It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


OP/ED: One Hot Democratic Minute - A Rebuttal; A Promise

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2004 @ 11:38 PM

Originally posted by BlackJackal
This is the same sort of thing the Newspapers in the Country said about Abraham Lincoln when he won re-election, but look at him he went on to be remembered as one of the greatest of all time.

[edit on 3-11-2004 by BlackJackal]

Yeah, and what happened RIGHT after Lincoln was elected again? Think back...

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:22 AM
"I thank God for that shift for it tells me that we may yet remain one nation under God until Christ comes again."

I'm sorry, I have to take issue with this. If this is the only reason that Bush was re-elected, we have much bigger problems than I thought.

The religious right needs to understand that they are not the only people that make up the USA. There are jews, muslims, buddhists, and even athiests like me. None of us believe in 'Christ', and we're still human beings. I'm sick and tired of these closed-minded conservatives that think they know what is best for everybody. Religion is only a political issue in America, and it sickens me. We should elect a President like a corporation chooses a CEO - based completely on his leadership skills, instead of based on whether or not he believes in some mythological being. Canada, here I come...

"How can you vote for a President that thinks the jury is still out on evolution" - Bill Maher

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:54 AM

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Intolerance? Maybe. Ignorance? Definitely.

As much as you want to make this about gay marriage, it just doesnt cut it. Yes, some exit polls (the same polls that showed Kerry winning by the way) ....

I followed most of the election last night, as many others did, can you tell me what polls you are talking about that "showed Kerry winning"?.....

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:59 AM
Chis, you are free to decide what religion you want to follow, but this is still a representative democratic republic, issues are decided based on what the majority think is right. If everyone could do as they wanted, and as they thought this contry would become an anarchy, with no government.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:26 AM

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Seth Bullock
Intolerance? Maybe. Ignorance? Definitely.

As much as you want to make this about gay marriage, it just doesnt cut it. Yes, some exit polls (the same polls that showed Kerry winning by the way) ....

I followed most of the election last night, as many others did, can you tell me what polls you are talking about that "showed Kerry winning"?.....

There's only one. The same nationwide effort that's been the exit polling feed for all modern elections. They came under fire in 2000 for early skewing of a huge Bush lead (that obviously did not hold in the popular vote) and were reviewed and re-evaluated, which only boiled down to being renamed. But none of these numbers are officially released except in segmentation analyses. So you probably saw none of them anywhere, except in clues from the ongoing analysis. This demographic collection effort is merely supposed to be the source of seeing who votes how by gender, religion, issue, etc.

The gentlemans' ban on the public release of those numbers notwithstanding they always are given to strategists and analysts. Though not released on TV the cues come just the same. Anyone flipping channels and surfing the web last night noticed one thing. All at once sometime around the third release of numbers (around 6pm) a call of impending defeat came from the right. Based on the 2pm and 4pm numbers I saw I don't blame them. Though it was later revealed the polling skewed for women instead of men this time (thus Kerry), the rally cry had already been made and worked. Screaming impending defeat (with even the utterance of landslide in some circles) reversed the trend with polls still open. Whether that made so much of a difference of not, the fact it was done is not in dispute.

And to Seth's point that the polls were skewed anyway, they were. But skewing overwhelmingly Kerry yet still showing at least a fifth of those same voters citing morality and value issues as the primary driver trending towards Bush, means the net result was even more. You can't skew both ways in the same poll. Value voters were underestimated in both the campaign and impact on this election. They determined it.

Economics, foreign policy, etc. were all either a wash or trended Kerry. The only questioned that mattered, and sadly even needs to be asked in future polls is do you regularly attend Church?

For political polling, that's pretty sad.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by RANT]

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 02:48 AM
Speaking as a fan of your delicious wit, I must compliment you on the thread-starter post. You wield an intellectual razor like no other, and I say that having written and read my fair share of erudite polemics.

It is high praise indeed when someone who disagrees with you on so many topics is nonetheless compelled to acknowledge your brilliance.

If you enjoyed writing that piece half as much as I enjoyed reading it, then I enjoyed reading it twice as much as you enjoyed writing it.

Nicely done!

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:07 AM
An anecdote to this very point.

My grandfather is a Christian that (until recently) attended church here in the rural South every Sunday of his life that he wasn't rotting in a German POW camp. Though he can no longer stomach the politics of his life long church (next door), he still drives 20 miles or so into the country to a backwoods church that still talks religion first, politics never...and democrats are still welcome.

