Bush or Kerry: slam the US!

[BillA]

Jag
where you going with this ? your answers are probably here
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...lcsm_index.htm

abortion is (presently still) legal in this country, and I suspect will remain so

discussions about outlawing it are vote pandering by the religious and such

[Lothar5150]

Cathar- I think if you look at polls taken regarding religion, you will find Americans are complicated regarding their religious beliefs. Most Americans are not zealots; in fact, I saw a survey a while back. About 98% of Americans said they believed in god but most described themselves as spiritual not religious.

[Kobuchi]

Who defines "democratic"?

We can define it just as objectively as we do "scientific". Just because the word is commonly misapplied, and the process made obscure, dysfunctional, or tawdry, does not mean a democratic process (method) can't be judged correct or not. That includes selection of representatives.

***

Can an American please explain why international observers were barred from this electoral process? No tinfoil hat, it just looks bad and I'm mystified. I can't believe Americans feared criticism.

[BillA]

the agenda

[superart]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Can an American please explain why international observers were barred from this electoral process? No tinfoil hat, it just looks bad and I'm mystified. I can't believe Americans feared criticism.

Am I understanding you right?

Are you asking why aren't foreign people able to participate in American elections?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

Can an American please explain why international observers were barred from this electoral process? No tinfoil hat, it just looks bad and I'm mystified. I can't believe Americans feared criticism.

Our system works just fine. Why don't you help us with elections in Iraq...they are asking for help...that’s right you only want to help out where things are safe(i.e. working)

I swear freedom is just a word to some....

[nexxo]

Originally Posted by unregistered

abortion is (presently still) legal in this country, and I suspect will remain so

discussions about outlawing it are vote pandering by the religious and such

Yeah, but gay marriage is not legal. Thin end of the wedge?

Although religion is forced on people in extreme Islamic states, and not in the US, I don't think that's the point Cathar tried to make. The fact is that religion (and its specific values) are used as an argument for voting for one candidate and not the other. It is such statements that make the whole war against terror seem like a religious war, extremist vs extremist, rather than a conflict between those who believe in personal freedom and democracy, and those who don't. As you said, the two opponents are not comparable, but to all appearances they make very similar noises.

Originally Posted by Joe

not being a gambler I am hessitant to bet my life on some good thing in the afterlife... yet 72 virgins soulds like a a worthy gamble, I am just waiting for the WI Jihad to kick off

Don't get your hopes up. The 72 virgins may have been a mistranslation. The famous passage about the virgins in the original Aramaic texts is based on the word hur, which is an adjective in the feminine plural meaning simply "white." Islamic tradition insists the term hur stands for "houri," which means virgin, but that may be a forced misreading of the text. In both ancient Aramaic and in at least one respected dictionary of early Arabic, hur means "white raisin". So the reward in the afterlife is a nice bowl of white grapes, not virgins.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by nexxo

The 72 virgins....

A dirty girl and a trip to Vegas sounds like a much better deal.

[superart]

Originally Posted by nexxo

Don't get your hopes up. The 72 virgins may have been a mistranslation. The famous passage about the virgins in the original Aramaic texts is based on the word hur, which is an adjective in the feminine plural meaning simply "white." Islamic tradition insists the term hur stands for "houri," which means virgin, but that may be a forced misreading of the text. In both ancient Aramaic and in at least one respected dictionary of early Arabic, hur means "white raisin". So the reward in the afterlife is a nice bowl of white grapes, not virgins.

True, but think about it. It could be aplay on words. Like in our language, a pink or ripe cherry means a hot virgin. Maybe their barbarian heathin toung has similar sexual inuendos. like instead of pink, they use white. And instead of cherries, they use grapes. See what im sayin??

Pop dat grape....beeeach!!! whut whut!!! Werd!!

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by nexxo

Yeah, but gay marriage is not legal. Thin end of the wedge?

Although religion is forced on people in extreme Islamic states, and not in the US, I don't think that's the point Cathar tried to make. The fact is that religion (and its specific values) are used as an argument for voting for one candidate and not the other. It is such statements that make the whole war against terror seem like a religious war, extremist vs extremist, rather than a conflict between those who believe in personal freedom and democracy, and those who don't. As you said, the two opponents are not comparable, but to all appearances they make very similar noises.

Thanks for explaining my point of view more clearly nexxo. That is indeed what I was trying to say. Not that Islamic states and the USA are identical in terms of a forced religion, but that from the rhetoric that gets thrown about resulting in a clouding of the relative distinctions in terms of divorcing religion from the state, at least from a street level in the Middle East point of view.

