Disney on Saturday! So long, cunts!

What am I not getting here?

Why did you Americans give the global village idiot a second term in office?

You actually VOTED for his re-election.

Why why why?
Permalink Bluebeard 
July 10th, 2007 2:56pm
Half of us didn't.

The other half are morons.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 10th, 2007 2:58pm
Dave eggers wrote a funny essay on this.

You stupid morons! hahaha
Permalink what are you reading for? 
July 10th, 2007 3:02pm
I didn't vote for the guy either time.

Bluebeard, if you really want to blame anyone, blame the American South - they've shown a rather remarkable ability to consistently vote against their own economic interests.
Permalink Full name 
July 10th, 2007 3:02pm
"Half of us didn't."

I don't buy that because a.) there must have been plenty Dems who voted for Bush and b.) where was your strong candidate who could rise above party politics to lead the nation?

The Democratic leadership failure is equally to blame. Is it going to be any different come next election?
Permalink Bluebeard 
July 10th, 2007 3:03pm
We should have let the Confederacy go while the getting was good.  Now we're stuck with their reactionary bullshit.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 10th, 2007 3:04pm
Because the Gay & Lesbian alliance (such as there is one) thought that 2004 would be a swell time to go for the gold and start getting married. Loudly. With much press.

A major chunk of Bush's win was a vote against gay marriage.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
July 10th, 2007 3:05pm
"Half of us didn't"

Half of us DIDN'T vote for Bush!  He "won" with barely 50% of the vote.  So roughly half of the people who voted, voted for someone else.

And in 2000, and arguably 2004 also, there was shenanigans before and after the voting which may have ensured Bush's (s)election.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 10th, 2007 3:05pm
"A major chunk of Bush's win was a vote against gay marriage."

That still makes half of the voters morons.
Permalink Send private email Wayne 
July 10th, 2007 3:07pm
I actually wrote to our local gays for marriage group imploring them to give it up for a while and join bigger liberal causes.  I tried to point out that with everyone's civil liberties crumbling, a war with no end in sight, and global warming all threatening us, fighting for a pisspot cause like gay marriage seemed like a total waste of energy.  Plus, like Philo said, it's just pissing off the conservatives and giving them a Win the Election Free card.

They didn't get it.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 10th, 2007 3:08pm
Gay marriage is a red herring.

"A major chunk of Bush's win was a vote against gay marriage."

I doubt this. Might as well say a major chunk of Clinton's win was a vote against conventional marriage.

I did not vote for Bush, AND I am strongly against government sanctioned gay marriage, so there!
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 3:21pm
> We should have let the Confederacy go

+1
Permalink son of parnas 
July 10th, 2007 3:31pm
"strongly against government sanctioned gay marriage"

and your infantile reasons??
Permalink Cheers 
July 10th, 2007 3:32pm
PE, why are you against government-sanctioned gay marriage?  Are you against only gay marriage, or are you against marriage in the first place as a civil construct?

Either let anyone get married, or no one.  Why discriminate based on the gender combinations involved?

At any rate, the gays picked a lousy era to start agitating for this.  Gave the right wing a great weapon to use against the left.  Easy pickings.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 10th, 2007 3:32pm
"We should have let the Confederacy go while the getting was good."

That's actually a very interesting position. Slavery was doomed anyway and would have been eliminated with or without the war. But if the union had allowed the secession and built a big wall there, it probably would have resulted in a much stronger north over time, not being weighted down with southern issues as you suggest.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 3:33pm
"Are you against only gay marriage, or are you against marriage in the first place as a civil construct?"

Fuck, you are GOOD Merrick. I thought I was going to have some fun seeing the reactionary reactions, but you guessed my position right at the outset.

Right, I am against government control of who can get married at all. So no government sanction gay or straight marriage. Some states ban first cousin marriages, others don't. Various states have age limits or exceptions or parental permissions. Polygamy is illegal everywhere even though it is part of many religions and non-religions.

Government sanctioned implies dividing things into two based on what is allowed and not allowed and the government decides which is which.

