legal issue for the government.

Back to your example of underage marriage... you make a good point that "the majority" does decide things along moral lines. You could certainly make a valid argument that because of the fact that people under 18 have hobbled rights, we are erroding the freedom of everyone. And I would agree with that argument fundamentaly. But also, as you mentioned, our society is not so idealistic as to endanger our children by letting them run loose w/o legal control of a parent, or by letting them hitch up with some pedifile because he's talked them into marriage. It's certainly a compromise, but because this compromise, and many others I'm sure, have been made does not mean we should stop being vigilant in attempting to prevent the cooersion of the Constitution.

Unless I heard wrong both Kerry and Bush were officially against gay marraige but Bush would like to make a law against and Kerry would rath have a laissier faire attitude towards it with states having the power as they do now.

It's interesting that religion has such a steam rolling effect on the debates here on the board and in regards to the election. As I work and live I find that religion has very little direct consequence in my life. Things I have no control over such as taxes, work schedule, insurance rates, etc are all unfortunately the more important issues in my life. I guess it's my lack of religion that would make those issues the most important maybe it's ill fated side effect.

Mike although I would like to have great debate with you it's really too difficult. The reason I think it is this difficult is the fact that we have such different lives. By seeing you and your family and how happy you guys are gives you, IMHO a vastly different set of social norms than say me and Scott. I can sort of see the lines drawn in the debates you and Scott already had. I can see the care giver and protector in your posts. I can see the care free doom sayer in Scott's! :lol:

So using this line of reasoning, why shouldn't we let (let's use a disturbing example) brother & sister be married? Or in other words,
'Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifices, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria! ' :lol:

Absolutely!
And in trying to be a vigilant voter, I still feel quite annoyed with the way state amendment questions 3/4/5 were worded - the popular vote has now taken away even more of our consumer rights, under the guise that this will keep our doctors in Nevada. :evil:

It may be repugnant to you and me, but I have agree that there shouldn't really be a law against it. As far as I'm concerned that is a moral issue and should be dealt with in chuch or other social circles.

In other words, just cause its fucking disgusting doesn't mean you have to make it illegal. If it doesn't harm anyone, then there is no point in making it illegal. What happens between two consenting adults happens between them. Its not the governments place to butt in and start slapping the cuffs on.

I suppose if siblings want to be married but not have sex, and not have any children between them, I agree with you. But if they have children there is all kinds of opportunity for gene damage, and therefore it does harm someone. So I guess in my mind one of the reasons for allowing a union to be called a marriage is the opportunity to allow that couple to form a family unit.

Why can't gay couples who want to be together simply call it something else, like a unification, or just say they have tied the knot? They could just legally change their names & wear wedding bands if they wanted. Probably one big reason is that they want their union recognized by a number of organizations such as insurance companies, the state, or adoption agencies. And if that's the case, then they should work towards reform for those organizations to recognize their union -- rather than banging their heads against walls that will likely take years, if at all, to come down.

Here's another one, :lol:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...port_naked_man

Say Mike - how do you change a url to say something else, like your 'Darwin' example above?

First part, I vaguely remember reading a recent report saying that most familes are genetically diverse enough now that they could probably suffer a few generations of inbreeding without any harm to the offspring. Ug, I feel this example can only go from bad to worse now, so I'd rather leave it as it stands.

Second part. Its not just the name of marriage, and like you mention its the rights associated with it. Legalizing gay marriage would, in fell swoop, pretty much give gay couples all the rights given to straight marriages. And that is much easier then lobying each of the 400+ legal rights that straight married couples have. I do like your idea, actually, but it seems like it would take forever compared to simply changing the legal definition of marriage to include homosexual marriages.

Yeah, and I just thought of another organization that a gay marriage may desire to lobby for recognition - the IRS. That might actually be worse than banging heads against walls... :oops:

so I guess I'm going to jump back in..........with out having a religous tone.

ok lets say we let gay marriage happen in the same fasion as strieght marriage. Sence we now say anyone can marry guy/girl, guy/guy, gilr/girl.

It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an object could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to marry their blow-up doll or have 10 wives? Unless we develop some firm definition of what a marriage is, the absurd options are endless.

Good points. But another thing to consider, so what if it's legal to marry a dog? Chances are there's maybe one person in the country that would try it. Does that one person really make a big difference? Meanwhile there are tens of thousands of gay people that want the benefits of marriage; tax relief, adoption rights, health care coverage, etc, etc, etc.

Perhaps it would be okay to limit marriage to "between two people". It's when you start putting conditions on the type of people that are allowed to marry that it becomes discrimination.

*runs off to elope with an antelope*

hopefully this is where it will end up "between two people" and they dont leave the door open for all the nonsence. I do think it is a hard topic and I and most others need to get thier emotions out of the topic.

Americans cant be rushed with such a delicate subject. I dont want to stand in the why of two people who love each other, but rather make sure they get eqaul benifits without opening the door to lots of other problems just because we rush to get them Married. :oops:

Like this:

Here's the Guide: http://www.seccs.org/forums/faq.php?mode=bbcode

It also tells you in the tip area when you hit the URL button in the post a message form...

"Insert URL: http://url or URL text"

You know what? I didn't understand it before. Now I do. Yay! Knowledge, its a dangerous thing!

