Pathologists voting Bush, Kerry, or Nader?

[yaah]

Most annoying part of the post-election coverage is the new buzzword of "mandate." Somehow, getting 51% of the vote has given Bush and the Republicans a mandate to lead everyone, as though getting 49% of the vote and barely winning wouldn't? Whoever wins, wins. Look at it this way, if you have 100 people, and 51 of them want one thing, and 49 want the other, does the side with 51 have a "mandate" just because they happen to have a small majority? Of course not!

The fact was, this election, like every other election in US history, was likely decided by the people who did not vote, be they slacker youth, disaffected elderly, people who simply couldn't get to the polls, the disenfranchised, whomever. All of the votes cast add up to a little over 100 million, and the population of this country is nearly 300 million. Clearly, there are many who are ineligible to vote because of age or criminality, but still, there are MILLIONS of people who didn't vote. The winning party, the republicans this time, were the ones who were most effective at getting their political base to get out and vote, and for that they deserve to win.

But it's not a mandate.

And if I here one more freaking news story about "morals and values" I am going to punch my hand through a wall. Political parties do not have monopolies on morals and values, and neither do candidates. Both sides have their problems, their questionable positions, but supporters of both will gloss over the deficiencies. And just because you TALK about "morals and values" does not mean that your policies support them, or that your behavior has any reflection on this. This goes for both parties, I am not being anti-anyone specific. I am an equal opportunity slammer. 50% republican, 50% democrat. They all stink.

Thank goodness all those ballot proposals banning gay marriage passed. Now I can sleep at night knowing that my future marriage has been saved and preserved.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Mrbojangles]

And if I here one more freaking news story about "morals and values" I am going to punch my hand through a wall. Political parties do not have monopolies on morals and values, and neither do candidates. Both sides have their problems, their questionable positions, but supporters of both will gloss over the deficiencies. And just because you TALK about "morals and values" does not mean that your policies support them, or that your behavior has any reflection on this. This goes for both parties, I am not being anti-anyone specific. I am an equal opportunity slammer. 50% republican, 50% democrat. They all stink.

Thank goodness all those ballot proposals banning gay marriage passed. Now I can sleep at night knowing that my future marriage has been saved and preserved.

Right on! Morals and values? The Democrats represent decadence and decay whereas the Republicans are the pure holders of chasteness and virtues?

There really is a cultural divide in America and it's a shame that people did not vote on the issues such as Iraq, unemployment, the economy, health care, foreign policy, the environment...

 

[Doctor B.]

Politicians and moral values are mutually exclusive .

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Politicians and moral values are mutually exclusive .

Seriously. I hear all this conciliatory stuff from Kerry and Bush and think, "Aww...this country is gonna heal and everybody will love each other." Waitaminute! Newsflash! Just remembered...This is politics! It's all talk talk talk. They'll just say anything to get your vote before the election and they'll just say about anything after the election...even when it comes down to morals.

 

[yaah]

Everyone talks about "coming together" and "working together" etc, when they really mean "We can work together if you do what I say and don't argue with me. We will get along if you listen to me and trust me. I, however, do not have to pay one whit of attention to you."

Did anyone see the headline in one of the London tabloids? Paraphrasing, it said something like "How can 58 million people be so dumb?" I'm telling you all, I am half conservative, as I said, but I do not like the way the american political system is trending.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Everyone talks about "coming together" and "working together" etc, when they really mean "We can work together if you do what I say and don't argue with me. We will get along if you listen to me and trust me. I, however, do not have to pay one whit of attention to you."

Did anyone see the headline in one of the London tabloids? Paraphrasing, it said something like "How can 58 million people be so dumb?" I'm telling you all, I am half conservative, as I said, but I do not like the way the american political system is trending.

I just pray to dear God that Jeb Bush never runs for president.

 

[geddy]

Such bitterness here lately. Personally, I've been walking around humming "Hail to the Chief" all day

By the way, I'd like to welcome everyone to the emerging Republican majority...

 

[yaah]

I just pray to dear God that Jeb Bush never runs for president.

My nightmare 2008 matchup: Jeb Bush vs Hilary Clinton. It also would not surprise me. I'm sure John Edwards will run again though.

