November 2, 2004

American Coastopia!

11/2/04

Ladies and gentlemen, you needn't fret anymore. We have decided that we can't live in the United States anymore, because so many of you in the "heartland" are so full of shit. We were all going to move to various other countries, but then we thought - why should WE move?

We are tired of rednecks in Oklahoma picking the leader who will determine if it is safe for us to cross the Brooklyn Bridge. We are sick of homophobic knuckle-draggers in Wyoming contributing to the national debate on our gay marriages. So we have done the only thing we could.

We seceded.

May I present to you: AMERICAN COASTOPIA.

CUNationalMap.gif

That's right, American Coastopia. The states of Washington, Oregon and California are joining us on one coast, and we will provide all of New England. In the middle of the country, we have taken Iowa and Illinois, mostly because we need the fine produce of Iowa's soil, and the museums in Chicago are fabulous.

What's with the other dots? Oh yes, we're taking Chapel Hill and Durham, North Carolina too. I'm not going to live in a country without the Tar Heels. (And Duke? You're being moved to Greensboro, just like Wake Forest was. Sorry! Assholes.)

The other dot is New Orleans, which you don't deserve. American Coastopia needs a place to gamble, and the locals want nothing to do with you. Sure, you can visit, but it isn't part of your country anymore.

I can sense your worry. Who will get all the banks? You can fucking have most of them, because we're taking downtown and midtown Manhattan back, turning the whole thing into a giant artist colony replete with movie studios and progressive think tanks. Wall Street and other financial institutions will be relocated to Charlotte, which we believe will suit your needs better. Frankly, the good folks in Manhattan are sick of being a terrorist target for your benefit.

A word about our politics. Abortions will be safe and legal in American Coastopia, and homosexual men and women will be free to marry at their discretion. We will have our own currency, and trade with any countries we want. Everyone will have health care. Everyone will have an identity card. Homelessness and unemployment will be virtually unknown. We believe in a meritocracy and a huge chasm between church and state. 100% of our cars will be hybrid by 2006.

Yes, we're taking all the people that ever created everything beautiful. Yes, we're taking all the funny people too. All the sculptors, architects, surgeons, philosophers, violinists and fishermen. You should have treated them better when you had them.

We have no pledge of allegiance, but I can say this: I am no longer from your United States of America. I belong to American Coastopia, the United States of My Friends, the Nation of Two: my wife and I. We hold our noses as we fly over you. We are sickened by the way you treat people that are different from you. The rest of the world despises America, and we don't want to be lumped in with you anymore.

Please, all of you who went to bed last night sick with worry, come to us. In American Coastopia, the light is always on, the hazelnut lattés are always hot, and we have a trundle bed for each and every one of you.

[ed. note: many emails asked for T-shirts, and we made these. Any profits go to our local school system]

Posted by irw at November 2, 2004 10:55 PM
Comments
Posted by: Paul Glaser +3 at November 3, 2004 1:47 AM

My 3 roommates(Tadych, Shroom, Mike) & I pledge allegiance to American Coastopia. Since we are already located in beautiful Burbank, California we have nothing to do other than work on getting our loved ones out of the war-mongering, racist, homophobic, jesus-freaked, sexist, selfish, small-picture seeing, Mother Earth raping, Bush run country I am sad to call America.

Posted by: Steven Sacks at November 3, 2004 4:05 AM

"America I've given you all and now I'm nothing.
America two dollars and twenty-seven cents January 17, 1956.
I can't stand my own mind.
America when will we end the human war?
Go fuck yourself with your atom bomb
I don't feel good don't bother me.
I won't write my poem till I'm in my right mind.
America when will you be angelic?
When will you take off your clothes?
When will you look at yourself through the grave..........."

I feel sick at the moment. If there is room in your new country please take me in because I am through with this one. I can't look anyone in the eye this morning without wanting to scream. Tell me I'm still asleep.

Steve

Posted by: lurker at November 3, 2004 4:32 AM

the Chi Psi house can be your Camp David

Posted by: chip at November 3, 2004 4:59 AM


It's a Lodge, not a house. I feel like I live in the West Berlin of America Coastopia here in Durham.
Go Heels.

Posted by: oliver at November 3, 2004 5:39 AM

It ain't over 'til Sy Hersh writes 7000 words saying it's over.

Posted by: oliver at November 3, 2004 5:49 AM

Or until Newt Gingrich is heading public broadcasting.

Posted by: Daniel at November 3, 2004 5:54 AM

We Canadians officially recognize the sovereign nation of AMERICAN COASTOPIA and look forward to strong artistic and trade relations with your fair country with which we thankfully share two borders.

Posted by: CHM at November 3, 2004 6:21 AM

Take Raleigh with you! I know we've been bad in the past with all the rampant NCSU support, but we'd gladly chop that arm off to join up. Don't leave us in the dark with the Shrub!

Posted by: Bozoette Mary at November 3, 2004 6:37 AM

HURRAY! I already live in American Coastopia! Although since Maryland is a border state, I suspect I'll have be pretty vigilant. And DC? All except for the White House, please. The Smithsonian Institution is too cool to give to them. Or maybe we could just force them to relocate to Tex-ASS.

Posted by: Sean M at November 3, 2004 6:59 AM

mmmmm...hazelnut lattes...

i was also trying to decide which country to move to...and american coastopia sounds lovely. just need to find a man to share it (and my latte) with and it will be heaven.

*sigh*

my favorite (although i don't think favorite is the right word) headline from today's NY papers : ON THE BRINK -- a phrase normally reserved to describe pending war or other such distaster, not the end of an election. quite appropriate in this instance.

i'm gonna go be sick now.

Posted by: Lisa at November 3, 2004 7:23 AM

Hey now ... Janeane Garofalo on Air America last night suggested something similar a secession yes, but also a merger. Consider this an official invitation to Coastopia to join Canada. Together we can kick their mean-spirited asses. And we will do so in a very orderly fashion.

Posted by: Piglet at November 3, 2004 7:29 AM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/3728/15173

http://www.americablog.blogspot.com/


Did you wonder why the exit polls in Ohio and Florida have not matched the "official" returns?

This time they're stealing two states, and at least one Kerry operative knows it. Pass it on.

If peaceful revolution is made impossible, the only option left is...?

Posted by: CL at November 3, 2004 7:39 AM

Whoever is president, it doesn't have to change who we are or how we act. It is frustrating, but we can go to Coastopia in our minds every time we give our time or money to charity or argue with a homophobe.

At 4 a.m. ABC said that their exit polls showed that in middle America, the top concern was "moral issues," and Iraq was around 4th. It's scary that people less worried about bombs than whether Heather has two moms.

Posted by: hilary at November 3, 2004 7:42 AM

sign me up; unless i can figure out a way to hide out in france for the next four years. nights like last night remind of why i left north carolina after graduation and never looked back (except to visit la famille abandonée)

Posted by: Lee at November 3, 2004 7:48 AM

Can someone come get me? I'm too depressed to get out of my pajamas.

Posted by: Piglet at November 3, 2004 7:48 AM

Another thing--please someone, ask Al Jazeera to broadcast the electoral map so that the arab nations will know which states tried. Hopefully they'll blow targets in Texas or something, and not take it out on New York any more.

Posted by: Greg at November 3, 2004 7:51 AM

Can I please appeal to the Coastopians to accept the northernmost municipalities of Virginia? We too have been suppressed by the mindless majority. I'm not asking that you take all of Northern Virginia, just the part inside the beltway. OK, maybe just Arlington & Falls Church - or just my house?

Oh, and I'd like a SOY hazelnut latte - what with me being all lactose intolerant and all that...

Posted by: Ismat at November 3, 2004 7:55 AM

Let's add Michigan, too--it's a blue state, barely. Or at least add Ann Arbor, Michigan. Please. I'm ready to go.

Posted by: Alan at November 3, 2004 8:00 AM

At then end of the Revolutionary War there was a migration north of people we call Loyalists and you call Tories. Locally the Mohawk community here in Eastern Ontario in large part came from that migration and was a large part of the safeguard of Canada which protected our then western borders through the war of 1812. Time for another migration? Or a succession?

Posted by: Michelle at November 3, 2004 8:25 AM

This made me smile for the first time today. Yes, yes and more yes to American Coastopia!

Posted by: the nightboy at November 3, 2004 8:32 AM

people of Coastopia, join with me in emailing our former country parents daily the deathcount in Iraq, so they can feel really, really bad.

Posted by: the nightboy at November 3, 2004 8:32 AM

people of Coastopia, join with me in emailing our former country parents daily the deathcount in Iraq, so they can feel really, really bad.

Posted by: Flaco at November 3, 2004 8:39 AM

No, Wake County is not welcome!!

http://www.newsobserver.com/content/election2004/general/wake/W-PresidentAndVicePresident.html

Surviving in the DMZ of Hillsborough, NC

Fuck, this is a bad hangover, I HATE THE HINTERLAND

I do like the lingua franca of Coastopia:
haughty witty commentary on topics political,
artistic, and bizarre

Do you really want Merkin in the name?
Let's get rid of that scheme alltogether.
Coastopia United has a good ring!!

We are bringing our first child into this world
in several weeks. We look forward to many things,
but living in the the police state of US is
not one of them.

We never did watch a lot of TOOB, and will
trend towards 0 from now on.

We're gonna beat the hell out of drums tonight!

An INDICTMENT, I envision W in my djembe head

FUCK YOU CHIMP ASS FUCKSQUAT SHRUB!

Posted by: helenjane at November 3, 2004 8:45 AM

Can we legislate us some love in American Coastopia?
Cause I'm really tired of legislating hate.

Posted by: chip at November 3, 2004 9:07 AM


The responses from our friends north of the border gave me an idea...let's go ahead and make Canada the 51st state...then their electoral votes will swing the election to Kerry.

Posted by: Piglet at November 3, 2004 9:31 AM

The 51st state? How about making Canada the 51st through 62nd states, so that our more evolved neighbors will have influence in the Senate?

OK, so Alberta will probably elect Republicans, but Saskatchewan and maybe the Yukon might actually elect a Green, and just think how much fun it will be to have the Senators from Quebec annoying Senator FreedomFries.

Posted by: lizzie at November 3, 2004 9:47 AM

dude. you forgot boulder, colorado.
i am in south carolina now!! ahhh!!
but i am going to boulder in december.
so you should add it to the map. i am sure everyone there will appreciate it.

thanks for this post. long live american coastopia!!!

Posted by: cheryl at November 3, 2004 9:54 AM

If I am to take any comfort at all today (I am wearing black, my eyes are closed in disbelief), it is that I live in New England, surrounded by like-minded and scared people. I'm already IN Coastopia and glad of it.

But also, one of my reactions this morning was to creatively resist. I can't help or stop it anymore. I want to write plays, poems, street theater, make t-shirts, whatever it takes!

I want to talk to the married women in the Midwest who overwhelmingly voted for Bush because of his moral values. What are moral values exactly? Is killing children in Iraq a moral value, or does that not count because it's not America?

I'm sorry I'm rambling now. So upset...This site has helped a little. Thanks, Ian.


Posted by: Jen at November 3, 2004 9:57 AM

The pentumverate has spoken. :( I hate the pentumverate. I don't think I've ever felt so empty. despondent. angry. just plain sad.

Posted by: Piglet at November 3, 2004 10:06 AM

Cheryl--you want to talk to married women in the midwest about their moral values? I did that for the past four months on the forum boards at www.crimescene.com Click community, then general discussion, then argument and debate. The participants are mostly from Indiana.

You probably won't like it if you do, though. They just pooh-poohed everything I said, relied on Fox News and the Swift Boat Liars for information and in general confirmed the worst stereotypes you may ever have had about church ladies. Yesterday (I'm not making this up), they were discussing a rumor that Kerry and his wife were both Jewish. Today they're probably hopefully looking forward to the construction of gas ovens at Guantanamo. I don't know; I've left that site for good. But you're welcome to pick up where I left off. There's a chance my head may have weakened the stone wall a bit for you.

Posted by: stephanie at November 3, 2004 10:33 AM

i'm stunned at what has become of america, the so-called UNITED states. so much for that - i'm so grateful to be in PA, a part of the new nation of American Coastopia.

and i can only shake my head in horrified disbelief at the mess created by that bastard in the white house and fear what is to come. we can't withstand another 4 years of his "leadership". someone save us all.

Posted by: cheryl at November 3, 2004 10:36 AM

Piglet--I just looked on that site (thank you), which is quite scary. The combination of people perversely interested in crime scenes AND right-wing agendas is too much for me to handle. Maybe another day.

someone help!

Posted by: Wallis at November 3, 2004 12:36 PM

I am in love with you both. Irredeemably smitten. This is the best idea ever. I pledge eternal allegiance. BTW: Faboo idea to take all the funny people -- but it's really a moot issue since THEY DON'T HAVE ANY.

Posted by: Sean M. at November 3, 2004 1:05 PM

in case american coastopia doesn't work out...another option for those of you/us who are single

http://www.marryanamerican.ca/

:-)

Posted by: elizabeth at November 3, 2004 1:24 PM

Wisconsin wants in, too. it's got a bad rep for being conservative, but has gone for the Democrat in the last four elections. plus Madison is San Francisco, just without all the coastline and salt water.

also please note: Minnesota went for Kerry, too.

Posted by: monkeygrrrl at November 3, 2004 1:27 PM

as a resident of the Southern part of Western Coastopia, i'm heartened to read this. see y'all at the next Coastopia Citizen Meeting!

Posted by: Tracey H at November 3, 2004 1:27 PM

A tarheel living in Decatur, GA. Three out of four people in my state just voted to discriminate against me. I sit here devastated, by the overwhelming numbers, by the thought of at least 4 more years of "he whose name shall not be spoken." I'm glad there is at least one piece of the southeast in American Coastopia. I hate cold weather! Although the chill down here is of a different kind, and a sweater won't help.

Posted by: Jeff at November 3, 2004 1:54 PM

I want to join American Coastopia! I've already resigned from my former position as Patriotic Citizen (http://jvlbaritone.blogspot.com). Feel free to use my letter of resignation as a model for your own!

Posted by: catherine at November 3, 2004 2:00 PM

I LOVE Coastopia! We're moving!

check out www.dooce.com and her daily photo where you can comment... I posted Coastopia!

Posted by: Paul at November 3, 2004 2:00 PM

Go Coastio!

Posted by: Shortbus at November 3, 2004 2:19 PM

Yay! New Orleans made it!

(But hey, it really will take an army to get the Bush-supporters out of here - they're everywhere!)

Posted by: aubs at November 3, 2004 2:28 PM

I'm IN. And thank GOD you're bringing my Heels - I need some Carolina Blue in this self-righteously redneck state of Georgia (Atlanta included.)

Who's got the Blue Cups?

Posted by: db at November 3, 2004 2:29 PM

as long you democrats continue to look down your snooty noses at the rest of america, you will continue to lose ground in the USA. best of luck with USofC and enjoy your latte.

Posted by: Jessica at November 3, 2004 2:31 PM

Keep chins up, everyone! All we can do is continue to be the best people we can, and to try to be a positive influence for dumb asses. At least the Red Sox won.

Posted by: Angela Bennett at November 3, 2004 2:31 PM

I am sickened by the fact that it is OK to bomb woman and children and to invade another country on a false pretense. I am sickened that 51% of my countrymen voted for a liar, cheat and thief but vilified Clinton for a consentual extra marital affair. I am sickened by the fact that this country, founded on the separation of church and state, is trying to force faux "christian" morals down my throat. I am sickened that 51% of Americans are too phucking lazy and stupid to think for themselves and rely on lies, pretext and the obfuscation of some right wing media outlets. I live in NJ and already am part of Coastopia - thankfully. But my heart and my soul ache for this once great nation. I don't know how we're ever going to survive the next four years. I fear for the children and the children's children who will be saddled with this administration's rampant spending.

Posted by: suzanne at November 3, 2004 2:33 PM

Who is db and how did she get into Coastopia? We need a secret code. Maybe a new language? Oh, and I'm wondering if Durham can slide over and link up with a larger mass of Coastopia. It's a bit frightening here in the middle of all this red.

Posted by: virginia at November 3, 2004 2:35 PM

I have found my new home, since I know you will take in and old FDR liberal and embrace her..Usually , I can think of something clever and funny to say, but my brain is mush today..I am happy that you include California as I live in a little place on the central coast..

Posted by: amm at November 3, 2004 2:37 PM

I'm in, and thank goodness I am lucky enough to live in Durham, so I don't even have to move!

Posted by: shabiqwa at November 3, 2004 2:48 PM

As usual - the party i joined and loved in 1980 is once again proving to me that switching party affliation to Red was the right move. The Dem party was not originated on the platform of hatred and elitism...unfortunately the party has become just that of which it is supposed to combat. so very sad. Incidentally, your new land DOES, indeed, have an official language...ebonics. unfortunately, not enough of the native ebonic-speaking population can get out of their escalades, and put down their bling-bling long enough to go and friggin' vote. yet they continue to complain. hmmm. Enjoy your new land and your lattes -- i'm off to a victory party.

Posted by: murphy at November 3, 2004 3:02 PM

this has been a bad dream and the reality was all too many people today suggested leaving the united states. it's been too long that the ignorant masses have lead the intelligent. we should be directing, not some cowboy pork-rind eating hick. true democracy. no electoral college bullshit. true democracy. Somebody has got to have the sense to set up a web site that can tally the opinions of all. We can post current issues on the web with straight verbage. If we pass bills that modify the language of another, the current wording and the intended change will be included immediately. No hunting around the internet for another bill and trying to figure out what the hell is changing. We need to get rid of as many ideas as possible from this hellish nightmare. people who use the expression "god bless america" in public addresses will be airlifted immediately to oklahoma. Textbooks will include true history regardless of whether something we did turned out to be erroneous; we want our children to learn from our mistakes. There should be no question about how to start, we just take the land and call it ours. it's been done before.

Posted by: Sylvan at November 3, 2004 3:05 PM

Don't forget Minnesota! We went Blue, too, and don't want to be left out of the new state! Plus, we're the home of the late Paul Wellstone!

Posted by: carrster at November 3, 2004 3:10 PM

Yeah - MN PLEASE!!!! Take us with you!! Duluth was OVERWHELMINGLY BLUE....sorry too many caps and exclamation points but if you don't take us I'm heading north to the border. Waaaaah

Posted by: oliver at November 3, 2004 3:10 PM

"...to look down your snooty noses at the rest of america..."
Actually, my nose is more angry and piteous than snooty. Let's not forget that half the country has been wrong before. Hopefully less will die this time. I think one upside of this ridiculous race will be that partisanship will cease to get a bad rap among supporters of the majority and minority alike. I suppose now a lot more people will see wars in the capitol as really about something and--as I felt inspired to hear Barbara Pelosi comment on NPR--and the populace will become familiar enough with the actual right-wing agenda that it's representatives can no longer sell themselves as sensible moderates.

Posted by: david at November 3, 2004 3:14 PM

bye.

Posted by: oliver at November 3, 2004 3:15 PM

Sorry "right-wing" isn't really a useful term these days. Let me change that to "plutocratic, anti-diplomatic, intolerantly socially conservative agenda" (PADISCA?)

Posted by: joe america at November 3, 2004 3:21 PM

mmmbye-bye. mmmbye-bye.

Posted by: okey at November 3, 2004 3:23 PM

I am sure that my fellow DEMOCRATIC-voting Oklahomans would beg to differ with your insulting rhetoric. Ya'll come back now, ya here?

Posted by: Marisa at November 3, 2004 3:26 PM

What? No Austin? We hate that idiot in the WH and we have great music! We also have Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower and the Texas Observer. Take us, PLEASE!

Posted by: traditionalist at November 3, 2004 3:31 PM

Nah-nah-nah I'm not listening...slavery is in the Bible...I earned it, it's mine...lah-lah-lah

Posted by: jtayunc7 at November 3, 2004 3:33 PM

Don't forget about Hawaii!! It is way too cool to leave behind! I'm grateful that I already live in a Coastopian state. A couple of weeks ago I expressed the desire to move to another country if the stupid one won. This has provided me with a nice alternative. Thank you.

Posted by: The Dude at November 3, 2004 3:36 PM

Take Colorado too. I don't like Bush anyway, and you could use the ski resorts.

Posted by: ladyperegrine at November 3, 2004 4:33 PM

Thank you! I too want to be a member of Coastopia, even though I live in FL currently. Where should I move?

C.

Posted by: gee at November 3, 2004 4:38 PM

Do we really have to include the hate-mongers in Oregon?

Posted by: Laurie from Manly Dorm at November 3, 2004 4:56 PM

Hi Ian. Your citizens of Coastopia are starting to scare me. . . everyone sounds like the "hatemongers" from which they are hoping to extricate themselves! Anyway, you should be proud of yourself for all of your efforts -- on your blog, in OH, etc. You tried your best to rock the vote, and by God you did. That is really all that you can do. In a democracy, everyone's vote counts equally, and the current climate was unfortunately not in your favor. Your day will come! In the meantime, reconsider your Coastopia. Do you really want to live in a place where everyone thinks/acts/believes/looks the same?

Posted by: Dave Roth at November 3, 2004 5:47 PM

We live in Fairfax County, Virginia. We would like to apply for political asylum. We are renouncing our American citizenship and anxious to relocate in Coastopia whenever you launch your resettlement program. My wife and I prefer Seattle, my son prefers Boston. But when it comes down to it.....anywhere but here.

Posted by: Lara at November 3, 2004 6:08 PM

God Bless the American Coastopia! I'm in! Beats moving to Canada... :)

Posted by: Rachel at November 3, 2004 6:23 PM

Please send a helicopter to pick up my roomate (from Oregon) and I (from Baltimore- hell yea RAVENS!)... We're still scratching our heads as to how we both wound up at Rice U. in Houston!!

Coastopia here we come!!

Posted by: Irene at November 3, 2004 6:39 PM

I've been talking about seceding all day! Wouldn't it be grand? Middle America doesn't deserve the beautiful Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges that are outside my door! I don't think they should even get to visit! Next time I see a southern tourist taking photos while I'm walking over the Brooklyn Bridge I'm going to kick them off! It's either Coastopia or I have to find out what's required to get a license to practice medicine in Canada. Coastopia could be neutral, like Switzerland, and full of all the best and most creative of our society!

Posted by: oliver at November 3, 2004 6:59 PM

I'm not sure what Laurie from Manly Dorm might be referring to as hate mongering (although I see that talking about secession is divisive), but I'd like to point out it's not hateful to say the Bush administration is antidemocratic, plutocratic and militarily adventuristic. These are subjective value judgments, but they are judgments that a reasonable person can reach based on the facts (as did perhaps a hundred million or so Americans and a billion or so foreigners). One can hate Bush and his administration while recognizing that his supporters simply are (not that we aren't all, but they in a way that's pertinent to this matter) deceived.

Posted by: ses at November 3, 2004 7:59 PM

I loved (yes, past tense) the idea of Coastopia until I noticed that no one waxing rhapsodic about our next Nirvana decided to take on the racist interloper "shabiqwa" spewing off missives about the black people who will be sharing Coastopia as well. Maybe Coastopia isn't the promised land that it's purported to be--at least not if you're black like me. Thanks anyway.

Posted by: Mike at November 3, 2004 8:01 PM

I already live on the west coast in the state of Washington. We have plenty of rednecks here,can they be deported? I am attempting to flee to Victoria B.C.,apply for refugee status and leave this corporate fascist nation behind.

Posted by: Mia Genn at November 3, 2004 8:22 PM

Somsone wrote: "Who is db and how did she get into Coastopia? We need a secret code."

...Well, any 'Coastopia' would have to tolerate dissent just the way United States of America does. Ya think?

The utopian feeling would last a day, and then a new conservative wing would grow from within. The blog entry was funny and wonderful and made a lot of good points. But of course, in real life, it wouldn't be so very simple. What we need to do is cut out a lot of the name-calling and rhetoric and look for common ground. Bombing babies and children in Iraq is awful, as someone said; yet, others believe killing 'babies' in clinics is awful. Of course, that all depends on where they believe life begins, and whether they're basing their assumptions on The Bible or just PRETENDING to take it from the Bible because they really believe 16-year-old girls who get pregnant deserved it.

I am an angry liberal, and I clench my fists every time I hear ignorance from the right, and from the right's more ignorant supporters. And yet, I don't want to become guilty of the same things they are. I loved the blog entry and I apologize for this long comment, but after reading all 71 I wanted to add that. We can tolerate dissent in Coastopia.

Posted by: Amanda at November 3, 2004 8:30 PM

As a current senior at UNC who plans to move to LA after graduating I am safely nestled in American Coastopia and very, VERY proud to be. Thank you for such a wonderful new nation!

Posted by: Bud at November 3, 2004 8:42 PM

For now I'll have to content myself with keeping you Coastopians posted on goings-on in the Empire-formerly-known-as-the-United-States-of-America (EFKATUSA).

First, let me assure you that so far it's not as bad as some of us had feared. That rumor about all the liberals having to report to "re-education fun camps" is totally not true. We just have to go and register at the local Republican HQ. We're supposed to pack and bring a suitcase, for some reason. Aren't those Repubs a strange bunch?

Well, gotta run. I'll report more later! I hope.

Posted by: Kathleen Cosgrove at November 3, 2004 8:42 PM

I could not talk about what happened last night until later in the day today, but thank you for writing exactly what was going on in my mind. I knew there were racist and hateful jerks, just still had hope that they were not more than half of the US. Ohio deserves the poverty that is only going to grow in the next four years.

Posted by: psilos at November 3, 2004 8:46 PM

in oregon and washington, we should draw the border on the east side of the cascades to keep out the hicks. :D

Posted by: sarae at November 3, 2004 9:08 PM

oh god! please let madison, wisconsin in! we're nice and liberal, our congresswoman is a lesbian! kerry whopped bush with over twice the votes, despite the rest of the state's reluctance. don't make me live in old america.

Posted by: Mom at November 3, 2004 9:16 PM

To shabiqwa and his/her racist invective.
Listen, you jerk. I drove from NY to Ohio to be part of "Election Protection" and was assigned to a very black district. You say:
"not enough of the native ebonic-speaking population can get out of their escalades, and put down their bling-bling long enough to go and friggin' vote."

I had the privelege of helping a large number black people FIND the friggin voting place, which was in a building owned by a nasty (obviously Republican) white guy who tried to run us off (illegally) and pulled up our signs... which were, incidentally, the ONLY thing marking the polling place. I watched as black people, young, old, middle aged, found their way to that building, angry as hell at Bush, to cast their votes. They were an inspiration to me. Many were disabled and came on crutches, in wheel chairs, or limping, and at times they had to wait in line for a long time. Many of their names were not on the voter rolls, and some were given provisional ballots reluctantly. I was happy to be there, to hear their stories, to see their determination, to hear their complaints and try to help. I don't remember any of them wearing bling bling. One elderly black woman who I watched struggle two blocks on a cane (stopping to rest every few feet) to get to the polls would have been happy to get there in an escalade. It took her a full twenty minutes to negotiate that two blocks. When she got to where I was standing, I said, "Hi? Here to vote? Do you know where you need to go?"... and she smiled broadly and said "You BET I am, and yes, thank you, I know where to go. God bless."

So you potty mouth racist scum,... you don't know what the hell you are talking about. You insult and denigrate the good people I had the pleasure of meeting at that Ohio polling place. No wonder they are so pissed off at white America.

Cheesh....

Posted by: Just Andrew at November 3, 2004 9:22 PM

So far ahead of you...

The broke up in 1991 and now the greatest band that ever lived is back with a new album - Camper Van Beethoven just released 'New Roman Times' in October.

It is a concept album of sorts - takes place in an alternate reality USA. The story is of a disenfranchised soldier from the Republic of Texas who moves to the Republic of California and joins a group of rebels known as the CVB.

Not to give away the ending, but he does blow up a disco.

http://www.campervanbeethoven.com

are you 51-7?

Posted by: Lyle at November 3, 2004 9:28 PM

Ian's mom for president in 2008!!

You GO, girl!!

Posted by: Steve & Cialin at November 3, 2004 9:38 PM

America just took a national IQ test . . . and failed miserably. We would be happy to initiate secession proceedings, and are also thrilled that Eugene is smack dab in the middle of Coastopia.

We can definitely dispense with a pledge of allegiance, but can we have an anthem? Any suggestions?

Posted by: Ian at November 3, 2004 9:42 PM

You guys are incredible. Keep posting, and read my thanks and update in the main blog:

http://www.xtcian.com/

...and please stick around!

Posted by: An Observer at November 4, 2004 7:01 AM

Hmmmmm. You want to take "all the people that ever created everything beautiful. Yes, we're taking all the funny people too. All the sculptors, architects, surgeons, philosophers, violinists and fishermen."

Unfortunately for Coastopia, political beliefs have no monopoly on creativity; your net will cast widely to include an awful lot of "right-wingers."

Look closely at the maps. "Good" people everywhere, even those who do not agree with you. As Laurie of Manly Dorm notes, tolerance and diversity cut both ways. Learn to live in a diverse society with people who just might not agree with you.

Or not. Leave and abandon all right to participate in change.

Posted by: mikey h at November 4, 2004 7:03 AM

I officially register with Coastopia, renouncing my citizenship in a country wildly out of touch with reality and humanity. Screw Them. And May God Have Mercy On Their Souls.

Posted by: Bev Syjes at November 4, 2004 7:16 AM

Yay!!! I already LIVE in Coastopia so I don't have to move. I fully support secession.

Posted by: brad at November 4, 2004 7:33 AM

Economoc secession! That's where our power is. We need a Red State Boycott, or better, a Red County boycott. CNN has the "by county" results. We should identify the businesses based in the reddest counties and boycott them.

Posted by: tensy cobb at November 4, 2004 7:37 AM

Your site has lifted me out of a deep funk and I thank you. Don't forget the Virgin Islands, they don't get to vote down there but they are true blue and don't want to get left behind!

Posted by: JBR at November 4, 2004 7:52 AM

Can I just stay where I am (Arkansas -- red state, but home of Bill Clinton, so it ain't all bad), but become a citizen of Coastopia and have diplomatic immunity? I'm prepared to spy and all. Seriously.

Posted by: actualsize at November 4, 2004 8:41 AM

concept made my day, but hey some of my best friends are repubs--bless their hearts. . . .

Posted by: jm at November 4, 2004 8:55 AM

Coastopia seriously rocks. Even though I am safely already within bounds, I do agree that we should vote in Madison, WI and its boundaries, Minnesota, Little Rock, Austin and Hawaii. I can vouch for 'em. We'll just have to move them around a bit. Oh, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico? We should let them in too because that means they'll finally get some fair representation.

I find it interesting to be lectured by Laurie of Manly Dorm on tolerance and diversity as the US has elected the most intolerant administration we've seen in awhile. Odd, that. Not very self-aware. As a Christian and a Liberal, I am probably more sensitive to it, though.

P.S. Can we please mandate that we really uphold this separation between church and state thing in Coastopia? I'm getting a bit annoyed that the fundamentalist brethren would like to legislate how I am interpreting the Gospels. They are human and not divine, so I understand that they are fallible and all, but still. This Sojourner isn't down with that at all.

Posted by: ek at November 4, 2004 8:56 AM

To the uptight meathead who wrote this:

Hmmmmm. You want to take "all the people that ever created everything beautiful. Yes, we're taking all the funny people too. All the sculptors, architects, surgeons, philosophers, violinists and fishermen."

Unfortunately for Coastopia, political beliefs have no monopoly on creativity; your net will cast widely to include an awful lot of "right-wingers."

Look closely at the maps. "Good" people everywhere, even those who do not agree with you. As Laurie of Manly Dorm notes, tolerance and diversity cut both ways. Learn to live in a diverse society with people who just might not agree with you.

Or not. Leave and abandon all right to participate in change.

*******************************

Ummm... I see you're quite unfamiliar with the concept of HUMOR!

Good grief! Some people...

Posted by: The Padre at November 4, 2004 8:58 AM

Swinging a thurible like any progressive Anglo-Catholic, I am going to make a coast-to-coast (flying over the middle, obviously) procession with incense, grand music, and Alleluias for our brethren and sistren of the new America!!! And I am nominating the Fab Five as Secretaries of Homeland Good Taste. C'mon, you KNOW some of you need help!

And Canada is WAY too cold to move to, besides, my French isn't so hot...

Posted by: LHanna at November 4, 2004 9:38 AM

I'm in a blue state, feeling really blue! If only we truly could make Coastal Utopia a reality! This morning, dropped son off at pre-school and had a mom come up to me and say, "Since the election is over, I just want to tell you that your campaign tactics (had my car windows painted with Bush facts for people to read) was tasteless and a lot of other moms agreed." Wimpy woman that she is, didn't have the guts to give her opinion until AFTER her candidate won and she felt righteous enough to voice this to me! I wrote a website down for her to get some facts, www.usccr.gov, which she crumbled and thru in the garbage; just like these people did with our country! Please come remove this ignorant woman to a red state and out of our utopia! Thanks.

Posted by: edharbor at November 4, 2004 9:56 AM

What have they done?
They have the nerve to critize the religious fanatasism of Islam and others, yet they claim to vote on moral principles and issues. Since when did the constitution recend the separation of state and religion?
We must do what we can. Revolt and boycott,and not let one thing go by us! We will not and should not allow the perpetual scams and lies that allow for the deaths of our men and women at war abroad and the war we face here at home!
Enough!

Posted by: Jennifer at November 4, 2004 9:57 AM

COASTAL OR POSTAL!

Posted by: grr at November 4, 2004 10:17 AM

Please take me too...I live in Moscow, Idaho. Yea, Idaho. The reddest state in the Empire of Merka. But there's a ton of us blue-bloods here in Moscow, and you know you don't want to leave an entire theatre department of artists behind.

Posted by: Rachel at November 4, 2004 10:24 AM

Thank you, thank you, thank you. This has been the most bipolar week of my life. First I'm flying high above what used to be my whole country when the Sox win the Series, only to crash and burn when unemployed Midwestern assholes decide, "Hey, I know the folks at Halliburton need the jobs more than I do. I'm MUCH more concerned about queers getting health benefits. That's why I'm voting Bush."
I barely lived through Nixon and Reagan and I am sick of not having a country AGAIN. Let me know when you start making flags. I'll wave it beside my Red Sox Nation banner.

Posted by: Ian at November 4, 2004 10:30 AM

There have been much clamor for flags and bumper stickers, but the main motto of American Coastopia is that we don't believe in symbols of our country. I might make T-shirts with a map, however.

And yes, I imagine we'll run some Underground Railroads to places like Moscow, Idaho and Wash U. in Missouri. We care about our expats, y'know.

Posted by: jen at November 4, 2004 10:41 AM

we all really should seced. stupid hillbillies... they are ruining it for the rest of us. VIVA American Coastopia!!

Posted by: Eve at November 4, 2004 10:46 AM

The sad reality of all this, is not only the monkey that was voted into office for another 4 years. But the baboon with the colorful ass that might follow. (JEB)

"BEAM ME UP SCOTTY!"

"WERE TO CAPTAIN?"

"COASTOPIA, SCOTTY, COASTOPIA."

Posted by: Lisa at November 4, 2004 10:58 AM

I have wept my tears for America, but it is time to look forward. Thank the sweet Goddess, I live in Long Beach, California and embrace American Coastopia!!!Thank you for this site!

Posted by: Terry at November 4, 2004 11:02 AM

Count me in! I suggested something similar this morning to my partner! Except, we did win Washington, D.C., so it should be a part of Coastopia too. Besides, they don't deserve the White House and our beautiful capitol building. Let them make Crawford, TX their capitol. And, by the way, the Kennedy Center should be ours. They don't know what to do with it anyway. Also, we should hold all those in the Coastopian states who voted for the anti-christ, hostage and exchange them one for one for the good people trapped in the United States of Busherica. I am one of those. Please don't leave me here!!!!

Posted by: Ian at November 4, 2004 11:41 AM

Many emails asking for a T-shirt, so we made some:

http://www.cafepress.com/xtcian

Profits go to our local school system!

Posted by: hi at November 4, 2004 11:42 AM

I live with all of the backward rednecks in Birmingham, AL but would love to secede with all of you!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Camilo at November 4, 2004 11:59 AM

Come get me out of here! I do fully support Coastopia, and will gladly sign to write its Constitution/Laws/Procedures.

Are we ready to pledge our fortunes, our lives, our sacred honor?

Posted by: no one in particular at November 4, 2004 12:17 PM

jm said:
Oh, Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico? We should let them in too because that means they'll finally get some fair representation.

It should be noted that Puerto Rico voted in 1993 and 1998 NOT to try for statehood. What they lose in representation, they gain by not having to pay federal income tax (and possibly other benefits, too, I'm not sure). So before you go grabbing Puerto Rico, make sure they want to be here.

Posted by: keenan at November 4, 2004 12:24 PM

It's so hard to believe that all of the whiney hippies would be so bitter about that stiff, horsefaced communist, Frankenkerry, getting his ass tossed back into the useless liberal shitpile by the majority of this country.

"when unemployed Midwestern assholes decide..."

The only two education groups who voted for Kerry are those who have no schooling, and those who seemingly can't get enough of it ("No High School" and "Post Grad Study"). All others (high school grads, some-collegers, and college grads) voted for Bush. Of course, as a corollary, the people who put their post-grad study to use, and got high-paying jobs, voted for Bush more thoroughly than anyone else.

So whine away, demmies. Every time I walk out my building in downtown Manhattan, I will revel in your misery. And I rejoice in the fact that slacking losers, who have nothing better to do with their time than complain about issues of which they are entirely ignorant (and apparently suck cock and get knocked up), will have no control over our fine country.

Posted by: tbruns at November 4, 2004 12:45 PM

"Ohio deserves the poverty that is only going to grow in the next four years." How hateful can you be. If this sentiment, this mean streak, runs through your promised land than thank you but no. It is more improtant than ever to try to work the system to unite the country, a simple-minded president is something that can be worked around and with people like Barac O'bama and others working diligently to make the country strong again and to fight against an overwhelming majority gives me reason to believe. Coastopia is a fallacy, a pipe dream. The reality is that this country needs a united front among the populace now more than ever.

Posted by: kp at November 4, 2004 12:54 PM

db wrote:
"as long you democrats continue to look down your snooty noses at the rest of america, you will continue to lose ground in the USA. "

THANK YOU for pointing out the rampant elitism and snoberry on this site!

Maybe instead of whining, you all should get to know your country. Ever consider that we have allies in every state in this country who can be partners in helping us create change? You are a bunch of quitters (and quite offensive in your generalizations and name-calling).

Posted by: Brett D at November 4, 2004 12:55 PM

Yaaaaaaaaayyyy! Four More Years of Compassionate Conservative moral values: Greed, Intolerance, Xenophobia, Fear, Bigotry!

I would emplore you to consider including Fairfax County, VA in your new collective, but I fear it's the pin holding the rest of my manure-infested backwater state up on the map. If you pull it out, the rest of the "Old Dumb Minion" might slide down and smother Chapel Hill.

Probably easier if I just move to Maryland ;)

Posted by: ho ho at November 4, 2004 1:07 PM

Just remember what the happened last time states tried to secede. We'll stomp you out. But not before you're up in flames like Atlanta.

