OK, we know who won (or: Does God exist?)

[c hack]

Perhaps my sarcasm isn't blatant enough. And what, just because its so common it doesn't hold any significance? I'm just saying that ... you know ... all those banned Lawn Darts, and anthrax. I mean eight people died! EIGHT!

No, I hear ya. Hey, lawn darts were fun. I was annoyed that they got banned.

I wish Osama would specifically target those guys instead of the US economy in general.

Osama has such a friend in Bush as far as bankrupting America goes.

I'm hoping they bankrupt america enough so I don't have to pay back my student loans.

[Jim of Seattle]

If everything boiled down to number of people needlessly killed, then we'd have safer cars, no tobacco products, no Iraq war, etc., etc. But it doesn't boil down to that. Perhaps it should, I don't know. But number of people killed only matters when it's politically expedient to matter. And as long as Phillip Morris helped to get you where you are, it ain't politically expedient.

Public Campaign Financing. The magic bullet that will never get shot.

[roymond]

So I don't suppose you want to go ... here?
Plus, if you were paying attention, Hoblit posted your link on the previous page.

psst, it was Jim of Seattle...but yeah...still...

Yeah, well, if I was paying attention...oh...

[Caravan Ray]

While I'm completely ignorant of the intricacies of your electoral system (and I suspect I'm not Robinson Crusoe here) - I maintain my prediction that your election will mirror the Australian election a few weeks ago - ie. Government will be returned with an increased majority.

From todays Sydney Morning Herald for anyone interested in an outsiders perspective
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/10/ ... 86220.html

Well, it appears I was right. I'm neither surprised nor pleased.

I would have much rather backed Makybe Diva in Tuesday's Melbourne Cup and got this one wrong. Oh well....

It seems, like my country, the majority of people in your country also thinks its OK for their government to lie to their people and ignore international legal conventions and human rights (John Howard has announced he is pleased with the result - slimy little prick). And it seems our poor British cousins won't even have a choice next year - for them it's re-elect Tony Blair or swing even further right. What a wonderful world we live in.

If Canada's full, come with me - we'll all go to New Zealand and live with the Hobbits.

[the Jazz]

I think when the conservative base talks about focusing on family values, what that means is that they don't like the idea that liberals as a group are moving the country toward a system of relative morality where it gets harder and harder to identify things that are just plain wrong. Objective moral values are set by religion or by philosophy; liberals continue to get more and more hostile towards religion (in general, not all liberals of course), and real philosophy isn't taken seriously by most anyone right now.

The Democratic party has been so inept for the past decade it's embarassing. It's too afraid of alienating the progressive vote to take any sort of moral stand - except when it's safe, like taking a firm stand against child molesters. So the democratic moral agenda is pretty much being run by the progressives, and the people running the progressives are on the extreme end and don't want to have a moral agenda because that means some people have to be immoral, and then we're denying them freedoms to be immoral, and we can't have that, can we?

[j$]

Oh, that's a tricky one, The Jazz. What I would say in response, is surely the problem here is not that whether the democrats should be taking a more clear-cut stance on more moral issues, but how best to educate people, liberal and conservative alike, that the majority of these moral issues can not be reduced to a simple good/bad dogma.

Or on a less philosophical note, that keeping an open mind <> wishy-washiness. Or doesn't have to, anyway.

Also, should a political party change something that is intrinsic to its beliefs just to get into power? I hope not.

j$

[Caravan Ray]

I think when the conservative base talks about focusing on family values, what that means is that they don't like the idea that liberals as a group are moving the country toward a system of relative morality where it gets harder and harder to identify things that are just plain wrong. Objective moral values are set by religion or by philosophy; liberals continue to get more and more hostile towards religion (in general, not all liberals of course), and real philosophy isn't taken seriously by most anyone right now.

The Democratic party has been so inept for the past decade it's embarassing. It's too afraid of alienating the progressive vote to take any sort of moral stand - except when it's safe, like taking a firm stand against child molesters. So the democratic moral agenda is pretty much being run by the progressives, and the people running the progressives are on the extreme end and don't want to have a moral agenda because that means some people have to be immoral, and then we're denying them freedoms to be immoral, and we can't have that, can we?

Its these moral agendas in American politics that seem so bizarre to a lot of us outsiders. Down here anyway, it's par for the course for political parties to avoid taking a stance on contentious moral issues. When it comes to decicions on things like abortion or euthenasia - individual polititians are usually free to vote accoring to their conciences and not along party lines.