 

[Doctor B.]

My nightmare 2008 matchup: Jeb Bush vs Hilary Clinton.

Oh man, I don't think I could vote for either. I'd pick the 3rd party candidate or write in somebody.

Did anyone see the headline in one of the London tabloids? Paraphrasing, it said something like "How can 58 million people be so dumb?"

Well, I mean, c'mon Brits...look at our choices. Give us a break.

Here are some more international reactions courtesy of the London Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1345581,00.html

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Jeb Bush, Hilary Clinton, or John Edwards....couldn't see myself voting for any of them. I hope there are some significantly better candidates from both parties that run in the next election.

 

[yaah]

Jeb Bush, Hilary Clinton, or John Edwards....couldn't see myself voting for any of them. I hope there are some significantly better candidates from both parties that run in the next election.

Of course there will be better candidates, but unfortunately the way things work in this country is that you attain a measure of political capital simply by hanging around and getting talked about. Name recognition is key. Thus, these individuals already have a leg up on the others, and the primaries could very likely be a complete washout if they run, because they will not have to work so hard at getting voters familiar with them. It does come with drawbacks of people already thinking they know you and disliking you, but from what I have seen in politics that doesn't seem to matter much.

 

[Matte Kudesai]

Oh man, I don't think I could vote for either. I'd pick the 3rd party candidate or write in somebody.



Well, I mean, c'mon Brits...look at our choices. Give us a break.

Here are some more international reactions courtesy of the London Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,11069-1345581,00.html

http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/the_falseness_of_antiamericanism.htm

If you can, please read the article
The Falseness of Anti-Americanism by Fouad Ajami He is the Director of the Middle East Studies Program at John Hopkins school of advanced international studies. I think it's important to look at other perspectives on "antiamericanism." Some of it is percipitated and promulgated solely by media outlets.


I assume because of your avatar you like Churchill
Before WWII
"Pacifism was rampant in Britain and Europe. Hitler's aggression was rationalized by wishful thinking. Peace at any price. Except for Churchill. He began warning that the Nazis must be stopped when they occupied the Rhineland in 1936. He urged an alliance of Britain, France and the Soviet Union to stop Hitler's expansion. He was called a warmonger, an enemy of peace, reviled in print and in speeches. Few stood with him.
History has proven Churchill right. "
Excerpt from and article by Peter Worthington Sept 28, 2004 in the Toronto Sun


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/09/28/646211.html

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Very educational stuff there Matte. Thanks for sharing it

 

[Doctor B.]

http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/the_falseness_of_antiamericanism.htm

If you can, please read the article
The Falseness of Anti-Americanism by Fouad Ajami He is the Director of the Middle East Studies Program at John Hopkins school of advanced international studies. I think it's important to look at other perspectives on "antiamericanism." Some of it is percipitated and promulgated solely by media outlets.


I assume because of your avatar you like Churchill
Before WWII
"Pacifism was rampant in Britain and Europe. Hitler's aggression was rationalized by wishful thinking. Peace at any price. Except for Churchill. He began warning that the Nazis must be stopped when they occupied the Rhineland in 1936. He urged an alliance of Britain, France and the Soviet Union to stop Hitler's expansion. He was called a warmonger, an enemy of peace, reviled in print and in speeches. Few stood with him.
History has proven Churchill right. "
Excerpt from and article by Peter Worthington Sept 28, 2004 in the Toronto Sun


http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Peter_Worthington/2004/09/28/646211.html

Thanks for those two excellent articles! Very interesting perspectives.

 

[SexyRepublican]

Bush

 

[yaah]

I am disappointed at the poor turnout among people in my age demographic and younger.

Maybe if they had a few more of those "medicinal marijuana" questions on the ballot that would have drawn them out. Good work, P-Diddy.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I am disappointed at the poor turnout among people in my age demographic and younger.

Maybe if they had a few more of those "medicinal marijuana" questions on the ballot that would have drawn them out. Good work, P-Diddy.

I thought the turnout amongst our age group increased. It's all the evangelical yahoo's that turned out as well and increased the denominator. That's what I heard.

 

[yaah]

I thought the turnout amongst our age group increased. It's all the evangelical yahoo's that turned out as well and increased the denominator. That's what I heard.