His increasingly poor health, however, has rendered him in front of Christian cable programming more and more lately. The right wing political bent is both obvious and pervasive but there's one he manages to tolerate, Charles Stanley.

I only found all this out when I was wondering why an 80 something year old man in the middle of nowhere suddenly couldn't stop talking about gay people and the destruction of America.

Two minutes on the Internet told me all I needed to know about what was happening to my normally tolerant grandfather. A working man. A patriotic man. A life long Democrat.

1065 ARBOR TRACE (map)

George W. Bush $2,000

NEWNAN, GA 30263

George W. Bush $250

Religon, Government and Public Affairs it would seem is a family affair, with an indirect feed from the White House via Georgia and a dozen other red states into your own grandfather's living room.

And don't get me started on what the rural cult of Wal-Mart has done to my grandmother.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:10 AM

Originally posted by Majic
Nicely done!

I'm fond of your dinner theater as well, though I mostly just quietly chain smoke in the corner. Rest assured though, that finger snapping you hear on occasion is me.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:23 AM
Rant I am very glad you brought this subject up. The election was not run on "moral values" or Gay marriage, but you are correct in stateing that those voters to whom those issues were a major concern did tip the balance. What you and the rest of the democratic party fail to realise however, is that religon is not a political issue to many christians, it is a way of life The failure of the democratic party to understand this and the success of the republican party to do so is what decided this election. However the fact that many christian fundamentalists support a ban on gay marrige is not intolerance and the fact that you think it is is telling. You see to me and many other christians, marriage is not a legal tradition, or a contract, or even a social traditon, to many of us marrage is sacred

Yes it does have legal and social implications but the fact is that every year millions of americans are married in church. Even though we are required to get a marriage license from the state for it to be legally recognised, we consider ourselves married when the priest says we are, not when we get the license. We are married in the eyes of God not in the eyes of the state. What many democrats fail to understand is that to those of us who believe we are not christians when we go to church we are christians in everything we do.

To many of us homosexuality is immoral. Whether you agree or not is irelevant, as it is our belief. However no one is attempting to ban homosexuality. The issue is whether or not gays have a right to force us to accept them into our religous institutions. Marriage to christians is a religous institution. It is not as in the case of athiests, agnostics, and secularists, a contarct between two people, it is a binding of two people to God.

We are not afraid of shotgun gay weddings, we are not concerened if gays live together, we are only concerned about what many percieve to be the hijacking of our beliefs and values. We are concerned that by allowing gay marriages we are being forced to accept someone else morality into our church. A morality which is in many ways percieved to be incompatible with our own.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:40 AM
mwm1331 has a point. Most Christians I know have no problem with gay civil unions -- with all the legal appurtenances attendant thereto -- but they will oppose gay marriage to the bitter end.

However, this is not an acceptable compromise for the left wing of the Democratic Party (now known as simply "The Democratic Party"), so there is naturally some alienation.

The fact that Christians are also the favorite prey for the Marxist elements seeking to abolish religion (which translates as Christianity only -- Islam, Judaism, Wicca, Voodun, etc. are exempt) is also a major turn-off.

For some reason, when you bag on people, they tend not to side with you politically. A quirk of human nature, I suppose.

Basically, the Democratic Party is the "Party of Inclusion", but conservatives, Christians and anyone to the right of Che Guevara need not apply.

But they can still vote, and I guess that's what this is all about.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 03:42 AM
I really do know that MWM, just as I'm sure the leaders of the DNC do as well. I don't think it's so much though that the Democratic Party has made an assault on the Christian Church or it's ideology in so much as the RNC has spun it that way.

To make an admittedly partisan analogy the "good guys" are pretty predictable in a campaign. They'll take the bullet every time. As creative as they get is "heading them off at the pass" but that's to be expected, and usually is by the opposition.

So if the RNC declares war on Scorpios, for example, in the 2008 election, calling it of course a defense of the pure 11 astrological symbols, the DNC will go on record for the rights of Scorpios.

We will lose the election, by simple mathematics. But we'll still be right.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:01 AM
You may think your right but so do we.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:28 AM
I see, so this evidence that you are talking about can, and could only be seen by a few...

Rant, the division we have seen for some years, and administrations, in most of the US comes from the ever slowly acceptance of the socialistic/communistic propaganda.