We know that our PM is a practicing Christian and the leader of the opposition is athiest - but most people couldn't care less. What would worry people is if the PM suddenly started basing policies solely on Christian principles. God would be very unwelcome in our politics.

Anyway - as J$ implied - I see morality belonging to personal choice - not party politics

[Hoblit]

<b><i>Anyway - as J$ implied - I see morality belonging to personal choice - not party politics</i></b>

I think most of us would agree that this is the way it <b>SHOULD</b> be. However, here in the states sadly, it's just not that way.

Here, a lot (majority if you buy into the election results) of folk associate morality and religious beliefs. I don't personally think that you have to be religious to be moral. (Just as being religious doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make you moral) However, religions generally teach good morals that even non religious folk would have to agree. So it's a touchy subject. It's just that a lot of religious folk feel MORALLY SUPERIOR to those who are not fellow christians. (or whatever religion) This is where the problem lies.

Americans (generally, obviously not ALL) equate good morals with religion.

If I'm not mistaken, all of our presidents have been 'practicing christians'. Complete with photo ops after church (usually christmas time). The only non christian president that I can think of was JFK. He was catholic.

I'm not sure if 'christianity' is just a ploy for some democratic candidates to keep republican voter possiblities...but it wouldn't suprise me. Religious beliefs are definitely a factor in this country.

[j$]

Religious beliefs are definitely a factor in this country.

Totally, and far more than here, thank God (!); but I was saying that I think that democrats shouldn't pander to morality issues (more than they do already) to win votes. Lead by example, show some dignity, even if it means another 40 years in the wilderness. If they change their policies to get in, it means either TWO republican parties to 'choose' from next election or a whole bunch of angry middle-england voters turning on the New Democrats when they get in and start acting on democrat policies anyway.

It's kind happening over here with New Labour - old labour voters like me are suspicious, the traditionally wet tories who defected are defecting back.

j$

[joshw]

However, religions generally teach good morals that even non religious folk would have to agree.

As a whole, this is true, but the problem is when religions assume that everything their book says is morality-based. People derive their entire view of morality from what a book says, and then try to elect candidates who will legislate this view of "morality". It infringes on the rights of those of us who have to live by the rules of a book that we don't believe in.

I saw a poll recently where voters ranked "morality" as a most important factor in voting, above the war on terror or the economy. Wow.

[Jim of Seattle]

The big joke on all of us of course is that in reality the beligious belief of our political leaders doesn't matter a whit. As I understand it now, you can say or do anything to Bush voters, and as long as you're validating their culture you can get away with it. The question I want to ask is: Why is it we are so insecure about our cultural beliefs that we need to elect a phony symbol of those beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence that doing so goes against our best interests in every other way?

[Leaf]

Morals and ethics. I took an interesting course on this subject in college. I remember getting nailed to the prvberbial cross when the prof asked "tell me one thing you've ever done for someone else and not for yourself". There isn't one fucking way to beat that question, because in the end, you always choose to do something because you want to. So the whole "moral" perspective on voting is a crock... these "morals" are self-created, they do not come from an absolute power, only an assumed one. And a lot of people, esepcially self-righteous ones equate morality and ethics with legality. Like, it' ok to drink alcohol but not smoke pot, as if this was a moral issue. The bottom line is, humans wrote the bible. This is not a contested fact. Whether or not they were influenced by the word of God is irrelevant, because humans also have free will... how are we to know whether or not those authors truely followed his word? We don't. And a good read of the Bible shows that it's got a few stellar points about how to treat each other and oneself, some super interesting pseudo history, and a real boring part with a long list of names that will drive you mad as you read it. My personal opinion is that basing your life on the religious structures built by man is not a spiritual thing to do, and does not connect one to God.
This whole thing is all about fear. And so was this election . fear fear fear.

Time to stand up with some courage, and be ready to pay the price for what you believe. Maybe that's why Kerry lost? It seemed that you have to be a real cerebral person to get where he was coming from philosophically, and for a lot of people, it just wasn't direct enough, and when he was direct "we will hunt down and kill the terrorists" he didn't ever outline the plan. Telling people to go read it on your web site doesn't pander enough to the people to lazy and afraid to do that. Sound bites. He lost on sound bites.


....maybe I've ranted enough about this for now. And my apologies to any religious indiviuals who may miscontrue, or even properly contrue my opinions on the Bible and religion. I mean no disrespect, but that is my opinon.