Yeah the turnout increased, but that wasn't really hard to do. Numbers overall are still low. The NBA did a wonderful thing by having opening night the same day as election day. Yet another reason why the NBA stinks. Not only is it boring, but now they are conspiring with the republican party.

p.s. you are not allowed to say "evangelical yahoo." That is apparently offensive. People are allowed to stereotype liberals and stick them together in one continuous voting block, but you are not allowed to hint the other way around. At least, that is how things are currently. Who you are allowed to criticize changes so much I can't keep track anymore.

p.p.s. Election 2008 may be Hilary vs Rudy Giuliani instead of Jeb Bush. Will the "red states" support a Yankee? Hmmmmmm....

 

[Primate]

p.p.s. Election 2008 may be Hilary vs Rudy Giuliani instead of Jeb Bush. Will the "red states" support a Yankee? Hmmmmmm....

They just did.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I would vote for Guiliani over Jeb Bush anyday! I respect Guiliani a lot. Do the democrats have any better candidates other than Hilary?

 

[geddy]

p.p.s. Election 2008 may be Hilary vs Rudy Giuliani instead of Jeb Bush. Will the "red states" support a Yankee? Hmmmmmm....

I think it really depends on who the opposition is. If it is Giuliani vs. Clinton, then my guess is that conservatives would show up in droves to support Giuliani. However, if the Dems settle on a more conservative candidate like Evan Bayh of Indiana, there could be a very different result.

At any rate, it is premature to suggest Giuliani would get the nomination. First, let's see how he does as AG when Ashcroft resigns.

 

[geddy]

Good work, P-Diddy.

Yes, hard to believe so many young people would prefer to die, instead of voting.

 

[yaah]

They just did.

Well, he has "officially" recast himself as a Texan now. All traces of New England in him have been wiped clean and buried in a mud pit on the texas ranch.

And yeah, I actually forgot about P-Diddy's slogan to vote or die. Clearly people aren't scared of him!

 

[b&ierstiefel]

And yeah, I actually forgot about P-Diddy's slogan to vote or die. Clearly people aren't scared of him!

I like what South Park did with that slogan .
The new season has started (season 9 now right?)

 

[cytoborg]

I may get flamed for this...but who cares...it's too funny! Must share!

http://daemlich.net/2941

 

[yaah]

Sehr lustig!! Wunderbar!

That is quite amusing. Poor Mississippi. The Economist last week had the election as "The Incompetent" (GWB) vs "The Incoherent." (reference to Kerry's policies).

I also saw an article in Reader's Digest today while I was waiting for a haircut. It listed what Republicans vs Democrats thought were "the most important qualities" that make up a president.

Republican voters: Wanted to see conviction, tells the truth, maintains the same position on issues through their career.
Democrat voters: Wanted to see intelligence and world experience.

Oddly, Republican voters didn't care about intelligence.

I hate that GWB is turning me into a democrat! I never would have thought that...

 

[Homunculus]

Sehr lustig!! Wunderbar!

That is quite amusing. Poor Mississippi. The Economist last week had the election as "The Incompetent" (GWB) vs "The Incoherent." (reference to Kerry's policies).

I also saw an article in Reader's Digest today while I was waiting for a haircut. It listed what Republicans vs Democrats thought were "the most important qualities" that make up a president.

Republican voters: Wanted to see conviction, tells the truth, maintains the same position on issues through their career.
Democrat voters: Wanted to see intelligence and world experience.

Oddly, Republican voters didn't care about intelligence.

I hate that GWB is turning me into a democrat! I never would have thought that...

Oddly, Democrat voters didn't care about telling the truth.

just because they don't emphasize it doesn't mean they don't care about it

--your friendly neighborhood it takes work to stay in the middle caveman

 

[Matte Kudesai]

Oddly, Republican voters didn't care about intelligence.

Do you think turning around 60 million people into a collective cartoon character is the "most intelligent" way to get your arms around why Kerry lost?


I really do not know what's worse.....
One side claiming to be "the moral" side or the other claiming to be the "intelligent" side.

Maybe its a little more "nuanced" than that.