Posted by: Diana at November 4, 2004 1:13 PM

I'll start the proceedings for Saxapahaw to secede from Alamance County and officially become a western burb of Chapel Hill (which we are unofficially). American Coastopia! How delightful.

Posted by: C.A. at November 4, 2004 1:21 PM

Thanks for including New Orleans. Though we've been a seperate third world country for as long as I can remember.

Posted by: xyz at November 4, 2004 1:21 PM

Pacifica Desires to Secede from Union
http://www.petitiononline.com/76616504/petition.html

Posted by: Lisa at November 4, 2004 1:22 PM

Great idea - I am moving to Coastopia next month after wearily working to get out the vote in Florida. So sad.

When they reinstate the draft, it should start with those in the red states. I wonder if any friends of W's daughters will go?

And when abortion is illegal in America, will the wealthy with unwanted pregancies be welcome in to travel to Coastopia for help? What will happen to the poor American women?

And when there are no decent paying jobs in America, how will Coastopia handle the steady flow of immigrants - an exit interview on why they voted against their economic interests? A quick lesson on macroeconomics to be sure they don't vote against their interests in Coastopia?

Posted by: nan at November 4, 2004 1:28 PM

thank you soooo much for this!

all day i've been thinking in terms of denying my citizenship as this is no longer a country that i am a part of. now i can forget that and be a citizen of coastopia.

Posted by: Lincoln Baugus at November 4, 2004 1:31 PM

About all I can say is "Here Here! and Thank God I'm in Durham, (and that they're going to move Duke the hell out of here. Although I do have some medical issues so can we keep the hospital?

Posted by: Laura Hamblin at November 4, 2004 1:36 PM

Terrific! Can we include Moab Utah and Sundance (so we can ski and make/watch good movies too)? And our children can learn 3-4 languages in elementary school!--Laura in Utah

Posted by: Geoff at November 4, 2004 1:55 PM

Can Northern Virginia be added to Coastopia? We tried hard as hell over here to get Kerry elected, believe me. Plus we have the Potomac leading right into the Chesapeake.

Posted by: Ian at November 4, 2004 2:08 PM

Wow, Northern Virginia has lobbied well. Consider it IN! But only Fairfax County and like-minded neighbors. No Manassas or Fredericksburg or anything.

Posted by: M at November 4, 2004 2:15 PM

There are two Americas today - Coastopia, and the rest of the country. There is a serious divide between the beliefs and interests of these sets of America, and there is no way to reconcile them. So why not decide to go our separate ways? The thing that holds a nation together is a common culture, and we find a nation today where people cannot understand each other, so the time has come for us to part.

It's better that way. Enough of this bickering, it's ineffective. And enough of the people who are saying, "let's move to Denmark!" This nation was something truly great, and I'm not going to give up on it. I'm proud to be American - not the America of today, but the real America, which is what I believe is the America of Coastopia.

Posted by: angela at November 4, 2004 2:17 PM

might i suggest adding ann arbor, michigan? and charlottesville? i live in charlottesville (where kerry carried--or kerried), my husband lives in ann arbor, and i'd like to sleep tonight. for a change.

Posted by: Norom Retah at November 4, 2004 2:26 PM

Dear Dimwits,

Although I know most of you have brains and are just screwin' around with this idea, some of you are actually still upset that "your country" is "going down the tubes".

These concepts are for you:

Not enough DEMOCRATS liked Kerry to get him into office.

Note enough SWING VOTERS liked Kerry to get him office.

Stop being devisive morons and thinking you, the minority, has not been heard. The electoral process showed that you were. You did not win. Your side "lost" for four years.

Stop bitching about, get a job, educate someone this weekend as to why the current ELECTED president ELECTED by the MAJORITY of people in the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is not the best guy for the job.

This will make sure that next time around it might happen that YOUR GUY GETS ELECTED.

Again: stop whining you bunch of cowards. Your whining did nothing for Kerry. Its not going to do anything now either except make you mad.

SO SHUT UP.

Posted by: Ian at November 4, 2004 2:30 PM

Norom- we're not whining, we're leaving.

Angela - there will be airlifts into both Ann Arbor and Charlottesville, don't worry.

Posted by: Get The Fuck Out at November 4, 2004 2:34 PM

I agree with Norom,

How many of you have jobs?

Posted by: Timothy Pryor at November 4, 2004 2:42 PM

Yeah, thats absurd as well and offensive none-the-less. It is ridiculous to hear the arrogance of these, "city folk," and assuming that all people that consider themselves to be conservatives are oklahoma rednecks. The city of Denver (of which I currently reside) went for Bush and that is a large modern city, with a newer face than that of the big apple. These are supposed to be the people of diversity and acceptance I thought; the people that take a strong stance against prejudice; yet they waste no time generalizing a population of people that happens to disagree with their ideology. Just because the states on the electoral map were blue does not mean that they are far and large democratic states. Open up the county by county map for New York (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NY/P/00/index.html), and you'll find that the state was for for the most part red. But when you have a large population confined to a space like NYC, it is inevitable that there will be somewhat of a consistent train of thought. A consistent train of thought does not automatically justify its viability. This is the same all over the country. Open up any county by county map in the country, including California, but with the obvious exception of Massachusettes (hows that for Coastopia?) you'll find the same thing. This is yet another example of ignorant, disgruntled people that can't accept the outcome of the election. We had to live under Clinton and his shenanigans for two terms, now we just have to wait for the democrats to put up Hillary in '08. But judging by the looks of their party right now, she won't stand a chance.

One more point, these "coastal" people are a culture obsessed with European fashion, obsessed with European art, obsessed with European automobiles, obsessed with European foods, and obsessed with European culture. Yet they are trying to say the rest of the country needs a lesson in being American?

Posted by: Liberal Christian at November 4, 2004 2:44 PM

Well, well. Republicans in here? I'm surprised at you! So much complaining! I thought you would be so happy that we're leaving and you can create your own country without any resistance at all.

I mean, we're happy! So get happy, Red States! You'll have quite a bit of the country all to yourselves pretty soon. Why so glum?

Posted by: cindi at November 4, 2004 2:46 PM

i have sent this link to all my fellow democrats here in utah - may we join you?

thank you for a good laugh in such a strange time.

Posted by: norom-monger at November 4, 2004 2:48 PM

It's 'divisive' you idiot -- the word you meant to use; it's spelled 'D-I-V-I-S-I-V-E'. Decisively, I'm sure.

Posted by: Norom Retah at November 4, 2004 2:51 PM

Liberal Christian,

Here is the reason why you are a problem:

I AM A DEMOCRAT!

However, since I have a brain and look at the facts and understand that I have a civic duty to DO MY CIVIC DUTY then I accept that the person that was VOTED BY A CLEAR MAJORITY OF PEOPLE now has the job.
That is it.
No more complaining.
No more whining.
If you want to make jokes about how the rest of country doesn't think like you, then perhaps you are in the wrong country. If this concept is contrary to your state of mind, then you have to begin thinking once again like an American:

You are a part of the system, which is not perfect. DEAL WITH IT. Change it. Just stop complaining about it like a child whose toy was just given to her relatives kid the same age as you.

Stop WHINING.


Posted by: Norom Retah at November 4, 2004 2:54 PM

Ohhhhh, big man, you caught a typo and you decided to point it out to me!

Thanks, buddy. You done good, today.


It's 'divisive' you idiot -- the word you meant to use; it's spelled 'D-I-V-I-S-I-V-E'. Decisively, I'm sure.

Posted by: norom-monger at November 4, 2004 02:48 PM

Posted by: Jason at November 4, 2004 2:58 PM

Thank you "O WISE AND CONCERNED ONES". Let San Francisco happily join in this exodus (I think it already has....many years ago), and in joining COASTOPIA.

There were 1,000 protesters at 5th and Market Street yesterday at 5pm blocking rush hour traffic and chanting "Fuck Bush and all of his policies". Some call this divisive. I call it heart-warming and beautiful.

We've discussed a million person march from SF to Canada (or Mexico- whichever is closer). Perhaps dueling marches. 1,000,000 leaving in both directions at the same time. why not? Let's organize....

Posted by: Janet Williams at November 4, 2004 2:59 PM

You should not forget Santa Fe, NM. Santa Fe county is very very blue and wants to secede with you. We've got great culture, weather and environs!

Posted by: Edawg at November 4, 2004 3:03 PM

Sweet, I'm in!

Posted by: KaneHau at November 4, 2004 3:06 PM

you forgot to include Hawai'i in your new country... we are a blue state and pretty much everyone here voted Kerry.

The Hawaiians most certainly want their own country - as they were dissed by the illegal overthrow of their soverign nation in the late 1800's - by who else? the (*@&#$(*& US of A(holes).

Please... bring us along too (or maybe you could put your new capitol conviently offshore on one of our beautiful islands).

ALOHA!

PS... for those of you who need some tranquility right about now... try www.TQworld.com

Posted by: Tim at November 4, 2004 3:07 PM

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out Jason, just so long as you realize that the state of California still belongs to the U.S. of A.

Posted by: Get The Fuck Out at November 4, 2004 3:08 PM

Nice post, Timothy Pryor. It amazes me how closed-minded and stereotypical these "cultural intellects" really are. Good riddance.

Posted by: TIm at November 4, 2004 3:09 PM

Actually KaneHau, 45% of the people didn't vote for Kerry there... ;)... but whose counting and paying attention to facts when... after all you're a liberal you don't have to...

Posted by: Lisa at November 4, 2004 3:36 PM

PLEASE add Michigan to Coastopia!!! Michigan was a blue state! I am bi-coastal with houses in both L.A. and Detroit and I couldn't bear not having Michigan included in the master plan!!! We were blue...please add us!!!!!

Posted by: Ian at November 4, 2004 3:47 PM

Will you conservatives please play nice? What is it about us leaving you alone that threatens you so much?

Posted by: KaneHau at November 4, 2004 3:56 PM

Actually tim... those 45% are not hawaiians... or even kama'aina... they are stupid american haoles - more of the same breed of lieing murding assholes who overthrew the soverign nation to begin with.

But i guess that fine... when you back a lieing murderer for pRESIDENT - enjoy your fucked up country.

I thank Pele I'm 2,500 miles from land in all directions ESPECIALLY when looking east.

No aloha for you or your ilk

Posted by: Tim at November 4, 2004 4:08 PM

By your igorant standards, the 55% that did vote for Kerry aren't American then? hahaha... That's one of the obvious fallicies in your post. The rest is your tired, old, regurgitated, absolutely false lines pulled out of Michael Moore propaghanda. Try forming an opinion of your own and try to stray from the molding of liberal lunatics.

Ian, if you really want to leave us alone, move to France. Proposing to strip areas of our country is not necessarily leaving us alone. Calling us knuckle-dragging Wyomings is not leaving us alone. Moving to France, now thats leaving us alone, and largely encouraged.;)

Posted by: Sam Haskins at November 4, 2004 4:12 PM

Cool. Now the rest of us can get something done. It would be in everyone's best interest to build twenty foot walls around Coastopia to orevent any leakage into the rest of America.In addition,I would propose , that we enter into a trade agreement with Coastopia. You could sell us wine, software, and apples . We can sell you straight jackets.

Posted by: Steve M. Portland, OR at November 4, 2004 4:15 PM

Nothing sways the stupid more than arguments they can't understand.
- Cardinal De Retz

Posted by: nan at November 4, 2004 4:24 PM

why is it that on this site the most angry people are the republicans? they should be THRILLED that we want out.

Posted by: red dirt liberal?!?! at November 4, 2004 4:27 PM

Ian, you really can't say that rednecks in Oklahoma decided the the election...we only have 7 electoral votes (Wyoming has less).

Yes, the majority of people here are ultra-conservative republicans blinded by the WWJD (what would Jesus do?)frame of mind, BUT there are a few educated, liberal, artistic, creative, hilarious and fun-loving people here as well.

It pisses me off when "like-minded" indivuals give Oklahoma a bad rap. In fact, the people who are born and raised in a "Bush-state-of-mind" who are lucky enough to rise from all the rubbish should be applauded!

It's a tough red-dirt road to walk...'round these parts bein' liberal is like bein' a devil-worshiping homosexual...and that's bad! Few us walk tall and proud!

Posted by: aloha96817 at November 4, 2004 4:29 PM

i'm with KaneHau-please include hawaii in coastopia. we tried. pls. print new edition t-shirt that includes us. are coastopia residents subject to draft? i'm already researching draft extradition countries because my 18 yr old will NOT be drafted. these are dark days. but at least i will get to watch chapel hill baskball!!! mahalo for that! they'll be on maui in about 2 wks.
imua coastopia. who needs the rest of it!

Posted by: Tim at November 4, 2004 4:30 PM

No, wanting out is not the same as a proposal to strip states from the union. You want coastopia? Find a remote island not belonging to the USA. Until then, shut up and accept the results of democracy.

Posted by: KaneHau at November 4, 2004 4:32 PM

Nan wrote...

***why is it that on this site the most angry people are the republicans? they should be THRILLED that we want out.***

Because then they would have nobody to hate. They have to have someone to hate... be it gays, or liberals, or educated people, or scientists.

Same goes for war... cold war is over so let's pick a country to hate regardless of the fact that they did nothing to us (that's right people, even BUSH admited that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq).

Fed up with bigots. Fed up with people with their imaginary friends (e.g., My god is better than your god). Fuck... I've got a 6 foot invisible rabbit named Harvey that would beat any of the so called 'christian' god(s).

So yes... let the lieing bigots have their little country - but without all the things they like to bitch about. We will all be much happier.

Posted by: elizabeth at November 4, 2004 4:41 PM

why is tim (and the other conservatives here) so angry and mean? i thought conservatives were 'compassionate'. lol.

Posted by: slappy at November 4, 2004 5:15 PM

michigan would like to join, as stated before.

the next 4 years will suck...

Posted by: nan at November 4, 2004 5:24 PM

i don't think tim's getting it. in this post we are declaring a desire to officially secede from the union. that means staying put but refusing to follow the laws of the nation we secede from.

for reference, see map.

Posted by: DICK AND BUSH at November 4, 2004 5:25 PM

PLEASE TAKE US WITH YOU... WE REALLY WERE HOPING KERRY WOULD WIN, AND CLEAN UP THIS MESS FOR US. BESIDES, WE'VE ALREADY MADE ENOUGH MONEY FROM ALL THIS. W AND I ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEPLACE EXOTIC TO RETIRE TO IN THE NEXT 4 YEARS AND COASTOPIA SURE SOUNDS NICE.

WE PROMISE TO WORK HARD AND BE HUMBLE.

Posted by: DICK AND BUSH at November 4, 2004 5:25 PM

PLEASE TAKE US WITH YOU... WE REALLY WERE HOPING KERRY WOULD WIN, AND CLEAN UP THIS MESS FOR US. BESIDES, WE'VE ALREADY MADE ENOUGH MONEY FROM ALL THIS. W AND I ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEPLACE EXOTIC TO RETIRE TO IN THE NEXT 4 YEARS AND COASTOPIA SURE SOUNDS NICE.

WE PROMISE TO WORK HARD AND BE HUMBLE.

Posted by: Gordon Shumway at November 4, 2004 5:32 PM

Why don't you just move to Canada you stupid fuckers. WE won and WE will rule this country as we please you stupid pieces of shit.

Posted by: The Geek at November 4, 2004 5:45 PM

Thank God our forefathers were stronger souls than the lot of you. That being said, I encourage you to follow your dream, with one catch.

Get the fuck off of our soil. You can't have it, and you'll die trying to keep it.

God Bless America!!!

Posted by: not Canadian at November 4, 2004 5:51 PM

You just have to have the last word don't you.
Let's play 'Red'Rover instead; Gordon (not Lightfoot) Shumway, moron/norom, the likely tiny Tim, anybody else who I missed, and GTFOut are all on the red team and Ian's mom will captain the lot of us here on the Fuck You Blue Crew. Or let's have field day. We'll share our snacks and you guys can charge admission.

This BlogCommentaThon is longer than the Happy Days dance marathon. The Fonz will not fall....

Posted by: Ally at November 4, 2004 5:59 PM

Lisa, Slappy - Michigan was only a blue state because of the amount of voters in Wayne county, and the exception of eight other counties.

I think I'll immigrate to Coastopia via the airlift to Ann Arbor. I live in Chippewa County, and I think they're passing motions for Liberals to be included as game in deer season. ;)

Posted by: Tom at November 4, 2004 6:25 PM

No, we definitely want the great lakes, the largest freshwater resevoir in the world. I'd like to suggest a motion that we draft Michigan and Wisconsin.

Hail, Hail Coastopia! Land of the Brave and Blue!

Posted by: SITE PATOL at November 4, 2004 6:39 PM

LIGHTEN UP YOU GUYS........THIS IS STARTING TO GET A LITTLE NASTY.

Posted by: Steven Addy at November 4, 2004 6:41 PM

Include Michigan too. The people are cool and we'll need the fresh water.

ps Enjoying diversity does not mean you have to accept stupidity.

Posted by: Moira at November 4, 2004 6:56 PM

Oh, how delighted was I to see that, as Chicagoans, my husband and daughter and I and everyone we love are already part of American Coastopia. I've already ordered the t-shirt...
Let me tell you,the one bright spot in the TV coverage of Election Day was seeing our lone li'l blue state in the middle of the country. And hey -- how about Barack Obama for American Coastopia president?

Posted by: nobushnodick at November 4, 2004 6:59 PM

Depressing - just downright depressing!

Posted by: Bud at November 4, 2004 7:33 PM

The real beauty of Coastopia is that we Coastopians are everywhere.

We make up about 48% of current US Americans, in fact.

Because you don't have to live in Coastopia to BE a Coastopian.

We're Everywhere.

Each one of us is a Cool Blue patch in this angry sea of Red.

My whole neighborhood is Blue. In fact, even in this Red town, in this Red state, lots of neighborhoods are Blue, and there are plenty of us Blue Coastopians even in the Red neighborhoods.

44% of North Carolinians are Coastopian!

Why, even Texas is 38% Coastopian (howdy, fellers!).

We're all over the place, and we're not going anywhere.

We're everywhere, and although we're disappointed in the way things turned out this time around, we're going to stay put and keep working.

We'll work to expand Coastopia day by day. We'll demonstrate that justice, kindness, generosity and tolerance--not Force--are the roots of a strong society.

When those Red folks see the light, they'll be welcome, too.

Long Live Coastopia!

Posted by: True Blue at November 4, 2004 7:36 PM

COASTOPIA IS MY ONLY HOPE. I thank you sooo incredibly much for organizing this land of the free. You have truely made my life.

Posted by: Rich Taylor at November 4, 2004 7:54 PM

Democracy schmocracy ... do you think the original American Revolutionaries took a vote and said "Gee, if we lose this vote we really shouldn't secede from this oppressive monarchical regime"? Nope ... they got off their asses and said "We're outta here."

Count me in, Coastopia. Home sweet home. And we'll have such nice neighbors with Canada and the United States of Europe ... it will be refreshing to have civilized conversation as we make sure everyone has health care, a warm safe place to sleep, and a reasonable chance of getting paid a living wage for a productive job.

Posted by: Luke at November 4, 2004 8:08 PM

Okay, ha, yes, this is a funny concept and helps us disappointed voters all smirk for a moment - Lord knows we could use it. Unfortunately, most of the original manifesto contains clues to the widening phenomenon of the Dem's failure, and plays perfectly into the stereotype of Democrats as elitists, as some here have pointed out. Though he was clearly a better man for the job in almost every way, Kerry is an ineffective politician who failed to connect in a visceral, emotional way with swing voters and the average joe. We can complain about it and play our narrowing part as The Losers Who Took The High Road, or we can wake up, get smart, learn from it, and motivate.

The most relevant and astute posting here remains the one from db: "as long you democrats continue to look down your snooty noses at the rest of america, you will continue to lose ground in the USA. best of luck with USofC and enjoy your latte." F___in' A, Bubba! You hear that, Democrats and Progressives? You may be the better party for the working class, for minorities, for probably the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans, but these Americans won't know it if you can't connect with them.

Yes, this is a humor site, but the text and many postings on this site of 'progressive humor' exhibit damning clues as to why we're in this mess, and why we'll now be in it for another four years.

Posted by: George at November 4, 2004 9:17 PM

The idea of several states banding together and quitting the United States because they do not like the outcome of a presidential election is not new. It was tried once before -- in 1860. The people who seceded then felt every bit as righteous in their cause, superior in their intellect, and contemptuous of their opponents as the folks posting on this board. They made the made the same haughty renunciations of the United States. Like today's would-be secessionists, they even claimed to have supporters in Europe. In they end, their rashness led to the bloodiest war in the history of the Western Hemisphere, with roughly 1 million Americans killed.

Posted by: mstern18 at November 4, 2004 10:13 PM

thanks for the post. I already live here in New Jersey and am now a citizen of American Coastopia....maybe we could become part of the E.U. somehow...even though we're not in Europe.

Posted by: utaustintx at November 5, 2004 12:04 AM

Hey, I hear the world community is ready to give recognition to Coastopia, and it will then replace Old America at the UN (the Red states didn't want to be there anyway).

Folks are happy in Coastopia, so of course Republican posters try to make them miserable. They picked Red King George, and now they hate themselves.

Posted by: utaustintx at November 5, 2004 12:25 AM

Luke says, "The most relevant and astute posting here remains the one from db: "as long you democrats continue to look down your snooty noses at the rest of america, you will continue to lose ground in the USA.

Yes, I can see that db wants Democrats to be more politically correct. OTOH, Coastopians don't do Bush pep rallies.

Posted by: Kendall at November 5, 2004 12:25 AM

Ive been dreaming up a place like this alot in the last few days, and someone really had a good idea! Im smiling for the future which I didin't think I would be doing in awhile. Long live Coastopia! It is, in every way, a beautiful place!

Posted by: jif at November 5, 2004 2:32 AM

mein gott! this has gotten ugly... but really, just sad. the intolerance of the red-oriented commentors on this site is tantamount really to one thing: fear. although i love A.C and would proudly be a citizen, i think the key to keeping our united states united, would be a world wide exchange program. send kids from oklahoma to new york city, kids from door county, wi to miami, people from seattle to birmingham, alabama. and once we all grow a little more tolerant* of each other, we send everyone out to another country. we send christians to mosques, muslims to temple, buddhists.. well, nevermind. they're fine the way they are. we send americans to the middle east, belgians to congo, russians to chechnya, israelis to ramullah.
as James Peacock, UNC anthropology professor extraordinaire used to say.. people don't realize it but anthropology is going to save the world. once you understand another, fear subsides.
*tolerant does not include acceptance of descrimination based on religion, race, sexual preference, et al.

Posted by: ALF at November 5, 2004 2:38 AM

Yes, I agree with Luke. The conservatives aren't the only ones getting nasty here.

To conservatives: Not every Dem is so rigid or culturally hip and wants to secede. I'm a liberal and I want to hear what you're thinking. BUT nor do I want to tolerate ignorance and hatred toward any group, particularly if you have not walked in their shoes. Gays didn't "choose" their lifestyle; if they did, then Dick Cheney's daughter wouldnta been gay - and that's why Kerry brought that up. I'm willing to listen to your arguments if you're willing to listen to ours.

If we are against hatred and prejudice, it has to work both ways. I will NOT tolerate gay-bashing, and I will not tolerate Oklahoma-bashing, either. I will tolerate, say, people who are loving and open-minded and are willing to continue a dialogue.

And I don't want the thinkers and funny people to leave America. Please stay a while and keep making this country great.

Clinton got elected somehow, remember?

Posted by: One more at November 5, 2004 3:52 AM

Some of these comments are starting to sound like, "Hey, you Fucking conservatives, stop fucking being so fucking nasty." It goes both ways. Play nice.

Posted by: koke at November 5, 2004 4:08 AM

What we're really beginning to see is that a fairly large percentage of Democrats are unable to acknowledge that their agenda is out of touch with the majority of Americans. They continue to parrot old tired platitudes and lies that have gotten them to the position they are in now. This truly was a resounding defeat. And, when considering the huge waste of time on such nonsense as "American Coastopia", they still don't have a clue.

The results are clear. Democrats/Liberals do not connect with the mainstream of America. The real shocking thing is that they actually think they ARE the mainstream of America. Until they learn that lesson we will see more erosion of their base. Until they find a credible leader with a credible platform and vision to campaign from, that will be good news for the Republicans as well as the country.


Posted by: ALF at November 5, 2004 4:32 AM

Koke, there are lies on both sides. "mainstream america" has a fair amount of prejudice and fear and has not come up with a plan to protect ourselves from terrorism, nor to help those who truly need the help (which is SUPPOSED to be the true Christian ideal. people who are suffering, often the homeless and mentally ill, need help, not excuses and your platitudes about how they deserve it.)

Some of us liberals DO want to understand where you're coming from, but ignorance from either side makes me fed up, and it's the ignorance and hate caused by some of your friends that pushed a few of my fellow Dems to the edge.

Posted by: Sam at November 5, 2004 5:25 AM

Hi there! So, I was thinking, can Austin, Texas join, too? You see, we are the crazy liberal hold out of Texas. You know how when you go to another country and tell the people there you're American, they kind of judge you even though you may be a really cool person? That's the way it is with Texas and going to other states. Austin is this cool, crazy, liberal, artsy town that gets lumped in with the rest of Texas, when frankly, it isn't like the rest at all.
I mean, Tom DeLay and the rest of the crazy conservatives would have to vacate the capitol, but really, it sucks to be them. It was they who gerrymandered the congressional districts so that Austin was divided into three different districts that each combined with a larger, conservative district so that Austin's liberal politcal scene and representation in the national and state congress was virtually destroyed. Drawing the lines where people live, my ass.

Posted by: Anna at November 5, 2004 6:14 AM

Thank God for American Coastopia. Thanks God I am not face to face with the idiot repeating the "out of touch with mainstream America" crap.

Posted by: Mark McNease at November 5, 2004 6:14 AM

Yes, one day of despair was enough. I do hope there's no god in Coastopia, although anyone who wants to imagine one will be free to do so as always. I'm in (and hey, I already live in Queens). Saw the Towers fall, then saw concrete barriers at the Six Flags St. Louis, like who the hell is going to blow them up? They get off on thinking Osama's coming after them in Natchez. He can have them.

Posted by: koke at November 5, 2004 6:19 AM

Alf - Thanks for the response and appreciate your points. I agree there are lies on both sides of the spectrum. The political environment is rife with the speculative suggestions of manipulating predators who make the ignorant their prey.

I happen to believe that in 2004 this has been far more prevalent on the Liberal/Democrat side of the equation and I would expect that any level-headed reasonably educated person can see this.

You made some statements in your post. Specifically about terrorism and the needy.

Terrorism
---------
I don't understand how you can say there is no plan to "protect ourselves from terrorism". The fact's render that statement false.

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, International Law Enforcement cooperation in Intelligence gathering/sharing, Political Pressure, Financial seizure, etc..

The terrorism we see today is the product of decades of neglect, abuse and disregard of millions of people in the Mid-East - by both the U.S. and the rest of the World. The catalyst was religious fanaticism.

What took years to create will take years to destroy. My guess is at least 1 or 2 generations.

Domestic security will hopefully obstruct most contemplated attacks here but I don't believe there can be total security regardless who is in the White House.

There is NO QUICK FIX. Dreams won't help.

The fact is that the Kerry Plan was/is the Bush Plan with some minor changes to some minor details...and a huge dose of hype.


The Needy
---------
This may sound callous, but it is nothing new and it is certainly something that The Democrats have harped on since the beginning of time but never solved in any of their 40 years in the White House since FDR.

This a social issue that is secondary to life everywhere, worldwide. It is also a political topic that really only becomes "publicly obvious" every 4 years. Why is that? Simple - Votes. How insincere! How true!

Nonetheless, it is a fact of life. How much have you traveled? Been to Africa? Middle-East? South America? India?

To anyone living in Liberal Utopia, I would suggest they travel outside of any Western Society and learn about life in the real world.

These Western Societies have prospered and they have also thrown billions of dollars at poverty worldwide. But, the poverty continues.

What's the solution? More billions? Education? Freedom? Liberty?

Here in the U.S., we've also thrown billions at the problem but it's still there! What's the solution? (By the way, just to put things in perspective, those living in poverty in any of the countries listed above would jump at the opportunity to "live in poverty" in the U.S.)

In summary, give the poor & needy the opportunity to be educated and employed. If they're mentally or physically incapable of education and/or employment, we should take care of them.

(Side Note: NYC/Giuliani started a program for the homeless in the 90's. They went out and picked up the homeless and gave them shelter and opportunity for public employment. Many benefited from the program but some preferred to live on the street. His administration then did psychological evaluations on them. Those that were found mentally competent were allowed to return to their "homelessness". Those that weren't were institutionalized until the ACLU got many of them back on the street. How's that for compassion?)

Pleased to carry on the discussion.

Have a good one.

/koke

Posted by: Melissa at November 5, 2004 6:23 AM

I just want to know, how do we go about making this possible?

Posted by: Niles at November 5, 2004 7:00 AM

You have to include all the blue states...MN, MI, WI to make it a true approach.

Posted by: pamela at November 5, 2004 7:11 AM

This blog sure has taken a turn for the terrifying. Ian, thanks for giving us hope. Durham wants in. We'll bring the beer.


Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.

- Julius Caesar

Posted by: Rebecca in Charlotte at November 5, 2004 7:13 AM

Coastopia here I come!

I was considering filing for political asylum in France, but this is much better. I would like a country where debate is welcome and respect for others' opinions if taken for granted. Now we just find ourselves studying our reflection in the mirror and wonder "why are we moraly inferior?" Because we are open-minded? tolerant?

Please!

Posted by: d chu at November 5, 2004 7:16 AM

quit your whining. We dont have enough tissues for all of you. get over it.

Posted by: Karinne Comenzo at November 5, 2004 7:39 AM

my 22nd birthday was november 2, 2004. election day. i asked for one thing for my birthday. to not be a party to another 4 years of dubya. to be a party to freedom, equality, and the *real* american way. i can't find that now in the good old U S of A. i CAN find it in american coastopia...

allow me my birthday wish... and welcome to AMERICAN COASTOPIA.

Posted by: Paul at November 5, 2004 7:46 AM

I'am from Georgia. Decatur, GA to be exact. I know that we have Zell from hell and a bunch of other boot lickers of his ilk but please let us in to Coastopia. We don't want to be left alone with the nuckle draggers, bible belt crazies and Nazies. By the way, some German friends of ours say Bush is doing many of the same things that Hitler did. My greatest worry is that I may not live long enought to see all this horrow reversed. On the positive side I can't help but feel fortunite to be part of a group that loves and cares. May peace be with you every day.

Paul

Posted by: Annie at November 5, 2004 7:50 AM

The consensus among the conservative commenters here seems to be "Dissenting, critical commentary = Whining."

Somehow, Rush Limbaugh springs to mind. Bill O'Reilly. Ann, um, COULter, kind of just LEAPS to the forefront of my thoughts rights now.

Posted by: lee at November 5, 2004 8:02 AM

there are only two of us on this republican retirement isle in savannah ga. our boat will be ready soon ...

Posted by: Laugher at November 5, 2004 8:16 AM

I have no problem with dissent or commentary, but ignorance is just pathetic. You do realize that California adopted a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, don't you? Long before the current wave. Your precious Western Coastopia is not much different than the knuckle-dragging heartland you hold in such comfortable contempt.

Posted by: Winter Soldier at November 5, 2004 8:30 AM

Let me sum it up for everyone (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) This is all about "legislating lifestyle."

Both sides can stereotype each other and complain all they want (as this blog demonstrates). I understand perfectly why mostly white "Christians" are feeling overwhelmed by the secular society and everyone else, having been "top dog" in this country since its' inception.

But guess what, conservatives: there are no LAWS forcing you to watch the "liberal" media on TV, own a computer with the Internet and all its' "evil" shenanigans like this blog, go to those movies made by Hollywood "liberals," and invite gay and minority folks over to your house for dinner.

Yet that is exactly what Christian conservatives want to do. They want to enact their morality into LAW and force it down everyone else's throat.

And that's the difference, good bloggers. It's about LAWS, stupid!

Posted by: Annie at November 5, 2004 8:32 AM

It wasn't Coastopians--who, in case you haven't realized it yet, are not literally people residing in coastal states, but people who view the (regrettably) current administration as mistaken and wrong--who voted to ban same-sex marriage.

You DO know that, don't you?

...don't you?

Posted by: Brett D at November 5, 2004 8:53 AM

There are only two possible explanations for the outcome of this election:

1. The REAL majority really did speak, and that majority REALLY is as conservative as this snapshot indicates.

Or

2. The liberal establishment just plain failed to mobilize every vote that it could.

Obviously, the outcome is likely a result of a mixture of both; but as a self-proclaimed progressive, I want desperately to believe the latter, because if the former is true, this does not bode well for the future of our great democracy.

No matter how you spin it, discriminatory, homophobic paranoia is antithetical to the concept of equality. Exclusionary, evangelical demagoguery is immoral in a pluralistic society. Unrestrained, voracious consumerism fueled by exploitive Third World labor is immoral. Putting profit before the protection of our environment is immoral. Mortgaging our children’s futures to throw a kegger for ourselves today is immoral. Condemning the atrocities of the Palestinian authority while complicitly turning a blind eye to the abuses of the Israeli government and secret service is both hypocritical AND immoral. These are the bedrock of the GOP platform. These are the values that “Mainstream America” (if indeed it was fully represented last Tuesday) considers more important than fostering a better view of the United States throughout the world.

Chock one up for isolationism. Tally one for xenophobic unilateralists and narrow-minded intolerance.

But while we’re all pulling our hair out over who is the more “Moral” of the two parties, everyone seems to be forgetting one critical point, and I cling to it as the last best hope for equality: The only thing we know from the results of the election is the relative moral values of those who BOTHERED TO VOTE.

When all the smoke clears, I remain confident that this loss will come down to a failure on the part of Democrats to turn out every last vote in their arsenal, and their shortfall will be larger than the GOP's. God help you spineless, apathetic fuckers who left us standing with our dicks in the wind. Those of you who didn’t vote and plan to spend this term crying in your lattes can thank yourselves.

Posted by: Norom Retah at November 5, 2004 9:03 AM

Annie -

your quote: "The consensus among the conservative commenters here seems to be "Dissenting, critical commentary = Whining."

Actually, a lot of this thread includes hateful, judgmental, bigoted comments about people that are different than Liberal Democrats, i.e. "Republicans", "Red-Sates", "Conservatives", "Kunckle Draggers", etc.
So, officially, it is not 'dissenting, critical, commentary'. It is childish, insensitive and ignorant posturing.


your other quote: "Somehow, Rush Limbaugh springs to mind. Bill O'Reilly. Ann, um, COULter, kind of just LEAPS to the forefront of my thoughts rights now."

Actually these 2 people have one vote each -- just like you, although they can persuade other people to vote "their" way. Since they have their counterparts, Michael Moore, Stuart Smally, etc, this is really no argument.

p.s. Michael Moore with his "documentary" that spelled out "the truth" could not even persuade people to change their vote.

/Norom

Posted by: KC at November 5, 2004 9:24 AM

Please reconsider the bumper sticker issue ... I'd put it right next to my Kerry/Edwards sticker, which isn't coming off any time soon.

Posted by: Colleen at November 5, 2004 9:28 AM

Oh thankfully I reside in Coastopia (RI)! I still feel sick from the outcome of this election, and I am trying my best to cope with the mourning process we all share in the face of an administration that has lied to the american people repeatedly. Let's review the fantastic record of GWB: A failed mission to capture the real source of 9/11, A rising death toll of US Servicemen/Women in Iraq,Haliburton favortism,Destroyed diplomatic relations throughout the world,Rising national debt, Enviromental destruction,No child left behind(yeah right),National health plan(none yet),No equal rights for the gays(sounds like outright descrimination to me),Possible cuts of pensions for Active duty & Retired Armed forces(can't see why anyone would not want to enlist! hmmm),Homeland security(except the woman I saw with huge knitting needles on a South West flight), Outsourced jobs(call your local cable company, talk to INDIA). So to all of you who voted for another four years of all of the above mentioned success, I suggest you all sit in a circle with GWB, and read My Pet Goat, while we all watch our country go down the toilet.The story went over well with the kids in a Florida Classroom, while the President let our country come under seige.

Posted by: Jennifer at November 5, 2004 9:30 AM

"Why don't you just move to Canada you stupid fuckers. WE won and WE will rule this country as we please you stupid pieces of shit."

Posted by: Gordon Shumway at November 4, 2004 05:32 PM

Thank you Gordon for your insightful rhetoric. I have a better idea. Why don't you just go to sean hannity's website and blog away there? This post is not the place to spread your hatred, but as the ambassador for hate, I believe Sean would welcome your comments.

On a lighter note, I live in Kansas and am Catholic. I'm currently drowning in this sea of red. If it weren't for my family, I'd be outta here. As it is, I will continue to toil away and shape young minds to listen to BOTH sides of argument before making up their mind.

Call it "La Resistance" except I'm not in France during WWII and the christian coalition isn't the nazi's....or are they?

I'm building a summer home in coastopia.

Posted by: Carol at November 5, 2004 9:53 AM

Help! I'm trapped in the middle of the non-Coastopia hell! I feel like I'm being oppressed! I think your great nation needs some Rocky Mountains in it - how about adding the metro areas of Denver-Boulder. I'm mortifed we went for Shrub, but can we at least get some credit for elected two democratic hispanic brothers to the senate and congress?????

Posted by: French support at November 5, 2004 10:11 AM

All coastopian are welcome in Eeurope! France, Germany, and many others. Please skip italy and its fascit Berlusconi leader who said it was great to have Bush for President for 4 extra years.

Posted by: Colleen at November 5, 2004 10:35 AM

Gordon Shumway.
I have arranged for your non-stop,
oneway trip to ASSTOPIA, where all of you right
wing, conservative, shrublovers belong. Complimentary beverages and exlax await your arrival.....

Posted by: Norom Retah at November 5, 2004 11:04 AM

Dear Colleen:
Please allow me to articulate your thoughts a little better:

"Let's review the fantastic record of GWB: A failed mission to capture the real source of 9/11"
Um, if you bothered to read ALL the news, you might see that people in the mountainous regions of Afganistan and Pakistan really don't like people coming in and screwing around. They don't want to be involved in other people's back yards and don't want a war in their back yard.

"A rising death toll of US Servicemen/Women in Iraq"
Yes, this happens in war. Did you know there were 42,000 people killed on US highways last year?

"Haliburton favortism"
All politicians are corrupt. Live with it, accept it. Your guy, my guy, their guy. Politics is big business for all parties and don't be naive to think anything less.

"Destroyed diplomatic relations throughout the world"
Where? Who? What? I mean, huh?!?
What exactly does this mean? No one wants to trade with us anymore? Nobody in every third world and most first world countries don't want to come here anymore?
Face the facts: The newly gathered EU faced a huge political problem in front of the UN: They knew France and Russia were involved in shady arms and money deals in Iraq during the food for oil program. They decided to save face instead of telling the truth. Thus, "the world hates the US".
Whatever. They know they're just saying it because we got our asses kicked once and now they feel like they have a leg to stand on.