Government control of who you can love, spend your life with and have sex with is an absurd concept to me. Sure, we can have laws banning sex under 14 or whatever as a different issue, but government has no business regulating marriage at all.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 3:37pm
>Why did you Americans give the global village idiot a second term in office?
I currently have IRL-contact with exactly one person who voted ~for~ bush. He is Catholic and his explanation is that he voted ~against~ Kerry due to Kerry's position on abortion.

I suspect that the two main reasons for bush getting re-selected have to do with mobilizing the anti-other-guy campaigning (like swift boat shenanigans) as well as corrupting the vote counting mechanisms.

>You actually VOTED for his re-election.
You make the faulty assumption that votes cast are related to votes counted. The CEO of diebold, one of the major vendors of electronic voting machines stated that he'd do whatever it takes to make sure that the republican'ts got re-selected in 2004. It got so bad that some counties in states like Ohio counted more votes *for* the republican't candidates than there were registered voters in those counties. As a result of that scandal, the OH legislature made it illegal to challenge election results in court.
Permalink Peter 
July 10th, 2007 3:42pm
PE, it was the "government sanctioned" part that gave you away.  You kind of have a distinctive point of view on the role of the government.

And thanks for the compliment.  I got a little turned on there for a minute.
Permalink AMerrickanGirl 
July 10th, 2007 3:43pm
The 2004 election was the Red-Blue election.  Except Ohio went Republican and put Bush over the top.  Which probably wouldn't have happened if Ohio had enough voting machines.

The 2000 election was the one where Gore won, but Bush won Florida in the after count.

So, in a way, America DIDN'T actually elect Bush either time.  It's that close.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 10th, 2007 3:45pm
"As a result of that scandal, the OH legislature made it illegal to challenge election results in court."

Sounds like something that happens in a banana republic like Zimbabwe...
Permalink Bluebeard 
July 10th, 2007 3:47pm
And I agree with AG on this one -- the conservatives who had to hold their noses to vote for Bush, did so because of "Moral Issues".

Which Bush was able to define as anti-Gay Marriage.  This united the Conservative Christian voting block, and got them to the polls.

I agree the Gay Marriage issue was not going to happen, and was a smoke-screen that allowed hiding of larger issues.  But it was a supremely effective smoke screen for Bush's base.
Permalink SaveTheHubble 
July 10th, 2007 3:48pm
PE, I don't understand why bait and switch conversations are fun.
Permalink anoneemouse 
July 10th, 2007 3:51pm
There was no bait and switch, I was providing a counter example as someone who didn't vote for Bush AND is against government sanctioned gay marriage. I suspected that saying so would be politically unpopular and provoke reaction among those who only see issues as black and white, but that wasn't the motivation for posting, it was just a happy side effect if it happened.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 4:07pm
OH has some interesting issues. One major contributor to bush (this guy even managed to get the Ranger tag, which costs $250k/year) managed to embezzle tens of millions of dollars of money that were "invested" in "rare coins." The biggest client of my last employer was a financial institution that was up to their necks in this scandal. Which got almost zero press coverage outside of OH. However, if the guy were a huge financial supporter of Clinton, we'd be hearing about it from every rooftop for the next hundred years.
Permalink Peter 
July 10th, 2007 4:14pm
Anyway, I think my position is a more logical one and closer to people's real intent here.

When talking to someone who advocates gay marriage, you usually hear this argument, which is a strong one:

"Why should the government be allowed to determine who you can love?"

For most people, it's hard to rebut that statement. But conventional proposals - to 'allow' a single new sort of marriage, just create MORE discrimination power and control by the government, not less. Currently, gays can get married if they want, unless they define marriage as some sort of thing the government does. I would say that gays who get married now have more TRUE marriages than that of heteros, who think marriage is some sort of paperwork you file with government inspectors, like applying for a beer license.

My position is to work with people's intent as so communicated. Get government completely out of this, and return the institution of marriage where it belongs - with the people.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 4:17pm
"A major chunk of Bush's win was a vote against gay marriage."

"I doubt this."