 

[Matte Kudesai]

BY THE WAY

I think Bill Clinton will be the next Secretary General of the United Nations and Hillary will be the next president of the United States......

Maybe Barabra Streisand will be Secretary of State and Michael Moore the Attorney General.....


Then we will form the United Federation of the Planets and there will be peace on earth.

 

[geddy]

Do you think turning around 60 million people into a collective cartoon character is the "most intelligent" way to get your arms around why Kerry lost?

Actually, I think Kerry's patrician attitude and apaprent disdain for average people was a factor in why some people voted against him. As an aside, has anyone heard the song by William Shatner (yes, that Shatner) and Joe Jackson (of the Ben Folds Five)? It's called "Common People", a cover of a Pulp song - call me crazy, but I love this song. He meets a rich girl who wants to see how common people live, but the singer is full of contempt for her inability to understand how life really is for most people. It strikes me as being true about the way quite a few people felt about Kerry on a gut level.

Another issue I've heard bandied around is that Bush got elected because of religious zealots or a far-right evangelical movement. I don't think this is true, and David Brooks offers an effective analysis in the NY Times today. Basically, his post says in part that the high number of people citing "moral values" in exit polls is due to the poor wording of the question. After all, moral values can mean almost anything from simple honesty to religious beliefs. Most people vote on a broad range of issues, not just one. I guess if a pollster asked me to pick only one, I could do it, but that doesn't mean that that is my motication for voting a certain way. In this sense, exit polls are a real distortion and simplification of voters attitudes. I would be careful reading too much into them and certainly not categorically describe a majority of the electorate based on them.

 

[GeddyLee]

Actually, I think Kerry's patrician attitude and apaprent disdain for average people was a factor in why some people voted against him. As an aside, has anyone heard the song by William Shatner (yes, that Shatner) and Joe Jackson (of the Ben Folds Five)? It's called "Common People", a cover of a Pulp song - call me crazy, but I love this song. He meets a rich girl who wants to see how common people live, but the singer is full of contempt for her inability to understand how life really is for most people. It strikes me as being true about the way quite a few people felt about Kerry on a gut level.

Another issue I've heard bandied around is that Bush got elected because of religious zealots or a far-right evangelical movement. I don't think this is true, and David Brooks offers an effective analysis in the NY Times today. Basically, his post says in part that the high number of people citing "moral values" in exit polls is due to the poor wording of the question. After all, moral values can mean almost anything from simple honesty to religious beliefs. Most people vote on a broad range of issues, not just one. I guess if a pollster asked me to pick only one, I could do it, but that doesn't mean that that is my motication for voting a certain way. In this sense, exit polls are a real distortion and simplification of voters attitudes. I would be careful reading too much into them and certainly not categorically describe a majority of the electorate based on them.

hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[geddy]

hhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

Rock On, man...

 

[yaah]

I really do not know what's worse.....
One side claiming to be "the moral" side or the other claiming to be the "intelligent" side.

They're both bad! Neither side has a monopoly on morals or intelligence. That's not what politics should be about. Part of the reason I dislike both political parties. I am disappointed that in this country where people succeed so much and achieve great things that our two choices for the president of our country were so disappointing. Of course, it's hard to make a real evaluation of someone as a leader when the media simply focusing on the bad and not the good. Clearly, Bush is an intelligent man, I am not one who believes he is a blithering idiot. I do believe he sometimes seems to have trouble expressing himself and his priorities are a bit whack though.

And Kerry is probably a smart guy too, but he doesn't seem to be much of an individual. I dislike that people considered his biggest drawback to be a "flip-flopper" because frankly I think one of Bush's biggest weaknesses is his intransigence.

And did you expect anything else from Reader's Digest than to try to distill the presidency down to simple platitudes and lists? This is the periodical that publishes, in every issue, things like "10 things to make sure you talk to your doctor about" and "5 ways to help your children navigate high school."

As for the "moral values," I am frankly sick of hearing about them. Everyone will have different priorities in life depending on their situation and background. The problem is that a large portion of the population seems to be moving towards a society where they tell others how to live and behave. I consider myself to have very strong moral values and convictions, but yet I find myself very much at odds with others who claim the same. I mean, there are people out there who beat their children, cheat on their wife, and cut me off on the highway yet claim to be people of strong moral faith and character. To each his own.