"Rising national debt"
Yes, this concerns me in a very real way, but the debt is not entirely Bush's fault. We'll see in another year.

"Enviromental destruction"
Blame SUV owners. The population of V8s and V10s in this country that eat gas comes from both parties. That's right: all members of political parties drive horrible cars and want cheap gas. How do you get cheap gas and not go overseas for it? YOU DRILL IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD!

"No child left behind(yeah right)"
Yes, not working too well. But its a format that still might work. I think its the wrong strategy, but I'm not president.

"National health plan(none yet)"
Paid for by whom? Not me thanks. I want to know that the money I pay to the government pays my health plan, not scum sucking parasites. Rule #1: never give out fish, only teach how to fish.

"No equal rights for the gays(sounds like outright descrimination to me)"
Is this about marriage? No one has bothered to make this a financial fight, so everyone just picks at the bones of the bible's idea of right and wrong. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money tied into "marriage". Remember, its not just a ceremonial love contract: it's a legal contract.

"Possible cuts of pensions for Active duty & Retired Armed forces(can't see why anyone would not want to enlist! hmmm)"
I don't understand the rationale either, and won't comment on it until I do.

"Homeland security(except the woman I saw with huge knitting needles on a South West flight)"
Say, how many bombings have you heard about in the last 3 years in the continental US? Hmmmm. NONE.

"Outsourced jobs(call your local cable company, talk to INDIA)"
Sorry to say this and burst your bubble, but Clinton started this. It is most certainly NOT his fault, but it began during his reign. America is about making money. We make more money if we can get the job done cheaper. That is why all your products are made in different countries. And you complain that jobs are going overseas? Lady, they were gone a looooong time ago. You just keep buying Made in China/Taiwan/Japan/Malaysia/Turkey/etc/etc/etc and keep complaining about something you are directly responsible for.

"So to all of you who voted for another four years of all of the above mentioned success, I suggest you all sit in a circle with GWB, and read My Pet Goat, while we all watch our country go down the toilet"
The country is NOT going down the toilet. You would be surprised to know that I am a small business owner, and 5 of my good friends are small business owners. Strangely, although the "country is going down the toilet", our profits are up and most of us are hiring. Intesting, isn't it?

"The story went over well with the kids in a Florida Classroom, while the President let our country come under seige"
Stop quoting Michael Moore and start thinking for yourself. You don't move the move POTUS until you know what's going on. He was safe at that moment. People were trying to kill him. If you are suggesting that it was his fault that we were attacked, you already know it was not. This story goes back decades and is the usual foreign policy gone bad. If you actually feel the need to blame someone, blame Clinton for not taking the guy out (although, on the other hand, you can't blame him either).

-Norom

Posted by: Jess at November 5, 2004 11:11 AM

I don't know what to say, because I just don't understand how so many people in this country can be so ignorant and backward-thinking. It is disgusting and embarrassing because we had a chance to change for the better and some people did not take advantage of it.

Posted by: Annie at November 5, 2004 11:12 AM

The following, from "Norom"'s (perhaps just that first "eman" by itself suits him better) initial entry into the Comments section:

"Dear Dimwits"

"Stop being devisive [sic] morons"

"stop whining you bunch of cowards"

"SO SHUT UP."

Does this sound to anybody rather like the "childish, insensitive and ignorant posturing" which Norom condemns (ironically) as the bane of this site? Does it remind anybody of, say, Bill O'Reilly? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter, perhaps?

Not to mention Gordon Shumway, and ho-ho (the Confederate-flag-waver who threatened violence. Nice.)

Incidentally, "Norom" missed my point--I don't think I was making an argument about how many votes Rush Limbaugh has (and Rush, Bill, and Ann add up to 3 people/votes, not 2. Incidentally) Rather, I was pointing out that many conservative commenters in this section have equated liberal dissent and criticism with whining. I don't see how they have explained that point specifically. What makes our expressions grief and outrage "whining," and Bill O'Reilly's red-faced screaming something else?

Many posters on this site, even some of the conservative-leaning ones, have made arguments with points, in attempts to clarify their views. Honestly, I would welcome a conversation with a conservative who could help me understand what "moral values," which is a nonspecific and redundant term, is actually supposed to mean. I would really like to know.

Of course I'm enraged and sad, and I am sickened to the core that B**h will be responsible for several more thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of Iraqi AND American deaths before it's all over. And if expressing that rage and grief to my friends all over this country is "whining," well, I'll fucking whine if I want to.

Posted by: Carine at November 5, 2004 11:18 AM

To all Coastopians : if the hateful Bushericans won't let you live on your own, please feel free to move to France where I'm from or to Greece where I live now. We'd be glad to exchange some of our stupid politicians for distressed former Americans.
Or try and follow Bush's morals : make lots of babies, their vote will make the difference one day.
Please make sure YOUR opinion is known abroad : the world needs to know Americans are not all lunatics... By the way, any clue about Bush invading France to get our cheese ? (sorry, I meant to free the oppressed French people ruled by a cruel leader.....)So lucky, we haven't got oil !!!!

Posted by: citygod at November 5, 2004 11:46 AM

Dear Retah(d),

Allow me to retort:

>>"A rising death toll of US Servicemen/Women in Iraq"
>Yes, this happens in war. Did you know there were 42,000 people killed on US highways last year?

But the deaths in Iraq - over 1000 soldiers, perhaps 100,000 mostly civilian Iraqis, was entirely preventable.

>>"Haliburton favortism"
>All politicians are corrupt. Live with it, accept it. Your guy, my guy, their guy. Politics is big business for all parties and don't be naive to think anything less.

This is a cynical argument that only encourages more bad behavior. "They're all corrupt, so let's not worry about corruption." It also misses the point - Halliburton's ties with Cheney have reaped it billions for private security, which could be better spent on armor for real soldiers and their vehicles. How do you think $80,000 adventurers paid with our money makes our true servicemen and women feel??

>>"Destroyed diplomatic relations throughout the world"
>Where? Who? What? I mean, huh?!?
What exactly does this mean? No one wants to trade with us anymore? Nobody in every third world and most first world countries don't want to come here anymore?
Face the facts: The newly gathered EU faced a huge political problem in front of the UN: They knew France and Russia were involved in shady arms and money deals in Iraq during the food for oil program. They decided to save face instead of telling the truth. Thus, "the world hates the US".
Whatever. They know they're just saying it because we got our asses kicked once and now they feel like they have a leg to stand on.

If you read the NEWS, you'll see that many nations will be investing less in the US because of our arrogant unilateralism. The foreign nations and banks that service our national debt (another Bush problem, see below) may be more reluctant to extend more credit.

American companies were also involved in arms (1980s) and oil deals (1990s), but privacy laws blacked out their names.

Besides, it's not just France and Russia, but Latin America, all the Arab countries, all of Asia, etc. While you talk governments, know that the people in those countries deeply opposed the war. Even those where the government that supported us (Spain, Italy, Great Britain).

>>"Rising national debt"
>Yes, this concerns me in a very real way, but the debt is not entirely Bush's fault. We'll see in another year.

I think we can hold him responsible for, oh, $680 billion plus the amount of the other tax cuts...

>>"Enviromental destruction"
>Blame SUV owners. The population of V8s and V10s in this country that eat gas comes from both parties. That's right: all members of political parties drive horrible cars and want cheap gas. How do you get cheap gas and not go overseas for it? YOU DRILL IN YOUR OWN BACKYARD!

That's silly - your solution purports to solve the cost of oil but doesn't do anything about environmental destruction. Oil is only one small part of the problem. Healthy Forests Destruction Initiative. Failure to deal with Global Warming (electricity conservation, carbon tax). Arsenic, mercury, PCBs - he's not doing a thing about it. Christie Whitman resigned from the EPA out of frustration.

Well, I don't wanna waste any more breath on this guy. Go Coastopia!

Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2004 11:48 AM

If Al Jeezera posts the Red states I offer up Arizona for wipe out. These McCain worshipping, Bush loving, redneck, morons won't change. We mobilized record numbers of democrats and they still raised the margin of victory for Bush/Cheney.

I'm moving to Massachusetts (Capitol of Coastopia?) anyway. Until then, though, I will continue to fight against the neofascist radcons in the Whitehouse.

Posted by: dcf at November 5, 2004 12:05 PM

And now, some words from our original sponsors:

On the danger of "character" as the #1 issue:

"I sincerely wish we could see our government so secured as to depend less on the character of the person in whose hands it is trusted. Bad men will sometimes get in and with such an immense patronage may make great progress in corrupting the public mind and principles. This is a subject with which wisdom and patriotism should be occupied." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses
Robinson, 1801.

On why the separation of church from state is fundamental to good government:

"The real friends of the Constitution in its federal form, if they wish it to be immortal, should be attentive, by amendments, to make it keep pace with the advance of the age in science and experience. Instead of this, the European governments have resisted reformation, until the people, seeing no other resource, undertake it themselves by force, their only weapon, and work it out through blood, desolation and long-continued anarchy."
--Thomas Jefferson to Robert J. Garnett, 1824.

On why Jefferson would join Coastopia:

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience [has] shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

Long live COASTOPIA!! Thanks so much for the smile - and inspiration to keep fighting the good fight. : )

Oh, and PLEASE can Alexandria, VA be included? 67% for Kerry, we're very diverse, we ride the metro and recycle, have great bike paths, cool art studios, most of my neighborhood works for the EPA, we've got some great founding fathers heritage and a beautiful waterfront...please, please? Don't leave us out!!

Posted by: Melissa at November 5, 2004 12:09 PM

This has made it almost to the top.

I just received this message from someone that I forwarded it to:

I forwarded this on to a few former dem hill staffers, and one forwarded it to Hillary's LD. She LOVED this! Do you know where this originated? That person might be able to meet with Hillary!!! (Clinton, that is)

Posted by: katie p at November 5, 2004 12:10 PM

hmm...who to nominate for president of coastopia? Any suggestions?

Posted by: Arashi at November 5, 2004 12:41 PM

Our "Founding Fathers" are rolling over in their graves right now. I don't think they could possibly imagine what has happened to this once great country.

Bush & Co. are anti-American to the core. They view the Constitution with disdain and We The People as slaves to the rich.

I'm heartened by the fact that roughly 49% of us voted against Bush, but it's distressing that even ONE person was anti-American enough to pull the lever for Bush much less 51%.

Posted by: Bud at November 5, 2004 12:44 PM

President? We don't need no stinking president.

I suggest administering Coastopia as an anarcho-syndicalist commune. Each of us can take turns as a sort of executive officer of the week. All the decisions of that officer will have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of major issues.

Or we could just wait to see who the lady of the lake picks to be king.

Posted by: CL at November 5, 2004 12:56 PM

>>>"Say, how many bombings have you heard about in the last 3 years in the continental US? Hmmmm. NONE."

And there were none from 1994-2000 while Clinton was in office, but after that, there was an attack that killed 3,000 people. Terrorists plan slowly and wait. I'd like to know what Bush is doing to protect our nuclear power plants and container ports, while our soldiers are overseas. Whatever it is, I hope it's enough.

I could care less whether W was reading "My Pet Goat"; I don't know what anyone else would do in that situation except not scare the children and wait to figure out what to do next. But I do care that we not get attacked again. Let's not get sidetracked from that issue.

Posted by: LC at November 5, 2004 1:24 PM

Greetings from one of the most conservative states in the country, home of the old, white, evangelical bible-pushers that re-elected Dubya (Ohio). Too bad that with Dubya, Ohio will probably lose another 250,000 jobs. But hey, GOD WILL GET US THROUGH ANYTHING AS LONG AS YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN STRAIGHT HOMOPHOBIC REDNECK! Can I join you guys in Coastopia? I've always wanted to live in another country!

Posted by: Rick at November 5, 2004 1:28 PM

As a Coastopian born and raised in Massachusetts, living in Oregon for the past 13 years I heartily endorse this idea. To sweeten the deal can we tow the whole thing off the coast of Spain and France with two beautiful bridges connecting us to Paris and Barcelona?

My latte is getting cold - gotta run.

Posted by: Randy at November 5, 2004 1:42 PM

I'm right there with you, as long as we can declare war on the United States as our first action.

Also, by the way, we should take DC. Trust me, they don't want Bush either.

Posted by: The Double B at November 5, 2004 2:16 PM

Coastopia sounds great!

Just moved from Ohio to Florida and I realize that I am in same fucking place, surrounded by the same fucking idiots. Big surprise.

When we movin? I have a truck, plenty of experience, and my husband is an architect. We're in.

Posted by: Confederate Coastopian at November 5, 2004 2:33 PM

I fled the capitol of the Confederacy for the capitol of the world long ago. I've never seen NYC as part of hte "regular" US. Glad that I now know my nationality.

I grew up with the notion of those tacky yankees who burned down our houses, and yet, New Yorkers are the friendliest folks I know. Where else do you get a million people per square mile, and without mass violence?

I am glad that C'ville got in. My people are really from that region, and trust me, those mountain people can be a lot more open than you might think.

Please don't forget about Asheville, NC - Santa Cruz with banjos - as I've heard it called.

And I should point out that Richmond, VA - my birthplace, went overwhelmingly for Kerry. The Fan neighborhood there definately feels like Coastopia. Maybe we can just take the 95 corridor and require everyone to drive electric vehicles through Costopia's section.

And try not to be mad at all those rednecks. There are many of us who overcame the church's brainwashing, but still enjoy a little hard outdoor labor now and again - producing the telling discoloration of the space between head and shoulders.

Besides, don't you want blues and cornbread in Coastopia. I really don't think it would be the same without it.

Posted by: Amanda at November 5, 2004 2:42 PM

Thank you God! I've been waiting for this day forever. It pisses me off that it takes me five hours to get from one important side of this country to the other. I've been dying to do away with flyover land for a long time now. Woohoo! LA to NY in one hour flat! Now that is something that I can truly get behind.

Posted by: zoe at November 5, 2004 2:51 PM


As much as I love New Orleans..... they really don't have the demographics. There are plenty of casinos in CA, and didn't Vegas go the way of Kerry? It would be logistically much easier to Annex.

Think twice. It's just the party pad of drunken midwesterners.

-Zoe, of the greater SF bay area.

Posted by: Misfitt at November 5, 2004 2:55 PM

Unite the sucession!

An architect in training, here.Unite the succession!

An architect in training, here. I will be licensed soon. I'm just wondering if I should even bother with the USA test. I figure I'll wait for the Coastopian licensure board and have something that actually has some worth.
Let's learn from the past before moving forward, too. That first succession didn't work very well.
Although the borders of Coastopia successfully give us a "surround and conquer" offense against the evil United Staters, we need to consider our battle strategy. I fear the New Orleans, Chapel Hill, and Durham outposts will fall quickly when the Uniter Staters attempt re-assimilation. My suggestion is to move what we can to our strongest locations before the announcement and leave the rest.
But if we're continuing with the satellite commonwealths, I strongly suggest adding the Miami to Key West area. 1.) Because South Beach will need refuge in Coastopia. 2.) Because the tourism trade could make Coastopia some much needed capital. (I mean c'mon: with all these artists and thinkers, how are we really going to make any money? Sure, we've got LA and some others but there's always that draw to the tropics for honeymoons.) 3.) Dade County did their best to swing the vote in Florida. Soon God will come and pick up most of the population out of the waiting room and leave the entertainers that have attempted to infuse the area. That aught to bring up the highly liberal barometer.

Posted by: Scot at November 5, 2004 3:06 PM

I'm ready.... I am so, so ready! Where do I sign up?

Posted by: Ruth Altstaetter at November 5, 2004 3:43 PM

I am sooooo ashamed!! I am living in the "old country. I campaigned, handed out literature, e-mailed, telephoned, talked and talked, had a Kerry Party--to no avail. Could you not just include my small property in coastopia?? Please!! I am sooooo depressed. Ruthless

Posted by: Colleen at November 5, 2004 3:44 PM

Thank you Citygod ! You took the words right out of my mouth. I really feel sorry for this Norom.
He will be the first to bitch in the coming years.
Norom, I have never seen Michael Moore's film to quote him, just so you know. To clarify your lack of understanding regarding Active & Retired Military benefit proposed cuts, The Bush admn. is proposing to cut health,retirement pensions,death indemnity compensation to both active & retired families. This means that if a soldier dies during active duty, the families will not receive
the military insurance that covers their loved one, which is contractual between the govt., and the enlisted personnel upon signing on for military duty. Retirees stand to lose their retirement pensions. Would you like it if someone took away your pension and left you nothing, and you were guaranteed this upon contract? I don't think so...
Gay rights: not just about marriage bozo! They are intitled to the same rights as the straight community. The right to partnership recognition, right to see their loved ones in an ICU, the rights to partnership tax advantage, legal rights to healthcare. This boils down to this country losing money if they allow gays to marry. Marriage is a contract between two people, and not
of the governments ruling. Isn't it funny how the seperation of church and state gets pulled out when you start to talk about gay marriage. What about the morals of those straight people who cheat on their spouses, beat their kids, and then have the audasity to sit in church every Sunday! This country is about the freedom of equal opportunity for all, including those of race, creed,color,religion,and sexual orientation. Perhaps you forgot that....Are you sure Noram isn't backwards for Moron? Have you served in the
US Military, or did you get 6 deferrments to aviod service like Cheney.

Posted by: terri at November 5, 2004 3:54 PM

Oops, you'll need to cut Oregon, Washington, and California in half lengthwise. The east side of the Cascades/Sierras is decidedly redneck. Red everything.

Posted by: Farrell at November 5, 2004 4:16 PM


I'm so terribly sad and so sorry that tolerance in America is so difficult. We are a democracy. It is our responsibility to voice what we know to be true. We cannot be intimidated by people who do not know how to listen to divergent views. So, we listen very carefully. They are very frightened. We are sad. An important difference. Listen, please. Listen and figure out where our common ground lies. Common ground is important and I believe that there is the answer to our collective sadness.

Posted by: April Lindner at November 5, 2004 4:43 PM

Thanks for the only laugh I've had in three days. You need to put a purple dot on the map for Yellow Springs, Ohio as well (a tiny little oasis of coolness in the red sea of Ohio).

Posted by: thegarbarian at November 5, 2004 5:10 PM

Too much to lose. I don't want to give them my great lakes, plains, or rocky mountains. We need to have a redneck roundup and corral those fucks down to texas. Shit, then we could sell it off to mexico. They could call it Texaco.

Posted by: Pisto Pete at November 5, 2004 5:22 PM

*Bush has political capital. It has a short shelf life. If he wants to try to partially privatize (er, excuse me, "reform") Social Security, or any of the other agenda items he mentioned, he's got about a year to do so. After that, Congress turns to thoughts of re-election, and he becomes the lamest of lame ducks.

*If the Republicans don't ditch Arlen Specter from Chairmanship of the Judiciary committee, they will have more pissed off constituents than they can deal with. If he, Linc Chafee, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins want to go be Democrats, or join the Jumpin' Jim Jeffords Party, let 'em. That's still 51 Republicans, and we'll get more in 2006.

*Some people have a problem with calling the Bush win "decisive". Well, the country did decide, so the word is not used improperly. Bush also got over 50% of the popular vote for the first time anyone's done it since his dad in 1988. Considering Clinton never got over 49%, as well as the debacle of 2000, a clean, clear, majority victory is fairly decisive.

*Awright, it's been 3 days of whining, rending of garments, tearing out of hair, and threatening to leave the country by liberals. It's been 3 days of making excuses, assessing blame, and insulting those who voted for Bush. Here's a tip, liberals. Come up with some new %$#@ing ideas, work to sell them to the people, instead of trying to foist them ON the people, and be prepared to honestly debate them. No Democrat has proposed a new political idea since 1966 (Medicare), and look how well THAT has turned out. Before that, you have to go back to the New Deal. I thought it was conservatives that abhorred change. Your best ideas are over 60 years old, and if you look at them honestly, they weren't that good. Social Security and Medicare were and are Ponzi schemes. We're running out of workers to pay for the retirees, and you don't have a clue what to do about it (well, actually you DO, but you can't tell anybody you want to means test it and raise the hell out of FICA taxes). read the rreport of the SS commission Bush had in the forst year of his administration. On it were liberals Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey. They advocated private SS accounts. Stop whining, stop channeling Karl Marx, FDR, and LBJ, and try to live in the real world. You might actually win sometime in the near future.

*And while I'm on the subject, I am a conservative. I don't know of any other conservative who is ashamed to call himself a conservative. Some of us even call ourselves Paleoconservatives (not me, but some do). Stop trying to hide and call yourselves what you are. You're #@$%ing liberals. You aren't "progressive", since your newest idea is over 30 years old. Be who you are, and if you can't get elected being that, maybe YOU'RE the ones who are stupid, ignorant, duped, and foolish. But stop insulting people who don't vote the way you want them to, if you aren't going to be brave enough to be who you are, say who you are, and say what you stand for.

Rant over, carry on.

Posted by: Annie at November 5, 2004 5:41 PM

"Stop trying to hide and call yourselves what you are"?

Posted by: Dan at November 5, 2004 6:01 PM

You gotta love "compassionate conservatism." What the hell that any of these "compassionate conservatives" say or do is even remotely "compassionate?" You know, being a sarcastic guy, I used to love euphamisms as I used them to joke around until the Bush administration came along. Now I can't stand euphamisms. Everyone calls Kerry a flip-flopper. Bush is a huge flip flopper and no-one wants to recognize it, especially when it comes to Iraq. Not only is he a flip flopper, but he has more "amnesia" than anyone I have ever seen; theres a euphamism for you. First Iraq had WMDs, a link to Al-Qaeda and was looking to use aluminum tubes bought from Africa to nuke us. Then after we went to war, no WMDs. The Bush administration fought this. This claim turned out to be false. After alot of fighting, they finally conceded there were no WMDs. Then they stuck to the Al-Qaeda link, which also turned out to be false. They fought that too, but again, false. Then they said, well, Iraq had "intentions" to go after us. What the fuck? What the hell happened to the "credible undeniable proof" that they had that Iraq was an imminent threat to us, not to mention that they were behind Al-Qaeda's 911 attack? (OOPS, SORRY, THAT'S FALSE TOO, thank you 911 commission!). What is up with Bush trying for years to block an independant commission to investigate 911? Lemme think, if I were in charge, and I had a huge attack on my country's soil, the first thing I would find out is what the hell happened to bring this about. Why would you block such a thing? One reason, you've got something to hide. Do yourself a favor, read 1984 then look at any one of Bush's speeches and you'll see at least 2 good examples of Doublespeak. My point, Bush not only isn't consistent with his facts, he blatantly lies about alot of things, especially Iraq. Someone I know once said, at least he is doing what he thinks is right. I DON'T CARE IF HE BELIEVES THIS WILL BRING THE MESSIAH! It doesn't matter if he believes what he is doing is right (or at least pretends to), it matters if it IS the right thing to do. Going to war with NO PROOF is wrong, and defending it is wrong, especially when every piece of your evidence has been refuted. I am sick and tired of people turning a blind eye to this. People just selectively forget the facts and say "You gotta stick by the president." Let me tell you something, I dont have to stick by shit. I stick by whats right, and Im not seeing it. Lastly, what the hell is up with the name calling? Nobody wants to listen to a reasonable argument, so they call me a liberal. Well you know what, I AM A LIBERAL! Good, now are you happy? Call me names, I don't care. I got a question for you, why don't you use your brain? Good question I think. Long live American Coastopia, and I love the fact that I don't need to move from my NH residence to be a part of it!

Posted by: Mike at November 5, 2004 6:14 PM

I'm in. But I don't want to have to shoot anyone to gain independence. Also, I don't think we should cut off the area east of the Cascades/Sierra's. Sure, they are rednecks over there - however - at least in WA - the East side of the mountains contains fertile plains. A lot of wheat comes from Eastern WA, and I think we will need that because a lot of us are going to be vegetarians I'm sure. God damn midwesterners and southerners.

Also, WA has tons of Native American casinos and New Orleans is dirty and violent. So we don't need New Orleans - well actually the jazz scene is vital to history - so lets keep it.

Posted by: Dan Roth at November 5, 2004 6:41 PM

Hey, why'd you leave Hawaii out? They voted for Kerry. We need pineapple, macadamia nuts and a convenient place for sitcoms to film family trips in the years after they Jump the Shark.

Posted by: AF One at November 5, 2004 6:41 PM

You now what? You all are making sick, both liberals and conservatives. Your bickering and in-fighting is what is fucking up this country. I'm a fucking LIBERTARIAN. What, we don't get any states? I see how it is...a country of elitist dogs Is that what you people are, fucking dogs? Can you only see in black and white? America is a country that thrives on ethnic, economic, and cultural diversity. Splitting the country up is not going to fix things. And running away isn't going to make things any better, either. Try to act like mature adults and face your goddamn problems for once. And for God's sake, take responsibility for your own actions for once. Not everything that happens in this world can be answered by "It's not my fault". Face it, we are not perfect. We are ALL wrong in this by some way or another.

Now, as far as dividing the country, that is just stupid. Especially since you are doing it to serve your own agenda. The only way to do it right is to go door-to-door and find out if they're Rep or Dem. Oh, you Dems want Durham? How do you know that business owner didn't vote Republican? Isn't it unfair to force him/her to convert just 'cause they're in a city you want. That kind of logic is real mature.

So grow up, people. The world is not always going to go the way you want it. Nothing is going to get better if we, as AMERICANS, can learn to compromise with each other and move forward as a country. It's OK for each of you to have your own opinions on how things should be run, but have the common courtesy to repect those that differ from yours. Some of us in the service, and many of those before us, fight very hard so you can have the right to disagree. So please, don't abuse it so much.

Posted by: Nick Cvietkovich at November 5, 2004 6:49 PM

You are being copied. Your comments about Coastopia have been copied verbatim and is travelling in a fast-moving forward. You might want to contact Debbie Berger

Center for American Progress

phone: 202/478-6330

fax: 202/682-1867

cell: 202/320-9946

Posted by: utaustintx at November 5, 2004 7:05 PM

Pisto >>> "You aren't "progressive", since your newest idea is over 30 years old. Be who you are, and if you can't get elected being that, maybe YOU'RE the ones who are stupid, ignorant, duped, and foolish. But stop insulting people who don't vote the way you want them to, if you aren't going to be brave enough to be who you are, say who you are, and say what you stand for.

Gee, Pete... no one forced you to come to Coastopia just to be an a**hole. Coastopians are content. Sore winners ought to look at themselves.

Posted by: Canuck at November 5, 2004 7:14 PM

Please stop tyring to make us your 51st state, don't you realize that trying to take our country is just like what they're doing in Iraq. I respect your country because ours is not perfect either, and I think we can all learn from each other. However I would like to extend an invitation to all those truley fed up to try and emigrate to Canada. That is, if you think you can learn to live with all the polar bears and what not...:)

Posted by: hindsey at November 5, 2004 7:43 PM

How much do teachers get paid in Coastopia? Or is money obsolete? That would be okay too.

I would like to continue trying to encourage critical thinking here in the Old Country, but I fear that once the schools all fail to meet the unfunded NCLB goals and are privatized, I will be out of a job. Because the responsibility for running our schools will certainly fall into the hands of "faith-based" (read: Bush's base) organizations, I will become unemployable.

Posted by: ??? at November 5, 2004 7:54 PM

You are being copied.

Nick Cvietkovich, who's being copied?

Posted by: bird at November 6, 2004 12:18 AM

Aww...thanks for remembering Iowa. It did vote Democrat for the past 4 elections and it still might have this time.

But you forgot Minnesota, Michigan and Wisconsin! They're all Blue States!

Posted by: Burnin' Vernon at November 6, 2004 7:03 AM

I love it! However, bird is right -- you forgot to include Minnesota and Wisconsin. However, if you simply threw in Minneapolis, Madison, and Milwaukee as affiliated "dots," that'd do as well.

Posted by: NY TImes at November 6, 2004 10:27 AM

This guy gets it, too bad most of you don't.

The Values-Vote Myth
By DAVID BROOKS

Every election year, we in the commentariat come up with a story line to explain the result, and the story line has to have two features. First, it has to be completely wrong. Second, it has to reassure liberals that they are morally superior to the people who just defeated them.

In past years, the story line has involved Angry White Males, or Willie Horton-bashing racists. This year, the official story is that throngs of homophobic, Red America values-voters surged to the polls to put George Bush over the top.

This theory certainly flatters liberals, and it is certainly wrong.

Here are the facts. As Andrew Kohut of the Pew Research Center points out, there was no disproportionate surge in the evangelical vote this year. Evangelicals made up the same share of the electorate this year as they did in 2000. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who are pro-life. Sixteen percent of voters said abortions should be illegal in all circumstances. There was no increase in the percentage of voters who say they pray daily.

It's true that Bush did get a few more evangelicals to vote Republican, but Kohut, whose final poll nailed the election result dead-on, reminds us that public opinion on gay issues over all has been moving leftward over the years. Majorities oppose gay marriage, but in the exit polls Tuesday, 25 percent of the voters supported gay marriage and 35 percent of voters supported civil unions. There is a big middle on gay rights issues, as there is on most social issues.

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

The reality is that this was a broad victory for the president. Bush did better this year than he did in 2000 in 45 out of the 50 states. He did better in New York, Connecticut and, amazingly, Massachusetts. That's hardly the Bible Belt. Bush, on the other hand, did not gain significantly in the 11 states with gay marriage referendums.

He won because 53 percent of voters approved of his performance as president. Fifty-eight percent of them trust Bush to fight terrorism. They had roughly equal confidence in Bush and Kerry to handle the economy. Most approved of the decision to go to war in Iraq. Most see it as part of the war on terror.

The fact is that if you think we are safer now, you probably voted for Bush. If you think we are less safe, you probably voted for Kerry. That's policy, not fundamentalism. The upsurge in voters was an upsurge of people with conservative policy views, whether they are religious or not.

The red and blue maps that have been popping up in the papers again this week are certainly striking, but they conceal as much as they reveal. I've spent the past four years traveling to 36 states and writing millions of words trying to understand this values divide, and I can tell you there is no one explanation. It's ridiculous to say, as some liberals have this week, that we are perpetually refighting the Scopes trial, with the metro forces of enlightenment and reason arrayed against the retro forces of dogma and reaction.

In the first place, there is an immense diversity of opinion within regions, towns and families. Second, the values divide is a complex layering of conflicting views about faith, leadership, individualism, American exceptionalism, suburbia, Wal-Mart, decorum, economic opportunity, natural law, manliness, bourgeois virtues and a zillion other issues. (Like I said. Kerry has NEVER took pride in AMERICAN Pride. He looked down on it like the eurowennies do. American exceptionalism is real. From the Barbary Pirates to the Panama Canal to the Moon Landing, to medicine to missle defense to helping every country the world over during earthquakes, floods, wars etc...)

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

What we are seeing is a diverse but stable Republican coalition gradually eclipsing a diverse and stable Democratic coalition. Social issues are important, but they don't come close to telling the whole story. Some of the liberal reaction reminds me of a phrase I came across recently: The rage of the drowning man.

Posted by: John Galt at November 6, 2004 10:48 AM

You guys should reconsider about New Hampshire. Kerry only won by 9,309 votes despite what Nader says. You'll have to deal with The Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org) which would involve you doing something besides just sitting around declaring secession. Far from being another Vermont, the Granite State is too independent not to quickly secede from Coastopia anyway.

Who is John Galt?

Posted by: Ishtar at November 6, 2004 12:00 PM

Wahoo!!! Already a member of American Coastopia, living in CA and all, though I am aware that part of this state is probably going to want to stay red. Sounds like a great idea to me!

To those who seem to have a problem with the proposition, particularly with the fact that many of us, who were born here, are comfortable staying where we are rather than 'moving to France'...

Nearly half the country voted against Bush. Kerry wasn't a great candidate, and no, I'm not a democrat (or a Republican), and we STILL got nearly half the country voting against Bush. Why should we fund warmongering when we've already been driven into debt? Why should we endure increased risks of terrorism and the antipathy of almost the whole world? Can't speak for my fellow blue countrymen, but California has been largely ignored (by both administrations, actually) because they know how we're going to vote. During our energy crisis, despite the fact that we're the seventh largest economy IN THE WORLD and contribute largely to the economy of our former country, not only did the administration ignore us, but the public opinion from the US was essentially "Ha ha, ya flaming liberals! Enjoy your darkness!" And now you want to keep us? Ha!!

A true democracy BASED on Constitutional principles does not operate by saying "We got a slim majority, time to obliterate checks and balances and move ahead with a highly conservative agenda". They are already making plans to strip the Constitution, allegedly there to protect us from an irresponsible majority "mob mentality" to agree with their plans. In essence, the administration is going forward with the idea that nearly half the country's population was a nuisance that can now be overcome.

So we're leaving! Deal with it. And I am aware of California's ban on gay marriage, because I was campaigning against it when the anti-persecution people were on campus trying to get people to realize that other people's love is none of their business. Hopefully, in American Coastopia, though we welcome dissenting political opinions, we can start from a position where ALL people are created equal, not the Orwellian "but some are more equal than others".

And of course secession isn't a new idea. What does strike me as funny is that some of the people calling us whiners etc are from states that still want to fly the confederate flag. I'd like to think our secession is based on something a little more noble than keeping other people as slaves though. I'm also hoping there won't be a war considering how badly the pro-Bush people seem to want us out to begin with. Having us around delays the appointment of conservative judges to the Supreme Court, the passage of more legislation to pour MORE money and lives into Iraq and whatever country we decide to terrorize next (Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs or 9/11, people!! So what we did was terrorism!), and the entire Bush agenda.

So Viva American Coastopia!!!!

Ishtar

Posted by: Midwestern Woman at November 6, 2004 12:34 PM

I'm a midwestern married mother of two from IN. Does that conjure up any stereotypes? If it did, I might not fit the stereotypes that either the liberals or conservatives think from this website. I am an educated working professional and a die-hard liberal living in a state that is mainly red. I have been in heated debates with neighbors and friends on these topics for years. In my ignorant bliss, I always considered their belief systems antiquated and conservatives a "dying breed. It is now 4 days after the election, and I am still baffled. As I read some of the stereotypical and hateful respones from some of the conservatives, it occurred to me that we liberals are also being sterotypical and hateful too. I am going to try to practice what I preach by being open-minded even if it requires being open-minded to what I consider closed-mindedness. Surprisingly enough, my republican friend sent me this website.

P.S. Helenjane's comment is one of my favorites...concise and to the point!

Posted by: Sarah Kaz at November 6, 2004 2:11 PM

I go to school in Portland Oregon, at one of the only all-girls schools on the west coast. half of my school is willingly joining your American Coastopia. ...now how do we let the rest of the world know we've seceded?

Posted by: A Normal American at November 6, 2004 4:42 PM

Go ahead and leave. We don't want you.

Posted by: A Normal American at November 6, 2004 4:45 PM

P.S. Actually, I live in PA. Please take Philadelphia with you and leave the rest to us.

Posted by: Jacob diMinnesota at November 6, 2004 8:40 PM

Hmmm...

Well, I come from Minnesota, a state excluded from your map. Minnesota has a long and continuous tradition of voting Democrat. Heck, I think we were the ONLY state that Reagan did not win in 1985. Perhaps you need to do your research...

What this article really does, though, is show the closed-mindedness and narrow viewpoints of many modern-day American liberals. Let me apply an approach similar to the one you, and many other cloberals (close-minded liberals), use on us:

Residing in their hip, contemporary inter-urban flats, furnished after one of Sex and the City girls' pads, they snicker making scornful armchair judgments of us middle-American folks: lower-end, trashy, and certainly not in conformity with the current social trends (but they'll never use the word "conformity", because their progressive views make them SUCH INDIVIDUALS). Our un-enlightened views on marriage (we believe that it is an institution between a MAN and a WOMAN, as it normally has been in the past, with the possible exception of heterosexual polygamy, which I don't support, of course), abortion, or as they euphemize it, "reproductive rights" (we believe that human life has sancity, no matter what its age, and most us have sense enough to realize that abortion occurs after the reproducin'), religion (we Middle-American folks are mindless followers of hopeless out-of-date Christianity, backwards because it acknowledges the human condition and actually preaches **MORALITY**, as opposed to the one of the many terribly posh flavors of new age-ism), and a hodge-podge of other things, e.g. gun rights ('cuz it's necessary to take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens) and the like.

After using their ever-sagacious judgment, of the in-superior nature of the middle western breed, and how they just ought to be spat upon, if only in words, the cloberal goes on to criticize the brutal intolerance of them simple people. Oh, no, but isn't the cloberal, in her trendy $500 Manolo Blahniks, as opposed to the cheap department-store shoes that grab the non-peticured middle-American feet, being a bit intolerant here? Not quite, because in the Cloberal's revisionist 2004 dictionary, "tolerance" is a virtue extending solely to other liberals. It shall not bestowed, for purposes of social advancement, upon anybody who believes in the existence of right-and-wrong, unless they're a non-Christian, because we all know how far back Christianity has set society. The new dual-standard of tolerance may seem illogical at first, but the cloberal, with her ever-keen reasoning skills honed from a feminist interpetation of the Qu'ran and Madonnan Kabbalah, cannot fail. After all, who's the one not wanting gays to get married? (to be continued, maybe, but I got lazy and decided to stop here for now. AIIGHT?)

Posted by: Mike at November 6, 2004 8:41 PM

Yes! I've been circulating the same idea to all my friends. We should definately seced - we should have been two countries since the Civil War.

I vote for joining Canada. We would then be the largest, most economically & culturally vital country in the world. The "old" united states would continue to fall backwards into ruin. We might need to send them a bit of aid to keep them from becoming a third world country though.

Posted by: Mrs. G at November 6, 2004 9:00 PM

There seems to be little that liberals and conservatives can agree on, but maybe there is one thing. After Sept. 11, we all felt a sense of unity like never before. Now there is a great divide and we are bickering and contemptuous of each other. We were one people; now we are red states and blue states, pompous, dirty liberals and stupid, redneck conservatives. This great sad divide is the direct result of the Bush administration's leadership.

If I had to choose between Coastopia and the rest of the country, I would certainly go with Coastopia, but I would miss my friends in the rest of the country.

Mrs. G

Posted by: Dan at November 6, 2004 9:27 PM

Gotta agree with Mrs. G. Ive been thinking about how people can't agree on anything, and one side is always the ignorant side. I personally realize now though that seceding isn't going to stop ignorance on either side. However, it would be nice to get away from Mr. Bush's tyranny, so therefore Long live American Coastopia ;) People, try to think and look outside your narrow spectrum of ideas (this goes out to everyone)

Posted by: Christopher Milton at November 6, 2004 9:44 PM

I have yet to read through all of the posts, and doubt I have the authority to do this - - but I have set up an Embassy for America Coastopia here in Cookeville, TN. (“Cookeville! - We built a Art Center, but don’t worry, we mainly use it for church.”) With that in mind:

I declare myself soveirgn to American Coastopia, and promise to represent its values and people to the best of my ability.

Christopher Milton
Self declared Ambassodor to Tennessee of American Coastopia

Posted by: Christopher Milton at November 6, 2004 9:45 PM

I have yet to read through all of the posts, and doubt I have the authority to do this - - but I have set up an Embassy for America Coastopia here in Cookeville, TN. (“Cookeville! - We built a Art Center, but don’t worry, we mainly use it for church.”) With that in mind:

I declare myself sovereign to American Coastopia, and promise to represent its values and people to the best of my ability.