Democrats slowly began to incorporate the ideas of socialism and most people in the US did not even see this change until it was too late.

Let me give you some evidence, which has not dissapeared and which everyone can see.

with America in the grip of the Great Depression, Thomas won nearly 1 million votes in the presidential election--the most he every polled. The victor that year--Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt--incorporated many of the Socialists' ideas into his New Deal, and public support for the Socialist Party steadily declined.

Excerpted from.

In November, 1991, former President Nixon, speaking at the dedication of the Ronald Reagan Library said, "Thirty-two years ago in Moscow, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev said to me, 'Your grandchildren will live under communism.' I replied, 'Your grandchildren will live in freedom.' At that time, I was sure he was wrong. I was not sure I was right. Now we know."

Excerpted from.

I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the State itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal.

Roger Baldwin.

Excerpted from.

Roger Baldwin was the founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.

AN ADDRESS BY Lavrent Pavlovich Beria
American students at the Lenin University, I welcome your attendance at these classes on Psychopolitics. Psychopolitics is an important if less known division of Geo-politics. It is less known because it must necessarily deal with highly educated personnel, the very top strata of "mental healing." By psychopolitics our chief goals are effectively carried forward. To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil. At least a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses. A psychopolitician must work hard to produce the maximum chaos in the fields of "mental healing." He must recruit and use all the agencies and facilities of "mental healing." He must labor to increase the personnel and facilities of "mental healing" until at last the entire field of mental science is entirely dominated by Communist principles and desires.

To achieve these goals the psychopolitician must crush every "home-grown" variety of mental healing in America. Actual teachings of James, Eddy and Pentecostal Bible faith healers amongst your mis-guided people must be swept aside. They must be discredited, defamed, arrested, stamped upon even by their own government until there is no credit in them and only Communist-oriented "healing" remains. You must work until every teacher of psychology unknowingly or knowingly teaches only Communist doctrine under the guise of "psychology.". You must labor until every doctor and psychiatrist is either a psycho-politician or an unwitting assistant to our aims.

Excerpted from.

The evidence is there for everyone to see, slowly but surely under the disguise of liberalism, many Americans have accepted the doctrines of socialism, but the goal is always communism....that is the root in the division that America is suffering.

There is more to be found from reliable sources and readily available for everyone to see. Where is your evidence Rant?

[edit on 4-11-2004 by Muaddib]

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 04:55 AM

Originally posted by Vladtepes
Today is the right for gays to marry.
Tomorrow you will fight for the rights of pedophlies to have legal access to children

You know in a way I am glad we have these superfacial, ignorant apes on ATS as well, so we know what kind of opinions exist in the real world.

The election showed to me, how ignorant most americans are. It also shows me that the discussion about moral issues is behind some years in the US, compared to the netherlands. And it also shows me that some christians let their own primal fear and ignorance guide them instead of what God is truly saying.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 05:03 AM
People form the basis of their moral values long before they are old enough to enter the ballot box. If they are against gay marriage, then so be it. You want them to accept gay marriage; they resist your attempts, so you call it indoctrination and blame a right-wing agenda.

No, it isn't. Nobody changes their morals in the span of one presidential term. Nobody changes their mind because of the party platform.

They were always out there. They just happened to vote in numbers large enough to re-elect Bush. Blame the RNC for this if you want, but all they did was deliver the vote. You might as well blame P. Diddy, eminem, and Michael Moore for not delivering the youth vote to Kerry.

You can't change people's core beliefs. You have no right to blame them or belittle them for not condoning gay marriagee. The majority say, do what you want, don't bother me with it. You can have your civil unions and all benefits of a conventional marriage, don't force me to accept you by labelling your union as marriage.

Face it. The majority is not ready to change their ideas to make you feel good. As long as you are not being deprived of a job, or a seat in the restaurant, there is no foul. Why must you insist that people think the same way that you do?

You are putting the cart before the horse, when it is the other way around. No wonder you can't figure it out.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 05:30 AM
The democratic party and all its affiliated organizations put forth a candidate with a questionable war record, almost no accomplishment in a twenty year stint in the senate and someone who can not bring himself to make a solid stance on any issue of importance, then you turn around and say its the american electorate that is ignorant.

I think enough evidence is on the table to claim that it is the democratic party that was ignorant when it came to figuring out the majority of the electorate.

