Us presidential election 2004

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

today seems to be the smart-ass day!

[quicksand 0]

@Albert Schweizer

The United States of America has 290 million citizens.Half of those eligible for vote will rally in suport for Bush during the November ellections-I find this extremly worrying.

As the article posted by Balschoiw most of TBA dieciving agenda has been uncovered by now,which is a nice way of saying blunt lies that should have offended every rational citizen who suported his Iraq campaign after beliving his claims.

Yet so many are still

[Bikecop 0]

This thread should be locked and thrown in a fire.

[Akira 0]

This thread should be locked and thrown in a fire.

Why's that?

[ran 0]

This thread should be locked and thrown in a fire.

impossible, the mods are evil liberal pinko-ass commies who want to take over the world and they will lock YOU and throw YOU in a fire

(sorry for the spam)

[EiZei 0]

The United States of America has 290 million citizens.Half of those eligible for vote will rally in suport for Bush during the November ellections-I find this extremly worrying.

Umm, last time I checked USA's voter participation is not 100%.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

Still, that anyone would vote for Bush still completely astounds me. What is WRONG with these people?

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]This thread should be locked and thrown in a fire.

Burn the witches and books ?

Like this ?

[shinRaiden 0]

You know what this whole exercise reminds me of?

A big old rowdy poker game. Folks yelling and screaming pointing fingers accusing folks of bein' lyin' no-gud blinkity-blankity cheaters, and even a few verbal threats thrown in. The bar goes wild, the chairs start flying, the wusses head under the table or to the door, the bartender opens the taps, and the fistfights rollout into the streets. Ah, let the good times roll.

Btw, whose best at Cowboy poker? The Texans, of course.

Maybe if Kerry had spent a bit more time on his distant relative's dairy farm, he'd be able to ride into town on a cow better than he has done so far.

But that goes on and we can suppose that now he really didn't learn anything in the navy

Quote[/b] ]“I learned my first cuss word sitting on a tractor from the guy who was driving it,†he said as the crowd chuckled. “And I learned as a kid what it was like to look in back of me, and see those rows, and see that pattern, and feel the sense of accomplishment. And end up dusty and dirty, tired but feeling great.â€

I'm not sure about that, even if he can fluently cuss in three languages, it just doesn't have the same ribald flavor of a grizzled old degenerate dribbling chaw while whacking an incorrigable piece of farm equipment.

And for ME political relations, they're all mad just because we have Buffalo and Moose, and they have goats and scorpions.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]A big old rowdy poker game. Folks yelling and screaming pointing fingers accusing folks of bein' lyin' no-gud blinkity-blankity cheaters, and even a few verbal threats thrown in.

It sounds like you work for the Bush campaign team

He uses exactly this strategy plus he says that the USA are much more safer now that Saddam is gone

[shinRaiden 0]

1/2 way true. I volunteer to run the local GOP party (not campaigns) website, and do other odds and ends. I almost got elected as on of the infamous electors for my state too, on top of being a county and state delegate.

Aside from that, I live out in a farm area surrounded by incorrigibles on both sides of the rusty barbwire fences. I personally happen to prefer the policies of a poker game over previous policies of sissy slap fights and name calling.

Now I don't think that Bush is playing his cards totally right, but, I do admire the fact that he is playing for keeps and not peanuts. Too much of that, and solitare too, has been done already.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The latest USA TODAY CNN and Gallup polls show J. F. Kerry and John Edwards taking a commanding average lead of about 5% across the polls.

http://www.usatoday.com/news....lls.htm

The main reasons for the upsurge in Democrat poll figures are thought to be the still stagnant US economy with unemployment still at a record high and the dollar being so low in value it is unable to purchase oil in the way it used to causing prices at the pump to cost the US driver more than ever. The high prices and low value of the dollar is starting to hit US business as well as consumers with the US cost of living starting to rise.

Part of the reason for the declining value of the dollar is the international assesment of the tax cost of paying off the US national Debt run up by the Bush/Cheney un-presidency. The allready record bill which TBA have not even atempted to pay off is acruing interest fast.

Kind Regards Walker

[bn880 5]

The main reasons for the upsurge in Democrat poll figures are thought to be the still stagnant US economy with unemployment still at a record high and the dollar being so low in value it is unable to purchase oil in the way it used to causing prices at the pump to cost the US driver more than ever. The high prices and low value of the dollar is starting to hit US business as well as consumers with the US cost of living starting to rise.

Part of the reason for the declining value of the dollar is the international assesment of the tax cost of paying off the US national Debt run up by the Bush/Cheney un-presidency. The allready record bill which TBA have not even atempted to pay off is acruing interest fast.