I want a president to competently lead our country and associate with the world. That's all I ask. The current president does well in some areas, not so well in others.

 

[Mrbojangles]

I've been stewing over all of this while I was in San Diego for my interview the past three days. I can finally see why people would vote for someone like a Ralph Nader. I used to hate Nader for what he did in possibly taking votes away from Gore in a few critical states in the 2000 election. I thought he was incredibly short sighted and selfish in pushing forward his hippie agenda or advancing his political career at the expense of a more nationally acceptable but very similar Democratic platform. If the Republicans are the common enemy of Democrats and Independents why was he splitting the vote of people dissatisfied with Bush and the Republicans so that he would make Bush stronger? But I've came to the realization that the Democrats need a strong leader with a strong message to counter the extreme rightism that the national Republican Party has been adopting as of late.

Where's the 2000 election message of compassionate conservatism? Or George W Bush's message of bringing America together during his 2000 campaign? He is not a political moderate. He is on the far right. How else can you explain his actions?

He waged a pre-emptive war against Iraq. This was something that was on his agenda since day 6 of his presidency. Somehow he convinced alot of simple-minded Americans that Saddam Hussein has connections with al Qadea (which is truly ludicrous to even consider). Saddam Hussein ran a secular dictatorship. If anything Saddam Hussein was an abomination to al Qaeda who wanted nothing more than to see the entire Arab/Muslim world governed by an Islamic state. He has put himself in a select league of world leaders who have conducted pre-emptive wars that were totally unjustified. This is not the actions of a political moderate.

He wants to change the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage. His personal objection to gay marriage stems from his religious beliefs. So Bush wants to change the Constitution because of a religious standpoint. Since when does the Constitution become ratified because of a religious matter? This country was built on the principal of religious freedom. The Pilgrims escaped England because they wanted religious freedom. But now that the majority of Americans are Christians they feel that they have the right to alter the Constitution to reflect their religious values? This is just shocking. There is nothing moderate in the way he has been stumping accross the country including "God" into his speeches. I personally don't think he includes "God" into his speeches as a calculating move to garner the support of the evangelicals. But that is the type of person who he is. He sees that there is nothing wrong about including "God" into his political agenda. Yet how can he represent or understand America when there are people who do not share his religion or who do not have a religion at all?

Lastly he has supported every action by the Republican Congress to try to limit abortion. He wont come out and say that he wants to illegalize abortion and overturn Roe vs Wade because that would paint him as a "rightist" but all of his actions says otherwise. The Republicans know that they can not overturn Roe vs Wade. But they are smart enough to try to impose limitations on abortion in a gradual manner before they have enough conservatives on the Supreme Court who can then overturn Roe vs Wade. I truly anticipate that George W Bush with his new "mandate" will try to stuff the aging Supreme Court with full blooded conservatives who he sees as sharing his rightist agenda (and then some... because remember he's going by the impression that he is a moderate) so that Roe vs Wade can be overturned. And I truly fear the day when or if that happens.

So (with my tangential thought process), I finally see importance of Ralph Nader especially now in the way American political landscape is shaping. The Democrats needs a strong leader with a strong message to counter the Republicans who are representing a strongly rightist agenda. If the Democrats try to be any more moderate or try to appeal to the red states they might as well be Republicans. They need someone to call out Bush on his integration of church into state and his insidious plans to try to overturn Roe vs Wade. They need someone to call out Bush on his unequivocal support for Israel and failure to try to initiate a peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. His policy has drawn so much hatred against America from the Arab and Muslim world. Whether the hatred is justified or not isn't even an issue, it is something we have to deal with. And all he can do is say that the terrorists hate us because of our freedom. If the Democrats continue their sorry path of trying to be more moderate and appeal to the red states I think I will vote for Nader (if he runs again) in the next election.

 

[Matte Kudesai]

Nice tirade Bojangles.

It seems that the line of reasoning you used was also used by Kerry and the boys.

THEY LOST. After all the hype, movies, rock concerts, books, star power, "global disgust"......