Christopher Milton
Self declared Ambassador to Tennessee of American Coastopia

Posted by: TallGrrl at November 7, 2004 11:03 AM

"What this article really does, though, is show the closed-mindedness and narrow viewpoints of many modern-day American liberals. Let me apply an approach similar to the one you, and many other cloberals (close-minded liberals), use on us"
======
What this article does is make you look a complete fool.
Me? I've never paid $500 for anything other than to get my car fixed...or my rent.
I've never known a "close-minded" liberal.
In fact, before we go any further, I think you should define the word "liberal" because I don't think you...or most of the people who use it like they use the word "motherfucker"...knows what it actually means.

Posted by: reb at November 7, 2004 11:46 AM

I am proud to say that PA is a blue state. Formerly I made fun of my home but no longer. I am proud to be part of American Coastopia. That being said, however, I am going to choose to stay here with the yucky parts of the country and fight for what I believe in. Maybe it's easier because I'm from PA (yay!) but leaving the rest of the 55 million to suffer just doesn't seem fair.

Posted by: reb at November 7, 2004 11:48 AM

I am proud to say that PA is a blue state. Formerly I made fun of my home but no longer. I am proud to be part of American Coastopia. That being said, however, I am going to choose to stay here with the yucky parts of the country and fight for what I believe in. Maybe it's easier because I'm from PA (yay!) but leaving the rest of the 55 million to suffer just doesn't seem fair.

Posted by: PaulB at November 7, 2004 1:34 PM

You need to include AUSTIN, TX.

If you look at any county-by-county map, you'll see Austin is bright blue, having gone for Kerry almost 60% to only 38%

Austin is a great, cool, liberal, high-tech, artsy city that is the live music captial of the world.

TAKE US WITH YOU! :-)

Posted by: sb at November 7, 2004 2:37 PM

Thank you, Jacob diMinnesota, for making the perfect case for everything I voted against. You prove I voted correctly. FYI, your free speech is copied so I can use its incisive logic as precious gems to illuminate my next speech about the pressing need today for balance, humor, tolerance and justice. Thanks tons.
Love isn't a twisted construction spewing from the head. It doesn't need words, and is centered located a little lower, actually. Ah, not too low, now. That little head down there, Jacob, is just as self-serving as the big one up top. Try thinking from your heart. It won't make near as many mistakes as either one of those other two appendages will, you'll have a lot more friends and see a more wonderful, more inclusive and unified world. I strongly suggest you stop drinking, too. It's devastating too much of your brain, right where you need those cells the most (the limbic system--uh, where your feelings are).
Congratulations for helping and "Go, Jacob"! Oops, I mean, don't go. Don't come... to Coastopia. Uh, sit, stay, lie down, roll over, play dead!
Long live Coastopians for Sanity, Peace, and Really Happy Dogs.

Posted by: lisa at November 7, 2004 3:42 PM

still feeling sick but choose to believe it's a sign for all the peace lovin hippies to make a stand and run towards coastopia! we don't need the red states but they will come to see how badly they need us when the shit really hits the fan.

i have to get packing. see ya'll in coastopia!

Posted by: Mrs. G at November 7, 2004 7:20 PM

I know this is a bit long, but I found it helpful to look up the words everyone is tossing around. Revealing, and a little surprising, these are direct quotes from Dictionary.com and Roget's Thesaurus. You decide, based on these definitions, not on the redefined meanings used by some of our public servants, to which category you would like to belong.

From Dictionary.com
liberalism
1. The state or quality of being liberal.
2. A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans
and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political
liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and
protection from arbitrary authority.
3. An economic theory in favor of laissez-faire, the free market,
and the gold standard

conservatism
1. The inclination, especially in politics, to maintain the existing
or traditional order.
2. A political philosophy or attitude emphasizing respect for traditional
institutions, distrust of government activism, and opposition to sudden
change in the established order.

liberal
adj.

1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

conservative
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.
3. Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

From Roget's Thesaurus:

Entry: liberal
Function: adjective
Definition: progressive
Synonyms: advanced, avant-garde, big, broad, broad-minded, catholic, detached, disinterested, dispassionate,
enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, impartial, indulgent,
inexact, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous,
not close, not literal, not strict, permissive, pink, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive,
reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced

Entry: conservative
Function: adjective
Definition: moderate
Synonyms: bourgeois, cautious, constant, controlled, conventional, die-hard, fearful, firm, fogyish, fuddy-duddy, guarded,
hard hat, hidebound, holding to, illiberal, inflexible, middle-of-the-road, not extreme, obstinate, old guard, old-line,
orthodox, quiet, red-neck, right, right-wing, sober, stable, steady, timid, traditional, traditionalistic, unchangeable,
unchanging, uncreative, undaring, unimaginative, unprogressive, white bread

Posted by: Kat Moore at November 7, 2004 7:33 PM

I was all with you until you made that really cruel comment about Duke. I went to Duke and many of my democratic friends went to Duke. Why would you say something like that? I wouldn't say that about Chapel Hill. I love Chapel Hill. You become devisive and part of the problem when you alienate a group of intelligent and liberal people who were as depressed as anyone else on election day. I was a part of Duke Democrates. We campaigned for Clilnton and for Harvey Gantt when he ran against Jesse Helms. We lobbied in Washington for women's rights. Why would you alienate us just for a joke or a school rivalry or for whatever reason you made that comment.

Oh, and Wake Forest is in Winston Salem not Greensboro you idiot. And my very democtratic Uncle and Grandmother live there. My Uncle works on for urban planning keeping Walmart and other big land hording corps in check. Your as bad and apparently as ignorant as the right you jerk!

Posted by: Ian at November 8, 2004 12:12 AM

The Dook comment was meant in terms of moving the school like Wake Forest was moved, and I happened to mention Greensboro, although I can see how that was confusing. I am well aware of where Wake is now located.

By the way, I apologize for nothing when it comes to Duke. Sorry, but a guy's gotta have his demons.

Posted by: Garnet at November 8, 2004 2:16 AM

Can Wisconsin join? PLEASE!!!!!

Posted by: sarah at November 8, 2004 5:10 AM

Well, you can have your country. I prefer a country that stands besides its soliders and we would all be better off with Hollywood sinking into the deepest part of the ocean. Seems like you good folks have all the answers. And it also seems like you are full of a lot of hate. I know things like family and motherhood (so sorry Teresa, I personally think being a mother is one of the most important jobs) are "traditional" and not forward thinking enough for you folks. I live on the east coast and my husband works in a prison full of men and women who have so benefitted from your wonderful welfare state. Actually, here in PA, you can have as many children as you like, and we keep on giving you money. (Of course, noone clues them in and tells them that $300 a month per kid isn't going to actually support them. But they do know if they are able to get a mental health diagnosis on them they get almost double that per kid!) Hope you guys are ready to support cities of women and the children (in prison they call them wives, mistresses and baby-mamas - isn't that sweet!) and the men who leave them. Because, heaven forbid, we trample on their human rights and actually expect them to work!!!! Actually, you can continue the trend, and instead of having welfare support those who temporarily need it, just make it a way of life, passing down the core values of receiving a hand out and never really putting anything back. As a young man I worked with so eloquently put it when asked what he planned to do when he grew up "Do? What do you mean do?"
"Well," I said "you know, work. What would you like to do?"
"I ain't going to work!"
"How will you live then? What will you do for money?"
"Money - they just send me the check man, they send me the check."
How sad that a boy of 12 thinks this is the proper way to "work." Because, well, if you actually get a job, your system is set up to take away their benefits. Anyway, go ahead and keep them down, so you have someone to look after and Hollywood and all the music "artists" have someone to champion. They need to make themselves feel better for having all that money. Hmm wonder if they would offer "free" movies or CDs to anyone showing an id that states they are down-trodden. Because we all know who is supporting their million dollar homes, their "pimped up rides" and their glamourous life style. And if you really educated them, they may get wise and stop buying the stuff.

Anyway, sorry for your bitterness. Have a wonderful country. You should elect Kerry to be president. But please make sure Teresa closes all of those factories overseas. You should keep the jobs in your country.

PS As for gay marriage, we all don't believe in what you have put forth. I do believe that equal rights should be given and civil services should be legal. So, please don't make wide classifications of people of faith.

Posted by: Beck at November 8, 2004 6:41 AM

Remember, John Kerry is against gay marriage! Please do America a favor and just move your sorry whiny asses to France!

Posted by: CL at November 8, 2004 8:23 AM

>>As a young man I worked with so eloquently put it ..."Well," I said "you know, work. What would you like to do?" "I ain't going to work!"

One of the big problems with conservatives is assumptions. I love how you find one 12-year-old boy who said something not very bright in conversation and use it to indict a whole system meant to help people. Think of all the children you would hurt if you stop providing a safety net (note: Safety net meaning last resort to protect people from the lowest depths of pain), just because you chose to use the words of one 12-year-old to back up your argument.

By the way, Does that 12-year-old live next door to the people on Welfare who own 8 Cadillacs, and up the road from the "lazy" homeless people who sit on the sidewalk begging for money from strangers all day because so much it's easier than going into an office on Wall Street? What a country!

There are some conservatives here who have made rational arguments, but both sides would do better if we didn't resort to ignorance and assumptions, particularly like the one above. I mean, complaining about Welfare and people getting rich off it? That is sooooo 1980s! I thought Welfare to Work was supposed to fix that. At least we're trying to address the problem.

Help people to help themselves, whatever the reason they got into their situation... - isn't that what Christianity teaches as well?

Posted by: Ambassador Christopher Milton at November 8, 2004 8:27 AM

Wow so much anger from some of these people. I would like to point out:
Just because we are forward thinking liberals, we have not necessarily left things like traditional marige, and family values behind. We still like those things, but we don't believe everyone has to like them or believe in them.
Just because we we allow "gay marriage" doesn't mean you have to "marry gay."
Just because we think Welfare is a good idea, doesn't mean we like how it is run in your country.
Just because we don't support the "War" doesn't mean we don't love, care and fear for the lives of our soldiers.
Just because we hate taxbreaks for companies who outsource to third world countries, doesn't mean we don't think a global economy is good. (It's called corporate responsibility.)

There are others to come, but I need to get back to other matters. Thak you for your time and have a nice day!

Sincerely,

Christopher Milton
Self declared Ambassador to Tennessee of American Coastopia

P.S. And please don't look at our plans of secession and our political rhetoric as whining, think of it as country building. I seem to remember similar posturing (from both sides) being propagated 234 years ago.

Posted by: Ambassador Christopher Milton at November 8, 2004 8:31 AM

Sorry, in point #4, make strike "our" and add "your" so it reads: "lives of your soldiers."

Posted by: born and bred at November 8, 2004 9:40 AM

..."just a joke or a school rivalry or whatever"..

I'm gonna have to check with the admissions office; I can't be sure that Kat Moore got the full number of meaningful credits at the University of New Jersey at Durham, although I'm sure her shit stinx just like the rest of us, whether we be Tar Hellians or smelly dookies.

While the commenters on this blog can diss, agree, disagree, or agree to disagree on political matters or 'whatever', let's get one thing that does matter straight, Duke Sucks Donkey Ding-Dongs (made of Dung).

Go Heels.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 8, 2004 9:44 AM

Wow, more angry stuff! Go fig.

The interesting thing is how well the heads of the Republican party have manipulated the meaning of the word: morality. Morals, if we are to believe them, center around gays and abortion. Though gay LOVE is not addressed in the Bible, lust is, and is equivalent (in Romans) with adultery. Adultery is described a number of ways INCLUDING marriage of those who have been divorced due to something other than fornication.

Abortion is not addressed at all. There is a sneaky passage in Exodus that people keep fighting over the translation on, and "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" is not specific enough to be useful for anything, since the original passage is followed by a boatload of mixed messages.

So what is moral? We have someone making wild assumptions about welfare states. Personally, I work. I don't have any government handouts. I just graduated from college and it's a nasty job market, so I'm working a job I'm overqualified for, but working it nonetheless, and grateful to have a job.

The issue that is HEAVILY covered by Jesus throughout the New Testament is poverty. If we are to believe the heads of the Republican party and many of the people who voted in that direction, Jesus would support stockpiling wealth, telling the homeless to "Get jobs!" (we all know how hard it is to get a job in the current market when you DO have a home) and to generally demonstrate a lack of compassion for those on a lower economic level. Does that mean I support mothers using children as welfare checks? No. But I also see programs to address poverty considered "Liberal garbage" by people supposedly making the "moral choice". Read your Bibles people!

Would Jesus support going to war against Iraq? Bible doesn't tell us explicitly, but considering his positions on violence, I'm guessing going to war, particularly without cause, wouldn't have been a big hit. And folks, there's no cause. There are no WMDs (except the ones we lost). Saddam hasn't tried anything against us in ten years. They weren't involved in 9/11 (though Jesus wasn't big on revenge killing, was he?), and they weren't sponsoring terrorist cells. Even the Republicans decided that. Are we freeing the Iraqi people? Hmm... we bombed a bunch of their stuff and have declared martial law. We have been cooperating with dictatorships to try and gain access in the war while ignoring the countless others around the world. So that doesn't pan out. You know what country has expressed pleasure with the Republican outcome? China. The Republicans increase trade with them without harping on human rights issues. Additionally, the same people considered the "moral choice" are in bed with a fundamentalist Islamic country that mistreats women that has sponsored more terrorist activity than any other- Saudi Arabia.

By the way, I do support our troops. What I do not support is sending them into harm's way and pulling them away from their families to fight for the sake of fighting. I find our current use of them ::gasp:: immoral.

So stop painting me as being anti-Christianity simply because you're too lazy to read your own Bibles. Stop painting your party as the moral choice because they have the "Christian" values of hoarding wealth, waging war, ignoring atrocity, and supporting the interests of people who want us all dead.

Oh, and folks, you aren't safer. Those states actually directly affected by terrorism didn't go for Bush. Recruiting for terrorist groups is at an all time high, and we have lost the support in fighting terrorism in most of the world. So sweet dreams! Here in American Coastopia, we'd prefer NOT to be targeted for your policies.

Ishie

Posted by: Sarah at November 8, 2004 10:25 AM

Yes - help people to work. I don't see that happening. And, no, one 12-year-old is a small, tiny example. I have worked in social services for years with under privledged youths. I have seen their pain and suffering and the lack of morality and caring in their lives. There are a huge number of children fathered without thought - to children, to women who have no way to change their life. We are lower income family - raking in a monsterous sum of $38,000 per year, raising our children (all 3) to believe that everyone is equal. That some people make bad choices and that others are trapped by our system.

Am I angry? Yes I am. Because I wish to hell there was a middle ground in this country. I am for same sex unions - I happen to have a lot of dear friends who are gay and see their pain - I am for protection of our enviroment, am for distribution of wealth. But I am sick and tired of being labeled in a sterotypical way by people who think they know me. I am tired of the media in this country trying to stuff liberal views down my throat. I am sick of the hypocrisy of the politicans (on both sides).

And, we are not all the same either, my friend. Do you wonder why the country is so dividied, that people cannot meet in the middle when you say things like:

"because so many of you in the "heartland" are so full of shit"

"We are tired of rednecks in Oklahoma picking the leader who will determine if it is safe for us to cross the Brooklyn Bridge. We are sick of homophobic knuckle-draggers in Wyoming contributing to the national debate on our gay marriages"

Nice language and generalities here. Also - this is wonderful -
"Hopefully they'll blow targets in Texas or something, and not take it out on New York any more"

I am a mother. I have 3 small children. I have a husband who took this country as his own in March of this year. I have friends and family across the board and across the world.

Hopefully they will blow up Texas. Last I looked, Texans are Americans too. And people.

Posted by: Paul at November 8, 2004 10:33 AM

I do read the bible - every night - and find your views interesting. Don't call me lazy if you don't know me. And, the bible is one interpretation of those things that happen. Just as your views are.

Posted by: cullen at November 8, 2004 10:41 AM

Duke Sux. Coach K looks like a ferret. Is this the Twilight Zone? coastopia is toastopia. God Bless the Unified Sanctity of Anti-Duke.

Posted by: sarah at November 8, 2004 10:45 AM

For anyone interested in some real facts - on both ends. I can't imagine it - but hoping some do have an open mind....at least about the truths and lies of the people running this country

http://www.factcheck.org/

Posted by: Matt at November 8, 2004 11:15 AM

Maybe it'd make sense for American Coastopia to join the EU and adopt the Euro. After all, it's kicking the living shit out of the U.S. dollar these days -- we'd have another automatic advantage against Old U.S.A., and we'd all have those nifty EU passports too. But either way is fine with me. Anything to be able to talk to people around the world without having to apologize...

Posted by: clairity at November 8, 2004 12:10 PM

i'm delighted to be a part of our new nation Coastopia, with the 16 highest state IQ ratings in the former USA. hey, let's veto the patriot act and get back to basics as far as progression. and do you think it's possible to just push florida out into the atlantic? it would make my soul sit easier. p.s. dc's coming too, and the white house, it was ours first. w. can just use a trailer or something out in west virginia.

Posted by: Erika at November 8, 2004 12:46 PM

I'm down here in C.H., but plan to move back deep into Coastopia, where it's safe from ignorant "IQ-of-60" rednecks. But, since the Red States DID win the election, I suggest we reward them with a gift of their own making: Once the Iraq War is finally over, and millions of radical Iraqis call on us seeking asylum, we should resettle them all(as we will be obliged to do)into the Red States that voted for the Idiot that got us into the whole mess in the first place. Enjoy your spoils of war, folks!

Posted by: Ishtar at November 8, 2004 1:04 PM

I do read the bible - every night - and find your views interesting. Don't call me lazy if you don't know me.
-----------------
But of course I wasn't. I could question your comprehension skills. The lazy statement was an If-then modification. DON'T label me as Anti-Christian IF you're too lazy to read your own Bible. The fact that I am for gay marriage/union and pro choice means many see me as immoral and Anti-Christian, as if the Bible reads: Page One: God Rules. Page Two: Gays Suck. Page Three: Life Begins at Conception. The End. That's a lazy approach to Christianity. Wouldn't you agree?

Many who see me as immoral and Anti-Christian are supporting an administration that seems VERY anti-poverty and very pro-violence. I see this as a contradiction to values expressed in the New Testament (of course, you may, upon your interpretation, feel free to disagree).

It has been my direct experience that HUGE numbers of Christians have not read in full the book they claim contains our history, future, and ideal moral code. Forgive me if this also strikes me as a lazy quality. That in itself doesn't bother me until people say that I'm mad about this election not because I'm tired of being at war and in debt, but because my 'liberal values see things like RELIGION as old-fashioned, and it offends me that people have VALUES, like not supporting the MURDER of little babies, and by saying the marriage should be the way it's ALWAYS been.' In short, they feel I'm anti-Bush because I'm anti-Christian. In truth, I find Bush to be more anti-Christian than I could dream of. Those professing religion while acting in opposition to it are far more dangerous than those not even in the faith. I find that he has placed America and God in equivalent positions, which seems dangerously close to a false idol. He uses God as a justification to wage war. He praises God 'on the streetcorners' as it were, so all can hear, which Jesus specifically spoke against.

So have you called me anti-Christian? No? Then I wasn't talking to you, was I? If you did, have you read your Bible in full? You have? Then I wasn't calling you lazy, was I?

Ishie

Posted by: CL at November 8, 2004 1:21 PM

Re Christopher Milton and your "just because..." post - Amen to that!

Posted by: Mo at November 8, 2004 1:53 PM

Why not BLUETOPIA? I see all the states that went blue wanting in. If the state went blue then there are more people who think (I almost put "think like us"...but just "think" actually works better). I like people who think and are not led by the ring in their nose. The violent RTTN's (ring thru the nose) will move to red states soon enough because they will not be able to handle the progressive lifestyle we will make in Bluetopia.

Posted by: Paul at November 8, 2004 2:03 PM

Ishie -

"It has been my direct experience that HUGE numbers of Christians have not read in full the book they claim contains our history, future, and ideal moral code."

I believe this is true. What is your exoerience? I am not being attacking - I am asking. You sound fairly informed. And I am curious. Irregardless, my wife and I (whom you were calling a lazy person - her name is Sarah) are open to new views. Intelligent ones - and yours appears so. Although some people are very eloquent with the written word and I would assume to know anything about you. It is amazing the way noone wants to talk or discuss things without getting mad and slinging mud (my wife and myself included). Why is that? Are we so far apart that there is no way too meet? Are we that far gone?

Do we need two countries? Never a truer thing said in jest. Makes me sad to be an American...even a brand new one.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 8, 2004 3:10 PM

"I believe this is true. What is your exoerience?"

I'm a former Christian. As a Christian, I found my fellows often quoting things that were misquotes or taken out of context, and occasionally things in Shakespearean plays. They also had no sense of chronology and no knowledge of things in the Bible, often stating things that flat-out weren't true. Since departing the faith, I have had opportunities to speak to MANY Christians, in both hostile and friendly environments. In many cases, they have openly stated they have not read the whole thing (one after a vehement defense of its dead-to-rights accuracy and she hadn't yet made it through Genesis). Many state they know the "gist" of it, and proceed to embark on a journey that allows me to know the position of their pastor or senator, but links to the Bible only in a common usage of the word "Jesus". I've also noticed a trend lately (and Kent Hovind should be tarred and feathered for it) of confusing creationist literature with Biblical quotes.

I have met some Christians who have read the entire Bible. They've typically been occupied largely with Bible study sessions to gain greater depth into what they've read and seem to be decidedly less hostile than many of the others, interestingly enough. I must say though, I have met plenty of "lazy" Christians who were also perfectly nice people. And I am not stating that conservatives are the only ones. I have met plenty of lazy Christians on the other side of the coin, stating things that sound nice but also aren't in the Bible.

From a voting based on Biblical morality thing (which I somewhat disagree with anyway), I think that BOTH sides need to look seriously at this. From a personal perspective, lazy Christians don't bother me unless they're actively making a nuisance of themselves (throwing rocks, screaming in my face, etc).

"Irregardless, my wife and I (whom you were calling a lazy person - her name is Sarah) are open to new views. Intelligent ones - and yours appears so."

Thank you. Hello Sarah. Did I call her lazy or has she not read the Bible? I'm always open to new views. I like to listen to people who aren't shouting. Though a CA liberal (with $9.99 shoes who hates Sex in the City), I, like my sinister android governor, try to decide things on a case to case basis, rather than by what gets me the grand prize in the Hippie Liberal Bake Sale.

"It is amazing the way noone wants to talk or discuss things without getting mad and slinging mud (my wife and myself included). Why is that? Are we so far apart that there is no way too meet? Are we that far gone?"

1. Welcome to the internet. If you think this is bad, try typing "Star Trek sucks" in the wrong place, and you'll probably get death threats.
2. People talking amongst themselves (Coastopians, Bush-ites, Alias fans) tend to be less diplomatic as a whole than they are in mixed company. When they're talking amongst themselves, and the "others" happen into the conversation, it sets up an instant fight. The "others" don't like being maligned and often respond with greater hostility than they generally would, and the "ins" get defensive.
3. With those things, there is a vast divide in this country. I think an obsession on certain issues is exacerbating this. The factions often seem incapable of understanding the other's position at all. I'm guilty of this. I cannot understand the red, not because I think they are a bunch of drunken, gun waving (got one of my own, how's that for liberal?), warmongering hillbillies, but because I know a vast majority of them are not. This means that there is likely a logical motive for their voting decisions, and I, for the life of me, can't figure out what it is. I know some red people. They're nice; they're well balanced; they're not violent. Many take yoga classes (I AM in California). So I don't understand. And they don't understand me.
4. As a pissed off liberal, I'll try and speak for me, not that it necessarily represents my fellow pissed off liberals, but... I feel divided not because "my guy (like I want him) didn't win", but because I'm dead certain the winners do not care about people like me in the least. I have seen too many honest concerns pushed aside as 'special interest groups'. If I felt this administration were truly going to attempt to represent the bulk of America, rather than the slim majority, I would shrug and lick my liberal wounds like I did in 2000, when I didn't feel that this country was horribly divided. I didn't feel depressed or lonely when Bush's win was announced. I feel now like against the wishes of a VERY significant portion of this country, the administration is going to push ahead with whatever they want to do, whether we like it or not. I am concerned about what I feel to be unacceptable liberties taken with the Constitution during the last term, and more unacceptable ones proposed. I am also worried about facing a complete erosion of checks and balances.

"Do we need two countries? Never a truer thing said in jest. Makes me sad to be an American...even a brand new one."

I am very sad to be an American right now... much happier about being a Coastopian, I have to say.

Apologies for the length. BTW if we're cluttering the board too much, feel free to contact me any time at ishie_sancho@yahoo.com. For anyone ELSE out there, I'm also open to discussion email. For anyone wanting to send hate mail, I'm a news administrator and a system operator, which means I guarantee you I've been called worse in about fifteen different languages.

Ishie

Posted by: Paul at November 8, 2004 3:57 PM

Ishie,

Thanks for your insight and honest views. I think we may agree on many things even as we may disagree on others. But then, most of my wifes family (extended) is west coasties with quite liberal views. And the rest are in New England! So I differ with their views, but love them just as much. I still think if the media was less obviously liberal and a good candidate was found things may have been different.

Maybe I will drop you a line - thanks for the invite.

Paul

PS Maybe I am not cut out for the internet - too easy to bash someone else because you can't see them. I did get quite a chuckle about Star Trek. And my wife says hello. She was the one you posted your earlier response to. She is not lazy (can you be with 3 kids?) and she does read the bible. We don't attend study groups and prefer to read it ourselves. But we know those who do, and I would agree with you on that point.

Posted by: thew at November 8, 2004 4:19 PM

We were batting around a similar idea - but with the name "the "bluenited states of america"

Posted by: jared shbib at November 8, 2004 4:26 PM

we guys are crazy .. f u all down with the united states it will die in the year 2012

Posted by: jared again ... at November 8, 2004 4:27 PM

...ahh...umm.. jk..i think...

Posted by: J^2 at November 8, 2004 4:28 PM

thats right chicago museums are awesome... yeah, actually, this isn't that bad of an Idea

Posted by: Ishtar at November 8, 2004 4:54 PM

2012? So specific. Any particular month? I want to know when to clear my calendar.

Paul,
Eh, no one is cut out for the internet, but it beats working. Now who's lazy?

It's funny that you should mention the liberal media. I see it as a conservative media excepting the comedy of errors by CBS. Fox News of course, is second only to the 700 Club. But the others fall in line. They all have a habit of sucking up during press conferences, no matter who's speaking.

I think if we had a liberal media, we wouldn't have this presidency. If Iraq had claimed we posed an imminent threat to them (which we obviously did) and bombed us pre-emptively, we'd have called it a broadscale terrorist attack. When we do it, we're "bringing freedom and democracy". All the excuses we've given for taking over Iraq have fallen flat. No WMDs (except the ones we lost), no links to 9/11, no evidence of wide funding of terrorist cells (why would Islamic fundamentalists associate with an obviously secular dictator?), no 'easy in, easy out, few lives lost', no freedom yet (martial law was just declared), no increased world safety (terrorism is at an all time high; it's only a matter of time before we get nailed again). Every time he changed his story, the media should have been there to tear it apart, or AT LEAST make it as big a deal as Monica-gate?

Nope. And we have money problems now... we're supposed to tough it out because we're at war... but we're at war for no reason only now we're too deep into it to easily pull out.

I think the media has dropped the ball on this presidency. I think they were dropping it with Clinton, not only because of their focus on Monica-gate, but because of their lack of focus on other issues within the presidency that actually mattered, including the bad.

Maybe the media isn't liberal OR conservative. Maybe they're just cowed and weak, more obsessed with pandering to celebrity to get good talk show guests rather than asking hard hitting questions? Of course we have widespread Crossfire phenomena in which the 'media' generally takes two stark raving lunatics from opposing sides and pits them against each other like fighting cocks. That only serves to further the country's division because it helps convince people that everyone on the other side is as bats---insane as the pundits on these shows.

Ishie

Posted by: Tara at November 8, 2004 5:53 PM

I was introduced to this fantastic blog only today and am happy to know that I am not alone in my views. I gladly accept American Coastopia as the homeland of my heart despite its physical non-existence. It is comforting to know that there are people on earth (and in America) who have the greater good at heart. I thought it was a lost cause. I am honestly touched, slightly relieved and a little less fearful than I've been since the despot was re-elected. So here is proof that not only the youth can be "liberal." I may only be 19, but the decisions that are made now will effect the greater part of my life.

America Coastopia, I love you!

Posted by: Barbara at November 8, 2004 6:37 PM

Was exhilarated by the long lines at the polls as I stood with my son for his first vote...even though since we live in Northern VA, we figured our vote wouldn't overwhelm the Bush wave....Saddened by the fact that our electorate seems fundamentally uneducated and so easily pushed by fear. Our leaders are filled with fear and now have played upon the fears of the masses. Find it interesting that those of us who were closest to the events of 9/11 find 4 more years of "leadership" more fearful than what Bush et al have put out as truth.

Posted by: Winsen at November 8, 2004 6:59 PM

A friend sent an email the other day saying he plans to put a bumper sticker on his car which says:

THE TERRORIST I MOST FEAR
... is in the White House

Posted by: Nancy at November 8, 2004 7:12 PM

I am extremely lucky and relieved to live in the far N.W. region of Coastopia. But you know what? It is not far away enough. My daughter has suggested we get out some serious chainsaws and physically remove at least the state of Washington from the coast, then float it down somewhere near Hawaii. We will build a new society far away from the hellish future that W has in mind. God bless Coastopia Island!!

Posted by: Zachary West at November 8, 2004 8:11 PM

I emigrated to Australia three days before the Iraq War because I was sick of 30+ years of Amerika moving to the religious right and destroying the fabric and foundation of what made America the light of the world for so long. This is the first concept that has any sense of being on the right track for America...the divisions are too strong, too stark to bring harmony ever again. It is no longer one nation, and never will be as long as the silent majority takes power and asserts its "rightness" on everyone else...the notion is so un-American, it's almost satirical...except they have no sense of humor and no sense of irony.
I'm all for Coastopia, and if it ever comes about, I might even think about returning to America...something I have no intention of ever doing given what we've seen.
Hail to Coastopia.

Posted by: Ambassador Christopher Milton at November 8, 2004 9:41 PM

Can Jon Stewart and the Daily Show with us? The people here just don't seem to get it or appreciate it enough, MUCH like the fabulous museums in Chicago and Manhattan....interesting.

Posted by: Patricia at November 8, 2004 9:44 PM

I made this shirt and misc stuff for my friends as a way to cope with what happened. We'll work on the uniting thing next month ... for now we need a little comic relief.

Disappointment 2004 T-Shirts (http://www.cafepress.com/lunanina)

Posted by: Ralph at November 9, 2004 2:15 AM

It is amazing. We all live in a country where you get to voice these opinions and yet everyone goes to name-calling and cussing each other out.

When people should work together you all want to secede. The only problem with that is how many years before your country starts these talks and secedes. In a couple decades we may have 50 countries instead of states because the easy way is to give up.

If people really stood up for their beliefs, they would realize that running away is just letting the other side win. I am independent because I find both parties to be ridiculous.

When you belong to either party you are expected to agree with everything the party does. Doesn't take brains to be a lemming. It takes guts to be able to admit that maybe the other side does have some good points.

I think the saddest thing in all these posts is talking of bombing states. That shows tremendous disrespect for those who lost their lives on 9/11. It also puts you in the same category as those responsible for 9/11.

I guess you all have forgotten how tragic it really was.

Posted by: Diana at November 9, 2004 4:20 AM

Hey, I live in Texas. How would you like to faithfully vote while knowing full well that your vote doesn't count. And what's with Kerry ceding the election before the votes are counted? I say let's just run all the red necks out of the best locatiions and force them all to live in the "heartland." We then put a large, Israeli-style fence around it and let them procreate to their hearts' content.

Posted by: Mike at November 9, 2004 5:03 AM

Sniff, sniff. We'll miss you. Will Babs be your queen?

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 9, 2004 5:19 AM

Sounds OK to me but remember - we (red) have 90% of the guns and 85% of the mil bases......nuff said

Posted by: MD_AD_USN at November 9, 2004 5:27 AM

AMERICAN COASTOPIA netizens you had better look county by county in your blue Shangri-La and you will soon realize you are nearly surrounded by red with the sea being your only real exit.

Posted by: Scott at November 9, 2004 6:09 AM

You should think again about the land mass of your new country. Before you start taking every "blue state" with you, have a look at the true profile, county by county, of the states you are claiming as your own. Appears a left-wing New Yorker need only travel Upstate to find the Bush supporters you seem to despise....and a Californian need only turn from the coastline to find those who support a return to moral decency in this great America. Cut and paste the following to your browser:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Posted by: Jared at November 9, 2004 6:50 AM

As a conservative teenager from the bible belt, i hope u do leave... i would consider it good ridance. i wouldnt have to see married homosexuals walkin down the aisles at our walmarts anymore and i wouldnt have to worry about everyone creating a big stink just because god (yes! i did say the 'g' word) is mentioned in a text book. we would have conservative judges, conservative congressmen, and conservative presidents. and even though i would be said to see the tarheels go.. i would gladly give them up to get rid of 60-80% of the nation's liberals.

Posted by: still seething at November 9, 2004 6:56 AM

Suggestion to jared p.keaton: go to DUKE.

Posted by: Felicia at November 9, 2004 7:07 AM

No one seriously even considering the asylum thing?? Haven't you even thought for a minute about having millions of radical anti-American Muslims amongst you? Invited in, no less....Not joking folks -- I have no problem at all with other religions and belief systems, I just happen to not like those whose stated aim is to eradicate all who are not like them. Of course, the natural place for them to start that eradication would be in the very Heartland, wouldn't you say? what with all those rabid Evangelicals. But wait! They have all those guns and mil. bases, as stated above -- well, I guess the're gonna' need them.
By the way, do you think it's any coincidence that the centers of higher learning, financial centers, etc., are mostly in the Blue States?? Frankly, the Reds have shown themselves to be simplistic (dumb) morons.... (to this very day, they're still arguing for Creationism! Get a clue, people!!) If you had an open mind at all, had any education at all, you would know that the Bible was written by MAN -- many men -- over centuries, and most with some political or social agenda of their own (clue: reading history might also help you to understand this). It was never meant to be taken LITERALLY, fools !! --and you would know this if you ever read anything ELSE (which might also broaden your minds, but yo', that would threaten your world, wouldn't it?.)

Did you ever hear that expression, "religion is the opiate of the people"? Whether it's radical Christianity, or radical Islam, it's dangerous if people don't learn to THINK FOR THEMSELVES, but lazily fall back into a religion that does the thinking for them ("It's so because God/Buddha/Ishtar/(Daddy)" says so!!" For heaven's sake, learn to think for yourselves!!!!

Posted by: carlos at November 9, 2004 7:13 AM

I live in Europe, but I lived for more than 10 years in New York.
I feel like a newyorker. I would not go to the current USA, but to the Coastopia!!
Please, secede and come back to be the great and plentyfull nation where I fall in love, where I study and played.
More than ever you need to reclaim the beautiful america we all have in our minds, not the Bush idea about what's right or wrong!!

Please, do it soon, you can count on me.
carlos

Posted by: Erika at November 9, 2004 7:16 AM

I highly recommend that everyone read "Bush On The Couch: Inside the Mind of the President". It will scare the shit out of most people in the Blue States.

People in the Red States, of course, just won't "get" it. Or they won't know what to think about it until Fox/Fascist News tells them what to think.

Posted by: istandthewatch at November 9, 2004 7:19 AM

If you're so dissatisfied living here in the greatest Country in the world, then pack your bags and get out. Unless you've picked up a rifle and served your Country, defending the very freedom that allows you to write such droll, then you should quit you bitchin. Of course your vote counts, everyone’s' vote counts, all 100+ million of them. However, the majority has spoken, deal with it. If you are unsatisfied, do something productive about it besides posting treasonous messages on the internet. And there's no way you can throw stones at Bush's/Cheney's service to the Country when you know of Kerry's most despicable acts...selling out his Countrymen. Frankly I surprised at how the moral issues of gay marriage, abortion, etc were at the top of the list with terrorism down below-those issues are society driven and should be addressed at the core of America’s families, not in the Whitehouse. What good is a gay marriage if you have to live in fear of the dirty bomb? You need to focus on Hollywood’s ‘marriages of convenience’ and ‘divorce of the day’ and the fall of the sanctity of marriage as well as the complete failure of the ‘family unit’ to stay strong and to raise children in a loving environment with strong moral fiber and character…I could go on an on. By the way remember the recession that Bush inherited from your man Clinton, whose major claim to fame was disgracing the Office of the President, not to mention significantly diminishing the future capability of the US military and sending the economy into a tail spin. But never mind that, it’s all about me right? Me me me me. Don’t worry, someone will stand the watch for you while you worry about yourself...

Posted by: Dick at November 9, 2004 7:41 AM

"Istandthewatch" ..... Did someone on Fox/Fascist News Channel tell you to say that?

So .....all those moralistic, gun-toting rednecks who wanted Bush and his war so badly, why aren't they all running to enlist and defend their country?? (By the way, I did serve, asshole.... and Kerry did us a favor!)

Posted by: Krëg at November 9, 2004 8:18 AM

Secession. Yeah, that worked out great last time. Crack an history books lately?
And do you really believe that Iowa has enough produce to feed you all? Starvation and rioting will claim far more lives than our inevitable "redneck" militia/armies ever could. Personally, if I had to pick a winner of the New Civil War, I'd choose a hillbilly with a sawed-off over a skeet-shooting pansy any day of the week (and twice on Sunday). If you want to be on a losing team twice, fine by me.
Do you really believe the U.S. government, your government, would stand by idly and let secession occur? I realize this post stems from being sore about your pony losing the Presidential race, but if your candidate couldn't prevail against a retard, what does that say about your candidate?
Oh wait. This post must be a joke in which some readers were too bitter and dense to see the humor. Now I understand (it takes me a bit longer, as I am an uncultured redneck).
~

Posted by: Ishtar at November 9, 2004 8:31 AM

If you're so dissatisfied living here in the greatest Country in the world, then pack your bags and get out.

Why? I'm in Coastopia already. Much of your "greatest country in the world" already wants nothing to do with California, so maybe we should leave. We're the seventh strongest economy in the world. I think we'll do just fine.

"Unless you've picked up a rifle and served your Country, defending the very freedom that allows you to write such droll, then you should quit you bitchin."

My family has fought to defend this country; they are not pro-Bush. Since I believe in freedom and don't believe in enforcing "US Supremacy" on nations, I find this war to be very anti-freedom. Why would I sign up to fight a war I disagree with? Terrorists are one thing. But if I am invading a country, and someone in that country is shooting at me, how am I supposed to kill them when I don't think I should be there in the first place, knowing that if an invading soldier came through my neighborhood, I'd shoot at him? It's wrong.

"Of course your vote counts, everyone’s' vote counts, all 100+ million of them. However, the majority has spoken, deal with it."