Kind Regards Walker

Hi Ian,

I just wanted to state that this kind of reaction from people is what can really disturb me, about the state of mind of the people in general.

thousands killed upon lies and deception: Bush is not an angel

realizing economy is taking a big hit: Bush, that bad man

The more that I follow people's reactions to conflicts and problems, the more I can make this conclusion: what hits home, hits; what does not, does not. I guess if all Americans saw first hand what happened to various innocents, families etc, and had to live it, things would be different. Actually I don't guess, I know!

Always welcome your posts Ian.

Bye

[shinRaiden 0]

Polls from week of June 20ish:

cnn 40 Bush 50 Kerry 10 unk

fox 50 Bush 40 Kerry 10 unk

* 40 Bush 40 Kerry 20 unk.

(last one was yap, yet-another-pollster)

Moral of the story is that polls are bunk, their purpose is to spin, and I always lie to the pollsters. I'm sure you've all noticed a 'small' number of apathetic people that ought to be concerned voters. At least football isn't as big over here, and there are no major sports finals scheduled for that time.

In all seriousness, my sister is eligible to vote for the first time this year, and although I doubt she can be trusted to vote the party line, I'm still going to encourage her to vote. I'd rather she vote for Kerry or Nader, than not vote at all.

[shinRaiden 0]

The other catch to those financial numbers is while the US currency is dropping on the international monetary markets, oil prices have been independently rising. This is due primarily to long-term growth of base-line demand in china.

Recent 2-week drops in market prices due to OPEC bumps in production are only a minimal effort to gloss things over the summer, and unless serious global energy policy is re-evaluated, or a whole lot of consumption removed, total world demand is going to skyrocket over production, as China will be buying up the oil, with the cash they have from their trade surpluses. That is as much the rest of the world's problem as it is Bush's.

[Schoeler 0]

The main reasons for the upsurge in Democrat poll figures are thought to be the still stagnant US economy with unemployment still at a record high and the dollar being so low in value it is unable to purchase oil in the way it used to causing prices at the pump to cost the US driver more than ever. The high prices and low value of the dollar is starting to hit US business as well as consumers with the US cost of living starting to rise.

Part of the reason for the declining value of the dollar is the international assesment of the tax cost of paying off the US national Debt run up by the Bush/Cheney un-presidency. The allready record bill which TBA have not even atempted to pay off is acruing interest fast.

Kind Regards Walker

Hi Ian,

I just wanted to state that this kind of reaction from people is what can really disturb me, about the state of mind of the people in general.  

thousands killed upon lies and deception: Bush is not an angel

realizing economy is taking a big hit: Bush, that bad man

The more that I follow people's reactions to conflicts and problems, the more I can make this conclusion: what hits home, hits; what does not, does not.  I guess if all Americans saw first hand what happened to various innocents, families etc, and had to live it, things would be different.  Actually I don't guess, I know!

Always welcome your posts Ian.

Bye

I can tell you right now that the war and not the economy is the issue that is going to decide this election. Whatever news you are getting over there about the economy causing shifts in the numbers is wrong. Look at the President's approval rating, it falls whenever iraq gets bad and it rises when things calm down.

[bn880 5]

Well, maybe you are right, still alarming to see a 50/50 split after all the info that's available to Americans now...

[Schoeler 0]

Well, maybe you are right, still alarming to see a 50/50 split after all the info that's available to Americans now...

It is disturbing, but that's human nature and notjust an American thing. People are more concerned with domestic issues normally because that is what affects them directly. Most people simply don't give a damn about things that don't involve them.

Also, the availability of that information varies in the U.S. depending upon where you get your news from. Fox news for example is all too happy to keep trying to connect Saddam with Al-Qaeda and to insist that the WMD may have been shipped somewhere else. It's disgusting really that they continue to portray themselves as responsible journalists when they continually slip into the role of propagandists.

[bn880 5]

Well, maybe you are right, still alarming to see a 50/50 split after all the info that's available to Americans now...

It is disturbing, but that's human nature and notjust an American thing. People are more concerned with domestic issues normally because that is what affects them directly. Most people simply don't give a damn about things that don't involve them.

You know what, that is mostly my point, however, I have a feeling it is a little more prevelant in the states. Could be due to the cultural separation of US citizens fro mthe rest of the world, well other than Britain etc... I wonder what Blair's approval rating is, and Howard's.

[Akira 0]

Senate Blocks Same-Sex Amend

Quote[/b] ]Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage

Early push for constitutional amendment falls short

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 Posted: 2:06 PM EDT (1806 GMT)

The Senate rejected the proposed constitutional amendment Wednesday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage foundered Wednesday afternoon when the proposal failed to garner enough votes in the Senate to stay alive.