They lost. I mean dude all these points were hammered into our heads by a highly successful movie, feminists, naturalists, movie star icons, powerful newspapers, intellectuals, scientists, other countries leaders...... These issues were presented by people with far more resources than you and I.
KERRY STILL LOST.

 

[geddy]

The recent grousing about the election and the lamentable lack of qualified candidates from either party has prompted me to pick up my worn copy of ?Democracy in America? by Alexis DeTocqueville. He was a Frenchman who lived from 1805-1859, who traveled in America observing our system of government. His work still resonates today for its insight, and I would highly recommend that people read it before criticizing our system. Many of the problems people bemoan today have been around for centuries; they are not recent developments of a corrupt system but stable features of our democracy, the oldest in the world. For example, he devotes several pages to the character of leaders in America: ?When I arrived in the United States I discovered with astonishment that good qualities were common among the governed but rare among the rulers. In our day it is a common fact that the most outstanding Americans are seldom summoned to public office, and it must be recognized that this tendency has increased as democracy has gone beyond its previous limits. It is clear that during the last fifty years the race of American statesman has strangely shrunk. One can point to several reasons for this phenomenon.? He proceeds to give a lengthy discussion which I will not quote. Suffice it to say that this feature of our system is not a recent development. And ye the system endures and spreads, because the good features of it overcome these flaws.

Finally, a word to those who continue to express resentment and cynicism about the election. DeTocqueville has insight about this, too (in a section called ?Crisis of the Election?). Here are excerpts: ?Nevertheless, one may consider the time of the Presidential election as a moment of national crisis?. Long before the appointed day comes, the election becomes the greatest, and one might say the only, affair occupying men?s minds. At this time factions redouble their ardor?. As the election draws near, intrigues grow more active and agitation is more lively and wider spread?. The whole nation goes into a feverish state, the election is the daily theme of comment in the newspapers and private conversation, the object of every action and the subject of every thought, and the sole interest for the moment. It is true that as soon as fortune has pronounced, the ardor is dissipated, everything calms down, and the river which momentarily overflowed its banks falls back to its bed. But was it not astonishing that such a storm could have arisen??

Although I did not vote for Kerry, I think he understood this last point of DeTocqueville?s: that elections must have closure and not bitterness. Successful democracies require the consent of the minority, and to Kerry?s great credit, he understood this. I will always be grateful for the way Kerry gracefully conceded in order to stabilize the system.

 

[Matte Kudesai]

Although I did not vote for Kerry, I think he understood this last point of DeTocqueville?s: that elections must have closure and not bitterness. Successful democracies require the consent of the minority, and to Kerry?s great credit, he understood this. I will always be grateful for the way Kerry gracefully conceded in order to stabilize the system.

I was also very impressed by the way Kerry and Edwards handled the whole thing.

Thanks for sharing your very wise thoughts.......


PS I JUST LISTENED TO YYZ LIVE.

 

[yaah]

THEY LOST. After all the hype, movies, rock concerts, books, star power, "global disgust"......

They lost. I mean dude all these points were hammered into our heads by a highly successful movie, feminists, naturalists, movie star icons, powerful newspapers, intellectuals, scientists, other countries leaders...... These issues were presented by people with far more resources than you and I.
KERRY STILL LOST.

Ironically, I think that part of the reason for the loss was because of all these fools speaking out so vehemently. Not very many people want to hear someone tell them how they should think, least of all celebrities who think they have the answers to everything. It's almost like the Howard Dean campaign - as soon as the idiots started lining up behind him, his campaign was doomed (Gore, Rob Reiner, Martin Sheen, etc). Celebrities have to learn that most of them are where they are due to things other than their intelligence and common sense.

BTW, the significant part of this election that people are overlooking is the control of all 3 branches of government for the first time in a long time. Clinton for the first two years of his first term had a democratic congress and senate (although unlike GWB, not the SCOTUS), and that led to the 1994 backlash. I wonder if the same thing will happen in 2006? I would bet not, but perhaps. Part of the reason (well, perhaps THE reason) Clinton was elected was the presence of Perot. Bush was elected with a solid constituency that I don't see abandoning him anytime soon. Plus, a lot of the republican senators are fairly moderate and won't support some of GWBs pet issues.

 

[Mrbojangles]

Nice tirade Bojangles.