[BillA]

does perception define reality ?
is one to consider all possible viewpoints (real and imaginary) simply because they exist ?
sure, for we have the political class to support - and in particular those unctuous bastards called 'diplomats'

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by unregistered

does perception define reality ?

Certainly seems to work for the nutters.

The bifurcation between church and state must be complete if one wishes to avoid being externally viewed as a religious state, whether real or imaginary.

From an outsider's point of view, the separation of church and state in the USA is not a clear distinction to many, even though it may be clear to some within in the USA. Given that many USA voters said that they voted for Bush because "it feels like God is in the White House for the first time in a long time", would somewhat indicate that there's more than a few Americans who are unaware of any distinction as well.

[Becks]

"Bush won handily among those who prioritized terrorism." according to CNN exit polls... anyone else look at the map of states bush won? I was happy for the daily show to mention this, but why is it the people afraid of terrorism live in the middle of nowhere? What exactly are they afraid of? People sitting in Mississippi think terrorists are trying to come kill them? You look at big cities, the target of probably any terrorist attack... SF, Chicago, NewYork(!!!) all voted for Kerry... even in Houston people voted for Kerry (58%)... I didn't even bother looking up every big city. I really don't like politics, and I think the problem is people are dumb... maybe not the best thing to say but really... its the only reasoning that makes sense.

[aaronspink]

Originally Posted by unregistered

does perception define reality ?

Perception is the self fulfilling prophecy of reality. This is especially true in politics, diplomancy, and propaganda.

These are all things that have led in large parts to the reality of the present day middle east. Perception has been critical through the past century ( Germany, Vietnam, Cold War, etc). It could be argued in large part that reality doesn't exist and all there is is perception, but that is more of a philosophical train of arguement.

Certainly when you are dealing with issues of fanaticism, perception does define reality. The perception is that isreal wants to take over the middle east, destory arabs (enforced by many a middle eastern movie), that the isreal-palistinian issue is a religous war, that the US only wants oil, etc. Its doesn't matter what the reality is if the perception doesn't change then the reality cannot change.

[Kobuchi]

Originally Posted by superart

Am I understanding you right?

Are you asking why aren't foreign people able to participate in American elections?

Election monitors, from an organisation of which the US, among many countries, is a member. These guys study and report on elections in Venezuela, Denmark, etc. It's non-partisan. Like the Red Cross, they'll bend over backwards to maintain a friendly working relationship with any country willing to admit them. These guys wanted to monitor the US election because of the electoral controversy in 2000, and the curious issues in this one.

They were not barred from all parts of the country, but they were refused access to some states of particular interest. They say that, overall, they had less access to polls than in Kazakhstan.

I guess it's just confused pride that rejected these observers. This would be like barring a group that studies how the police of different countries operate, on the assumption they come not to document successes but only to bad-mouth the local police force.

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Our system works just fine. Why don't you help us with elections in Iraq...they are asking for help...that’s right you only want to help out where things are safe(i.e. working)

I swear freedom is just a word to some....

While the invasion was under way, Canada did formally offer to send in Mounties, to keep order. These guys are experts in crowd control, believe me. The offer was rejected by "the coalition".

Help with elections in Iraq? Are you serious? Do you really want the residents of Falluja electing their favourite candidate? We could protect him from assassination too. If we help, it'll be for real. You know our two countries aren't prepared to face-off over reality in Iraq.

Afghanistan is safe? Did you know our soldiers there cannot chamber a bullet until fired upon first? Better risk our own necks than accidentally shoot an innocent. Would you like to discuss the bravery of your own country's military practice?

[pHaestus]

I find the gay-marriage bans and the shift towards "Christian values" in the election process to be frightening. I suspect far smaller support would be present for the right to burn a US flag in dempnstration today than 10 years ago, and a flag burning amendment MIGHT fly now. Sure corrupting the "sanctity of marriage" and defiling the flag and eschewing the tenants of the majority religion all seem like bad things to the majority of US people. That doesn't necessarily make it right tho.

Jim Crow laws and segregation were accepted by the majority of people in the south even though they violated the Constitutional rights of citizenry. Bush has stated that he thinks theories competing with evolution should be taught in science class; the only ones around are creationism and intelligent design (which is creationism in a new suit). There's no SCIENCE in either; just philosophy and religion. But they can get a majority of votes in the states that gay marriage ban passed I bet (and most non NW states that voted for Bush too). This means that students of the future MAY be getting religious training and "christian values" from their public schools and have pressure on them to fall in like with those in school and at the ballot box. Look I am pretty passionate about this because I grew up in a small city in the bible belt. I was fortunate to go to one of the best public schools in the state for academics (though the state was probably ranked 48-49 overall) and got a solid high school education. I remember almost 1/3 of my class leaving the room when the teacher stated that we were going to talk about evolution for the next week, and that those with a religious conflict to this theory could go to the library and work on an independent study project instead for the same credit. Everyone in that room tallied up everyone else's position, and I had a few people in the class that no longer wanted to have anything to do with me because I obviously wasn't Christian.