Spoken like someone doesn't understand the true principles of this country's REPUBLIC. "Majority rules" is not how this country was supposed to run. The Constitution and checks and balances supposedly protects people from a mob mentality majority. When you strip that away, you can allow anything so long as you can get 51% of the country to support it. Maybe you need to retake that 9th grade civics class?

"And there's no way you can throw stones at Bush's/Cheney's service to the Country"

Whoa there... what service to the country? They're chickenhawks. They have no trouble sending other people's kids into war while they've never lifted a finger themselves.

"when you know of Kerry's most despicable acts...selling out his Countrymen."

Ahh... so, if you fight for this country and then, AFTER your service, find the fight horrific (as many people in Vietnam did) and vocalize it, you're despicable. Nice double standard. He's not Jane Fonda. He did his tour. He saw how awful things were. We were not blameless in Vietnam.

"What good is a gay marriage if you have to live in fear of the dirty bomb?"

I was less concerned about the dirty bomb before Bush got everyone in the world incredibly pissed off at us. What people seem to fail to recognize is how BIG this country is. You cannot possibly defend all of it all the time. Israel has one of the scariest police forces in the world, they're TINY, and even they can't prevent attacks. You think with a country this size with this many people, we can?

"You need to focus on Hollywood’s ‘marriages of convenience’ and ‘divorce of the day’ and the fall of the sanctity of marriage as well as the complete failure of the ‘family unit’ to stay strong and to raise children in a loving environment with strong moral fiber and character…"

Agreed. Of course that would require many in the "Majority, deal with it" amend their behavior, which they don't want to do. So they ponit to gay marriage to distract attention from their own contribution to 'moral decay'. If people focus on two men who love each other (horrors!), maybe they won't notice you doing your secretary.

"I could go on an on. By the way remember the recession that Bush inherited from your man Clinton, whose major claim to fame was disgracing the Office of the President,"

What won't you people blame Clinton for? I would prefer a sleaze who lies about oral sex than a murderer any day. Clinton also had the biggest budget surplus we've ever seen and had the best diplomatic status, increasing our position in the world. Bush has the biggest deficit. That is inexcusable. Do you think that vomiting money into this Iraq war is honestly helping our economy or that it's so bad because Clinton four years ago? Get real.

"But never mind that, it’s all about me right? Me me me me. Don’t worry, someone will stand the watch for you while you worry about yourself..."

Don't do me any favors. It's not all about me. I'm not gay. I'm not at high risk of terrorism. I wouldn't get an abortion. I'm a white, blonde female which means when the Republicans are profiling terrorists, I'm at the bottom of the list. I don't have any children for them to draft or force religion on, and as a girl, since I don't have to register, they can't draft me directly. I have a job. It's not a great job, but considering our economy, I'm grateful to have it (no, not to Bush, either).

What I am is sick of living in a country which has abandoned the attempt to ally to its original values (even if it often hasn't practiced them) and now sticks itself in this isolated, jingoistic lonely little corner of the world daring anyone to look at them the wrong way. I am sick of watching other people die (including our troops!!) for mistakes the administration has made while watching them claim they've made no mistakes. I'm tired of watching gay friends treated like lesser citizens when they have more dutiful and loving relationships than almost any straight person I know. I'm tired of wondering when the terrorists are going to hit us again (their recruitment is WAY up, by the way), not because *I'm* going to get killed, but because I don't like to watch people die and monuments fall.

So please, don't "stand the watch" for me. Stand the watch for yourself, so you can feel self righteous and cocky about telling other people how they should feel. SOME of us don't like having the money we earn going to terrorize others rather than using it to make our troubled country great. Perhaps you feel differently.

Ishie

Posted by: dave at November 9, 2004 8:32 AM

Your map bums me out. It belies the fact that very close to half of us here in the great backwater did NOT vote for Bush, and also ignores the equally signigficant fact that nearly half of you on the enlightened coasts did!

Please don't be so quick to divide us.

Posted by: kevin at November 9, 2004 8:35 AM

It's obvious but often overlooked, that not everyone in the "red" states votes Republican or supports Bush. I certainly don't and I am a lifelong Oklahoman.

While it's certainly tough to know that the majority of the country would relegate me to second class citizen and it would be so much easier to live in a "friendly" area of the country, I feel compelled to stay here and be who I am. Not a role model, not a designated representative, but just a guy who is gay and trying to live his life.

Someone has to be here to remind others that there is another point of view, a different belief about how we fit into the world. There are so many of us, we should be able to make a difference. That's my goal.

Please remember us when you (unintentionally, I'm sure) dismiss those in the "red" states or the middle of the country.

Posted by: Mary Rasp at November 9, 2004 9:14 AM

Please take Michigan. We're a BLUE state, including lots of blue water and great universitys. (I don't care what my sister/fellow citzens at U of M say, we at Michigan State are going too...)

Posted by: Mary Rasp at November 9, 2004 9:14 AM

Please take Michigan. We're a BLUE state, including lots of blue water and great universitys. (I don't care what my sister/fellow citzens at U of M say, we at Michigan State are going too...)

Posted by: istandthewatch at November 9, 2004 9:19 AM

Ishtar,

Glad I solicited such a long post! Put a smile on my face for the rest of the day. We could joust back-n-forth indefinitely, but I will go back to my job because that takes precedence. I was amazed by this blog when it was forwarded to me - I've said my peace - now I'll move on to reality. Feel free to say whatever you want about me now that I'm gone. Good luck to you in your quest to find a decent country.

Posted by: jim at November 9, 2004 9:31 AM

Great minds think alike! You two need to join forces!

http://americanunion.blogspot.com

Posted by: Real American at November 9, 2004 9:38 AM

Sorry there is legislation preventing any states from seceding which includes any land thereof...sorry liberals you cannot have any imaginary nation....buh-bye

Posted by: jim at November 9, 2004 10:06 AM

Dumb, ass when we secede, we will not be seeking legislation or permission.

Posted by: Scott at November 9, 2004 10:13 AM

Felicia, I encourage you to read The Case for a Creator, by Lee Strobel. I'd also suggest reading the book of Romans in the New Testament. I'm certainly not going to preach, but I do hope you find that the Bible is relevant today, and that God is real and has a purpose for each of us. Maybe we should all set political differences aside and focus on more important issues that have eternal significance. God bless.

Posted by: Steve at November 9, 2004 10:22 AM

uuuuuhhhhhhhh, can key west join you guys. liberate the keys, you need a tropical paradise, and us parrotheads are sick of the bush bros.

thanx

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 9, 2004 11:18 AM

Please, please "istandthewatch" and "Ishtar" (Ishie) stop your fighting.

I propose a remedial action plan:

istandthewatch- you hire Ishie as your "secretary" (see Ishie's post), pay her well and then maybe you can get to, quote, "do her" (she's not gay- read her post).

And we can all go back to being one big happy country! With Republicans on top of course......

Posted by: Jim Sullivan at November 9, 2004 11:23 AM

You crybaby leftists, go on and seceed. We'd LOVE to be rid of you! Be sure to take D.C. with you. As has happened with your other centers of blueness, you're currently turning Mexifornia into a political/social toilet. Can't blame its coming demise on us. I predict that within a generation you'll be borrowing heavily from our hugely successful economic powerhouse because 90% of your population will be homeless and constantly rioting for bread and circuses.

Posted by: Sickoftheselfrighteous at November 9, 2004 11:41 AM

Could you please include the northern half of Ohio? Water is plentiful and so are Democrats and others that don't think only of themselves. Let the Cincinnatians have the muddy, polluted Ohio River. They want it that way! They like it that way! Dirty water, dirty air- good for the economy and corporate polluters. If only Coastopia were real....

Posted by: Ishtar at November 9, 2004 11:43 AM

istandthewatch- you hire Ishie as your "secretary" (see Ishie's post), pay her well and then maybe you can get to, quote, "do her" (she's not gay- read her post).
---------

Thus proving there's more than one way to get carpal tunnel syndrome.

If I'm to be paid well, can I just skip the secretarial part and buzz over to Nevada to get the license? Boyfriend might get miffed though...

Ishie

Posted by: Please-LEAVE at November 9, 2004 11:50 AM

Subject to a few modifications -- GREAT!

1) You can't have Iowa -- check the map again -- it went RED. You can, however, bus your folks out of the state into the coastal reaches. No food -- tough. Maybe we'll sell you some.

2) I don't believe in collective punishment -- you can't have the Red counties in California, Oregon, Washington or Pennsylvania. You are limited to a strip of land about 100 miles wide along the entire length of the Pacific Coast -- everything else went Red -- check the county results map. Plus, the Amish don't support gay marriage -- you only get about 5% of the Pennsylvania landmass.

3) We get to bus our folks out of Wisconsin, upper New York and New Hampshire -- again, that collective punishment thing. However, the rest of New England is yours for the taking.

Now you just have to fool the Canadians into thinking it would be a good idea to take in a whole boatload of useful idiots like yourselves.....

Posted by: TJ WILLIAMS at November 9, 2004 12:00 PM

We here at LACMA are happy to be living in America Coastopia!!!!
I'm so happy to finally feel like a true citizen.
I want a T-Shirt!!!!!

Posted by: Tess at November 9, 2004 12:10 PM

I'm in Florida and so you know...Dade and Broward counties voted for Kerry...can't we come too????? Please don't leave South Florida out...you can leave Central and North with the USA but include us with America Coastopia...we have a nice beach to offer... :)

Posted by: Twin Cellars at November 9, 2004 12:17 PM

Are you taking your ball and going home?????

We all effect the world around us!

You rant and rave but do you do anything? Do you inconvenience yourself to help another? Are you wrapped up in yourself?

Please Leave!

Years ago on Earth Day, They created enough trash that it took three days to cart it away. We don't need more hotair speechs form the do nothing people.

Just try to help someone today! Nothing hard....MAYBE JUST A KIND WORD, HOLD A DOOR FOR SOMEONE, etc....you get the idea.....

If you can't, PLEASE LEAVE because the majority has spoken whether right or wrong!!!!!

President Kennedy said "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country". If the country is going the wrong way, WHY DON"T YOU RUN FOR SOMETHING and give us your leadership skills!!!! STOP WHINING YOU BUNCH OF IMMATURE CHILDREN! Please Leave!!!

TFMK

Posted by: Ishtar at November 9, 2004 12:35 PM

Hmm... I often inconvenience myself to help others. I even give money to people who need it without convincing myself they're going to use it to buy drugs, yelling at them to get a job, or refusing to donate on the grounds that I'm "contributing to a welfare state".

I could be wrong, but you make it sound like the majority has spoken on doing nice things for other people? I must have missed the "random acts of kindness" proposition. Damn butterfly ballots.

To be perfectly honest, while there is a difference in where the efforts go, I have seen fairly equal charitability among "conservatives" and "liberals".

Ishie

Posted by: Andy at November 9, 2004 12:36 PM

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/bommer/blue.html This is a great web page for you bleading heart losers. Take a shower, get a job and wake up and smell the coffe...oh, I mean vanilla latte. Get a life and try to make a difference. I wish you the very best with the Canadian health care system.


Posted by: Liza at November 9, 2004 12:47 PM

I just had to put in my two cents regarding statement that Bush is "VERY anti-poverty and very pro-violence. I see this as a contradiction to values expressed in the New Testament"

Is the New Testament pro-poverty?

BTW, Bush didn't declare war: al-Qaida did, on September 11, 2001. Remember? They didn't distinguish between Republicans, Democrats, Whites, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, Homosexuals or Heterosexuals. Nearly 3000 people were presumed dead as a result.

JK never promised to extradite troops from Iraq. In fact, he has historically supported US involvement:

1997 “Should the resolve of our allies wane, the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.” He further warned that if Saddam Hussein were not held to account for violation of UN resolutions, some future conflict would have “greater consequence.”

1998 “I think there is a disconnect between the depth of the threat that Saddam Hussein presents to the world and what we are at the moment talking about doing ... we have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt his regime and to encourage the forces of democracy....

2003 “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community`s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.”

2004 (January) “Saddam Hussein took us to war once before. In that war, young Americans were killed. He went to war in order to take over the oil fields. It wasn`t just an invasion of Kuwait. He was heading for the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. And that would have had a profound effect on the security of the United States.

I won’t say that $ isn’t behind the war in Iraq, but Iraq had the potential to pose a WW threat (as does N Korea) and the track record of mass murder (estimates from Human Rights Watch indicate as many as 290,000 Iraqis were killed by Saddam during his reign, with 100,000 Kurds slaughtered in 1988.) No I don’t think we’re fighting a war to liberate Iraq, but I don’t think we can ignore threats from overseas.

So…Coastopia, what’s your solution?

Posted by: Larryk at November 9, 2004 12:48 PM

Hey,

Please take Wisconsin in Coastopia, too!! We have a lot of coast line, and we went blue this time around... If we could join coastopia, I'm sure it would convince the reactionaries here to move to the other America, the one I am sick of being identified with.

Posted by: Uncle Jed from the sticks at November 9, 2004 1:50 PM

Hey all you liberal pussies in Coastopia, forget the foo foo and latte, how about a nice steaming cup of shut the fuck up. The next time some terrorist asshole attempts to, or actually succeeds in committing a terrorist act on Coastopian soil (your the likely target) and your lives are disrupted, why don't you call on the president of Coastopia to come to your defense. I realize that for some of you Coastopia is only a state of mind, while others really believe this shit could happen. Either way, don't call John Kerry to bail you out, he couldn't have helped you even if he had been elected president... a traitor with no backbone. Don't worry though, there are a lot of my kind out there in the Hinterland and throughout Coastopia (the ones with the guns, the backbone and the military experience) that won't let you bleeding heart liberal-minded artsy fartsy types ruin this country with your immoral values. You are weak. You either take it up the ass with a smile on your face or condone those that do. If the Coastopian crowd had been running the country at the outset of WWII, we'd all be speaking German today. You peaceniks are a bunch of whining, sniveling, pansies. The next time you see some poor soul on TV about to be be-headed, remember that the best defense is a good offense. You must seek out evil and destroy evil on its own turf, before it engulfs you on yours. Surely you panty waisted homos can remember the class bully beating the crap out of you during recess. You couldn't reason with him and you were terrified. All you wanted to do was hide in an imaginary place where everything was wonderful and without pain. In reality, it took someone bigger and meaner, on the side of good, to kick the everloving shit out of him before he stopped being the bully. That's where I am coming from. You can't let the bullies of the world scare you off and you cannot hide your head in the land of fairies. If there are any of you Coastopians out there that would like to reconsider your weak minded position and join us in the fight for truth, justice and the American way then stand tall behind our president and support him. You liberal freaks that would rather stagnate in Coastopian dogma, stay out of the way and let us real Americans fight your battles for you. There are a bunch of real Americans overseas right now fighting your battles so that you can sit around in your bathrobes and sip your latte. They are young warriors, my son is one, who believe in the moral values that were behind the relection of "W". Someday these young men and women will assume the role of America's military, politcal and business leaders. All the while, the citizens of Coastopia will still be wondering why their candidate lost, why they are so unhappy and unfortunately, continue to wallow in their collective self pity down in the heartland of Coastopia.

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2004 2:04 PM

Isn't it cool the moral values thing? I love anyone who has the balls to be anti-abortion and pro war. Christians are so wonderfully hypocritical. Thou Shalt Not Kill...well...surely god didn't mean ALL the time. I mean...surely it's okay sometimes, right? I'm not saying I don't think war is right, because well, I'm not Christian. For those of you out there who are bible thumpers and yet war mongers? What the heck? Do you read the book you "live your life by"? When is the bible belt going to realize they're a bunch of frigging posers.

For the record, conservative zealots, my state voted for "dubbuya". God help us all.

As for the LIBERAL states being targets? BULL! The target is AMERICA and the fact that AMERICA always LOOOOOVES to get into everybody's crap. Look at us now. Do we REALLY think invading another country is going to stop terrorists? THIS IS PRECISELY THE ACTIVITIES THAT CAUSE THEM TO ATTACK US!!!

In the immortal words of homer...SAVE ME JEEBAS!!

Posted by: Ishtar at November 9, 2004 2:08 PM

"Is the New Testament pro-poverty?"

It's pro helping the poor, and doesn't seem to have high favor of the rich.

"BTW, Bush didn't declare war: al-Qaida did, on September 11, 2001. Remember?"

Actually, they both did, and I wasn't anti-war on Afghanistan since they were actively harboring the terrorists, remember?

Bush declared war on Iraq. For no real reason. Even the US government has admitted finding no links to al-Qaeda (though I'm sure there are plenty now!). Being attacked does not justify attacking other people. If a fundamentalist Christian kills my kid, I do not have the right to find some liberal Christian who had nothing to do with it who just happens to be a complete a-hole (Saddam's regime was hardly fundie Islam. He paid lip service to the religion, but was the stereotype of a generic secular dictator) and bash him in the skull with a bat.

If Bush is so intent on killing people, why didn't he keep the bulk of troops in Afghanistan to finish off Osama (who, by his latest video is looking not only alive, but healthier). And if he really wants to find the source of terror, maybe he needs to hold his Saudi buddies a little more accountable. The vast majority of the 9/11 suicide bombers (remember them?) were Saudis.

"Nearly 3000 people were presumed dead as a result."

And this is how Bush attempted to play us to distract attention from the real killers to invade Iraq. Some of us remember 9/11 well enough to remember whodunit.

"JK never promised to extradite troops from Iraq. In fact, he has historically supported US involvement:"

He's primarily laid down for the president, as has the rest of congress. Do I approve of this? Heck no, and I think the Democrats were smoking crack to put up such a weak bunch of candidates. I would not, however, use my ire at that weakness to attempt to malign a war hero, particularly when I have never fought.

"Iraq had the potential to pose a WW threat (as does N Korea)"

You're comparing Iraq's potential to NK??? Even when we went in the first time, they didn't pose a "World Wide Threat". They posed a threat to their immediate neighbors, which is not good, but is also unique to probably over half the countries on earth. If we want to look at a potentially scary conflict between countries with dirty nuclear bombs, let's look at India and Pakistan?

"and the track record of mass murder (estimates from Human Rights Watch indicate as many as 290,000 Iraqis were killed by Saddam during his reign, with 100,000 Kurds slaughtered in 1988.)"

The Republicans have increased trade relations vastly with China while essentially ignoring their human rights records. How many people has the Chinese government slaughtered?

Ishie

Posted by: Ishtar at November 9, 2004 2:19 PM

Hey Uncle Jed, shouldn't you still be huddled in your Y2K bunker? Those guns aren't going to stockpile themselves! Dammit man, get with the program! Any second now the commie hoards (sponsored from within the treachery of Coastopia) are going to come swarming over the hills, and you're risking an internet connection?? That'll tell them where the base is!!! They're going to come right to us and take our frigging Bibles, are you mad!?

How the heck can you support Bush anyway? That little namby pamby ain't never done a day of fighting in his life and he's made gestures to support civil unions! He's just as much of a pinko as that Fonda-ite Kerry!

GOD bless America (And no place else!!)

Ishie (Whew, sorry, Pat Robertson used his Satanic powers to speak through me for a second)

Posted by: Moby at November 9, 2004 2:29 PM

See ya. Can't wait for you to go and bury yourself in your own failing socialism. Then when you are broke and without a menas to produce anything we'll nuke you when you inevitibly attempt to attack us for "stealing" all the good natural resources in America unaware that it is your own system of govt. that has plunged you into economic darkness. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. George W. Bush won. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

I feel better now.

Posted by: Rick C at November 9, 2004 2:40 PM

Ha, that's really funny. Good luck--we've got all the guns.

Posted by: Dan at November 9, 2004 2:47 PM

I, also, pledge allegiance to Coastopia. Unfortunately, I currently reside in Winston-Salem, NC, but I am originally from California.

To "badbobusnret", "MD_DD_USN", "Real American" (two sailors, who are probably gay, and one imbecile who actually believes the title that he uses), et al: Good for you that you actually THINK you won the election! It speaks toward your delusion. As for guns and military bases being in the red states, that assumes that the people manning them are Bush supporters, and thus lacking the mental capacity to know how to use them! To "Jared": If you are such a devout Christian, for Christ's sake learn to capitilize the word "God"!

For far better comments directed at these "Americans", refer to my daughter "Ishie's" posts on this site!

LONG LIVE COASTOPIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dan

Posted by: Thomas J. Brown at November 9, 2004 3:02 PM

The "Made in USA" stamp on the preview of the Coastopia T-shirt made me laugh.

I live in Eastern Washington state and boy howdy, some people here are fucking morons (wait, did I just say, "boy howdy"? I've lived here too long). Anyway, you might want to consider kicking Spokane (and the über-stupid City of Spokane Valley) out.

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2004 3:26 PM

That is the biggest bunch of bullshit I have ever seen. If the liberal idiots did secede from America, they would not be able to call themselves Americans. And how about this thought? If the libs did secede, how would they defend themselves? Liberals are the ones that want no one in America to have guns or use violence to enforce anything. The first time the idiots pissed the True Americans off, the True Americans would quickly overrun the liberals, pimp-slap them, and destroy any resistence. Trust me, a secession from the "True America" would eventually end in a reunification and the liberals looking as stupid as they did after the election.
Maybe instead of Coastopia, you should call yourselves New France. Simply pathetic.

Posted by: Annie at November 9, 2004 3:33 PM

"Moby"--

I wonder why you needed to feel better in the first place? Isn't the whole world going your way? Aren't you "totally psyched"? Can't you just *not even wait* for the next four years to start? Whoops, wow, it's already started! Geez. Now I feel better because--well, because someone like you is gonna look out for me. I'm afraid of guns--eeek! I juss wanna ignore reality and stay inside and read philosophy books.

But--wait! Plato says, Since the key to the success of the whole is the wisdom of the rulers who make decisions for the entire city, the perfect society will occur only when kings become philosophers or philosophers are made kings. For only those with a philosophical temperament are competent to judge between what merely seems to be the case and what really is. (Republic 473d) And that makes me think of those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that SEEMED to be there, but actually WEREN'T. (funny how no one's disputing that). Soooo, THAT makes me feel like B**h really couldn't, you kno,w judge what merely SEEMED to be the case, and what WAS. And now we're in a world of shit because of his gross lack of judgment...

But I guess I don't know enough because I've never picked up a rifle to defend this country...but wait...I thought B**h/Cheney/Ashcroft/Rove hadn't either...but ah guess ah juss don't know...

BTW Uncle Jeb--did you happen to notice that people started getting beheaded on TV right about a year AFTER the US invaded Iraq? Interesting, idn't it?

Posted by: Ishtar at November 9, 2004 3:35 PM

If the libs did secede, how would they defend themselves?
--------
My S&W 9mm with the hollow points (avoids capping the neighbors) does pretty well. I've got dead aim accuracy with the thing too. My mommy gave it to me; my daddy taught me (which reminds me, hi dad!). How's that for family values? Believing everything you read about libbies could be daaaangerous.

Ishie

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2004 3:38 PM

Well, under the New France, your prized possession would be taken away. Stereotypes are rooted in truth and I am quite certain that most liberals would never even own a gun, so in turn, I would think that it would quite easy to overrun the New France.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 9, 2004 4:01 PM

New France? I'm in Coastopia. Muslim girls can wear headscarves here.

"Stereotypes are rooted in truth and I am quite certain that most liberals would never even own a gun.."

So then should we believe conservatives really ARE ignorant Bible-thumping inbred hicks? Because I really don't think they all are, but if stereotypes are rooted in truth...

Besides, why would they want to 'overrun' us? I thought they wanted us to leave? Or are they just planning to invade us, bomb us and strip our resources... they certainly seem good at that.

Posted by: Liza at November 9, 2004 4:12 PM

Hi Ishie,
Thanks for sharing your opinions. I really want to know your opinion on how we address terrorism, foreign policy, threats from foreign countries (be they chemical, biological or nuclear.)

Admittedly, comparing Iraq to NK is a stretch, but my point is: when we make a stand and when do we retreat into our safe little cave and ignore the rest of the world? I don't want America to be the world's police, but ignoring issues abroad only brings them home.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic with the whole "pro-poverty" thing. I don't think anyone is "pro-poverty". The poorer we are as individuals, the more dependent we become on the gov't.

L

Posted by: inkeddaisy at November 9, 2004 4:23 PM

i hereby leave all of my grocery discount club cards, my costco card, and my amusement park annual passes to the war-mongering, ethnic butchering, hypocrisy-living, gay-bashing, rights-taking assholes in the red states in exchange for sanctuary.

thank you.

Posted by: Lacretia at November 9, 2004 4:42 PM

Hey,
Not all of Oregon will get to secede. You can have Portland, Salem & Eugene.

Bye

Posted by: Ishtar at November 9, 2004 6:01 PM

Hiya Liza,

"I really want to know your opinion on how we address terrorism,"

1. Collect evidence.
2. Identify real perps, including kingpins (yes, post 9/11, I will grudgingly admit the admin was doing a pretty damn good job at this... the train derailed somewhere)
3. Infiltrate organization if conceivable to identify methods and plans
4. Once everything is in place, send in special forces and unleash a firestorm of whoopass on some terrorists.
5. IF you have undeniable proof either of potential terrorist threats or proof of those committed AND the government of a country is harboring them, again, send in the special forces. If the government gets wise and interferes, shoot them.
6. Repeat as necessary.
7. For those captured, caught in country and 'suspected' for being on no fly lists, afford them the rights of all people in potential hassles with the law. There have been countless innocent people terrorized, strip searched, and held indefinitely because the anti-terror laws circumvent the Constitution. This isn't a soft-on-terror position. This is a soft-on-people-who-might-not-be-guilty position. Considering we afford these rights to people we suspect of raping and murdering children?
8. Don't arbitrarily bomb people.
9. When in a country you suspect of being hostile, don't lose mass quantities of weapons.
10. Don't give money and weapons to people who might support terrorism just because they've agreed to help you with other people you suspect of terrorism.

I'm all for kicking the living crap out of terrorists. But we invaded a country that has never technically done anything directly to us, and hasn't done anything remotely connected to us in ten years.

"foreign policy,"

1. Stop pissing off all our allies.
2. Stop telling our allies they'd all be speaking German if it weren't for us in dubyadubyatwo.
3. Get out of the Israeli-Palestine conflict. Both sides are acting horrendously. Neither needs more money for weapons.
4. Stop telling other countries what to do.
5. Be consistent. If you are cracking down on terror, don't exclude your oil buddies when they're the worst ones. If you're striking against human rights violations, strike against all of them.
6. Require American tourists to take diplomacy classes before they're allowed to go overseas.
7. If you're going to spend a lot of money in other countries, spend more on AIDS research than you do on warfare.

"threats from foreign countries (be they chemical, biological or nuclear.)"

Depends. Though I hate to sound like the Shrub, I think different tactics are required for different threats. Isolated terrorist threats can be taken out. NK requires some caution. I think they are one of the most dangerous threats, but active warfare with NK would be a horrible idea.

"I don't want America to be the world's police, but ignoring issues abroad only brings them home."

We shouldn't ignore issues, which is funny because Americans tend to be more ignorant of world affairs than most countries. Check out the news in other countries compared to ours or just look at how many foreigners can name more of our political officials than we can. What we can't do is jump both feet into foreign issues with cowboy hats on stating no one can stop us. We need to act from a position of diplomacy and work as a PART of the world community, not as "the best damned country on earth".

"Sorry, I was being sarcastic with the whole "pro-poverty" thing."

Yeah, I phrased that poorly. I was essentially thinking of all of Jesus' "give up your worldy posessions and follow the Lord" quotes and tried to picture how Cheney would respond if some middle eastern looking guy wandered up to him and told him to do so.

Another long one!! Such a quiet day at work!

Ishie

Posted by: PC at November 9, 2004 6:21 PM

If those of you on the left are so intellectually superior to us redneck rubes and Jesus freaks, may I make a suggestion?

How about we institute a brief 20 question aptitude test before citizens are allowed to vote?

Somehow I think your inner-city constituents would fail miserably...

Posted by: Astounded at November 9, 2004 7:03 PM

"war-mongering, racist, homophobic, jesus-freaked, sexist, selfish, small-picture seeing, Mother Earth raping, Bush run country I am sad to call America.

"i hereby leave all of my grocery discount club cards, my costco card, and my amusement park annual passes to the war-mongering, ethnic butchering, hypocrisy-living, gay-bashing, rights-taking assholes in the red states in exchange for sanctuary."

I live in Pa, technically your color but county, by county more blue hue. I thought most liberals were open-minded? I have actually agreed with many intelligent, forward thinking, issue-minded things said here. I am a moderate conservative. I am a ficsal conservative (meaning, when I work for my money, and I do, then, yes I believe I should get to keep most of it. I believe I should pay my share and that share should increase if I make more. I believe that my money is better left in my hands than my governments and that I will make wiser choices with my future). I am also socially liberal on most issues. I have not always been, but have become more so as I have evolved as a person. I am a christian with a deep and personal faith in god and I try to act upon that with my words and my actions towards my neighbors (red or blue: rich or poor; educated or not; gay or straight). I believe in abortion as a womans right. A choice she must make and live with (I have) but I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control (and it is for some - I have seen it) nor do I feel it should be confined to back alleys and butchers as in the past. I am against partial birth abortion and will never be convinced otherwise. I will not argue with anyone about it but will not press my views on you either. I believe that gay people should have legal unions and be given rights but as of yet I am not sure how I work my church into that. I have been to gay ceremonies and have many homosexual friends. I don't think of them as having a choice in the matter.

So:

I am not homophobic
I am not jesus-freaked (what a strange choice)
I am not a sexist
I am not slefish
I have never looked at a small picture in my life
I have never raped mother earth
I have never mongered war
I have never butchered an ethnic
I have lived in hypocrisy at times (are you so sure you have not?)
I have never bashed a gay
I have never taken a right
And noone has ever referred to me as an a-hole.

I will not sink to your level. You are no better than those you hate. Are you so blind that you do not see fault amoungst your own? it is the human condition. I see fault amoungst those who have aligned with me. I see good in those who have not. I don't choose anger. It is a fruitless exercise that lands people in trouble and robs them of the joys in life no matter how big or small. I find joy in rising early and watching the sunrise, listening to my children walk down the steps, hearing my daughter sing, the solitude I find in church after the pews are empty, walking through the woods with my family. Would you like to label me? I have children - of course the future frightens me. Choosing hate and anger solves nothing. I choose action - positive action.

I don't blindly believe in everything I am told about this party or that party, about this group of people or that, about what this passage in the bible is "supposed" to mean to me, about what it means to be faithful, to be moral. Those are choice of the soul, not a political party.


Posted by: Lynn at November 9, 2004 7:16 PM

I love it, I love it. American Coastopia!! We need a song, and a flag! This must be what the founding father’s felt when they signed the declaration of independence (who by the way must be rolling over in their graves to see the cretins that are running the US now) I am a Marylander, so I expect a big influx of refugees from Northern Virginia, they will being fleeing the Redstarts in droves.

Posted by: Seattlite at November 9, 2004 7:30 PM

http://zapatopi.net/cascadia.html

Check out this site that has been around for a while.

Posted by: Penguin66 at November 9, 2004 7:42 PM

Blah, blah, blah. Alas, yet another reason that this conservative Democrat has felt that his party has been hijacked by the far left.

I guess in one way, secession would be a good thing. Let the Liberals have their own country. This way, the rest of US could declare war and summarily put down the rebellion once and for all. Sign me up for the 1st Ohio Conservative Regiment! ;-) Makes as much sense as all the excuses, half-truths, and mistortions of fact that the Liberals have been tossing out.

Look, get over the 2000 Election. Dubya won the 2004 Election straight away. Stop the whining already. Haven't you got enough cheese to go with it yet?

Posted by: Seattlite at November 9, 2004 7:44 PM

Is it not true that Blue States pay out more federal taxes and Red States are the recipient of a higher rate of the Federal $$?

I work in Social Services and folks from Red States actually migrate to Blue States that offer more services in regard to Healthcare.

On another note, We gotta let Minnesota in.

Posted by: Pacific NW at November 9, 2004 8:12 PM

The migration here from there has been going on for years. Can I propose that we will honor the Aboriginal Nations within Coastopia for real?

Posted by: Chris at November 9, 2004 8:13 PM

^ Listen to the man! Minnesota deserves to be on that map. We have an abundance of water and liberals.

Posted by: coastopian at November 9, 2004 8:19 PM

Delighted to find this site. I woke up on the day after the election with the same thought.

Secession, even virtual secession, gives us the potential for a vision--what is it exactly we are working towards? What kind of country do we want?

And, do we want to take the same hate-mongering attitudes that we accuse the other side of with us? In an effort to hear what "the other side" has to say, I have been flipping back and forth between liberal and conservative talk shows on the radio (okay, so call me a flip-flop)--the content is different, but the emotional tone is the same on both sides: "it's us vs them, good vs. evil, it's all THEIR fault (and where have we heard THAT before?)


Let's not trash the conservatives for looking for
their version of "moral values" in a dark and scary time..let's, as progressives, look within ourselves and find our own. I have been just as guilty of Bush bashing as the next person, but frankly, I'm ready to move on to the next phase. I don't want to spend my time reacting against Bush or any other version of the "evil them"--I want to begin constructing something positive. Coastopia. It has a nice ring to it. But perhaps we can even be a virtual country, without the limits of geography. Why think within an old territorial paradigm? That has only brought wars and bloodshed in the past. Perhaps there is another way of defining country....

Posted by: Ksdissident at November 9, 2004 8:22 PM

I am in Kansas. It is SO REFRESHING to read the posts of people who have a brain and some capacity to use it beyond what their bible and Rush Limbaugh allows. Please I beg you.Accept the petition of myself and my son (I'm a single Dad) for asylum in Coastopia.

Posted by: h+yadayadayada at November 9, 2004 8:28 PM

Phew, what a relief!!!! All our close friends have been gathering up all the passports for Scandinavia & New Zealand and I was really sad since we love this land but hate that people from other states make up all our laws!
Now we can feel some pride again after suffering ulcers for 4 years! Could our seceding possibly spare us the inevitible gaping holes where our stomachs used to be in the next, gulp, 4 more?!!!
I say be loud and be proud!!! Shes worth it! Coastopia make some NOISE!!!!! Nice to be around the choir where I can have some fun and stop PREACHING (for all the good it did in the last 4 yrs!!! Sadder still is the fact that incriminating facts proved unprovocative to over half the voting public throughout his first disaestrous term). No more preaching to the choir!
VIVA COASTOPIA!!!!! May she grow!!!!
Sleepless in NY

Posted by: Ksdissident at November 9, 2004 8:39 PM

When Coastopia is reality it will be short order before the Busherica folks start begging to be let in. Consider what we will be leaving them.
Theirs will become an agrarian (agriculture based) society. Their working folks will be quickly denied almost all rights. Labor unions will cease to exist. They will almost immediately be granted the feudal pseudo-puritan society they seem to so wish for. The brown nosers left behind will quickly learn the price they must pay when there is no steel spined defender of the working class to tell the boss to fuck off. Maybe they can make Rush Limbaugh their new President and he can remind them that their suffering is their own making........that they can rise above....if only they are willing to liveand love to work 100 hours a week

Posted by: alleyoop620 at November 9, 2004 8:39 PM

Hey Ishtar, I can tell you are a young sprout who has absolutly NO idea what WWII was about, and yes they would be speaking German or Japanese if it wasn't for WWII, Wereyou there?? What make YOU such an expert. As for the rest of you, you can't even get your english grammer correct, to wit: have a hellecoptor pick up my roomate and I" You gona have a hellicopter pick up "I", the case is objective, use the word ME! Learn english!! and thank God you Don't speak German or Japanese!!!

Posted by: Sleepless in Seattle at November 9, 2004 8:41 PM

Sleepless in New York,

We love you man. Those great oceans, the Pacific and Atlantic, (and since we are including Minnesota and Illinois the Great Lakes), may the negative ions of these lovely seas fill it's inhabitants with peace and prosperity and above all a healthy sense of humor.

Share this site of Coastopia with others.

Slante'.

Posted by: The other Washington at November 9, 2004 8:47 PM

Someone suggested a language for Coastopia. maybe we can resurrect latin just for fun. Would really freak those Reds from the Old Country. Here's an example

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

(translation)
I'm not interested in your dopey religious cult.

Posted by: Ksdissident at November 9, 2004 8:51 PM

All of America's national parks should be demanded as property of Coastopia. Coastopia should cede to the Feudal Bush states Love Canal, Rocky Flats, and 3 mile island.

Posted by: The other Washington at November 9, 2004 8:57 PM

More Coastopian Latin.

"Et tu, pluribus unum?"

(The government just stabbed me in the back!)

"Auda similarum ad seattles."

(They all sound just like Pearl Jam.)

I love the idea of Coastopia, Calgon Take Me Away!

Posted by: Ksdissident at November 9, 2004 9:09 PM

I submit an idea for a Coastopian flag. The flag would have a small far right segment (about 1/4th) in red. This would be bordered by a white stripe which would taper gently to an arrow pointing left into a larger (1/2) blue field.

Posted by: coastopian at November 9, 2004 9:12 PM

Here is an interesting site:

HTTP://WWW. SECESSION.NET

Posted by: Homophobic Knuckle-Dragger from Wyoming at November 9, 2004 10:11 PM

Ah, its always refreshing to see a new frontier in kook ignorance!

Posted by: KJP at November 9, 2004 10:50 PM

Clark County, Nevada voted for Kerry too. Can we join Coastopia too? I certainly don't want to be left out there with the Bushites!

Posted by: Left Coast at November 9, 2004 11:03 PM

I say tax those Erectal Dysfunction ads to pay for healthcare. We can call it the pole tax.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 9, 2004 11:07 PM

"Hey Ishtar, I can tell you are a young sprout who has absolutly NO idea what WWII was about,"

Ah, the last bastion of one with no argument. If you are older than I am, you will always be older than I am. That does not grant superiority.

What WWII was about cannot be summed up in a single post. Many books on the subject have been written on it, and generally they can only cover one angle of it. The condensed high school history version is:
Hitler rose to power in Germany, unified the country behind his cause and got even more powerful. He subsequently began invading other countries, with the help of powerful allies, most notably, the Japanese. The U.S., still reeling from death and destruction in WWI and a horrible depression, kept an eye on the situation but tried to stay directly out of the fray. Europe was a divided mass of rampant distruction. England was bombed repeatedly, and some of the worst fighting was in France with trench battles and a divided countryside.

Then Japan bombed us. Whoops. Definitely a strategic move to go down in the records as "worst military blunders of all times". The Americans moved onward to kick butt, leading to a domino topple of the Axis powers, except Japan, which required rather drastic action to get them to surrender. Once victors moved into Germany and Poland they either 'discovered' or finally publically acknowledged the Holocaust, a testament to the evils of Nazi Germany, not simply in their push to rule the world, but in their brutal treatment of human beings, going far beyond even the horrors typical of war.

That pretty much the gist?

"and yes they would be speaking German or Japanese if it wasn't for WWII,"

Didn't deny that they would be. It's also true that we originally won our freedom from England; however when approaching foreign policy, holding a fifty year debt over people's heads as reason for their support now seems, at best, trite. Our actions in WWII have nothing directly to do with our present issues, so when we face the critique of other countries for our present actions, claiming they would be speaking German if not for us makes us look as if we cannot defend our current position, which in this case, would likely be accurate.

"Were you there??"