To the customer

In my opinion you're close, but on a slightly wrong track. I don't think the country is divided along North/South lines anymore; it's divided along the lines between urban and rural populations, wherever they are located. The large trend you see looking at a map is that the massive built-up population centers of the country are mostly on the two coasts, east and west, and their political outlooks tend to be fairly "liberal". Then there's the rest of the country in between which isn't anywhere near as developed, and for the most part it tends to be fairly "conservative". The two major parties have just latched onto these respective areas because they have easy support in them.

I agree that the divide is only becoming more of a problem, not less.. the bitterness between the two only seems to be getting worse with every national election. Left unchecked, trends like this can lead to civil war in a nation...

I think I know what you're trying to say here, but I also don't think it's really true. "God-fearing" belief in a single creator is a fairly "western" idea, from what I've read. Many of the "eastern" religions just simply don't believe in the same idea that Christians do.

I agree, and saw this earlier that illustrates it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic.../countymap.htm

This election may have been close numerically, but geographically it was an 83% - 17% landslide.

Good Find, that is interesting

But it was the same urban vs. rural division between North and South that played a major part of the Civil War. Granted slavery was wrapped up in there, but I really don't think that the South believed slavery was that important to keep, I think they were just pissed that the Northern control Federal Government didn't seem to under stand how important slavery was to the Southern's farm economy.

And now the "South", aka the "Bible Belt", aka the "Country Folk", aka the "Morally Strict" population of the nation are feeling that the Liberals that (let's face it) control the media have gone to far with the errosion of the nation's moral values. While I'd tend to agree that our media is full of shit (bad TV shows, awful music, rediculous ads, etc, etc, etc) I certainly don't think that it's the government's job to control the morality of the nation. And I especially don't see the moral decay of our media as a big problem considering the terrible forign policy of the current administration. I mean seriously... we're at war, hated (and even feared) by most of the world's nations, teetering on the brink of economic collapse, spending money like it's armegeddon, and all people can think about is whether or not guys should should hump each other. :roll:

To be honest, I was very surprised that the election turned out the way that it did. The Democrats couldn't have scripted a better situation to oust an incumbent President... I guess never underestimate the homophobia of Middle America. And in hind-sight, I see that this was really a long time coming... like I said, I should have noticed it 4 years ago, but it didn't click as to why people were voting the way they were.

And now that I'm part of the voting minority in what IMO should have been a very clear-cut election in the other direction, I fear for our country. If the majority of the people in the US are willing to ignore the single most important aspect of our government, and ammend the Constitution to include their personal religious beliefs as law, then how are we any different than the Taliban, or any other government based on fundamental religligious "values"?

"Geographically"? Looks like USA Today's working overtime in their map department. :roll: That's gotta be one of the *worst* analyses of the election I've ever seen.

That's like saying the 1000 people that voted in a giant, virtually unpopulated county in Alaska count the same as the million votes from New York, Los Angeles and the Bay Area combined. :roll:

What I want to see are the exit poll results from the number of people that said yes to the "did your pastor tell you who to vote for" question that was never asked. I think many people took the "Jesus is my sheppard" analogy far to litterally and basically allowed the church to cast a huge vote in the election. It's one thing to apply your own sense of morals to your selection, it's another to be told by your pastor that you're going to hell if you don't vote for a Republican.

That's true - my point was that the urban/rural divide isn't just limited along the geographic boundary of the Mason Dixon line anymore, as it roughly was during the Civil War period. Now it's spread through the entire country. Even Kalifornia, which taken overall as a state usually votes overwhelmingly liberal, is split between urban and rural counties.. just look at that voting map.

I guess I should have been less opaque in my analogy, how's this:

"Remember the Civil War? Well there are lot's of the same sentiments *right now* that existed just before the Civil War. Perhaps we should be concerned that the division in our nation might lead to a second Civil War."

;)

Much better, smartass. :lol:

Oh please, it does no such thing. It simply breaks down the vote down by county, which is more detailed than the commonly shown breakdown by state.

Now I will say that a case could be made that those 1,000 people in Alaska DO (or should) count the same as the 1,000,000 in NY. Those 1,000 people elect a US Senator whose vote counts the same as the senator from NY who was elected by 1,000,000. That's the whole purpose of the Senate; to give equal representation to each state. This was particularly true before they changed the method of election for senators.

In a similar fashion, that's what the Electoral College is, and why we have it instead of direct election of the President. It's an attempt to give smaller states more say (or at least to lessen their disadvantage). If one carried the Senate/Electoral College philosophy to the county level, you'd have that map.

We could debate this endlessly, and I simply posted the map as an interesting observation about the urban/rural nature of the results. I didn’t vote for either guy, so I’m not playing sides (I did vote, just not for either of them).

Now, can't we all just get along? :D

It's an interesting map (although I thought it said Alaska wasn't counted in the results anyway), and another way to slice & dice the statistics. I thought it was interesting that the pattern is very similar to 2000.

What I'd also be interested in seeing though, is a slice at where our absentees are (not talking about absentee ballots, but those who simply did not vote). What is it, like 30% or more who no-showed in some parts of the country? And what does that mean?, simply that people are apathetic, or want to uphold their rights to not be bothered, or don't have faith that their vote can change anything anyway?

I think I said it before, but what I was wishing for in this election was someone to vote FOR - and not to be hounded by unwanted propaganda about picking the person to vote AGAINST. That just irked me, to be continuously pelted with useless junk mail telling me Bush promotes nuclear waste dumps in Nevada, or Kerry voted for the war on Iraq. How wasteful! Meanwhile, our trees are dropping dead by the millions in the Northwest by paper mills bent on keeping up with the umpteenth request by the Democratic party to ship me the same piece of postcard material for the 10th time.