In college the announcement was a little different. The biology prof said that he recognized that some religions had a problem with evolution, so if you didn't feel comfortable learning about it then to skip the next 3 lectures and go find a different course to take because you would be failing BIOL. Kinda egoistic but what do you expect from profs.

[pHaestus]

Oh and I know I am on some "slippery slope what if scenario" land, but consider that it is very clear that Bush was reelected based on Christian values. Also consider it being said loudly that he OWES evangelicals now big time. Then look at the fact those voters (as a whole) ignore the economy, the military's involvement in foreign wars, and all the other issues. They care about abortion (against), gay rights (against), evolutionary theory (against), stem cell research (against), and prayer in schools (for). Of these the EASY targets are gays (only 5-10% of population and isolated in urban centers just like Kerry supporters) and faith-based programming in schools (look at all those red states and gay marriage bans in the electoral map).

Abortion is a harder nut because there's less support within the party's moderates and women, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some legislation get floated. Partial birth and late pregnancy abortions might be an easier target to try again. Perhaps removing HMO coverage for abortions or requiring some "pro life education" before any abortions would go. I don't see an amendment happening though at this time (need more than that 51% Bush vote we saw and I'm not sure they'd even have that)

Stem cell research puts the evangelicals in direct opposition with the pharmaceutical corporations, so this is one I have been watching somewhat eagerly. This issue, in my mind, will determine whether the US will be at the forefront of the next big shift in technology. Now it may be that the corporations just do all of this privately; we'll see longterm if that is good or bad for US economy. In principle I agree with this, but in practice I fear that US universities missing out on all these patents will make public education at universities much more expensive, and I also fear it will lead to a brain drain away from US. There's always nanotech to keep them running though I guess.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

While the invasion was under way, Canada did formally offer to send in Mounties, to keep order. These guys are experts in crowd control, believe me. The offer was rejected by "the coalition".

Help with elections in Iraq? Are you serious? Do you really want the residents of Falluja electing their favourite candidate? We could protect him from assassination too. If we help, it'll be for real. You know our two countries aren't prepared to face-off over reality in Iraq.

Afghanistan is safe? Did you know our soldiers there cannot chamber a bullet until fired upon first? Better risk our own necks than accidentally shoot an innocent. Would you like to discuss the bravery of your own country's military practice?

I was a little busy during the invasion but I am sure Chrétien put some unacceptable condition on their use in the post invasion operation.

Honestly, I think that the residents of Falluja should be able to peacefully elect whom ever they like, as their Rep. The problem with the Sunni Triangle is that there is a non-Iraq insurgent element in it. I think the Iraqi insurgents will buy into the democratic process once the non-Iraqi elements are removed. Allawi has bent over backwards to bring them into the fold just as he did with the Shea radicals. Over the next month, my brothers are going to pay a very high price for the bending over backwards.

As far as the bullet in the camber is concerned…While I don’t doubt the bravery of Canadian Soldiers, but dumb policy does not make warriors brave.

If America wanted to make Falluja disappear forever, we could to it tomorrow. However, we will send a division of Marines and Iraqi Soldiers to take the city…Urban warfare is costly and largely close quarters combat (small arms , knives, and fists) Typically the morbid math says a ration of 5 attackers to 1 defender are required in an urban environment. Our morality will not let us just Fuel Air Bomb the city, so we send in troops with large losses as a reality. Brave…I don’t know about that, but we will be able to live with ourselves in the end.

[Lothar5150]

PHaestus- I think you have some foundation for your concerns regarding the religious right but I don’t think they do any permanent harm. If you look at our history, every attempt to limit civil liberties has failed and every enlargement of civil liberties has succeeded. The religious right will get the few days in the sun and then they will go too far and then will be seen as small minded as in the past. Then the right will loose the vote of we who economic and foreign policy conservatives but social progressives.

There really is no move toward "Christian" values the population groups that voted are constant with every election. Kerry lost by 3.5 million votes out of over 114 million. Hardly a slide toward Amish living.

In terms of gay rights, I think that this will end up in the Supreme Court just as civil rights ended up in the Court. Moreover, my guess is once again it will be an issue of equal protection. The court will be forced to define the concept of marriage and what the governments roll is in a marriage. I think in the end they will boil marriage down to a legal contract regarding largely division of assets and custody of children. Then Court will say well are we talking about semantics here or is this a real difference...