After final arguments by the leaders of each party, Republicans mustered 48 votes, 12 short of the 60 they needed to overcome a procedural hurdle and move the proposed amendment to the floor.

"In 217 years, we've only amended that sacred document 17 times," said Sen. Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, before the vote. "There have been 11,000 separate attempts."

Daschle said no urgent need exists to amend the Constitution now.

But Sen. Bill Frist disagreed. "It has become clear to legal scholars ... that same-sex marriage will be exported to all 50 states," said the majority leader, from Tennessee.

"Will activist judges not elected by the American people destroy the institution of marriage, or will the people protect marriage as the best way to raise children? My vote is with the people."

Republicans originally had expected they would win a majority, if not the 67 votes required for the 100-member body to pass a constitutional amendment.

In doing so, they were seeking to force the Democrats' presumed presidential ticket -- Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina -- to go on the record in opposition to the amendment.

But in the last two days, a number of Republicans indicated they wouldn't vote for the measure, leaving GOP leaders red-faced over their failure to muster support.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona broke forcefully with President Bush and the Senate GOP leadership Tuesday evening over the issue, taking to the Senate floor to call such a constitutional amendment unnecessary -- and un-Republican.

"The constitutional amendment we're debating today strikes me as antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans," McCain said. "It usurps from the states a fundamental authority they have always possessed and imposes a federal remedy for a problem that most states do not believe confronts them."

McCain also said the amendment "will not be adopted by Congress this year, nor next year, nor any time soon until a substantial majority of Americans are persuaded that such a consequential action is as vitally important and necessary as the proponents feel it is today."

"The founders wisely made certain that the Constitution is difficult to amend and, as a practical political matter, can't be done without overwhelming public approval. And thank God for that," he said.

McCain sided with opponents of the amendment on the procedural vote.

Bush, who defeated McCain for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, has championed the amendment, saying it is necessary to defend the institution of marriage from "activist judges."

Social conservatives have been pushing hard for the measure since May, when Massachusetts' highest court legalized same-sex marriages in the Bay State.

But McCain argued that there are "far less draconian" remedies, including the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act -- which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as a union between a man and woman and allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other states -- and state constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.

He said if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down DOMA or "state remedies to judicial activism fail," then amending the federal Constitution might be "appropriate." But he said the Massachusetts decision to legalize same-sex marriages does "not represent a death knell to marriage."

"What evidence do we have that states are incapable of further exercising an authority they have exercised successfully for over 200 years?" McCain said. "We will have to wait a little longer to see if Armageddon has arrived."

Kerry and Edwards weren't on hand for Wednesday's procedural vote. Kerry was in Boston, and his running mate was campaigning in Iowa.

The amendment, as originally proposed by Republican Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado, would have added these two sentences to the Constitution:

"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Some Republicans objected to the second sentence, saying it was so ambiguous that it also could prevent states from allowing gays and lesbians to join in civil unions.

Democrats blocked a last-ditch effort by Republicans to bring up a second version of the amendment that might have garnered more support.

Still, Republicans have vowed that they will make same-sex marriage a political issue.

CNN's Craig Broffman and Ed Henry contributed to this report.

Another attempt at forcing religious morals upon the populace fails, surprisingly in the Congress this time.

EDIT: Man McCain rocks.

[Schoeler 0]

McCain does rock. Notice how he is making nice with the party?

I think he knows Bush is cooked and plans on running under the GOP ticket in '08. It's a good move on his part and I'd vote for him.

[denoir 0]

It's disturbing that it even came to a vote, but good that it failed. Brought to you by the same people that wanted to ban mixed-racial marriages 40 years ago.

Given the development of our society so far, take a guess how this will be viewed upon in 50 or 100 years.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Given the development of our society so far, take a guess how this will be viewed upon in 50 or 100 years.

last night as i was watching Nightline, there were discussions about this. In short term, this could cosolidate the basis for Bush, but in long term, would not help. Looking at Vermont, which acknowledged same-sex union, the legislatures were voted out, but now it's accepted.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

From the retarded file...

http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=89271&region=4

Quote[/b] ]US KETCHUP DELIVERS MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE

14.7.2004. 13:59:13

W Ketchup (pic: AAP)

US Republicans can now use conservative-friendly tomato sauce with their freedom fries.

"You don't support Democrats. Why should your ketchup?" is the slogan for W Ketchup, which promises a totally US-made product.

Manufacturers insist the W stands for Washington, as in George Washington, and not US President George W Bush's middle initial.

W Ketchup has been set up by a group of Republican voters, who say they don't want to contribute to Democratic presidential rival John Kerry's coffers by buying Heinz brand tomato sauce, or ketchup as it is known in the US.