It seems that the line of reasoning you used was also used by Kerry and the boys.

THEY LOST. After all the hype, movies, rock concerts, books, star power, "global disgust"......

They lost. I mean dude all these points were hammered into our heads by a highly successful movie, feminists, naturalists, movie star icons, powerful newspapers, intellectuals, scientists, other countries leaders...... These issues were presented by people with far more resources than you and I.
KERRY STILL LOST.

I know they lost. If you think I'm bitter because Kerry lost you're wrong. And if it gives you satisfaction that Kerry lost and you have had your points "validated" all the more power to you. I could give a crap about the ultimate result. If I did I might as well just move to Canada.

I'm bitter about the way this country is heading. I'm bitter about the two cultural Americas that has been forming over the past few decades. As an atheist/agnostic I'm bitter and threatened over the increasing presence and acceptability of the presence of church in school and state. I'm bitter about the fact that this conservative majority forming in America feels they have the mandate to dictate how other fellow Americans should live their lives. I'm bitter about the fact that this growing conservative majority doesn't understand the power of diversity, different thoughts and ideals, and freedoms to express it which has made America what it is.

And I do still feel that there is a significant proportion of the population who voted for Bush who really don't understand the far right agenda that is backing his administration. Do people really understand the consequences of illegalizing abortion? Do people really understand the consequence of using the Constitution to limit gay rights? Alot of these issues cause almost knee jerk responses. However they polarize the country deeply and how many people are really willing or open to think these issues through? I feel that "issues" are taking a less important role in the way how Americans vote. People are voting by gut reactions, knee jerk responses, and a feeling of familiarity with a candidate that I find to be closed minded.

I am one the people that have a hard time differentiating the life of a fetus from the life of a neonate. You can say that abortion is such a cut and dry issue. But does everyone really understand the consequences that would result from reversing something that has been in place for 3 decades (or 4?) that is almost two generations. You can't just use religious mantra to decide on these very divisive and far reaching issues. And I feel that conservatives in the country have their heads stuck in the ground, are proud of the fact that they have uncompromising views, and now that they see themselves as the "majority" they have felt more bolder than ever. The way that they feel that now they are the majority they don't have to listen to the minority at all. Just the use of the word "mandate" tells it all.

 

[geddy]

Holy cow! Where to begin...

As an atheist/agnostic I'm bitter and threatened over the increasing presence and acceptability of the presence of church in school and state.

Last time I checked, religious conservatives have the same right to organize and vote that you do.

I'm bitter about the fact that this growing conservative majority doesn't understand the power of diversity, different thoughts and ideals, and freedoms to express it which has made America what it is.

We're fortunate to have someone as clearly open-minded as you to clarify the lack of diversity for us. I guess diversity is great... unless you're conservative, in which case you'd better just learn your place.

And I do still feel that there is a significant proportion of the population who voted for Bush who really don't understand the far right agenda that is backing his administration. Do people really understand the consequences of illegalizing abortion? Do people really understand the consequence of using the Constitution to limit gay rights?

Again, thank goodness you're here to clarify the implications for the rest of us.

I am one the people that have a hard time differentiating the life of a fetus from the life of a neonate. You can say that abortion is such a cut and dry issue. But does everyone really understand the consequences that would result from reversing something that has been in place for 3 decades (or 4?) that is almost two generations.

Actually, yes, I think people do understand that. Remember how the situation was originally decided - by judicial fiat. Regarless of how one feels about about abortion, it is hard to argue that it was decided in a democratic way. It was a sudden court decision that set the country on its ear. So yes, people do understand the implications of reversing something that has been in place for decades - it happened that way in 1973.

You can't just use religious mantra to decide on these very divisive and far reaching issues. And I feel that conservatives in the country have their heads stuck in the ground, are proud of the fact that they have uncompromising views, and now that they see themselves as the "majority" they have felt more bolder than ever. The way that they feel that now they are the majority they don't have to listen to the minority at all. Just the use of the word "mandate" tells it all.