Nope. My great grandfather was though.

"What make YOU such an expert."

Fighting in a war doesn't necessarily make you an expert on it. Iraq is clear evidence of that. Besides, I never claimed expertise. I claimed that arrogantly shoving old debts in other countries' faces when they are legitimately criticizing our current position is not conducive to diplomacy. There's quite a difference. I'm sure you, in the infinite wisdom granted to you by the fortune of being born before I was, can comprehend it.

Ishie

Posted by: daniele at November 10, 2004 1:16 AM

Hi guys,
why don't you come to live in Italy, even if we have Berlusconi (but we are going to kick him in Spring) it is a nice country to live in. Great weather, great food and most of all great wine.
Come here and forget Ohio.
I feel a lot of simpathy for all of you. Let' hope in November 2008.
Ciao Daniele

Posted by: daniele at November 10, 2004 1:21 AM

Hi guys,
why don't you come to live in Italy, even if we have Berlusconi (but we are going to kick him in Spring) it is a nice country to live in. Great weather, great food and most of all great wine.
Come here and forget Ohio.
I feel a lot of simpathy for all of you. Let' hope in November 2008.
Ciao Daniele

Posted by: Bubba Bob at November 10, 2004 5:27 AM

Hi, ya'll, I am from the heartland of America (that is the real america). I think Bush is the best President ever. I think you can all go Fuck yourselves and go to Cuba. Hahahahahahaha

Posted by: G-man at November 10, 2004 5:34 AM

I think Uncle Jed said it they way it needed to be said. No PC speak or sugar coating to make those who are insecure or wear their heart on their sleeve, to feel good about themselves. Have a great day and I hope you too start your day with a nice cup of shut the fuck up. I am not sure but I think you can get that with some froth milk on the left coast of Coastopia.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 10, 2004 6:05 AM

Alleyoop620 stated, "...As for the rest of you, you can't even get your english grammer correct..."

Before you jump on Ishie or anybody else about grammar, put your own house in order. The word isn't 'grammer' (sic), it's 'grammar.'

Learn to spell.

Moron.

Posted by: Dan at November 10, 2004 6:34 AM

To all of the trolls and flamers on this site: You now have your asshole back in the White House for four years complete with the Iraqi chaos and economic uncertainty. Hell, you even gained seats in both houses of Congress (there are two, btw, for people like Jed, "HAHAHAHA", etc.). Don't you have something better to do like burning a mosque or lynching a bunch of Jews and blacks? You might even try reading your bible so you won't be so totally fucked up when you try to justify your fundamentalist "beliefs". No, I guess that's too hard. It's easier to listen to fellow ultra right wingers and televangelists than to actually come up with some new and well founded ideas supporting your position!

To those who post their typical threats, many liberals are armed. I'm the one who taught my daughter, Ishie to handle a weapon. Sure there are many gays among us, and we welcome them! Many of them also own weapons. Surprise, surprise!

Btw, Hi back to ya ish! I'll be emailing you in just a bit.

Coastopia Forever!! (but we really DO need a flag)

Dan

Posted by: jan at November 10, 2004 6:43 AM

You people on the left are so unbelievably intolerant of any view but your own. The good news is that their are plenty of nations out their with a socialist form of government that would be glad to have you.
It is to bad you did not live underneath Stalins regime then there would be about 200 million less of you idiots out ther.

Posted by: Dan at November 10, 2004 7:13 AM

Nice spelling, Jan!! Just learning to type, or just pissed off? Btw, thanks for equating liberalism to socialism. I had no idea before your post that they were synonomous! You had best let the Webster people know this so they can revise their definition. It was also very enlightening to learn that liberals are notoriously intolerant. For some reason, I had it the other way around. I guess that I should watch more Fox "Fair and Unbiased" newscasts so I can be told exactly how I should think. I must have been getting it all wrong for these past 63 years.
Dan

Posted by: liz at November 10, 2004 7:15 AM

as a canadian who has lived here for 30 years, and finally got the right to vote 10 years ago(after having paid taxes here for 20 years before that with no say)i take/took voting very seriuosly, and naively believed that it would always work out.after the mess of an election in 2000 when the real president was elected by the people, and the horrible THEFT of that in a state run by the pseudo presidents brother, i was horribly let down-but ever the polly anna that i am i was hoping/praying that in 2004 something could be done to get rid of this fraud of a president who has never had a real job,dodged the military duties he supposedly belonged to, and whose right wing nonsensical behavior would prove to all that he is an idiot. But alas that is not to be....i am glad that i never renounced my canadian citizenship, i am out of here, i can't stand to stay and see what hell will happen now. At least i live in PROUD coastopia,where there are some sane people left, until i can get out. Long live coastopia and the hope it shines!

Posted by: Erika at November 10, 2004 7:25 AM

Hmmmmm.... what I'm noticing here is that a lot of you "Reds"(Bushies/RightWingers??) can't spell worth a damn.

So where did you NOT learn spelling and grammAR --
in one of those backward Middle American excuses for a school?

Posted by: Evergreener at November 10, 2004 7:35 AM

Seems to me the idea of Coastopia in reverse has been around a very long time. Everytime a Northerner is referred to as a Yankee. We never got over the Civil War as a country.

It is evident cultural divisions have always been there. It's true I cannot relate to the Red States so lets save us all some grief and live happily here in Coastopia.

Gotta go, the latte is brewing, the sun is rising and I must go off and create some software.

Cheers.

Posted by: Robert at November 10, 2004 7:41 AM

I say it's mighty big of you to recognize your out-of-touch and unAmerican ways. You've all done you level best to make America see that your twisted, illogical and immoral ways are normal, but you continue to struggle with the basic fact that it is you who has changed and who is different. The rest of us cling to morals, values, justice and fairness, all concepts that you abandon in search of govermenatally mandated acceptance that we won't give you otherwise. And since you can't get the rest of us to accept you, perhaps it is better to go off on your own.

But don't think for a minute that the rest of us, being the majority, are simply going to let you deface, defile and disgrace territories of your choosing. Instead, I recommend France. They are just the kind of wine drinking, butt-slamming, surrender monkey, socialists that you are looking for. I am only sure that our State Department can help you all arrange an application for French citizenship. I wish you all the best!

Robert

Posted by: Julie at November 10, 2004 8:08 AM

Hmmm..what I am noticing is that you "Blues/Left Wingers" can not think for yourselves therefore you live in the bubble of The NY Times, Dan Rather, And Michael Moore. If you move to Coastopia maybe then Your "intellectualy superior" leaders can think for you, and redistribute your earnings.

Posted by: megapotamus at November 10, 2004 8:09 AM

Do it, hoss. In five years we'll pick up the shards of your Soviet Union for 2 cents on the dollar.
Oh, meritocracy? So... you're abandoning Affirmative Action? And a champion of Free Trade? THOSE are winners with the retard left.
HA!

Posted by: DJ at November 10, 2004 8:27 AM

You know, at first I was wondering about the connection between Coastopia and global warming -- our states will be some of the most affected by the higher levels of water.

But then again, Mr. Bush says that global warming doesn't exist.

Now I don't know who to follow :-(

DJ

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2004 8:33 AM

Middle America take your guns and shove them up your ass. OH and don't forget to pull the trigger!

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2004 8:48 AM

Screw it lets have another civil war. America started in the North East. I think they should go not us. Why should we go, lets make them go.

Posted by: Dave at November 10, 2004 8:58 AM

Re: "Middle America take your guns and shove them up your ass. Oh and dont forget to pull the trigger"

Isn't the Left supposed to be about tolerance and diversity? That is why you will ALWAYS be losers.
Get a life. Hopefully in a socialist nation.

Posted by: BJB at November 10, 2004 9:03 AM

Well, now that it's the north talking of secession, maybe you can recognize the importance of the second amendments "Right to Keep and Bear Arms". To bad the citizens of New York and Massachusetts gave up this right years ago.

Maybe when you start your war for independance you can finally see that the purpose of the right to bear isn't about hunting but rather about defending ones country from tyranny.

Lucky for you, we still have the N.R.A. to defend the rights given us by the constitution.

Liberals are more concerned with the rights given us by Lawyers and Judges.

Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2004 9:26 AM

Stupid ass in bread hicks. Get brain and education.

Dumber then a stump.

DA DA DA! I voted for GW becuze he got moral values.

He's pulling the wool over your eyes you dumb ass hicks

Posted by: Ian at November 10, 2004 9:51 AM

ATTENTION:

As owner of this site - and author of the original post - I'm overjoyed to see all the differing viewpoints on this thread. In fact, I wish there was a better place we could take this, instead of wading through 400 comments.

It seems to have touched a raw nerve, and that's great. But from now on, I'm going to delete posts that say nothing but "hahahahahaha fuck you leftists" or offer nothing more than name-calling.

Conservatives: posts like Robert's above are great. Liberals: posts like Ishie's or Lori's are awesome. Please, just have something intelligent to say, as I - and many others - are reading every last word of these.

thanks!

Posted by: Belle at November 10, 2004 10:02 AM

AMERICAN COASTOPIA

I have felt deep despair for so long........I have been thinking of what country to move to and now this - I feel connected to the humane people of this earth once again. I live in Dunedin, Florida, and I am so VERY sorry for the 2000 fiasco and disheartened by this 2004 loss. Please, please keep fighting that good fight - you all give me hope.

Posted by: David at November 10, 2004 10:23 AM

Seems as though this country is going to be made up of a bunch of crying loosers. How long do you think this new country of yours will last if everytime someone losses an election they will take their little piece of land and quit the community. Its not the Jesus fanatics or Homophobes that caused Kerry to lose the election. It was the extreme liberals that spoke so much hate speach that it turned off the moderates.

If you want to get back into power and do something productive yourselves do what Clinton did, move towards the middle. Thats how he beat Bush senior. In the meantime quit crying in your soup and get the types like Mr Moore to shut up.

--- A Moderate Democrat

Posted by: elizbassett at November 10, 2004 10:48 AM

thank you thank you thank you for putting into words what we have all been dreaming about!!!!

Posted by: coastopian at November 10, 2004 10:52 AM

on 9/10 Ian wrote:

"ATTENTION:

As owner of this site - and author of the original post - I'm overjoyed to see all the differing viewpoints on this thread. In fact, I wish there was a better place we could take this, instead of wading through 400 comments."

Why not create a mailing list forum for those who want it? It would be nice not to have to wade through all the flamers.


Posted by: Ishtar at November 10, 2004 11:23 AM

"Seems as though this country is going to be made up of a bunch of crying loosers."

I see a lot of classification of us as "whiners", "crying losers", and other such statements that attempt to rob dissent of credibility. I am concerned that this administration is endangering our citizens, endangering our troops, murdering people in other countries, stripping the environment, and driving us into an economic depression. I feel that now given majority approval AND having virtually nothign to lose, this trend is going to get worse.

This doesn't strike me as "whining". These are valid concerns. I'm not whining that Kerry lost. He was the ultimate "lesser of two evils" candidate. I think that the Democrats' refusal to define their party goals in favor of 'not offending anyone' made them look weak in comparison to the Bush "Do it, kill them all and let God sort em out" unwavering doctrine, even to such a degree that the man is unwilling to admit a single mistake. Apparently, America likes that. The Democrats needed to state a clear direction, and they failed miserably. It didn't help that after 9/11, they allowed themselves to be bullied into anything the administration wanted (are you with America or with the terrorists?) and okayed things like the Patriot Act (without frigging reading it!) and the move into Iraq. Going back on it now makes them look like "flip floppers".

I am concerned that Bush won. Scratch that, I'm *terrified* that Bush won. The values outlined by his administration are not ones I find American, legal, or even morally conceivable, and those values have nothing to do with gays or abortion.

"Its not the Jesus fanatics or Homophobes that caused Kerry to lose the election. It was the extreme liberals that spoke so much hate speach that it turned off the moderates."

I sincerely disagree. A number of factors contributed, but the actual Kerry camp was so moderate it could define where it was. As for hate speech, I turn your attention to Kentucky where the man who called his opponent a limp wristed homosexual was the one who won? I turn your attention to the Swift Boat Veterans who have managed to convince people Kerry was a traitor? People have conveniently forgotten their atrocious attempts to slander McCain (a frigging POW!) in the 2000 primaries, and believe that this group is just "telling the truth" when they support people who wiggled out of Vietnam? How about the constant soundbites of "flip flopping", "Massachusetts liberals", and even my own governor's highly immature "democratic girlie men"? The most prominent hate speech I've seen has been directed by GOP supporters.

"If you want to get back into power and do something productive yourselves do what Clinton did, move towards the middle."

Kerry was pretty close to the middle, far more than many democrats would have liked. He even gave lip service against gay marriage to pander. What Kerry didn't have was Clinton's charisma and intelligence, nor did Al Gore. Besides, Clinton is the dirty word among many Bush supporters?

"In the meantime quit crying in your soup and get the types like Mr Moore to shut up."

Oh, I'm being proactive as well, trust me. Forums like these just give me a place to air my frustrations, but are by no means the sole representation of my involvement.

As for Michael Moore, why would I try to get him to shut up? He has a right to free speech, just as the Swift Boat Veterans do.

Ishie

Posted by: James at November 10, 2004 11:26 AM

as a canadian who has lived here for 30 years, and finally got the right to vote 10 years ago(after having paid taxes here for 20 years before that with no say)i take/took voting very seriuosly, and naively believed that it would always work out.after the mess of an election in 2000 when the real president was elected by the people, and the horrible THEFT of that in a state run by the pseudo presidents brother, i was horribly let down-but ever the polly anna that i am i was hoping/praying that in 2004 something could be done to get rid of this fraud of a president who has never had a real job,dodged the military duties he supposedly belonged to, and whose right wing nonsensical behavior would prove to all that he is an idiot. But alas that is not to be....i am glad that i never renounced my canadian citizenship, i am out of here, i can't stand to stay and see what hell will happen now. At least i live in PROUD coastopia,where there are some sane people left, until i can get out. Long live coastopia and the hope it shines!

guess the schools aren't too good in Canada either.

Posted by: lupo at November 10, 2004 11:35 AM

As an Italian citizen I am proud to be the first European to recognize the sovereign nation of AMERICAN COASTOPIA as a respected friend and ally. Tell you what, why dont we organise a swap? The Italian people will organise a flight for our Prime Minister Berlusconi (Another of Shrub's lap dogs who sent 3,500 of my fellow Italians to "liberate" Iraq) so that he can go live in Texas with his master and you can organise flights so that citizens of the AMERICAN COASTOPIA can come and visit a truly liberated country (liberated of our US led, televison backed, religous PM)

Posted by: lupo at November 10, 2004 11:39 AM

p.s. if you get sick of your propaganda filled national newspapers you might want to check out the most respected liberal UK newspaper. It has kept me sane for years when the exasperation with biased Italian newspapers gets too strong.

guardian.co.uk

Posted by: Ishtar at November 10, 2004 11:44 AM

"It is to bad you did not live underneath Stalins regime then there would be about 200 million less of you idiots out ther."

Hmmm... supporters of the "moral majority" express glee in the concept of the murder of 200 million people they disagree with.

Thank you for your input, Jan. I for one, do not wish violent miserable death upon you and millions of your fellows, but thank you for giving us a bit of perspective. Next will you enlighten us on it being a shame that the homosexuals we love so much weren't tortured in death camps in Nazi Germany? That'd be good for a lark, wouldn't it?

On this string of posts, I've seen a lot of "Well, you don't like that we're moral, you (expletives deleted), butt pumpers. It's a shame you don't live in (country which has/had atrocity) so we could *really* get rid of you all. We've got all the guns, so just try something, ya (expletives deleted). You hate us for our morality and American values!"

Though I realize as a liberal, I am less than human to many of you people, and you'd like to see me put to death like a pig, but I'm going to ask a favor anyway. To those of you (not all) who are proposing and/or dreaming of horrific violence directed to fellow American (now Coastopian) citizens for the crime of verbally dissenting, while peppering your sentiments with a level of profanity that sparks outrage when enclosed in video games, would you mind refraining from including your superior moral position in the same post? The hypocrisy gives me a headache, and it's hard to work with a headache.

Granted, some of you are angry at seeing profanity and expressions of violence directed toward your position. Understandable. If I am remembering correctly (and it's hard; I've been morally bankrupt for SO long), it is not generally considered the moral or mature position to answer violence and profanity with violence and profanity. Many of you, if you heard your children respond to someone who said "F- you" to them, by saying "No! F- you!" back would discipline them.

I am no stranger to explicit language and am quite capable of unleashing a string of vulgarity that would make a sailor vomit. But then again, I am not claiming to ally myself with old fashioned moral values. Many did not vote for Bush on moral issues, and that's fine. Continue firing death threats at will.

For those expousing Christian morality, I would advise you that missing from the Bible is the place where Jesus gave Pontius Pilate the finger and said "Wash your hands of this, you f-ing commie butthumper! And while I'm at it, I hope ya die of syphilis!!"

Amen.
Ishie

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 10, 2004 11:49 AM

Ishie,

I take exception with only one of your comments re: Kerry.

He is not a moderate...not even close to the center. He was and is far more liberal than Clinton (who by the way beat Bush #41 only because Perot managed to suck down 21 percent of the vote).

My personal opinion is that the Democrats have shifted too far left of center and the GOP has shifted too far to the right of center. Meanwhile, most of mainstream America hovers closer to the center.

The party that breaks the code first...and addresses it...will win in 2008.

For what it's worth...

Posted by: Ishtar at November 10, 2004 11:51 AM

"...can organise flights so that citizens of the AMERICAN COASTOPIA can come and visit a truly liberated country"

Molto Bene!

Salve!
Coastopians are going to have to adjust some of our customs laws. I have wine to stockpile!!

I was looking at travel to Italy (always wanted to go there), but I'm going to have to wait a little while and chase the moths out of my wallet.

Salute!

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 10, 2004 11:54 AM

"For those expousing Christian morality, I would advise you that missing from the Bible is the place where Jesus gave Pontius Pilate the finger and said "Wash your hands of this, you f-ing commie butthumper! And while I'm at it, I hope ya die of syphilis!!"

Ishie, Ishie, Ishie.

Thank you for the levity. Your witty repartee and rapier wit are greatly appreciated!!!!

WindRider

Posted by: lupo at November 10, 2004 11:57 AM

Shit just realised another Italian beat me to it. Should have read a bit more before posting. Oh, well.

Also, you all seem a bit hazy on exactly what happened in WW2.
Four little facts that might change your mind slightly.
1)The largest provider of "computerised" data sheets for listing jewish prisoners in concentration camps was .... IBM
2)After the end of the war the US set up prison camps for captured german POWs and sistematically failed to feed, shelter and cure them. This led to the death of nearly a million germans while in US custody
3)Grandfather Bush was one of Hitler's main bankers
4)The japanese only attacked pearl harbor because the US navy was blockading japanese ships, thus making it impossible for them to import oil, thus making it impossible for them to wage war in Asia. The US admin did this deliberately so that the japanese would attack the US thus making it possible for your president (who had been elected on the promise that he would not join in WW2) to declare war

Remember: History is written by those who win but it does not mean it is necesarily true.

Posted by: Sam at November 10, 2004 12:13 PM

What "Mike" forgot to mention was that, by putting the gun where he suggested, and by doing what he suggested with it, you would, in effect, just be blowing your "brains" out......

Posted by: mike at November 10, 2004 12:54 PM

You have got to be kidding this is the biggest joke I have ever come across. You people have really got to get some sense and think about what you are talking about. Get a brain assholes.

Posted by: Chopa at November 10, 2004 1:31 PM

Ohhh please we the nice people of Puerto Rico would like to be part of Costopia, even if we are still a colony of you people, we trust you will treat us better than the rest of stupid white american heartlanders. Even thou we are almost the owuners of NYC becauce half of our population lives there so we are kinda halfway united to you. We would love to party with you guys and be your winter getaway since we would like nice turists not stupid people from Tex-ass that come to Puerto Rico to eat and do the same things they do at their damn state and eat stake instead of good puertorican food.
STUPID AMERICANS, BECAUCE OF THEIR STUPITNES WE PAY WITH OUR COUSINS, BROTHERS, AND FATHERS THAT ARE IN THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE IN IRAK.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 10, 2004 1:44 PM

"STUPID AMERICANS, BECAUCE OF THEIR STUPITNES WE PAY WITH OUR COUSINS, BROTHERS, AND FATHERS THAT ARE IN THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE IN IRAK."

Ian,

I thought you were going to screen out the flamers (see quote above)...please add the grossly illiterate to your filter list. I wonder who helps them log on?


Posted by: Mike at November 10, 2004 2:05 PM

Kiss my ass you liberal asswipes. Leave the country. Get over it and in four more years all the shit you believe happened because of one man will most likely return to your liking. There's no need to complain, everyone else is in the same boat. Everything that happens happens to everyone and not just you left-wingers. I have to say the people who are more right than left, like myself, are pretty sick of you liberals complaining about the outcome of the election and what's going on in this country. My suggestion is you get all of your progressive pals out AND FUCKING VOTE next time. Seems like the new registers that supported Bush outnumbered the new registers that supported Kerry, and maybe that was because they wanted to shove it in your face. Shit, I wanted Kerry to win so all of you people would just SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 10, 2004 2:15 PM

Mike,

Does it hurt more when the moon is full?

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 10, 2004 2:18 PM

Thar seems to me that y'all Coastapeons seem to be a bunch of menser type folks rubbin' it in on how dumb we ol' redzoners is....

Now I's comes across a peace in your "bible perryodical" the New York Times that lays it all to rest 'tween your boss man and ourn. Pleas read and remembers yur IQ's are shirley higher then ourn:


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/politics/campaign/24points.html

Quote:

Secret Weapon for Bush?
By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: October 24, 2004

To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.

That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about 10 points lower than Al Gore's.

Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.

Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.

Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in "Doonesbury," that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax.

You might expect Kerry campaign officials, who have worried that their candidate's intellectual image turns off voters, to quickly rush out a commercial trumpeting these new results, but for some reason they seem to be resisting the temptation.

Upon hearing of their candidate's score, Michael Meehan, a spokesman for the senator, said merely: "The true test is not where you start out in life, but what you do with those God-given talents. John Kerry's 40 years of public service puts him in the top percentile on that measure."
un quote

Two more things:
1- Ishie - I'll meet you in Reno ; -)

2- Posted by: James at November 10, 2004 11:26 AM
as a canadian........You have never been an American you always been a dam Canadian...thanks for the taxes!

Posted by: SIMBA at November 10, 2004 2:23 PM

Does one laught or cry at something like this? All future citizens of Coastopia (what a dull, unoriginal name - how about the People's Republic of Blue?) were quite willing to accept a Kerry presidency while losing 3.5 million votes. Here's the difference - when Clinton won in 92 (I was an idiot and voted for him) with just 42% of the vote, GOPers thought it was the end of the world. Yet no one called the Dem voters idiots, racists, bigots, homophobes, uneducated, monkeys, etc...

Keep it up - it is talk like this that (somehow) got Bush elected. Hate just doesn't go over well to the masses. And don't forget that Oregon, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and New Hampshire were all 51-49 or less...color them aqua I guess.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 10, 2004 2:34 PM

Simba,

I think you have to laugh about this. It's like the folks at SNL are floating this weekend's comedy sketch past us before going live with it. They're testing to see if it's really funny...actually, it's pathetic.

Posted by: Lala at November 10, 2004 3:05 PM

This is in response to Windrider65:
Just because someone's writing is not as perfect as your own does not make them "grossly illterate". Did you stop to think that since Chopa was writing about Puerto Rico, he might actually be from there and his first language might not be English? We claim we want to be different, but if we don't plan on accepting people who may not share our exact opinions, we are no different than the administration we dislike. And as for the shouting, Chopa has reasons for screaming. For those of you that don't know, Puertoricans, despite technically being American citizens, are not allowed to vote for president yet can be drafted in times of war. We lose people in wars we have no say in, we are controlled by a leader we do not elect. The American Navy has been bombing one of the small inhabited islands off our coasts. We had no say in that either. Puerto Rico is a beautiful place which would be a wonderful asset to America Coastopia, but if people like Windrider65 are going to make gross assumptions about people, maybe we're not welcome. Windrider65, i suggest you think a little bit before speaking and don't jump to conclusions like so many other stereotypical "ugly Americans" we Puertoricans have been priviledged to meet and have running around our island. If the people in America Coastopia are going to be as quick to judge and ridicule like Windrider65, I will have to agree with ses, maybe American Coastopia, isn't for us.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 10, 2004 3:05 PM

"Keep it up - it is talk like this that (somehow) got Bush elected. Hate just doesn't go over well to the masses."

You're kidding, right? Mudslinging campaigns are almost always the most successful, prior to the election, John Kerry was painted as a traitor to his country for fighting in a war our president didn't see fit to attend (nor did Clinton), called a number of names directly by the GOP, including Bush himself... Half the campaign was based on taking pieces of Kerry's rambling statements out of context and harping on them. The "Global test" one was an obvious example. I saw the original context and it had nothing to do with "asking France for permission".

Based on observation, hate and fear seems to have largely fueled the masses. Many rallied behind a hatred of a man they considered a traitor, we rallied behind hate against those who perped the 9/11 attacks (which would be fine, except a huge number of people in this country think that means Iraq), and we were filled with fear over inadequate handling of terrorists, not to mention the state of colored alert the executive branch has been attempting to keep us in.

If Bush and his admin didn't act hateful and arrogant and base policies on these 'values', I wouldn't particularly care that they had won. Though I lean to the left because I'd rather have a bad financial plan if it means keeping civil liberties, I do not ally myself with either democrats or republicans.
-----
Oh onto the IQ thing, neither Bush nor Kerry strike me as swimming in intelligence, though Kerry does debate well. Bush initially struck me as dumb as a chimp because of his inability to string together a coherant sentence coupled with his common trait of trailing off while staring into space.

Lately, I'm guessing Bush or his handlers are more intelligent than I gave him/them credit for, and Bush simply shares the trait with his father of being an exceptionally bad public speaker.

The administration has managed to convince people they are the moral party for the little guy when most of their economic policy seems to involve shady business practices with huge corporations, including those funded by those who support terror. They have correctly gauged a large post-9/11 sentiment that since being attacked, we can cowboy up against world opinion. They have made God and America equivalent terms inspiring reverence so to deny one is to deny the other. Patriotism has become its own religion. They rallied behind hot-button issues to emerge as the "moral" platform and now dominate two of the three 'checks' with sights set on the third one.

It's Emporer-from-Star-Wars diabolical, but it is also frigging brilliant. So indications that Bush's iq is not as low as previously expected would not be particularly surprising.

Ishie

Posted by: Colleen at November 10, 2004 3:18 PM

GWB suffers from premature Iraqulation. Perhaps a Pfiser commercial is in the works.....

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 10, 2004 3:35 PM

This is in response to Lala:
1. Did I consider that Chopa might be from Puerto Rico? Absolutely. In fact, I assumed he was. I know dozens (not one or two...DOZENS) of people born and raised in Puerto Rico. And all are just as literate as you or me. Children in Puerto Rico begin learning to read and write English when they begin school. So don't try and hand me this 'pity poor Chopa' nonsense. It doesn't apply. Further, I'm an Equal Opportunity critic; I loathe the decline of literacy everywhere...not just in the USA, Coastopia, or Puerto Rico...everywhere. You read one post and jumped to the conclusion that I'm attacking Puerto Ricans and/or people who don't receive an education in English. What rot.

2. As for being in drafted in times of war...there is no draft. Perhaps you should remain a little more current. Every state/county/city/town loses people in wars over which they have no say. Here's the kicker: it's a Volunteer Force. People signing up and accepting a paycheck understand the ramifications...particularly in this day and age.

3. Puerto Rico IS a beautiful place. I'm glad you think so too.

4. You are right about one thing...someone here is jumping to conclusions...but it isn't me.

Posted by: simba at November 10, 2004 4:01 PM

Ishie,
I did not mean "hate". What I meant was the incredible condescension shown toward Red state voters both before and after the election. You think people cannot listen to the candidates, weigh the evidence and make a decision. I NEVER heard God, guns & gays but I did hear a lot about the biased media, Kerry's 20 year record (which he avoided like a plague) and (from Blue folks) how utterly stupid someone would have to be to support Bush. (Michael Moore won the election for Bush - is he a GOP plant?)

Is this to be the new way from now on-the losing side refuses to accept the verdict? I live in a Red state that voted Blue until recently and Kerry was veiwed as the stranger - filthy rich, superficial, disdainful, nuanced to the nth, expensive toys, slightly European. Fair? Maybe not but Kerry himself gave that image by traipsing to his many homes, riding his $8,000 bike and wind-surfing.

Hopefully this is just a way to let off steam but even in the heights of Clinton hatred there was nothing even approaching this.

Posted by: Kris at November 10, 2004 4:01 PM

Sister Site Alive and Well.
http://americanunion.blogspot.com/

Let this be a message to all of you in bush-land. We are breaking off from you. Don't be worried, since you will have great income from oil. The only problem is that W Bush was the only Texan in history to open up an oil company in Texas but couldn't find oil!!!!

Hehe
K

Posted by: death at November 10, 2004 4:47 PM

[a bunch of bullshit deleted by moderator]

Posted by: Ishtar at November 10, 2004 5:42 PM

"I did not mean "hate". What I meant was the incredible condescension shown toward Red state voters both before and after the election."

We actually didn't know who was going to be a "red state" until after the election. The exit polls showed things far closer than they turned out.

"You think people cannot listen to the candidates, weigh the evidence and make a decision."

People on BOTH sides refuse to involve themselves at all in politics, choose a media source, and rely on it as their sole source of political information, which strikes me as dangerous. When I see polls showing the number of people who link Iraq and 9/11 and their relative percentage among Bush voters, that does raise serious concerns. They are misinformed. I've talked to many perfectly intelligent people who "don't pay attention to that stuff". Then don't vote! I know one woman (not saying she is representative of all Bush voters) who is a perfectly nice person and an intelligent person, but she voted for Bush because "the troops seem to be for him".

This is not informed voting. If that is condescending, then by all means, get the people to prove me wrong. On both sides.

"(Michael Moore won the election for Bush - is he a GOP plant?)"

If he did, then Bush voters really are stupid. I voted for Kerry because of Bill O'Reilly! No way.

"Is this to be the new way from now on-the losing side refuses to accept the verdict?"

Though many want us to "quit the whining" about the 2000 election, there is no denying that there was a LOT of mishandling, at the very least, afoot there, and that it looks incredibly suspicious when the governor of the state in question is the candidates brother. In this election, it looks like Bush won, but at the same time, it ALSO looks like there were a lot of cases of bullying voters and attempting to interfere in the ability of people to join the democratic process. I don't think they needed that to "win the election", don't get me wrong, but it is a huge problem.

"I live in a Red state that voted Blue until recently and Kerry was veiwed as the stranger - filthy rich,"

And Bush, as Jon Stewart said, was a cockney matchgirl.

"superficial,"

Playing war hero by dressing up in a Halloween costume to land on an aircraft carrier. Spouting old country down home Texan style when you are Yale educated and your father was the president.

"disdainful,"

Have you watched Bush address the U.N.? Or when there were more protestors throughout America and the world than there were in Vietnam how he dismissed everything as "interest groups"? Have you watched him deal with reporters who question him?

"slightly European."

Ich bin ein Berliner.

"Fair? Maybe not but Kerry himself gave that image by traipsing to his many homes, riding his $8,000 bike and wind-surfing."

And Bush, perpetually on vacation, giving soundbites against terrorism while golfing, and spending time when our country is at bitter war to go on the fishing channel gives the impression of a man whose mind is clearly on his work.

Seeing Kerry on a bike was kind of disturbing. Seeing him windsurf and snowboard was actually a relief because prior to that I thought he was a robot. And I'll admit he looks like a basset hound if Bush people admit he looks like an orangutan.

"Hopefully this is just a way to let off steam but even in the heights of Clinton hatred there was nothing even approaching this."

What's funny is that president bashing didn't become un-American until this administration. Then we had people boycotting the Dixie Chicks.

I've heard pretty intense anti-Clinton stuff. What's striking to me is that Clinton's main claim to fame (and one reason many people HATE him) is he got an extramarital BJ and lied about it.

Eventually, Clinton apologized. He had to apologize on national television and say "America, I am sorry that I lied to you about getting a BJ from that 21 year old intern. Now try to scrub that image off your brain, and have a nice dinner."

Presidents aren't perfect, and with the power they have, they have the potential to make some pretty cataclysmic blunders.

Bush lied about our reason for going to war! If you give him the strongest benefit of the doubt, at the very least, he was involved in a massive intelligence failure regarding our decision to go to war.

He hasn't apologized. He refuses to even acknowledge mistakes were made. He addresses other countries who told us not to do this in the first place like "Well, now that we've done your dirty work for you, it's time for you guys to kick in and help". Bush can't eke out an "I'm sorry I said there were weapons of mass destruction and links to the 9/11 attacks in Iraq"? Clinton had to give, on national record, explicit details of his trysts, including where the cigar went. If my MOTHER asked me questions like those, I'd have told her to butt out, and Bush can't even acknowledge wrongdoing?

My opinion of the man would improve greatly if he seemed capable of believing himself responsible for his actions. People who can't admit fault scare me.

Ishie

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 10, 2004 5:49 PM

Ooooooooh...I'm shaking like a leaf. Somebody who calls himself 'death' has several thousand rounds of m-16 ammo. Not much good without the M-16, is it? What are you going to do...throw the bullets at us?

You clown.

You're obviously some 115 pound wanna-be, soaking wet with rocks in your pockets, who has never a done a single day in the military...if you had...the M-16 would be your last choice of weaponry. What's a matter boy, mommy didn't give you enough attention? Are the voices talking to you again?

You can ease our pain all right...haul your scrawny ass out of town.

(Lala...lo siento mucho...he brings it out in me...)

Posted by: The other Washington at November 10, 2004 6:09 PM

Here on the left West coast, yes we are worried.

There was a real life terrorist captured in Port Angeles Washington BEFORE 9-11. It was only due to a sharp custom agent who questioned why someone going to Vancouver BC to Seattle would take a ferry to Vancouver Island, then another ferry to Port Angeles WA, who would then have to take another ferry to Seattle. When she questioned the guy about his bizarre itinerary he panicked and ran. He told the Feds what they were preparing for BEFORE 9-11. They found the bomb makings intended for LA-X in the trunk. A documentary shown on Canadian TV which we are blest to get here in Washington gave all the details and Mr. Bush's adminstration failed to take this guy seriously. The American Media did not detail the capture of Resamm like the Canadian media did. Let's face it both coasts are at a higher risk and the concern is, by going into Iraq, a secular country we have now de stabilized and made it a recruiting ground for even more terrorism. Look what happened in Northern Ireland in the early 70s on Bloody Sunday. Because some ill prepared British Troops got trigger happy during a Peace March it created a huge influx of IRA recruits for years afterward and they are just starting to see some light at the end of the tunnel some 30 years later. It is amazing what 1 ill fated military operation can create and picking up the pieces afterward takes years.
As all of you use items from the Pacific Rim all of these items pass through our large ports on the West Coast. Our government failed prior to 9-11 even with the information they had, we saw the Bush administration focus on Iraq instead of finishing the job in Afganistan and we feel even more at risk with this administration because they have made so many mistakes and will not own up to them. I must remind you that the city of Seattle cancelled it's 2000 New Years party and got much ridicule around the country because of information received about a possible terror strike involving slamming planes into large buildings. The information at that time was sketchy but as the months went on, it was clear this plan was in the works. Tell people in New York City why their government failed them. Hell yes we don't trust this administration.

Now let me get back to Coastopia where those lattes are hot and the air isn't so heavy.

Posted by: Jared at November 10, 2004 6:16 PM

Actually, a brilliant proposal. Canada is being all difficult, since you have to prove you have a job, or that you're marrying a Canadian. This will fix the problem of being under the current administration AND pulls the rug out from under their feet by stripping away everything that has kept their twisted plots going for so long.

Posted by: the other Washington at November 10, 2004 6:41 PM

and another thing, we are letting Minnesota in Coastopia, right? There are lots of Minnesota transplants in Washington and we have family there. We really need them in this part of Coastopia to properly instruct us on urban snow driving techniques, a couple inches can turn Seattle into a mess. (we in turn can teach the rest of Coastopia how to deal with ash or rain fall).

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 10, 2004 6:52 PM

Hey Coasta-peons. I just found these secret contingency plans the Texans had on the back burner in case the "Fraud" was elected. Sound familiar?
----------------------------------------
SECRET NOPORN

THE FUTURE OF TEXAS if Kerry wins the election -

Please note that Texas is the only state with a legal right to secede from
the Union. Please refer to the Texas-American Annexation Treaty of 1848.

We Texans love y'all, but we'll have to take action if Kerry wins the
presidency over Bush. We'll miss you, too.

Texas has given all those complainers plenty of time to get used to the
results. After seeing the whiners along the campaign route, the folks from
Texas are considering taking matters into our own hands.

Here is our solution:

1. Let John Kerry become President of the United States, all 49 states.

2. George W. Bush becomes the President of the Republic Of Texas.

So what does Texas have to do to survive as a Republic?

1. NASA is just south of Houston, Texas. We will control the space industry.


2. Gasoline - We refine over 85% of the gasoline in the United States.

3. Defense Industry - We have over 65% of it. The motto "Don't Mess with
Texas" will take on a whole new meaning.

4. Oil - We can supply all the oil that the Republic of Texas will need for
the next 300 years. Yankee states? Sorry about that.

5. Natural Gas - Again we have all we need, and it's too bad about those
northern states. John Kerry will figure a way to keep them warm.

6. Computer Industry - We currently lead the nation in producing computer
chips and communications: Small places like Texas Instruments, Dell
Computer, EDS, Raytheon, National Semiconductor, Motorola, Intel, AMD,
Atmel, Applied Materials, Ball Semiconductor, Dallas Semiconductor, Delphi,
Nortel, Alcatel, etc. The list goes on and on.

7. Health Centers - We have the largest research centers for cancer
research, the best burn centers, and the top trauma units in the world, and
other large health planning centers.

8. Education - We have enough colleges to keep us going: UT, Texas A&M,
Texas Tech, Rice, SMU, U. of Houston, Baylor, UNT, Texas Women's University,
St. Mary's University, San Antonio College. Ivy grows better in the South
anyway.

9. Laborers - We have a ready supply of workers. We just open the border
when we need some more.

10. We have control of the paper industry, plastics, insurance, etc.

11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the
Texas Air National Guard. We don't have an army, but since everybody down
here has at least 6 rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an army in 24
hours if we need it. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call
Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over a couple Texas
Rangers.

12. Food - We are totally self sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs, several
types of grain, fruit, vegetables, and let's not forget seafood from the
Gulf. And everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste
good. Don't need any food.

This names just a few of the items that will keep the Republic Of Texas in
good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and don't have.

Only one problem: we do have a few Bush haters. We will give them a choice
of changing their minds or leaving the Republic of Texas. No true Texan will
tolerate hatred of our Commander in Chief of the Republic!

Now to the rest of the United States under President Kerry:

Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only President
Kerry will be able to drive around in his 9-mile-per- gallon SUV. The rest
of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.

You won't have any TV since the space center in Houston will cut off your
connection to space communications.