Looking inwards and reflecting on the results (or lack of) of ones actions is much more effective than blaming others for misfortune. (or success)

Of course the latter mentioned avenue makes one feel better, is easier and takes little mental effort.

Unfortunately it results in the same mistakes over and over.

Denying ignorance would seem to preclude the arrogance of blame and assuming your position is un-impeachable.

If it was so easy to point out the religious right as the swing group so soon after the election then ignorance was denied prior to the election on these very grounds by the democrats.

Blame and sour grapes will not improve that party's position one iota for the future, but it will ensure a stagnation of ideas.

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:30 AM
Accountability under the never ending glare of an 8 years span. AN 8 year span where at no point, was there less than 3 branch control. The accomplishments over the first term were non-existent, yet the "plan" for term two is more of the same!?!
2nd term presidents are all about the do they get there from where we are now?

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 09:58 AM

Originally posted by frayed1
And when Christ comes again, I have a feeling he will not be too pleased that we re-elected a guy that lied so he could invade a third world country, killing and maiming way more than the guilty.

He no longer needs to hide his agenda from anyone, George can do what ever he wants, without worrying about those pesky voters liking it or not. He sure won't need to worry about doing any healing with a bunch of folks he'll never need. I wonder if there will even be another election.

Oh God, spare me the drama! Geeeeeze. Bush is just a president! GRASP THE CONCEPT.

About your remarks on the war -- these remarks sound hauntingly familiar -- where have I heard them before? OH, RIGHT. I hear this CRAP every DAMN DAY especially here on ATS where people can't just accept that America entered a WAR, and in WARS, people get MAIMED and OBLITERATED and SPLATTERED. KILLED. DISABLED. INCINERATED. MELTED. PERFORATED. GET OVER IT, PLEASE.

Main Entry: third world
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized T&W
Etymology: translation of French tiers monde
1 : a group of nations especially in Africa and Asia not aligned with either the Communist or the non-Communist blocs
2 : an aggregate of minority groups within a larger predominant culture
3 : the aggregate of the underdeveloped nations of the world

Iraq is not underdeveloped. Just because it's not America doesn't make it third world.


[edit on 4-11-2004 by Zipdot]

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Vladtepes
Today is the right for gays to marry.
Tomorrow you will fight for the rights of pedophlies to have legal access to children

So, love or sex between two consenting adults of the same sex is comparable to the illegal acts of a paedophile.

You must be very proud of your ignorance to make a statement like that.

Tell me, how does being a paedophile compare to gay marriage, what the feck do they have to do with each other?

Have you even bothered to think about what you are typing?

Please tell me you aren't eligible to vote...!!

posted on Nov, 4 2004 @ 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Muaddib
There is more to be found from reliable sources and readily available for everyone to see. Where is your evidence Rant?

Of...? What the exit polls said? I posted some of the raw unweighted data from 2pm on ATS Tuesday. I said then take it with a grain of salt, because it showed Kerry winning at least one swing state (MN I think) by 60%. We knew it wouldn't hold, but that's the same data everyone saw in both the RNC and DNC.

As to my evidence the RNC went nuts and leaked they were losing all over TV and Radio and websites, that's a pretty well established discussion point by now. I mean turn on TV, or ask somebody if you don't believe me.

Here's the final weighted exit polling data being discussed now everywhere.

Turns out my premise of why Bush won has validity.

TOTAL 2004

Taxes (5%) B - 57% / K - 43%

Education (4%) B - B 26% / K - 73%

Iraq (15%) B - 26% / K - 73%

Terrorism (19%) B - 86% / K - 14%

Economy/Jobs (20%) B - 18% / K - 80%

Moral Values (22%) B - 80% / K - 18%

Health Care (8%) B - 23% / K - 77%

Moral Values then was the most important "issue" to 2004 voters. Of which 80% voted Bush.

Debating anything else is now for sport only. The tax issue in particular is officially dead.

America is trending toward a fundamentalist regime run by a network of spiritual leaders telling people to vote in support of the RNC-state.

To all the economic conservatives on ATS (some of which agree with Libertarians and Democrats on social issues) your voice is now officially as irrelevant to your party as mine is to the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.

Welcome to the minority.

George W(edge) Bush just put the "W" in inclusion.

[edit on 4-11-2004 by RANT]

new topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in