Some worry about the next Justices appointed to the court however, people forget Chief Justice Earl Warren was a card-carrying member of the KKK and at first considered a very conservative judge. Low and behold, he ended up as the great champion of civil rights and defined the activist court. The reason Justices are appointed for life is so they can be above politics and be a buffer against the tyranny of the many against the rights of the few.

People are worried about the Court reversing on Roe v. Wade. However, it is very rare for the Court to reverse a decision. To the best of my knowledge, it has never reversed on a decision in order to remove a right.

Stem Cell research will continue. In fact, I would say that you could expect California and private sector to lead the way. In the big picture, the Bush administrations stand on Federal Stem Cell Research was the best thing that could have happened to California once again companies will come hear for research and development. This could make California the second largest economy in 10-15 years...Sorry fly over country.

[superart]

Didn't bush outlaw stem cell research except with stem cells that are already in existance?

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by superart

Didn't bush outlaw stem cell research except with stem cells that are already in existance?

No only Federal Research with certain stem cell lines. This is a clear case where the issue was watered down for proletariat consumption.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

No only Federal Research with certain stem cell lines.

I thought it was federal money for research. The kicker (which I'm not sure about) is that it might be worded the same way they did it with overseas population control organizations and abortion i.e. if any part of your organization is doing this then no money from the federal gov't. I don't think this was done through a bill in congress but by Presidential regulatory fiat.

On a 'way different note - the upcoming assault on Fallujah: are we expecting the "insurgents" (or whatever they're called) to stay there? All/most of 'em? Or is it "just enough to give the Marines a hard time"? I'm assuming they've read the same books you folks have - and what's coming up looks to be a set-piece battle against a superior foe - so you scram, right? Live to fight another day?
Is if going to be that much easier getting them removed from the rest of the "triangle" that it's worth doing this? Not on an "anti war soap box" here just would like to know the general feeling. Hope you don't lose any buddies.

[Lothar5150]

Originally Posted by bobkoure

I thought it was federal money for research. The kicker (which I'm not sure about) is that it might be worded the same way they did it with overseas population control organizations and abortion i.e. if any part of your organization is doing this then no money from the federal gov't. I don't think this was done through a bill in congress but by Presidential regulatory fiat.

On a 'way different note - the upcoming assault on Fallujah: are we expecting the "insurgents" (or whatever they're called) to stay there? All/most of 'em? Or is it "just enough to give the Marines a hard time"? I'm assuming they've read the same books you folks have - and what's coming up looks to be a set-piece battle against a superior foe - so you scram, right? Live to fight another day?
Is if going to be that much easier getting them removed from the rest of the "triangle" that it's worth doing this? Not on an "anti war soap box" here just would like to know the general feeling. Hope you don't lose any buddies.

California is going to bankroll this research plan with 3 billion. From Economic standpoint, it puts California on par with the Federal Government for research dollars...Fifth largest economy on the planet

Everyone expects Fallujah to be a very difficult fight. The insurgents have had 3 months to build deliberate defensive poisons in an urban environment. The environment favors the defenders. Most of the guys still in the city are foreign fighters not Iraqis; they are expected to fight to the death. I think all the major cities in the Triangle will be difficult but it is necessary so that the Iraqis can continue to move toward a democracy. Thanks, I hope your right about my bothers.

[Kobuchi]

Can't stop parents - especially educated ones - from banking their own newborns umbilical cord blood. We're doing this now. By the time that generation reaches adolescence, a collectively vocal fraction will have developed diseases only this (stem cell) blood can cure, even by today's technology. Who can deny them life, by their own blood? Further stem cell research could easily persuade general acceptance in this way. Who can deny willing donors?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

Most of the guys still in the city are foreign fighters not Iraqis...

My understanding is that only women and children under 15 have been allowed to flee (pass the checkpoints). Males "of military age" will be shot if they try to leave. All the men of the city are foreigners? Or are all the men of the city willing combatants?

Originally Posted by Lothar5150

...they are expected to fight to the death.

Indeed.

Pave the way for elections by killing all the voting age males of Falluja.

[bobkoure]

Originally Posted by Kobuchi

... Males "of military age" will be shot if they try to leave.

Shot by US forces? You sure about that?
I thought that invading Iraq was a really bad idea (we didn't need to go in there - and I was pretty sure that it was going to end up being a mess) but that does not mean that I think our troops would behave in an unprofessional manner. The point of the Marines going in is so it does not become a "massacre of civilians". Otherwise, fuel-air bombs become a good idea.