You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes, but since Mr. Kerry has
predicted global warming, you will not need the gas.

Have a nice day!
SECRET NOPORN

Posted by: Jim at November 10, 2004 7:00 PM

Only fat midwesterners who eat 25 twinkies a day while sitting on the couch care about watching TV. We can live without it.

J

Posted by: Lynn at November 10, 2004 7:03 PM

Go Away! No loathsome nasty right-wingers allowed in Coastopia. My God, the language they use. Where are your morals and values? Or was the moral values crap just for the exit pollers? Gees! These right-wingers are like crab grass or antibiotic resistant germs. First order of business for our country is to come up with an inoculation or an antidote to keep right-wingers from ever sprouting in our fair land.

Posted by: the other washington at November 10, 2004 7:18 PM

We're going to be riding our trusty mountain bikes here in Coastopia. We have lots of hydro power (Grand Coulee Dam ) and many farmers supplement their income by the growing wind energy business.(lots of those cute whirly gigs that dot the landscape) Our streets lamps are being converted with little solar panels and we have an abundance of seafood and food products. I'm not really interested in having NASA anyway, but Paul Allen (co founder of microsoft) just came up with that little private space craft that had a successful launch last month. Maybe we can use his little space gadget hobby of his to get us over to the Eastern section of Coastopia for Coastopian summits. We have alot of edible plants here and our sovereign tribal neighbors within our borders have taken back their culture and living off the abundance of this bountiful land thank you very much. They would be just slap happy to have the Department of the Interior off their backs for once.

Have a nice day down there in the Republic of Texas.

Posted by: Dan at November 10, 2004 8:07 PM

To my fellow Coastopians as well as the nay Sayers,

I would first like to thank Ian for providing such a great forum, and to applaud him on not allowing simplistic “Hahhaha” posts replete with the excessive profanity with which they are typically rife.

I have participated in American politics for many years, but I don’t recall ever seeing the nation so deeply divided. I believe that I can speak with a good degree of equanimity about our current situation. In years past, I have voted both Democrat and Republican depending on the candidates and the issues. I classify myself as a moderate, although, given a choice between conservatism and liberalism, I tend to lean more towards liberalism as defined in the dictionary, not as demonized by ultra conservatives. I have traveled widely throughout both the United States and the world during my career and have been delighted by the diversity of cultures that I have been privileged to experience. I am a moderate Christian who respects all other religions, and I firmly believe in the separation of church and state.

This said I am deeply disturbed by the many posters to this site who view the nation’s division with such simplistic categorization. Many of us who did not vote for Bush are not simply disgruntled because “our” candidate did not win. John Kerry was not my preferred candidate of choice, but I considered him to be the far lesser of two evils. This is hardly the first time that a national election did not result in the winning of my candidate of choice. It is, however, the first time that I have ever been so appalled by the results. The majority of Americans have chosen to continue on the path of alienating the nation from the rest of the world, pursuing what is nothing less than a holy war, and supporting a faltering economy that is buoyed only by large corporate private interests. I am even more concerned with the accelerated movement toward a church state and an ever-greater emphasis on increasing America’s provinciality. Many people who voted for Bush did so out of fear, and, while I can sympathize with them, I do not believe that this once great nation should be reduced to a condition of mass hysteria. America has the means to effectively fight terrorism, but that effectiveness is greatly reduced when we target nations that are not directly involved with anti-American terrorism while ignoring those nations, such as Saudi Arabia, who provide funding, personnel, and training for terrorists. Hussein was just one of the world’s many dictators who have suppressed their people and flagrantly violated human rights. America needs to concentrate on the real threats to its people: actual terrorists, worldwide nuclear proliferation, global warming, and this nation’s increasing alienation from the world community.

The nation is divided, not on political ideology, but on fundamental differences between sets of moral values. Those of us who believe that our constitutional rights should be rigidly upheld, that ill-planned preemptive war is wrong, that a strong separation between church and state must be maintained, that we cannot stand alone as isolationists in an ever shrinking world, and that might rarely equates to right stand together in a maligned and misunderstood minority watching helplessly as much of what we hold dear is trampled. It would be truly ironic, if it were not so terrifying, that all of this is apparently due to the fact that so many of the majority consider bans on gay marriage, the right to life from the moment of conception, prayer in schools, and similar perceived Christian doctrines to be more important than our fundamental freedom of choice and our tolerance toward those who are different from us. This is a rift in national belief that I do not think will be healed anytime in the near future.

I apologize for such a long post, but after viewing the ranting, raving, and gloating by so many on this site, I needed to have my say. I actually have much more to say, but I will spare you fellow Coastopians from boredom.

One quick comment to "badbobusnret": Your "Texas" post is pretty typical of the size of Texas egos! In truth, you actually don't have all that you need, nor is the rest of the country as dependent upon Texas as you would like to believe. Your microelectronics "industry" is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the world. I know because I designed many of your facilities. I won't lengthen this post by going into detail. I'm sure that ishie will do that. AND SPEAKING OF ISHIE, re: your earlier post, NO you will NOT meet her in Reno!! I'm her father! ;)

Viva Coastopia (but we STILL need a flag!)
Dan

Posted by: the other washington at November 10, 2004 8:15 PM

Dan you're the man. Thank you.

Posted by: proudly republican at November 10, 2004 8:29 PM

God, you are all so pathetic. I've never seen a political party lose an election so poorly two elections in a row. The right man won, the traitor lost, and now we need to finish what we started in Iraq by grinding the terrorists into dust, then moving on to Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.

By the way, I hate being called an ignorant red-stater. I grew up in NYC, live in Pennsylvania, and have a doctorate. So shove it.

Posted by: Lynn at November 10, 2004 8:38 PM

We need a song as well, but none of that bombs bursting in air stuff. I bet there is a wealth of talent here in Coastopia?

Viva Coastopia!
Lynn

Posted by: the other washington at November 10, 2004 8:40 PM

Geez Proudly Republican, I can only respond with more of that Cascadian latin,

"Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum."

(A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.)

Lighten up sport, I'm guessing, but that doctorate isn't in diplomacy is it?

Posted by: the other washington at November 10, 2004 9:06 PM

Mea Culpa fellow Coastopians, I incorrectly referred to Cascadian latin rather than Coastopian latin. Again, I refer to the following website, http://zapatopi.net/cascadia.html
if you would like to learn more about the Cascadian portion of the newly formed Coastopia.

I got caught up in the moment after reading Proudly Republican's I have a doctorate so shove it response. That's it No Ketchup for you!!

Next.


Posted by: Dan at November 10, 2004 9:49 PM

"Proudly Republican's" post was amusing, wasn't it. I'm guessing that his/her doctorate wasn't in either English literature or international affairs either. Judging by the post, the degree is probably in Divinity, and probably by mail order .

To "the other washington": TU, and I like your alternate site. The more the better!!

Dan

Posted by: Davebo at November 11, 2004 1:51 AM

Dan, great comments. Coastopia, and the loving comments of its fans brings comfort at a bleak time. There is no state that doesn't have good people in it. There are is no state that doesn't have someone in it who is... less accomodating of other lifestyles, other values, other beliefs, other nations than I am. Coastopia is a release of steam because it is so frustrating to feel unheard over the din of disinformation and electoral college leverage. Let Coastopia's opponents lighten up, and let Coastopia's friends remember that we welcome those who are willing to hold opposing beliefs, provided they are willing to challenge those beliefs. Such challenges and such tolerance of ideas is all for the better. Courtesy is usually a sign of respect for life.

I formally plug "instant run-off", "proportional representation of electoral votes within all states" and perhaps "full representation", and reject "winner take all". This would prevent "splitting the vote" so no one would Ever have to settle for the lesser of two evils, and the Entire voting electorate could concentrate on getting candidates to commit to the issues we all agree on. Getting money out of elections would be a nice trick, too.

PS. Did the someone Actually advocate invading Egypt? Where did That come from?

Posted by: DaveBo at November 11, 2004 1:56 AM

Yes, that was the doctorate-holder, right there advocating invading our putative allies. Or did I miss another revolution in Egypt?

Posted by: Randall at November 11, 2004 4:00 AM

After reading through most of the posts here, I am very distraught about the state of the soul of our nation. There is a sickness in all of this spewing of hatred. It used to be that people could disagree without resorting to such asinine name-calling. Admittedly, I have on occasion dreamt of secession as a means for my beautiful Southland to be able preserve the conservative family values we hold dear down here. Ah! To be rid of gun-grabbing, God-hating radicals and supremacist judicial activist judges! A sweet dream, to be sure. But, having served this nation in uniform, such thoughts also tear at my heart. We really do have a pretty sweet set-up here. The best damned gig in the world, even with the problems we do have. To those of you who entertain the notion of living in a "Coastopia", which judging by the majority of the posts supporting it, you would have a nation which would be, without a doubt, socialist. Your naivete shows through here. I lived in socialist Europe for over 10 years, and having experienced the beauty and culture of the place, I still don't want to do it again. At least not until the old socialist order there is completely dismantled as they are in the midst of doing because they have discovered that IT DOESN'T WORK! If some of you people would take the time to calm down, take off your Michael Moore blinders and inform yourselves of what is going on outside of our borders, you just might find that what we have here isn't really as shitty as you think it is. But, by God, it could be if your hateful ways prevail. That, by the way, goes for conservative radicals as well as liberal radicals. Both camps, unfortunately, are burdened with supremacists who insist on spewing a message of hate. But the radical liberal mind-set is by far the worse of the two because of its anti-Americanism. How absolutely stupid to want to dismantle the very means by which one can see his dreams come to fruition. Insanity!

Posted by: GOD bless America at November 11, 2004 4:06 AM

SAD, VERY SAD!

Posted by: European at November 11, 2004 4:38 AM

"old socialist order there is completely dismantled as they are in the midst of doing because they have discovered that IT DOESN'T WORK!"

Are you sure you were in Europe? You must have got off the plane in the wrong place. I am European and last time I checked (ie this morning) no one was planning to dismantle our socialist state. Actually the new EU constitution, which was completed last month, definately endorses socialsit values. To be honest if someone tried to dismantle our social state, free health care and curbs on predatory business it would unleash mass protests and possible revolution. The day I see European streets filled with homeless teenagers, hospitals turning away the uninsured and big business dictating government policy is the day I make my self a couple of molotov cocktails (you dont really need guns to defend yourself, you know)and hit the streets

Posted by: European at November 11, 2004 4:42 AM

p.s. George Bush named Alberto Gonzales, the White House lawyer who advised him he could disregard the "obsolete" Geneva conventions, as America's new attorney general yesterday. Hurray! Another great step for US civilisation.

Posted by: pariah at November 11, 2004 5:30 AM

You guys actually came up with this thing in a Starbucks?

ROFL.

Posted by: Dave at November 11, 2004 6:45 AM

Gee, if you don't like America, take a bus to Canada or Mexico. Pennsylvania will remain with the United States of America.

Posted by: US ally at November 11, 2004 7:04 AM

As you all know last week the greatest democracy of the world (if not the universe) held another passion filled election. This thrilling contest put a neo-con, multinational backed, Christian against , er, Bush. Thanks to it's fabulous democratic record, it's unparalleled freedom and, lets not forget, God's personal support, we were able to see a free and fair election. Any talk of flawed electoral machines, disenfranchisement among black and Hispanic voters, media bias, legal subterfuge and of thousands of voters taken of the electoral rolls is purely communist propaganda.
Seeing as we were all particularly lucky we will see our favorite dictator, George W Bush, win another term in office and thus our great crusade against all evil (particularly if it involves people with slightly darker skin) will continue for years to come. Who knows, we may be able to bomb loads of new and exotic countries like Iran, Syria or North Korea. We will be able to kill thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of little chocolate colored terrorists, some of them only children. We will be able to liberate millions of selfish Arabs of their oil while flooding their countries with good ol uncle Sam’s materialistic products. And if we grovel and beg enough our soldiers will be able to go to war as well. Our own brave lads will be able to kill and mutilate their very own personal victims. And of course our proud countries will be then allowed to stuff themselves at the collective pig trough called reconstruction.
Those benevolent organisations at the pentagon may even back a dozen or so new military coups around the world so that business and free market policies can triumph over those pesky communists who seek to redistribute wealth or simply feed the poor. All those friendly CIA agents will share their knowledge by teaching local intelligence agents all the fabulous intricacies of topics as diverse as the most efficient torture methods and novel ways of intimidating trade unionists.
If we are particularly lucky we will also see a new rise in born again Christian, bible belt morals. All those wicked gays, abortionists and single mothers will be burned at the stake like in the good old times while the bible will replace all those impertinent history and biology books in school. God will look down on his chosen people with pride and angels will descend amongst our overlords amongst cheers of hallelujah! and USA, USA!
Thus, fellow underlings of the american empire it is time to rejoice! Our masters are about to choose which right wing politician will lead them in to another four years of shaping our inferior and surpassed culture in to the image of their own superior and god blessed society. Oh, how I envy my english friends especially. You are so lucky to be america's favourite lap dog amongst the whole pack of yappering and begging mongrels that make up our respective governments. How happy will your leader Blair be when his master is re-elected for another term! What other wacky adventures will they be able to take together! What other wonderful and exotic countries will they be able to bomb back to the stone age!
In conclusion, my friends, this posting is to remind you all to spare a moment tonight to think about how lucky you are and how wonderful the world is. We have another four years of crusading before us, another decade of mindless pre-emptive strikes, another century of american rule.
Long live our masters from across the seas, long live the USA!

Posted by: Bee Seer at November 11, 2004 7:04 AM

Meditate on this. I believe one day there will be a New Heaven and a New Earth, where higher consciousness is demonstrated in respect for Mother Earth and Father Sky, where peace on earth and good will toward men is a reality. If things must get worse before they can get better, then let us take courage to endure what lies ahead. America will fall, be sure of that. All the kingdoms of this world will fall, that a new kingdom might be ushered in. Divorce yourself from materialism and the trappings of this present world. Your actions and words are a record of your life. Therefore, refrain from speaking ill of world leaders, for they are divinely appointed to carry out a plan. We are all players on a grand stage and will receive oscars for the roles we played, be it good or bad. Participate with all your might. A Ho!

Posted by: mike at November 11, 2004 7:15 AM

I have a new name for coastopia. You could call it the U.S.S.C. (Union of Soviet Socialist Coastopia). Guys Socialism has failed every time it has been tried in history. It has also cost hundreds of millions of lives.

Here is a question. Who will run the Gulags? Since there is no Siberia in the U.S.S.C. maybe you could send the political prisoners to sunny Los Angeles. Micheal Moore could run the K.G.B.

Won't it be neat to once again be able to crucify Christians and any one who is repulsed at the thought of two men screwing.

Ahh.. wealth distribution, do you really think Micheal Moore will only keep as much money as the average citizen of Coastopia?

Just some thoughts.

Posted by: lupo at November 11, 2004 7:35 AM

"Socialism has failed every time it has been tried in history"

mike: do you just make this shit up as you go along? How the hell do you come up with this stuff? Name me one country where socialism was the cause of its failure. The soviet union was a comunist country (thus definately NOT socialist) and failed but China (another non socialist but communist country) is the fastest growing economy on the planet.

Posted by: Itchy Keller at November 11, 2004 8:05 AM

You might think you have the right to include all of the "blue" states in your move, but you really have only the "counties." Most of the country has red counties. Anyway, good riddance, see you all later. Oh, and by the way, I hope you all get well protected by the Canadian military, and get that great health care they have up there. Better start standing in line for your next surgery now so that it might happen within the next year.

Posted by: mike at November 11, 2004 8:28 AM

Lupo,
Do YOU make this shit up? It was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic. Communism is Socialism.
If you like to be ruled go ahead, China which you are so proud of might have you. (Wasn't Tiannemen Square just a great example of the enlightened left.

Posted by: Robert at November 11, 2004 9:02 AM

Reply to Ishie:

If hate did go over well, Kerry would be President. Kerry was not painted a traitor by the campaign any more than Bush was painted the next Hitler by Kerry's campaign. Kerry routinely stumped about privitization of SS when he knew it wasn't true. He stumped about a draft that he knew wasn't true. He stumped about lies the President supposedly told even though he had made the exact same assertions. You want to talk about negative, Kerry's campaign was all negative. I didn't see ONE commercial that didn't include some kind of Bush bashing. The "global test" comment was NOT taken out of context. Kerry said it to suggest that he would act pre-emptively if necessary, but he would do it in a way that passed the global test. So liberals get all bunched up because of the mention of the pre-emptive comment. Two things. First, anything before the word "but" is a lie, your fourth grade english teacher can confirm this for you. Second, Kerry's comments conveniently avoid the inevitability that acting pre-emptively may never pass a global test like the situation in Iraq. So in effect, there is a defacto veto power as long as Kerry believes that doing what is right for the country wouldn't be approved by the world community. So dance around his words all day long, but in the end, it's not plausible to suggest that there is always a solution that meets US needs and the global community. With his "global Test" comment, Kerry made it clear that he would not act in a way that was condemnable by the world.

The administration has convinced people that they are the moral party for the little guy because they are and they have a record to run on. Kerry also has a record and none of it suggests that he will do anything for the little guy except raise his taxes for more socialist programs.

Robert

Posted by: lupo at November 11, 2004 9:32 AM

mike: nazism also had the world socialism in its name but it hardly made it a socialist country, wouldnt you say?

Posted by: swear at November 11, 2004 9:41 AM

Oh come on everybody, Michael Moore said it best in his "17 reasons not to slit your wrists" I think it was, "it is against the law for George Bush to run again." These things come in waves every 35 years or so which means this one is about half over, like the swing of a pendulum. The best thing we can do is stay united as a country, a Civil War was fought over unity already. If you thought 50,000 dead in one day at Gettysburg was bad, do another Civil War here now, it would make the Rwanda genocide in the 90's look like a drunken brawl. Al Qaida cares not that you were a red state or a blue state (a prior suggestion in this thread to let them kill in Texas) did they ask Nick Berg before they cut his head off? No. Did they ask the others? No. Did they ask the 3000 killed in 9-11? Did it matter? No. Republicans didn't secede during the 50's through the 80's when Democrats held the majority in the House and Senate and we had Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter, you can bide your time too. Unity is the only thing that matters whether the Democrats or the Republicans are currently in charge. Imperial Rome became weak when it split into the East and West empires and they were eventually all killed, green party, blue party, (readings from Marcus Aurelius) they all became victims and everybody lost because they divided and one side didn't care when the other side was attacked which weakened both (Edward Gibbons, Rise and Fall of Rome). History has a tendency to repeat if you are not careful and haven't learned the lessons from the past. It is WAY too dangerous to split if you want your children to have a future and your own life to have mattered to anyone when you are gone.

Posted by: Tina B. Tessina, PhD at November 11, 2004 9:47 AM

Well, I'm a little late to this party, and I want to thank you so much for the Coastopia post. It was balm to my poor, wounded soul. Frankly, I'm as angry at the Democrats for not getting the whole sales thing right. Please, God, give us another Bill Clinton, who knew how to speak to the red states.

I'm crying inside for my gay friends, who are simply crying. I hurt for the people who will be denied health care and a living wage. I will pick myself up from this, and get back to being an activist, but I'm so glad to know I have friends in Coastopia. I live in California, so I have some consolation, but we have the Governator, so it's not all good.

The ignorance so deplored in these posts is intentional, people. The right has systematically gotten people on school boards so it can take all independent thinking out of schools. Civics is no longer taught, so people don't know how the government works, or what they're voting (or not voting) for.

It feels like Nuremburg, 1936,to me. (I wasn't alive then, but I'm a student of history) Remember, the people voted en masse for Hitler. He didn't do it by himself, he did it just the way Shrub is doing it.

My only hope lies in the tendency of the extreme right to shoot itself in the foot just when it gets powerful.

In the meantime, I'm glad to be able to take respite in Coastopia. Thank you,

tina

Posted by: Brad at November 11, 2004 11:09 AM

What about those of us surrounded by non-blue states??? Can we get a life preserver??

Posted by: chris wright at November 11, 2004 11:16 AM

Being from Kansas City, MO, I resemble that remark. Us lovers of blue are dwindling in the heartland except for isolated and easily defeated islands like Lawrence, KS and Columbia, MO and certain areas of downtown KC and St. Louis. Please leave plenty of bedrolls and hot toddies out for us when we arrive. I assume we will have to travel by underground railroad and feel for the moss on the northern side of trees.

Posted by: Robert at November 11, 2004 11:28 AM

Response to Tina:

Bill Clinton, who knew how to speak to the red states. Yes, but he didn't know how to represent the red states.

I'm crying inside for my gay friends, who are simply crying. I cried for 8 years, it is someone elses turn. Besides, they continue to lead the lifestyle of their choice and nobody proposes to interfere. It's never been more cool to be gay!

I hurt for the people who will be denied health care and a living wage. They are comforted by the fact that you feel their pain. At least they would if there was actually anyone who was actually "denied" these things. Nobody denies that there is a health care crisis, but please don't pretend that democrats are the only ones who care. We have a different plan but just because you believe it doesn't work doesn't mean that we don't care. Employment is raising and unemplyment is falling as the economy continues to rebound thanks to Bush.

The right has systematically gotten people on school boards so it can take all independent thinking out of schools. Hmm, we must have learned that one from liberals who have taken God out and contraceptives and abortions in with the same tactics.

Remember, the people voted en masse for Hitler. He didn't do it by himself, he did it just the way Shrub is doing it. This is the sickest and most dispicable malignment that anyone could make against Bush. If you think Bush is like Hitler, you are completely void of any knowledge of early 20th century Germany or you are psychologically depraved.

My only hope lies in the tendency of the extreme right to shoot itself in the foot just when it gets powerful. Assuming that you are speaking metaphorically, why on earth would an American patriot want bad things to happen to their fellow countrymen/women????? Do you actually want bad things to happen to American people so that your fragile ego is esuaged in some ill begotten vindication? Does anyone else see this as sick? Why wouldn't you wish for good things even if they come as a result of Republican movements???? It's assenine statements like this that cause people to question your patriotism.

Robert

Posted by: Nebo at November 11, 2004 12:29 PM

Posted by: mike at November 11, 2004 08:28 AM
Lupo,
Do YOU make this shit up? It was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic. Communism is Socialism.
If you like to be ruled go ahead, China which you are so proud of might have you. (Wasn't Tiannemen Square just a great example of the enlightened left.


And East Germany was called the "Democratic Republic" are you testing us ?

Nebo


"left wing right wing, damm it takes two for the bird to fly" Nebo c. 2000

Posted by: Erika at November 11, 2004 12:59 PM

Robert, Do you think you could use your Spell-Check when you write? Otherwise people are going to think that you are really dumb - Oh, wait! -- they already do, after reading your comments about the debates and your interpretation (from O'Really, Limbaugh, or Hannity??) of "Global Test"; also about the Republicans being the "moral party" for the little guy (I nearly wet my pants laughing at that one!), not to mention that you think no one here is "denied" a job or health care. Did you know that Bush includes all newly-activated military as NEW JOBS CREATED !???!!! How's that for cooking the books? Oh, by the way, I AM in health care, and if you think it's a mess now, I can guarantee you that it's going to get worse (and it doesn't have much to do with MD's high malpractice premiums.)

Coastopia, I'm with you -- these non-thinking, Bible-thumping Middle America types scare the hell out of me, and make me worry for the future of their country.

Posted by: Dave at November 11, 2004 1:08 PM

HEY!! Wisconsin is a BLUE STATE

Dont leave us with the Neanderthals !

Posted by: Randall at November 11, 2004 1:15 PM

European- Yes I was on the right plane and got off in the right place. And now that we have established the fact that you are somewhat lacking as a comedian, I can point out the following facts. In Germany, specifically, the government is looking to save money and boost productivity and business opportunities wherever possible. If you care to check the news, you will find that the social insurance benefits there are on the way to being reduced and limited. I know for a fact that there are now patient costs paid out of pocket that didn't exist when I lived there. I can still remember when co-pays for medications were introuduced for the first time. The government is now looking at just how much the extended vacations that they are allotted are hindering the economy. Another government study. The notion of privatizing pension schemes is again in the air. Private savings now have to be exhausted for long term care before the government picks up the tab. They are whittling away the benefits little by little because SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK. It can't be sustained. I was amazed during a trip back there last year at just how many changes have taken place as pertains to the social benefit system. As for the EU, damned few people there really give a damn about it. Its an organization with a constitution that has been foisted upon the Europeans, and opposition to it has always been there and in some ways is growing. Go ahead and dispute this if you like. I just can't understand how people can't look at the most prime example of the failure of socialism, the USSR, and not grasp the lessons there that beckon to be learned.

Posted by: Dan at November 11, 2004 1:56 PM

Robert,
Although your posts have shown more thought than most of the right wing simplistic sloganism and name calling, but I must take issue with you on your response to Tina’s post.

“I cried for 8 years, it is someone elses turn. Besides, they continue to lead the lifestyle of their choice and nobody proposes to interfere. It's never been more cool to be gay!”

Why were YOU crying? Was it simply that a Democrat was in office? I have survived under many Republican administrations without tears. Lest you haven’t kept abreast of the news, there is growing support in the newly elected right wing (NOT simply Republican) administration and Congress to re-initiate a Federal bill to ban gay marriages. I doubt that this news, combined with so much recent ultra conservative gay bashing makes them feel very “cool” at this point.

“At least they would if there was actually anyone who was actually "denied" these things” (i.e.: healthcare benefits)

Granted, these things are not denied if one has sufficient money. Where have you been during the past four years?

“Nobody denies that there is a health care crisis”

Why is there a health care crisis, and what steps have been taken by the Bush administration to correct this???

“but please don't pretend that democrats are the only ones who care. We have a different plan but just because you believe it doesn't work doesn't mean that we don't care.”

Funny, I didn’t read that anywhere in Tina’s post. Based on the history of the current administration, forgive me if I wait to see what kind of magic trick will be pulled from the right wing hat. You may have faith in Bush, but we have seen nothing to justify such faith.

“Employment is raising and unemplyment is falling as the economy continues to rebound thanks to Bush.”

Who got us into this economic crisis? As for a rebound, once again, I must take a wait and see approach. Some jobs have been REGAINED, and the stock market rose after the election with the most outstanding performers being energy and drug companies. Now there’s a surprise!

“The right has systematically gotten people on school boards so it can take all independent thinking out of schools.” - TINA
“Hmm, we must have learned that one from liberals who have taken God out and contraceptives and abortions in with the same tactics.”

Again, you are confusing independent thinking with perceived Christian doctrines. God does indeed belong in schools. They are known as “Sunday schools”. It is the right wing that has consistently tried to undermine the separation of church and state by trying to ban the teaching of evolution and promote Christian prayers in public schools. As a moderate Christian, I believe that God should be in my life, but NOT in our government or public institutions. Atheists, agnostics, and people of all faiths are equal under our constitution.

“If you think Bush is like Hitler, you are completely void of any knowledge of early 20th century Germany or you are psychologically depraved.”

I saw nothing in Tina’s post equating Bush to Hitler. I believe the point was that bad leaders can, and often are, supported by a popular majority. I suggest that YOU re-read your early 20th century history. In his early years, Hitler was very popular amongst the German people.

“My only hope lies in the tendency of the extreme right to shoot itself in the foot just when it gets powerful.”-TINA
“why on earth would an American patriot want bad things to happen to their fellow countrymen/women?????”

Shooting oneself in the foot is a very popular euphemism for screwing up! I saw NO implication that bad things were in any way supported. Correct me if I am mistaken, Tina, but I believe that you were simply referring to the fact that extremists of any ilk in this country tend to stumble before they can cause catastrophic damage.

“Why wouldn't you wish for good things even if they come as a result of Republican movements????”

If this administration can cause good things to happen, I doubt that anyone here would object. But, so far there is little reason to expect good things to happen unless one is a Christian fundamentalist who wishes to force his/her beliefs on others. Obviously the very wealthy and the major energy, drug, and insurance companies like what is happening as well.

May I humbly suggest that you read the posts more carefully before replying.
Thank you,
Dan

Posted by: Dan at November 11, 2004 2:10 PM

Lest I be jumped on for using poor grammar, I inadvertantly screwed up the sentence structure of the opening line in my last post :-) . Any errors in sentences surrounded by quotation marks were simply copied from Robert's post.

Lynn mentioned a song yesterday. I propose that we simply take "My Country 'tis of Thee". Although the first line suggests that the country exists because of God, the rest alludes to liberty, freedom, and Pilgrim's pride. These are values that the ultra right wing does not support except as it applies to them. Of course, we'll have to change the melody to something other than that of "God Save the Queen" :-)
Dan

Posted by: The other Washington at November 11, 2004 2:43 PM

Just checking in on Coastopia. It is a lovely autumn day here in Coastopia west and I was thinking it would just be fabulous to see Eastern Coastopia now. I hear the Fall Colors are just brilliant in New England. And then I was pondering about the Healthcare issue......

Coastopia received a post above from an tourist who says no one in the US gets denied
healthcare.
I am sad to tell you this is not true. ( want to say what rock having you been hiding under, but since being Coastopized, I am trying to take a civil stance, manners after all are very important in Coastopia.)

The tale... You're 26 years old and you inadvertantly slip off the roof while you are adjusting your dish, Crack open your head, your wrist is broken. The medics come, take you to the nearest emergency hospital, or I should say the nearest emergency hospital that takes indigent cases. Next thing you know they are telling you they have detected a lump in your throat which really needs to come out to make sure it is benign. You have no insurance. Who pays the medic, the emergency room, the hospital admission, then the discharge with a handful of prescriptions that cost about $488 to fill? Who pays your bill?, The government? Medicaid wouldn't cover this guy. Not on disability, Not old, No kids.
Our guy has several thousands of dollars in medical bills and maybe more in the future due to skipping on filling the prescriptions because he didn't have the cash. (after the infection flared up he ended up losing him job because they had to fill it ,gosh we're sorry but you were out 10 days.) The follow up Doctor assigned to his case wouldn't see him without cash up front, so he ended up pulling out his own stiches. The surgical doctor you were referred to won't see you or schedule the surgery for the lump without insurance or cash. (this is not the Docs fault, they are overwhelmed with indigent cases, they don't work for free and why should they?)

This scenerio occurs every day all over this country.

I don't know where folks are getting their information about the Canadian system, which agreed, has flaws but no where near the issues the U.S. has.
My mother lives near the Canadian border. The seniors load up the buses, & get prescriptions. It is a fun day trip and if going into Vancouver, man they have great, I mean great restaurants there. The prescriptions are so much cheaper it pays to take a trip up north including the meal. Whats up with that?

The Victoria Clipper runs from Seattle to Victoria is currently running a getaway special which includes a fun day in Victoria and a flu shot. THAT is how it is being advertised. (I hear a Seinfeld episode looming on this one, you just can't make this stuff up).

About every other person I know who as had that lazer eye surgery had it done in Canada as it is at least 1/2 the price which includes your gas/ferry to get there. Again just a little day jaunt.

If their system is as bad as you have been lead to believe you think they would be offering this to Americans? Some would make it sound like they have as large lines to see a Doctor in Canada as we have on election day.

And our guy in the 1st scenerio would have gotten his medical treatment and still be a hard working taxpaying citizen. (I think is name is Murphy).

Oh another thing I wanted to bring up. I think the Viola should be the Coastopia flower. I've noticed some of the tourists on this site have called Coastopians Pansies enough to warrant this gem with a happy face the official flower of Coastopia. Perhaps the pansy could be incorporated into the official flag.

Posted by: the other washington at November 11, 2004 3:19 PM

Can Coastopia have a rock n roll song in addition to an anthem? Won't Get Fooled Again by the Who is one that comes to mind. (and it gives equal soul searching for both left and right).

Posted by: the other washington at November 11, 2004 3:45 PM

I'm just verifying my claim re the Flu shot special.

Here's the link to the Victoria Clipper website and scroll down to see flu shot special.

http://www.victoriaclipper.com/

The consensus I hear from Canada is we all have been alien abducted. (maybe the rapure has happened and the pod people are taking over) I hope someone tells them relief is here, Coastopia borders much of our patient neighbors'to the North. I think they will let us borrow "American Woman" by the Guess Who and love to be the neighbor of Coastopia.

Posted by: the other washington at November 11, 2004 3:59 PM

Yet another flu shot special. There's a wee bit of a dig there about the timely and efficient healthcare system of America..
http://www.onlinefit.com/products/index.cfm/Category/346

Posted by: Ishtar at November 11, 2004 4:12 PM

First of all, I have to commend my dad on his excellent post. You were far more articulate than I have been. You also have far more life experience in seeing the progression of politics and world experience in your travels of the world.
----------------
Oh by the way, I'm a capitalist. Again with the liberal paint brushes. Though fraught with the potential for abuse, capitalism increases competition which decreases prices and makes a market for better products and services. The health care system in this country, DOES need help though. I don't think that one should live or die based on how much money they have.

Where I do get critical is when big business is in bed with the legislative authority. Being for capitalism does not mean being in favor of letting it go unchecked, unaccountable, and having government license to do so. I do not feel that it is right for businesses to be able to circumvent clean air laws (we have to breathe the air!) that we as citizens have to follow because they've poured enough money into campaign contributions. I believe they must be held accountable when they engage in flagrantly illegal activities and not with official "I'm sorry" hearings. They cause long term harm to more people than a drug dealer, so by all means, treat them like a drug dealer. How about a ten year minimum sentence for some of the shennanigans they've been playing? When the CEO can go from being a billionare to trading cigarettes for favors, maybe he'll think long and hard about cheating all his employees out of their pensions.

The Bush administration is in bed with many of these corporations, but he's a friend to the little guy!! He is!! The fact that grandpa has to greet people at Wal-Mart because the company he worked at for decades cheated him when the heads of the company are still wealthy beyond dreams and had government help doesn't mean Bush isn't for the little guy. Creating tax cuts for the rich in the middle of a recession and then pouring YOUR tax money into bombing and subsequently rebuilding another country doesn't mean Bush isn't for the little guy. Keeping you and/or your kids in the military to fight a ridiculous war way past your/their rotation doesn't mean he isn't for the little guy. Making huge cuts to state programs doesn't mean he isn't for the little guy. He has an accent. He's for 'family values' (even though Chelsea Clinton and the Kerry girls seem a lot closer to values than his daughters). That makes him good for Middle America. He cares about them. He said so himself.

Please. Tax cuts to the rich, SUV owners, etc? The most SUVs I've ever seen has been in urban Los Angeles. You guys think he's representing you?
--------

For the proposition of Texas leaving. Okay! Few funny things. First off, if Kerry had won, and a webpage like this emerged about Texas, I wouldn't go into a rampaging snit about them being whiners and telling them to go f- themselves, or telling them that if they try it, I'm going to unleash some military whoopass on them. I'd figure they were blowing off steam about the election, and it's perfectly healthy.

Second of all, Texas may want to take a cue from Coastopia. Being your own nation is fine, and Texas certainly has a number of resources that will help it thrive. California will do well also, particularly since we won't have to sell out our power. Isolating yourself to the extent you've described may not be the best bet. Free trade is a wonderful thing. Of course, if you do so, it's your business.

One thing that may spark retaliation from the "others" (and other countries) is that if you attempt to do things like shut down other people's satellite systems, chances are *someone* will bomb you. Particularly if just Texas separates without any other states, my guess is that you're going to have a hard time defending yourself from the equally well-armed factions of the rest of the South over missing television. Americans take their tv seriously. It would be fair for Americans and Coastopians to FUND their own satellites. Personally, I can take or leave tv, so don't worry, I won't be one of the ones arming against you.

We'll be fine on the oil situation, so that is okay. Our governor will be crushed though. If you want to FULLY isolate yourselves, you might want to increase your funding for NASA preemptively. Though everyone hates Bill Gates, suddenly having no access to the outside computer industry may be a hard blow. If you're willing to trade with nations OTHER than America and Coastopia, you'll probably be fine. Total isolation will probably require a change in lifestyle.

But on behalf of Coastopia, whom you're welcome to trade with if you so desire, I would welcome Texas' independence, and feel free to leave if a future election leaves you feeling as we feel now.

Ishie

Posted by: Dan at November 11, 2004 4:16 PM

Dear fellow Coastopians,
I see that it is a slow day on the site. This is, hopefully, due to the fact that many people have a holiday today. I sincerely hope that interest hasn’t waned! Since I have some free time, I wanted to address the recent debate that has been occurring on this site regarding Socialism and Communism. I will start by correcting one of the posters who said that Socialism and Communism were the same. I suggest that the poster read Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky to get the facts. To all of the right wing flamers who immediately want to start throwing stones at me, let me simply say that I have read many books, including the bible cover to cover. This simply means that I am literate :-). Communism is a POLITICAL system, whereas Socialism is an ECONOMIC system.

With that out of the way, how did this debate start? Did I miss a post wherein someone suggested that Coastopia adopt Socialism as its economic system? Personally, I do not think that Socialism is the best system for our new nation. Many of our allies, or at least some of the few that we have left :-), have Socialist economic systems. How well or poorly it is working in any given nation is a subject that could be debated for years. Its efficacy entirely depends upon the nation under discussion as well as the spin put on “facts” due to individual’s economic leanings.

That is not the point, however. I strongly suspect that this debate erupted as a result of the confusion in definitions by right wing advocates. Being a liberal or having liberal tendencies has NOTHING to do with Socialism. Mrs. G posted the actual definition of “liberal” here on 11/7. It is as follows:

"Liberal:
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or
authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress,
and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism."

While I greatly enjoy most of the debates in this forum so graciously provided by Ian, I really don’t enjoy being a mere fact checker. In order to keep this site alive and interesting, I encourage all posters to check their own facts before submitting their posts. A bit of spell checking would also be appreciated :-).
Now that Ian has appropriately shut down the name callers, some of the discussion could get quite interesting.

Who knows, Coastonians, we might even be able to slightly reduce the amount of manure that is permitting the shrub to grow and flourish! :-)
Keep Coastonia alive and well!!
Dan

Posted by: the other Washington at November 11, 2004 4:36 PM

AND you can get practically anything on EBay anyway shipped right to your door. Golly gee if it isn't on E Bay I probably don't need it.

And yes Ishie, your Dad has presented thoughtful and articulate ideas. He is a welcomed diplomat of Coastopia. He rocks.

I am grateful most of the Coastopians have retained their quick witted sense of humor in the midst of some shall I say, colorful language. Where's the Holy Spirit when you need him...whoops, her, whoops, thee.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 11, 2004 5:28 PM

"If hate did go over well, Kerry would be President."

If hate didn't go over well, Jim Bunning wouldn't be a senator. "limp wristed"? Come on!

"Kerry was not painted a traitor by the campaign any more than Bush was painted the next Hitler by Kerry's campaign."