"We are simply a group of friends who came up with the idea at a barbecue in upstate New York a few months ago. We are all investors," said W Ketchup chief operating officer Susie Oliver.

John Kerry is married to Theresa Heinz Kerry, an heir to the Heinz fortune, and his opponents claim her wealth is bankrolling his campaign.

"Choose Heinz and you're supporting Teresa and her husband’s Gulfstream Jet, and liberal causes such as Kerry for President," says website wketchup.com.

However a spokesman for the Heinz corporation point out that Mrs Heinz Kerry holds less than four percent of the company's stock, and neither she nor her husband play an active role in its affairs.

The company says Heinz's Political Action Committee has made equal donations to both parties' candidates.

Thousands of bottles have already been sold in less than a month of business, and the condiment is available via the website.

While W Ketchup is not likely to become a source of contention at the upcoming presidential election, if polls predict correctly, Republicans may find themselves pouring the ketchup over humble pie.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released two weeks ago showed George W Bush's approval rating of only 45 percent. Historically, no incumbent president with an overall approval rating of less than 51 percent has bee re-elected in the past five decades.

Probably goes well with freedom fries.

[shinRaiden 0]

Hehe, that Kerry 'Catch-up' is funny.

This amendment is an interesting and thorny issue. The primary intent of this amendment was not actually affect and implement federal policy on reciprocality of marriage recognition, nor was the intent to make legal marraige a federal 'right'. Rather, the primary intent was to legislatively throw the issue back in the face of the Supreme Court specifically, and the courts in general, for their innovative interpretations.

First, as the recognition of legal marraige is not a federally granted right, it is automatically delegated to the states by the 10th amendment. This would make the Federal Defense of Marraige act, the premise of which I agree in many points with, in many ways unconstitutional, as it attempts to restrict a right constitutionally designated to the states outside of a superseceding constitutional amendment.

This amendment would have established a federal standing for federal administration of marriage licensure, but was not promoted as such. That such false premise is a dangerous way to do politicking. Congress is welcome to make all the specious non-binding resolutions they care, but to play around with the gravity of constitutional amendments solely on the basis of 'sending a message' is seriously bad business.

In similar historical cases, such as women's sufferage, states and territories which had, prior to the amendment specifing the right to vote to men and women, enacted women's sufferage legislation saw that legislation overturned federally, until an appropiate constitutional legal framework was established.

Most unfortunate though, is that this proposition was inevitablly a lose-lose situation for the proponents. If it were to be passed, they would be branded as bigots by the media. If it fails, they would be derided as fringe failures.

So what will happen is you will have states, not cities and counties - unless the local laws delegate it that low, pick and chose what they will and won't recognize, based on the whims of their constituents. There would then be two possible legal appeals tracks, although others may be contrived:

1) Intra-state appeals:

Gay couple or whatever appeals that the the state restrictions infringe on civil liberties granted to citizens of that state by state constitutions. As the states vary significantly in the wording of their constitutions and extra-constitutional civil rights legislation, expect to see rulings all over the board. Responses to that would also be myriad and complex, and the federal courts would toss it back in an endless loop, it being solely a state issue.

2) Inter-state appeal:

Couple gets married in one state, moves to another state and is procedurally arrested for adultary (criminal appeals path) or challenges the state's non-recognition of marraige (civil appeals path) from the first state. Federal standing is immediately evident as this is a cross-state dispute. Further Federal standing comes from established Federal laws on international marraige reciprocality, which could be another avenue - couple marries outside US, moves in, demand that they be recognized. What standing they would have without mutual citizenship, I dunno.

Now if the politicians were really serious about creating a substantive legal framework for addressing this, rather than leave it to the whims of the courts - I want them stacked my way, you want them stacked your way, but I think we can agree that either way stacked courts are bad business - they could have done so, and properly communicated it to their constituents.

Given the context that this amendment was handled in, why anybody bothered to get worked up over it is beyond me. There are far more important things to get angry over, like Tony Stewart bumping my town's Kasey Kahne at the Tropicana. Now that's something to yell and scream about - because thats what you do in entertainment. When you bring that kind of antics and paranoia to politics, you turn away the serious people you claim to be seeking.

As for McCain, doesn't anybody else remember him denouncing calls for him to veep for Kerry as rediculous and preposterous? Why does't Zell Miller (D-GA) get as much attention for disagreeing with his party, as McCain (G-AZ) does for disagreeing with his? Again, the media isn't so much biased as they are ignorant. Also what I have found, is that when people run around waving their arms screaming that the sky is falling, it's real ease to sneak up on them and drop them in a tickle-fit. Only a change in the hysteria.