... I really hope I get the time to write a fucking song this week.

[jack]

i keep hearing this word "mandate" thrown around today. what mandate? am i missing something here? winning by 1 or 2 percent does not qualify as a mandate in my book. hardly a mandate.

[Leaf]

i keep hearing this word "mandate" thrown around today. what mandate? am i missing something here? winning by 1 or 2 percent does not qualify as a mandate in my book. hardly a mandate.

Apparently last election, he said it was a mandate too. Is Bush gay?

[c hack]

Morals and ethics. I took an interesting course on this subject in college. I remember getting nailed to the prvberbial cross when the prof asked "tell me one thing you've ever done for someone else and not for yourself". There isn't one fucking way to beat that question, because in the end, you always choose to do something because you want to.

You could also say that you never do anything for yourself.

... I really hope I get the time to write a fucking song this week.

Me too. Past two weeks, I've had really good half-finished ones. Maybe if I quit posting to the fucking message boards...

[erik]

The question I want to ask is: Why is it we are so insecure about our cultural beliefs that we need to elect a phony symbol of those beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence that doing so goes against our best interests in every other way?

Seriously, you and Sober Irishman should start sewing your matching sackcloths and burning some ashes so you can be prepared for an '08 defeat.

In one sentence, you stated or implied that Bush supporters are some combination of 1) insecure, 2) willing to settle for a phony, as long as it looks good, 3) unable to examine evidence, and 4) stubborn when it comes to choosing the best thing for themselves.

Are you totally way off base on these points? Well, yes and no. But I think that middle America views the Democratic Party the way that the country at large views the NRA: They may have some good ideas (and some bad ones too), but the members are people I would not want to be associated with, and that fact alone will sour the whole thing.

The word "phony", while clearly biased, is the closest to the mark. George W seems to be a very "C and E" Christian, and in the grand scheme of things hasn't actively pushed very hard on things that could be considered part of a "Christian agenda" (whatever that means). Instead of wearing the angry confused hat and asking "How did such a phony get elected?", switch hats and ask "If a large population of American people can be convinced of a candidate's morality with very little effort or evidence, why don't more candidates play the morality card?"

Trying to convince middle America that their voting motivations aren't good ones is hopeless. Fundamental ideological beliefs don't change because of some education drive, they change on a generational basis. Look to kids growing up today if you want to convince anyone that religion and politics don't mix. Because right now, like whoever said, every President has been a Christian, it's just something that's expected from American voters at large. Might as well play the morality card when getting elected, especially since no one ever asks for that card again once you get in.

[HeuristicsInc]

The only non christian president that I can think of was JFK. He was catholic.

DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE.
-bill

[Leaf]

Morals and ethics. I took an interesting course on this subject in college. I remember getting nailed to the prvberbial cross when the prof asked "tell me one thing you've ever done for someone else and not for yourself". There isn't one fucking way to beat that question, because in the end, you always choose to do something because you want to.

You could also say that you never do anything for yourself.

uhhh... no... that would be the opposite of what I just said.

Tell you what, tell me one thing you did that wasn't for yourself.


P.S. Good Luck.

[erik]

Tell you what, tell me one thing you did that wasn't for yourself.

I keep visiting my mother.

I have more than one, if you want.

[Leaf]

Tell you what, tell me one thing you did that wasn't for yourself.

I keep visiting my mother.

I have more than one, if you want.

Why do you visit your mother?

(By the way, this is the EXACT argument I attempted to use aginst my prof....)

[erik]

Because she likes it. I don't. At all. I choose to do something that I do not want to.

If your professor's argument is to say that anything that someone does, he is choosing to do, and therefore it is a choice for himself, well that is a lazy circular argument.

[Hoblit]

The only non christian president that I can think of was JFK. He was catholic.

DON'T BE AN ASSHOLE.
-bill

Whoah, dude..I'm not. I think you misunderstood me. He was the only Catholic president. Every other president has been 'Christian' as in protestant. Just a fact...not nit picking or saying anything about the Catholic religion. I just think it's an important thing to note. If I said ALL of our presidents were Christian, somebody would have undoubtably corrected me with that little chunck of information. Think about Ireland for a minute ... folks there would be mightily offended if I lumped a Catholic president in with the protestant ones.

So, please do not take me for an 'A-hole' on that minor distinction