Do you remember 2004? Every other week we had news reports about judges in various states and localities saying the state could not discriminate against homosexuals in marriage. There were photos of groom/groom and bride/bride weddings on the evening news, the front page of the paper, etc, etc. Those happy homosexuals, celebrating their nuptuals, and handing ammunition to the Republicans. "Here, have a picture of two guys kissing to get your folks to the polls to vote for Bush"

Figure at the 2004 election the die-hards were 40/40 split, with 20% undecided. The War in Iraq swayed some, other issues swayed others. But gay marriage is something that a hell of a lot of people still resent. Make it an issue and you've got a steep row to hoe to get people back on the democratic side.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
July 10th, 2007 4:21pm
by the way, just to be clear - I wholly support gay marriage. Well, more to the point - I wholly support marriage and I really don't care which two people choose to take the vows.
Permalink Send private email Philo 
July 10th, 2007 4:22pm
"Those happy homosexuals, celebrating their nuptuals, and handing ammunition to the Republicans."

OK, so it is the gays fault that Bush won.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 4:39pm
Marriage IS a sort of paperwork you file with government inspectors. That is the whole point.

A gay couple can pretend to get married, but they have none of the legal rights . If one of them goes into a coma, the partner has no legal right to make any decisions on the unconscious person's behalf. No legal right to even visit the partner in the hospital. If one of them dies, the other has no rights when it comes to executing the other's estate. If they break up, there is no legal precedence for dividing up shared assets. They can't qualify for coverage under the partner's health insurance, ETC.

Gay couples can already adopt children, but if they split up, who gets the kids?

For someone going by "Practical Economist" you seem to be ignoring the practical and economic reasons why gay marriage is actually important and are instead focusing on the foggy romantic reasons.
Permalink hello. 
July 10th, 2007 4:44pm
Some more of the voter fraud committed by those pesky republican'ts. The US Attorneys fired recently didn't play along with the disenfranchisement policies of the rnc.
http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2007/05/24/justice-department-scandal-greg-palast/
Permalink Peter 
July 10th, 2007 5:02pm
You have all those rights if you want them. It's called contract law. Any two individuals who wish to can enter into contracts to share property, give power of attorney, or the right to make medical decisions. If they want to do it, they can.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 5:13pm
Health insurance is up to the employer. Disney has full benefits for domestic partners. They're a huge corporation, and there are many others who have this as well. Not all companies do this, but most don't have coverage for family anyway and a lot don't even have coverage for the worker himself, so cry me a river.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 5:15pm
counterfactuals are fun..

> We should have let the Confederacy go

If the Confederacy was let go, Harlem would still be Jewish.

No, really. The US North would have had an even larger labor shortage than it had in the 100 years after the civil war. The artificial boundary between North and South would be like today's artificial boundaries.

Plus, who knows who would have won WWII.
Permalink Send private email strawdog soubriquet 
July 10th, 2007 5:49pm
"Half of us didn't.

The other half are morons."

Technically, only about 1/6th and 4/6th are so apathetic about how their country has been stolen from them that they don't bother any more.
Permalink Send private email JoC 
July 10th, 2007 5:56pm
"who knows who would have won WWII"

WWII? You mean that crazy thing from that alternative history novel in which the North won the civil war? Thank goodness that never happened, that whole holocaust thing sounded like it would really suck. To be honest, the movie they made was something of a downer.
Permalink Practical Economist 
July 10th, 2007 6:00pm
smaller labor force plus South fighting for the other side = ?
Permalink Send private email strawdog soubriquet 
July 10th, 2007 6:05pm
Bush stole two elections. There was no rioting in the streets, no burning tires, that's our fault. 2000 was yet another outright theft.

There are two things called marriage which have nothing to do with each other: civil marriage and religious marriage. Gays get legally married in Texas, Mississippi, Indiana, etc. all the time. Civil marriage is just about taxes and insurance.

I think it's about fucking time that gays got to experience the fun of divorce, why do they get out of it?
Permalink LeftWingPharisee 
July 10th, 2007 6:51pm
+1 hello
Permalink one man shopper 
July 10th, 2007 9:09pm

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other topics: July, 2007 Other topics: July, 2007 Recent topics Recent topics