Do you really think people will stick with Bush if he pushes a radical agenda? Also, remember the situation with gay marriage, which you have cited. Bush won 51% of the popular vote, but bans on gay marriage passed by much larger margins than that. Even in Oregon, which voted for Kerry, 58% of people voted to ban gay marriage! By your logic, there must be a group of closet religious zealots who didn't vote for Bush, for some reason.

My unsolicited advice - tone down the rhetoric. If you disagree with Bush policy over the next 4 years, as it seems you likely will, then work against him. That is how democracy works. Your extreme rhetoric does help your cause, but makes you seem even more far out than the supposed far right wing that you decry. I think this extreme rhetoric (from Michael Moore, Cameron Diaz, etc) was a major reason the electorate rejected Kerry. After all, the Bush administration hasn't done anything that you suggest. Just relax and stay vigilant.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Wow, this thread really took off while I was gone. Interesting perspectives from both sides; although, since the media is so good at spinning things for both sides, most of what I read was not too surprising.

Given the fervor on this thread and my political ignorance (Bush _____, Kerry ____, me vote Kerry), I ain't gonna touch this with a 6 foot pole.

 

[Mrbojangles]

I think I just needed a venue to vent. I tried to play the whole election as cooly and as distinterestedly as I could because I expected the result. My rants may make me sound like Michael Moore (like that's supposed to be more insulting than "bigot") but I'm actually somewhat moderate. My views on abortion are still unresolved. I'm not a supporter of abolishing the death penalty. I'm not a big proponent of legalizing affirmative action. And I actually support Bush's proposal for creating caps on lawsuits... medical, workman's comp, and otherwise. The socialist part of me would like to see a universal health care system, non-privatized Social Security, and a revision of Medicare which would allow for perscription drug coverage. But the libertarian side of me sometimes says "just screw it all". I'm not sure if libertarianism can be associated with conservatism but as they say, as people become more older they become more conservative.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Venting is good. Venting is healthy. I like to vent too sometimes. The Official Anti-Clinical Medicine Thread was my venting ground, especially when I was doing sub-internships.

 

[Mrbojangles]

Venting is good. Venting is healthy. I like to vent too sometimes. The Official Anti-Clinical Medicine Thread was my venting ground, especially when I was doing sub-internships.

I wish I came accross this board when I was doing general surgery and IM lol. Thank god my school doesn't make us do AI's during our fourth year. I've elected to do some "easy" non-path electives like rheumatology, plastics, and clin pharm.

 

[geddy]

I've elected to do some "easy" non-path electives like rheumatology, plastics, and clin pharm.

Does your school let you do overseas electives? I did 2 months, and I highly recommend it - a great way to get out and see the world while helping out (if you go to an underserved area). We can even get the trip paid for, since we're paying tuition anyway.

 

[yaah]

Some may find this link humorous...http://civicspacelabs.org/node/view/1210

Some may take offense. But if so, I suggest you have a chuckle and move on.

I just think it's clever.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

Ha! Jesusland.

 

[b&ierstiefel]

I wish I came accross this board when I was doing general surgery and IM lol. Thank god my school doesn't make us do AI's during our fourth year. I've elected to do some "easy" non-path electives like rheumatology, plastics, and clin pharm.

Yeah, it was a great outlet for me. Thing is, when clinical medicine is over, the hate really does dissipate. In a weird way, I do miss bitching about clinical medicine; however, I don't miss those days one bit

 

[yaah]

Yeah, it was a great outlet for me. Thing is, when clinical medicine is over, the hate really does dissipate. In a weird way, I do miss bitching about clinical medicine; however, I don't miss those days one bit

You can always bitch about clinical medicine. Like the presentation I wanted to give.

Cases where primary clinical diagnosis was "pulmonary embolus," autopsy findings:
-Acute MI (twice)
-Sepsis (three times)
-Infarcted Bowel
-ARDS (twice)
-Aspiration Pneumonia (twice)
-No findings, presumed arrythmia from large heart

Case I did find a PE on: Clinical diagnosis aspiration.

 

[Smitty]

Some may find this link humorous...http://civicspacelabs.org/node/view/1210

LOL!! That's awesome! Unfortunately I live in Jesusland. I like the South for the weather, food, friendliness. However, the religous right has got to go.

Thank god my school doesn't make us do AI's during our fourth year.

Man! I am sooo jealous!