I'm not in a swing state, but I missed the campaign ads where well funded organizations with close ties to the Kerry camp called Bush Hitler? I saw "Bush is a Nazi" on a lot of signs held up by protestors, but I don't usually judge a candidate based on what jobless people can do with cardboard. I don't claim that there isn't a lot of hate against Bush. I've met a few pro-Kerry people, but they're few and far between. Mostly, I meet anti-Bush people, because Kerry's whole appeal is that he isn't Bush. I never denied that. So that people voting against Bush would hate Bush is hardly a surprise to me. I'm talking about campaign tactics. Both sides were bad (per usual). What I saw coming directly from the Bush camp or those very closely tied to his administration was worse than what I saw out of the Kerry camp. The Swift Boat Veterans, of course, top the list. Also funny is that some of Bush's strongest detractors were defectors from his own administration. *That* spoke VERY strongly to me. So did the subsequent action by the Bush camp to disavow themselves of any association with the defectors. They slammed people with decades of political service, including under his own administration as traitors and dissidents and ill informed, even when what these people are saying backs up what independent investigations are saying.

They're not even nice to their own people. Of course part of my dislike of the Bush tactics is leftover from the struggles with McCain in the 2000 election, which I found disgusting. I've watched McCain now give pro-Bush speeches, which is disappointing, but I've never seen him look particularly thrilled about it when he did. In the early stages, he looked almost ill.

"He stumped about a draft that he knew wasn't true."

There is a backdoor draft. I didn't get that from Kerry. I've gotten that from seeing it myself. If Bush continues on a path of invading countries in his ever growing "Axis of Evil" while continuing to keep troops in Iraq, he will need a draft. Military recruitment is quite understandably down. We still have people in Afghanistan. In the meantime, we are leaving our country pretty open. If we're so concerned with Homeland Security, shouldn't we have more of our troops protecting the Homeland? And isn't a little hypocritical to use the National Guard to circumvent Vietnam and then kick members of the NG into Iraq?

I'm concerned about a draft. I was before Kerry tried ineffectively to use it. I am not concerned with one in the next year or so, but over the next FOUR years? Heck yes!! If "freeing people from oppression" and "spreading democracy", currently our ONLY justification for this war since the other excuses have fallen flat is a policy for invasion of another country, we're going to need a draft! Do you have any idea how many dictators there are on this planet?

"He stumped about lies the President supposedly told even though he had made the exact same assertions."

Lies the president did tell. We wanted to crucify Clinton for lying despite the fact his lies didn't affect us. Isn't it relevant that Bush lied too? I'm sure Kerry has lied as well. Those are important points to bring up. If Bush talked about where Kerry lied, I don't call that "hate". When he's calling him a "Massachusetts liberal", a "flip-flopper", and his people are calling him a traitor for fighting in a war he didn't, I call that hate. Criticism isn't hate.

I didn't mind the criticism of Kerry's senate record, either. What I did mind was the deliberate trumping up of claims by counting the number of times something was mentioned in ONE bill which he voted against to make it look like larger numbers. If a bill says something about a raise in taxes, you can't just take the pieces you like. If the bill says "raise this tax a quarter percent, this by one percent", etc twenty three times, Bush has "Kerry voted to raise taxes twenty-three times!" Come on. Also, I have seen the commercial showing Kerry making a no vote. It lists a number of issues and shows Kerry saying "No" on all of them, making him look anti-military. It was a vote against ONE bill, so they play the clip repeatedly. Common technique on comedy shows. So they trumped up his senate record.

"You want to talk about negative, Kerry's campaign was all negative. I didn't see ONE commercial that didn't include some kind of Bush bashing."

Kerry started the campaign on a rather positive foot. He and the Democrats apparently realized they were "the lesser of two evils" so emphasized where Bush has screwed up. I never denied that, nor said Kerry ran a campaign based on love and leadership. What I am saying is that claiming "voters don't like the hate" flies in face of a rather substantial amount of it poured from the Bush camp. Admittedly, the Republicans are just far better at it.

My feeling is that where the Democrats made a huge mistake was in not taking a more decisive stand against Bush. Not in the direction of hate and lies, but taking him to task for absolutely everything he's done wrong, and it's a long list. The story on the loss of our weapons in Iraq came out like a week before the election, and that sort of thing should be a 'breaker', but it wasn't well handled by the Democrats.

I think the Democrats made a huge mistake in trying to be middle of the road on BUSH issues, not party issues. They have a candidate going "Well... I voted to grant power to invade Iraq, but I wouldn't have done it that way, but I was feeling really pressured to vote yes because he said I was with terrorists if I didn't, which makes me kind of a wimp." I fully agree that they didn't really have a position to begin with because they were starting with someone who laid down to Bush. They needed a candidate that said to hell with coddling Bush like the reporters do; YOU LIED TO US!!!! Over a thousand soldiers are dead because you lied!!

"The "global test" comment was NOT taken out of context. Kerry said it to suggest that he would act pre-emptively if necessary, but he would do it in a way that passed the global test."

AFTER that he continued to drone on about what exactly he meant, and it wasn't "ask France". It was very reasonable.

"So liberals get all bunched up because of the mention of the pre-emptive comment."

I think pre-emptive wars need to be VERY carefully examined. Otherwise one could argue that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack; it was a pre-emptive strategic strike on government and economic targets. Since we obviously now DO pose a threat to the Muslim world, we seem to have proved them right. Since I DO think 9/11 was murder, and I DO think there should not be a precedent set for bombing people you suspect of something, I do think it should be pretty hard to do. They had far more evidence to convict OJ than Bush had to go into Iraq and now thousands of people are dead. If we were any other country, the UN would have sent in troops AGAINST us.

"Two things. First, anything before the word "but" is a lie, your fourth grade english teacher can confirm this for you."

Pithy slogans should not be used to determine policy. If we are going to discuss what my fourth grade English teacher told me (which didn't include "anything before the word 'but' is a lie", we probably shouldn't approach Bush's speeches, nor his poor performance in the debates. Apparently when you make people sign loyalty oaths at your public appearances, your discourse skills get a little weak.

"Second, Kerry's comments conveniently avoid the inevitability that acting pre-emptively may never pass a global test like the situation in Iraq."

The situation in Iraq shouldn't have passed a 'global test', nor did it. They didn't have weapons of mass destruction and didn't pose a threat to us. Seems to me that maybe if we'd listened to France, Germany, and the majority of the world rather than occupying ourselves with renaming food and pouring out wines for which we had already paid (when I saw that on the news, by the way, I laughed so hard I cried), we might have a few more soldiers coming home to their families, a better economic standing, and a better world position.

"So dance around his words all day long,"

Who is dancing? You made the claim that the people aren't swayed by hate, when quite clearly they are. You dance around the Bush administration's clearly hateful activities along with a history of polls showing the success of smear campaigns, while denouncing Kerry as being inconsistant and hypocritical, which I agreed with in the first place!

Really the only place you might see me "dancing" is on the 'global test' statement. That is due to seeing Kerry explain the position, shrugging and figuring it was a good idea, and then later seeing Condy talk about the 'global test' in a completely different context and going "huh?"

When Kerry genuinely screws up, I'm the first to admit it. I cringed both times when he and Edwards dragged Dick Cheney's daughter into the fray. Not only was it immature (and more representative of being hateful and petty than the claims you brought up), but it was awkward and obvious. I also have to admit (painful as it is), that in a rare departure from his usual nefarious "I torture puppies" manner of address, Cheney handled it exceptionally well.

"With his "global Test" comment, Kerry made it clear that he would not act in a way that was condemnable by the world."

LOL, in years past, this would have been considered a good quality. By the way...

--"No President, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

"But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."--

There's no dancing. He does not say or implicate he's going to ask other countries for permission, though Bush, Rice, and many others have stated DIRECTLY that is what he means. Though the world was against us, HAD we found WMDs, a budding nuclear program, and/or wide undeniable support for the 9/11 attacks, that WOULD have justified the Iraq war to the world. We would have known why we went in. It would have passed the 'global test', despite those who said we shouldn't go in.

Since we gunslung in on our own without adequate evidence, we have a war where even the Americans that support it cannot usually give the reason we're there. Many cite an involvement by Saddam's regime in 9/11, which our OWN intelligence reports isn't true.

"The administration has convinced people that they are the moral party for the little guy because they are and they have a record to run on."

What record? First of all, I'm pro choice, but while Bush has rattled a lot of cages about abortion, he hasn't really done much to stem the tide. Gay marriage is pretty much the ONLY 'moral' issue he's pushed hard. Banning gay marriage doesn't help the little guy. It convinces some little guys that the administration gives a s--- what they think.

He is moral choice for the little guy, but he executed more people on Death Row than any other governor? I'm also pro-death penalty by the way, though I don't understand why so many Christians are, but considering the number of problems they've been finding with the death penalty (like a third of people being released off death row because DNA evidence proved they didn't do the crime) means one might want to be a little less trigger happy. Or at least, reform the system.

He cut taxes for the richest, and threw some change at the little guy to placate him. In the meantime, the living expenses in this country have gone up while the average salaries have gone down. Jobs have been at a record down, and they've stooped to tactics like calling burger-flipping a "manufacturing job". Yeah, that minimum wage paycheck will feed a family. Maybe they can take the two hundred return from the government and buy a nice junked car to live in. Gas prices have been at an all time high. We jump at every 'lowering' of prices and fail to notice we are paying more than we ever have. $2.30 a gallon here? I was ticked off when gas prices TEMPORARILY jumped to $1.80 and then dropped back again. We've been paying well over two bucks a gallon now for well over a year. I do not drive a gas gorging SUV. I drive a tiny hyundai that gets about 30 mph. It's still a financial strain. If I could afford an SUV, then I might be able to also afford fueling it. I could at least afford to sell the SUV and get an economy car.

"Kerry also has a record and none of it suggests that he will do anything for the little guy except raise his taxes for more socialist programs."

Right now, despite having a full time job, I have no health care. Fortunately, I'm young and healthy. Many cannot afford health care, cannot pay their bills and the system is absorbing it anyway. Kids are uncovered. Hospitals cut staffing leading to inadequate healthcare for everyone. I'm not a "socialist", though as a liberal, I get called one, but right now I'll take a 'socialist' plan above no plan.

Besides, I'm all for tax cuts in some situations. I don't like that the government gets over a quarter of my check (I make squat, in case you're wondering), particularly since I know that part of it is going to storm Fallujah. I also know that cutting taxes when you are in the midst of an economic recession and the worst deficit in history is a bad idea. I don't like taxes, but I don't like cuts to schools and emergency services even more.

By the way, to all who seem confused on this... someone is not "strengthening the economy" when you are deeply in debt with thousaneds of lost jobs and there's a hiccup or a policy that starts to slow the downward momentum. Generally, the stock market wavers before an election due to uncertainty and gets a small spike after an election, particularly when an incumbent president is re-elected.

With Clinton, we had a huge budget surplus. No matter what you want to blame on him, we were in the black when he left office. We now have a record deficit. How about a little accountability? As a recent student, I am in debt. I got by pretty well, and only needed to borrow about 8 thousand dollars for college.

This isn't a lot of money even as far as college debt is concerned. It's certainly nothing compared to the country's debt. Now, if I go from 8 thousand dollars to FOUR thousand dollars in debt, that is a significant, noteworthy improvement. If I go from 8 thousand dollars in debt to $7,998 in debt, that is not worth mentioning. Heck, if I call my loan officers and ask them to just GIVE me the two bucks, they probably would.

Commending Bush for finally having a slight uptrend in what was a straight trainride to Hell seems a bit much. Kerry was right on the money by pointing out how much less the 'created' jobs pay, and we still have a major net job loss.

Ishie

Posted by: Dan at November 11, 2004 5:37 PM

Hi Ishie and the other Washington,

Thank you for your kind comments. I have thoroughly enjoyed the posts by you both. I’m afraid that I am a bit partial to Ishie’s posts. It’s that father, daughter thing you know. What can I say :-).

It may be wishful thinking, but it seems that the posts here are moving onto a higher plain. I just hope that the right wing element hasn’t taken their toys and gone home in frustration :-). We need their dissent for comic relief if nothing else!
Dan

Posted by: the other washington at November 11, 2004 6:19 PM

LOL....yes indeedee, the post from the good Doctor had me thinking...is this for real?? (I have a Doctorate, Shove it post). Was this baiting or does someone out there REALLY want to invade much of the middle east, Afganistan and Iraq are only the appetizers?

We can add a line to the song, "Where have all the Soldiers Gone", to Where will all the soldiers come from?? I'm thinking the Canadian Armed Forces which some have tried to dis a bit on these pages may be our hope if some disaster hits home, because our National Guard will be over seas if Dr.Shove it had his way.

When they start calling up reserves that qualify to get an AARP card and have been out of the "Biz" several years, I get a little worried. It says to me we have bitten off more than we can chew.

Posted by: Jeff at November 11, 2004 7:06 PM

i must thank the bible belt from saving me 'a northie' from my own doom. the US has now elected such a strong and unwaivering leader who will lead us in a "new direction". it feels good to know that so many people had my best intrests in mind when this whole election thing happened.

lets put the new capital of coastopia in the heartland. they do know best.

Posted by: Dan at November 11, 2004 7:11 PM

the other washington,

Sadly, "Dr. shove it" is far from being alone in his warped viewpoint. There are large numbers of right wing slime balls...er, I mean individuals who would like to see the entire nation of Islam distroyed. After that it will probably be either the Jews or the blacks. As I mentioned earlier, justification for the war in Iraq is inconsequential to the extremists. They see us as fighting a holy war against the heathen hordes. On the plus side, these extremists are not in the majority even amongst right wingers.

Posted by: Levi at November 12, 2004 4:36 AM

In my life (41 years), I have never heard a "Right Winger" talk about hating blacks, muslims, or any other group. I have heard much hate spewed about anyone who does not walk in lock step with the democratic view point.
I am finishing my Masters this semester, and any student with a view other than the left leaning view knows to stay silent.
I would like to vote democratic for some issues but with the hate the extreme left has toward anyone of a Christian Faith I can not do this.
Until Democrats start truly practicing "tolerance" we will always be a minority party.

Posted by: Redneck Flagwaver at November 12, 2004 6:41 AM

I noticed you sell t-shirts 'made in the USA'. Do you plan on opening trade relations with us?

Posted by: Robert at November 12, 2004 10:20 AM

Responses to Erika, Dan and Ishie.....


Erika,

Bush doesn't have anything to do with the reports coming from the Labor Department and in case you haven't checked the latest, there was another 337,000 jobs created on October alone. If it makes you feel better to suggest that I have to get my opinion from conservative pundits, it's ok but please don't think you can actually marginalize my opinion because on November 2, I voted just like you (presumably). Also, make what you will of my typos, your personal attack means nothing to me.

Dan,

"there is growing support in the newly elected right wing (NOT simply Republican) administration and Congress to re-initiate a Federal bill to ban gay marriages" Agreed and it is certainly something that gays would be concerned about, but there is also good news on the horizon. Bush has parted with the party platform and stated that he would support civil or domestic union. This would grant the same rights and assuage the fears of the Christian right. I am with him on this. Gays should have all the same rights and they will of they can get over the semantical hurdle. Last thing here is that nothing has been taken from gays so it's not as if they are moving backwards.

"Why is there a health care crisis, and what steps have been taken by the Bush administration to correct this???" Another fair question. I think Bush needs to take one on the chin here, but he did have some pretty pressing issues to deal with. We can criticize the President for not doing enough in his first term or we can recognize that it's a complex crisis, that was building well before Bush and requires a unified effort to solve. Also, fighting a war on terror in the wake of the worst terrorist attack ever on the heels of a recession is pretty taxing for any President.

"You may have faith in Bush, but we have seen nothing to justify such faith." And you saw something in Kerry to justify faith in him?

"Who got us into this economic crisis?" Glad you asked. The recession was first identified in March of 2001, three months into Bush's term. On the face of it, it seems it might be a Bush recession even though all economic indicators starting falling the last six months of Clinton's Presidency. But the real important factor here is that Bush's FIRST economic plan wasn't introduced to Congress until September of 2001. So since Clinton's economic policies were still in effect before, during and following the official declaration of recession, it would see as if it is a Clinton recession. Then the attack of 9/11 exacerbated the problem.

"you are confusing independent thinking with perceived Christian doctrines" No, I am only comparing the tactics for change. If liberals want to get all broken nosed about conservatively influenced school boards, they are hypocritical. They deployed the exact tactics to move their agenda.

"I saw nothing in Tina’s post equating Bush to Hitler"................Tina's quote "It feels like Nuremburg, 1936,to me. Remember, the people voted en masse for Hitler. He didn't do it by himself, he did it just the way Shrub is doing it." Dan, open your eyes, the comparison is right before your eyes. Tina swallowed the moveon.org propaganda that compared Bush to Hitler.

"Shooting oneself in the foot is a very popular euphemism for screwing up! " I addressed this with "Assuming that you are speaking metaphorically" so we agree on that. My point was that in order for them to "screw up" would invariably mean that the country is run poorly and our problems are exacerbated. Why would anyone want that?

"there is little reason to expect good things to happen unless one is a Christian fundamentalist who wishes to force his/her beliefs on others" Wanting to preserve things the way they are isn't forcing anyone's beliefs on others. Quite the opposite is true. It is gays that are forcing their beliefs on the rest of us. Just because their beliefs are agnostic versus religious doesn't make their efforts justifiable.

"May I humbly suggest that you read the posts more carefully before replying." You can suggest anything you want and you to can criticize me on a personal level if it helps you feel better about your positions.

ISHIE

"I missed the campaign ads where well funded organizations with close ties to the Kerry camp called Bush Hitler" They are called moveon.org, which is sponsored by George Soros, which has the same proximity to Kerry that the Swift Boat Vets had to Bush. And yes, they compared Bush to Hitler. Ask Erika, she seems to have seen it.

"I'm talking about campaign tactics. Both sides were bad " Kerry didn't have an ad that didn't lie about Bush. Lies are hate! Bush often spoke about his accomplishments, his plans and his vision without mentioning his opponent. Kerry never opened his mouth without a lie to say about Bush. All the man had was hate, lies and more hate.

"Bush's strongest detractors were defectors from his own administration" Not true at all. Bush's strongest detractors were flaming liberals like Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Terry McAauliff and hollywood types like Barbara Streishand, Chevy Chase and Bruce Springstein. There was a fired ex-Secretary of the Treasury, so maybe you're right, his own people do hate him.

"They're not even nice to their own people" And your example is what? I know the democrats that threw Kerry a picnic in the summer at Sorgels Farm in Western Pennsylvania. All the volunteers were asked not to approach the Senator and that he would address them privately afterwards. He showed up for less than a minute, didn't talk to anyone personally and didn't shake any hands and left. Hows that a way to say thanks?

"I've watched McCain now give pro-Bush speeches, which is disappointing" Why? Because he refused to allow liberals to create a rift and divide the party? McCain certainly had a reason to be bitter but don't get upset when you see Republicans take a page from the liberal handbook that dictates party first!

"There is a backdoor draft" First, no there isn't. All military personnel are committed to the inactive reserve for at least two years beyond their active commitment, which essentailly says that they agree to stay in if needed. Nobody is getting the shaft. I know because I made that commitment. Second, Kerry didn't bother to make this distinction as he tried to scare 18-35 year olds into believeing they could be next. Third, how is it that Kerry claims that our military is spread too thin and we will need a draft, then turn around and criticize the President for not committing enough troops to win the peace and promising at least another 40,000 when elected? If the military is spread so thin, where is Kerry going to get these additional 40,000 troops??? Interesting question isn't it?

"And isn't a little hypocritical to use the National Guard to circumvent Vietnam and then kick members of the NG into Iraq?" Not any more than serving in Vietnam, coming home and distancing yourself from the military, telling lies about your fellow servicemen, providing aid and comfort to our enemy and 35 years later, pretending that the four months you spent committing war crimes qualifies you to be commander-in-chief.

"Isn't it relevant that Bush lied too? " Bush didn't lie and the country agrees with me here.

"What I did mind was the deliberate trumping up of claims by counting the number of times something was mentioned in ONE bill which he voted against to make it look like larger numbers" Sorry but the 23 votes are all seperate bills to introduce new taxes during his 20 year Senate career. Check the record. If you count every floor motion and committee votes, that number rises well over 300. Bigger picture here is that Kerry only has a record of voting for higher taxes, NEVER lower taxes.

"It lists a number of issues and shows Kerry saying "No" on all of them, making him look anti-military" Kerry can't hide from his record any more than you can. The man voted against every weapons system now in use on the war on terror. He voted for a missle freeze when Reagan was building them up to defeat the Soviets. He voted against the first Gulf war. His record suggest strong anti-military. Perhaps he developed a bad taste for them while committing all those war crimes?

"My feeling is that where the Democrats made a huge mistake was in not taking a more decisive stand against Bush" Did you watch the election at all? They lost because this is ALL THEY DID.

"They needed a candidate that said to hell with coddling Bush like the reporters do; YOU LIED TO US!!!! Over a thousand soldiers are dead because you lied!!" Again, no lies were told. Next, you had a candidate like that, his name was Howard Dean.

"one could argue that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack; it was a pre-emptive strategic strike on government and economic targets" Only a radical Islamo fascist would argue that or maybe an America hating liberal.

"when you make people sign loyalty oaths at your public appearances, your discourse skills get a little weak." Now, I have to assume that you know that this was ONE isolated incident conducted by overzealous election volunteers, not the Bush campaign. It was a mistake, it was recognized as a mistake and it wouldn't have even been necessary if the liberals would respect our right to peacefully gather.

"later seeing Condy talk about the 'global test' in a completely different context " It was not taken out of context. It was talked about in the contect under which Kerry would use it, which is exactly the same context that Kerry spoke of it.

I said "With his "global Test" comment, Kerry made it clear that he would not act in a way that was condemnable by the world." Your reply was " in years past, this would have been considered a good quality" What you conveniently left out was my "context", which was by doing what is right for the US. Kerry will not act in a way that is condemnable by the world EVEN IF IT IS RIGHT FOR THE US. This is NEVER a good qaulity. It undermines our sovereignty.

"you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." What if you can't convince the world??? Does this mean you shouldn't be doing it in the first place?? If this is your stance, you are claiming that our interests NEVER conflict with the world. That's a pretty narrow view!

"Since we gunslung in on our own without adequate evidence, we have a war where even the Americans that support it cannot usually give the reason we're there. Many cite an involvement by Saddam's regime in 9/11. Nobody says this. Not Bush, not conservatives, nobody.

"He cut taxes for the richest, and threw some change at the little guy to placate him" This tells me that you have no economic or even mathematical understanding. First an across the board tax cut is obviously going to impact those you pay more taxes more than those who pay less taxes. So by your logic, either we need to reduce the tax burden on middle class by more than they actually pay in taxes or we reduce the break to the wealthy to a point were it makes no difference and doesn't help the economy. Your class baiting doesn't work! An across the board tax cut means everybody gets a break. Those that pay more get more. Those that pay less get less. That is fair despite how unfair you try to make it sound.

"average salaries have gone down" This was true between September 2000 and early 2003. Read the latest salary report available from the labor depatrment. It tells a different story.

"they've stooped to tactics like calling burger-flipping a "manufacturing job". " Uhh, no they didn't. Where is your proof of this? moveon.org?

"Yeah, that minimum wage paycheck will feed a family. " It's rare that anyone would be trying to feed a family has a minimum wage job. Having worked in retail management for several years in the inner city of DC, I know a LOT about the opportunities available. Anyone that shows up for work, is reliable and works hard will not make minimum wage for very long. ANYONE. If someone is making minimum after years and years, I can gaurantee you that there is another problem.

"Gas prices have been at an all time high" How is this possible since we went to war for oil?

"If I could afford an SUV, then I might be able to also afford fueling it." I'm sure you don't need big government to succeed do you? I don't

"Right now, despite having a full time job, I have no health care" Get a new job! Again, you don't need big government to solve your problems. The fact that you think it is their job tells me that you feel that you are entitled to what other people work for!

"right now I'll take a 'socialist' plan above no plan" Do a little homework. Socialized medicine has failed miserably everywhere it has been tried, even Canada!

"I also know that cutting taxes when you are in the midst of an economic recession and the worst deficit in history is a bad idea." That's because you don't know anything about economics. Never in the history of mankind has a nation ever taxed itself into prosperity. The economy is spurred when the private sector is free to invest and profiteer. Tax cuts do just that!

"I don't like cuts to schools and emergency services even more" Uh, since most of this funding comes from a local, regional or state level, I'd say that any cuts that you saw are probably nothing more than a contrived effort to raise any or all of those taxes.

"someone is not "strengthening the economy" when you are deeply in debt with thousands of lost jobs " I laugh at liberals who throw the deficit up! I notice that deficit spending didn't bother you for 35 years prior. It's only since the GOP controlled congress of 94 forced Clinton to have a balanced budget is it an issue. Also jobs are up, up and up. Look back over the past 19 months!

"With Clinton, we had a huge budget surplus" Again, thanks to the GOP controlled Congress and the "Contract with America" in 1994

"We now have a record deficit" Due to a recession that statred while Clinton was still in office.

Ishie, I know you won't be swayed. You are so partisanly blinded, nothing I say is going to make a difference. I just wish your opinions were based on facts and not the leftist propaganda. But I'll always remember what Winston Churchill said. "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain."

Robert


Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 10:41 AM

Dear Levi,

“In my life (41 years), I have never heard a "Right Winger" talk about hating blacks, muslims, or any other group.”

As I have mentioned in my previous posts to this site, PLEASE read the posts carefully before responding. You will notice that I was referring to EXTREMISTS on the right, whom I point out are NOT in the majority amongst right-wingers. I have the misfortune of now living in a southern state where racism against blacks, Jews, and Muslims is expressed frequently. The KKK is but one example. All of these extremists hate groups are ULTRA right wing, and most of them trump up some biblical justification for their abhorrent actions. I have many differences with most right wing advocates, but I have never accused them of being hate groups with the exception of the extremists. In my opinion, also stated in a previous post, extremists of ANY leaning are wrong and often dangerous.

“I have heard much hate spewed about anyone who does not walk in lock step with the democratic view point.”

This is very surprising to me! I have found that exactly the opposite is true. If you will scroll up and read many of the earlier posts on this site, you will find profanity laden vituperative directed against the good people of Coastopia because we do not support the current administration. Fortunately, Ian, the site’s moderator no longer allows these hate posts.

“I am finishing my Masters this semester, and any student with a view other than the left leaning view knows to stay silent.”

I don’t know where you attend school, but I find this to be sad. Perhaps you are simply dealing with a group of sophomoric students who are angry at the election results, and while many Democrats and non-Bush Republicans are angry, that is no excuse for disrespect toward anyone who behaves in a reasonable and tolerant manner. I refer you to one of my posts yesterday, which includes the definition of liberal.

“I would like to vote democratic for some issues but with the hate the extreme left has toward anyone of a Christian Faith I can not do this.”

Again, as I have stated in previous posts, I am a Christian myself. I simply have a firm belief in the separation of church and state. When religion is incorporated into our government and public institutions, many citizens are disenfranchised by default. This is NOT what the American Republic is based upon. I believe you will find that, in the vast majority of cases, Democrats oppose Christianity ONLY when people or governments attempt to force it upon others.

“Until Democrats start truly practicing "tolerance" we will always be a minority party."

I can only refer you to public radio and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly. I have seldom heard the few Democratic talk show moderators extant resort to such snappy retorts as “Shut up, ya pinko commie” when their views are challenged. You will find that such retorts are commonplace amongst conservative moderators, most of whom are ultra conservative.

Thank you for your input! Things were getting a bit dull around here.
Dan

Posted by: mike at November 12, 2004 10:47 AM

I would advise all future coastopians to read Animal Farm By George Orwell.
This would be the crystal ball of coastopias future.
Communism is socialism, because with a socialist form of economy all citizens (comrades) are dependent on the government. When a people are dependent on a government to give them all their needs, then they are slaves to that government and are no longer a free people. I love freedom not government care.
I can promise you that you would be the "little people" and that Michael Moore would still live in a mansion while coastopians lived in huts. You should have seen the poverty of East Berlin compared to the beauty of West Berlin before the wall came down. People were not trying to escape from West Berlin but they were jumping out of buildings and being shot trying to escape form East Berlin.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 12, 2004 11:01 AM

"In my life (41 years), I have never heard a "Right Winger" talk about hating blacks, muslims, or any other group."

Where do you live? I'm only 23 (24 tomorrow). I lived for five years in the South. I have heard more antipathy towards blacks and particularly Muslims than I ever cared to hear. When I first moved to Wilmington, NC (later to Charlotte), which was not THAT long ago, one of the first things I heard was a baby right winger spewing what her parents told her about interracial relationships. What's funny is some of the crap I heard in NC about interracial relationships is the same stuff I've heard aboug gay marriage, though the interracial naysayers tend to bring kids into it more.

I met a few open racists when it came to black people. I actually have met a couple in CA too. Most of the people who were racist though didn't think they were racist. They had differing degrees of mistrust or 'misplaced helpfulness', but they'd spew some stuff out of these sentiments you wouldn't believe.

With Muslims, I've found a far more open hatred, particularly in the South, though fortunately I was not there immediately post 9/11. I've heard them commonly referred to by the 'raghead'/'towelhead' racial slurs. I've heard the "Well, I know a guy from Iran and he's a Christian and tolerant! I don't see why the other people have to dress differently and act weird." I've also heard people who see a Sikh in a turban and go "Frigging terrorists". They can't even get their stereotypes correct! After 9/11, there was a surge of anti-Muslimism, even showing up in CA. The Sikhs in the Sacramento community had an identity parade to try and make people aware of the fact they aren't Muslim, nor are they even from the Middle East. I know MEXICANS who had terrorism stuff yelled at them after 9/11. How is that for ignorance?

I've also heard stuff from right wingers on Latinos. NC again. Some stuff about illegal aliens (In NC?) and gardener and 'stupid' jokes.

If you haven't heard this stuff, you're lucky. I have met many right wingers, and a number of them start off like nice people until they are confronted with whatever topic strikes a nerve, be it evolution or Muslims.

That's not "Anti-Christian". If anything, their actions are anti-Christian. I have met many Christians, across the political spectrum and with differing degrees of fundamental adherance (anywhere from VERY loosely based on the Bible to the Bible is 100% factual). Most seemed like perfectly nice, well-adjusted people. The right wingers seem to hijack the faith, assign it to their political philosophies, and paint those who disagree with them as being against God. It's a smart political strategy, and clearly works, but it is inherantly deceptive.

"I have heard much hate spewed about anyone who does not walk in lock step with the democratic view point."

Really? Again, I live in the People's Republic of California and went to the People's Republic of Davis. I have a handgun with hollow points and believe people who have classes and training should have greater access to conceal carry permits. While I eat a fairly healthy diet, they will also have to pry the meat out of my cold dead hands. I am not against hunting certain species, though I wouldn't do it. I'm very much a capitalist. I am for massive welfare reform because I see many people abusing the system (my boyfriend's ex, for instance). I was for invading Afghanistan because the government was harboring the people directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I am for the death penalty (though for major reforms in it). I'm for stricter crime sentences.

While my views may come closer to Democratic than Republican, I am not a Democrat. In an election, it basically comes down to what my priorities are. The Democrats often win that internal battle because I'd rather throw money away on some of the stupid proposals they make rather than lose civil liberties. I also can't think of a time I've had a left winger get on my case for not staying in step with the party. Even on the topic of guns, which is a hot issue, I've had many calm, respectful debates with anti-gun people without screaming, antipathy or anything else. I also didn't get the feeling from these people that upon hearing a few political beliefs, they were going to think I was a bad person or hate me. I have gotten that impression from right wingers. Hell, I've had good conversations with left wingers I disagreed with WHILE they were protesting, literally holding the sign in one hand while talking to me. Still, no nastiness or disrespect.

To be fair, this approach HAS worked with some right wingers, but not as many. Upon trying to initiate a civilized discourse in the same manner as I have with left wingers I've disagreed with, I have been screamed at or ignored.

When we were beginning to get into this Iraq mess, I was against it from the start. The right wingers, and even some in the middle berated me for being anti-war. They stated that pacifism would get us killed, that I was a tree hugger, that other people were going to have to pull me and my libbie buddies out of the fire, and I should go back to eating granola and singing kumbaya and shut the hell up. I was told I was with the terrorists more than the victims of the WTC and said maybe if I'd been there, I'd know.

They never seemed to HEAR me when I told them I was not a pacifist, that I was for the war in Afghanistan, but I didn't think Iraq was involved in 9/11, had WMDs, or posed a threat to us and that we were losing the world sympathy and support. They told me to go back to France.

So you could say my experiences have been a little different than yours.

"I am finishing my Masters this semester, and any student with a view other than the left leaning view knows to stay silent."

Maybe the students not toeing the party line should try speaking once in a while. They might be surprised.

"I would like to vote democratic for some issues but with the hate the extreme left has toward anyone of a Christian Faith I can not do this."

It is hard to take your point of view seriously, I am afraid, with statements like this, unless you are designating "extreme left" with as being the liberal equivalents to Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps. When I say 'right wingers', I am not referring to the people polarized so far to one side of the political scale as to likely be certifiably insane. I refer to a much larger group of people very influential in elections and allied close with the party. Instead of doing the equivalent, I have noticed a tendency on the part of the 'other side', if you will, to equate us all with Michael Moore.

The fact is, 80-90% of this country is Christian. More Republicans are Christians than Democrats, percentage-wise, in recent years, but not all Republicans are Christians. When you consider the political breakdown of the country, logic should inform you that at least a significant majority of the Democrats must be Christians, even to a farther left swing. As such, it being a party that is "Anti-Christian" seems rather ill informed. There are a number of Christians, in fact, who take a more socialistic view of the Bible, thus moving them more to the district of 'far left' as far as political philosophy is concerned. Biblically, they make a pretty good case for it. George Bush was not running against John Kerry, Satanist; he was running against John Kerry, liberal Catholic. All the Democrats in position to hold high office, with the exception of Joseph Lieberman, whose values actually are closely aligned with many expressed by the Right, are Christians. Most of the people campaigning for them are Christians. Most of the people voting for them are Christians.

It also occurs to me that if you feel an issue is independently right (like a proposition), you should vote on what you feel is right. Are you really so suggestable that extremists cause you to not vote or vote against something you think is right? Because if that's the case, newsflash, both sides are ALWAYS going to have atrocious people supporting them.

I am currently scared to death of the Republicans. Not all of them, but with the gaining of power with the new direction the party has taken since the Bush administration. I feared his last attorney general, and I fear a new one who thinks the Geneva Convention is 'outdated'. I voted in the recent election. There were a number of propositions that I researched prior to the election. On some issues (stem cell research), I went to the democratic leaning, though our Republican governor also supported that proposition. On other issues, things suggested and supported by Republicans (some of the taxes and restrictions on casino gambling) seemed like good ideas so I voted in favor of those.

If a few jerks keep you from voting the way you want to vote, congratulations. You are aiding the polarization of the country into extreme factions where breaking party lines is akin to heresy.

"Until Democrats start truly practicing "tolerance" we will always be a minority party."

Like I said, it is interesting in your 41 years that you have had experiences that are the polar opposite of mine. Besides, I don't like people who screw with the Constitution, on either side. The Repubs really lost me when they got special permission for illegal search and seizure, started holding people, including American citizens, indefinitely without arrest or access to legal representation, and essentially told the UN to kiss their asses, then proceededing to send our troops off to misery and death while inflicting misery and death on others. None of that really has anything to do with religion. Abortion and gay marriage just iced the cake. It also disturbed me that so many people would use the last two reasons to justify why the first ones are acceptable.

Ishie

Posted by: Erika at November 12, 2004 11:04 AM

Robert, Your responses leave me breathless (or perhaps "speechless" is a better term) -- I almost don't know where to start. What do you mean, Bush has nothing to do with reports coming from the Labor Dept.? If he even READ the damned reports, he'd maybe know that the figures were written to include # of military call-ups (oh, that's right -- he hates to read. Well then, someone on his staff should have told him.) And by the way, people are being called back 13 YEARS after their committments have been satisfied. We have had at least 2 physicians called back who were in their 60's and ON SOCIAL SECURITY!! (or don't you read the papers, either?) So what do you call that, if not a back-door draft?

And what is all this "traitor" crap about Kerry?? Were YOU in Viet Nam?? I have many heroic friends who were -- and NONE of them think Kerry was a traitor; in fact, by coming back and telling it like it was, it may have helped get us out a lot sooner, and may have helped save countless lives. No, Kerry wasn't the traitor -- the ones who "betrayed" American trust were those people, like LBJ's wife, who owned a large stake in a helicopter manufacturer in Texas! There may have been a "compelling" economic interest for them staying there (smacks a little like the Halliburton giveaway, doesn't it?)

Stop trying to justify your position with such lame responses. You are not very informed, you dig your heels in and are totally dismissive of the facts (go research them carefully before coming back.) Your motto could be, "I've made up my mind, don't confuse me with the facts!"

Posted by: Robert at November 12, 2004 11:19 AM

Dan,

I think it's pretty amazing that when I post facts and make an argument, I am accused of "digging in my heels". You accuse me of not being very well informed simply because I disagree with you. You accuse me of being dismissive of the facts when I question your propaganda. You characterize my responses as lame despite the fact that you complimented them in your last post, in yet another personal attack. And the best one yet was that somehow, I will not be bothered to consider alternate viewpoint as if I have an exclusive on being a singularly minded politico.

Hey Dan, just like Kerry all you have is personal attacks against anyone with an opposing point of view as you dismiss us as intolerant and stubborn. I made my points without resorting to this, apparently, you cannot.

I have nothing but compassion for your ignorance. I wish you the best!

Robert

Posted by: Erika at November 12, 2004 11:24 AM

Uh, Robert --- I think you got the wrong "guy".

Posted by: Robert at November 12, 2004 11:33 AM

Well, I suppose that makes me wrong again!

Message receive nonetheless I am sure.

Dan...My apologies sir.

Erika, well you know where I stand!

Robert

Posted by: Tigger1974 at November 12, 2004 11:33 AM

I have heard something that has disturbed me. Why is it that now Democrats are belittling welfare?? I mean, hello?? Isn't charity and welfare part of being a democrat?? I read a post here that claimed to want to seceede and said "Whoever is president, it doesn't have to change who we are or how we act. It is frustrating, but we can go to Coastopia in our minds every time we give our time or money to charity or argue with a homophobe."

Well the states listed here as blue states are the states that give the least to charity. Why is that??? The Catalogue of Philanthropy released the following this week: 1. Mississippi. 49. $4,070

2. Arkansas. 46. $4,157

3. South Dakota. 44. $4,394

4. Louisiana. 42. $3,637

5. Tennessee. 34. $4,572

6. Alabama. 39. $3,733

7. Oklahoma. 43. $3,451

8. Utah. 27. $5,314

9. North Dakota. 47. $3,079

10. South Carolina. 37. $3,469

11. Wyoming. 24. $6,868

12. West Virginia. 48. $3,021

13. Nebraska. 32. $3,578

14. Idaho. 41. $3,120

15. Texas. 21. $4,447

16. North Carolina. 28. $3,331

17. Missouri. 29. $3,137

18. Kansas. 25. $3,356

19. Florida. 16. $3,798

20. New Mexico. 45. $2,710

21. Georgia. 17. $3,547

22. Montana. 50. $2,374

23. Kentucky. 38. $2,742

24. Iowa. 36. $2,749

25. Alaska. 31. $2,915

26. Indiana. 23. $3,106

27. Nevada. 11. $3,281

28. New York. 5. $3,485

29. Maine. 40. $2,091

30. Vermont. 35. $2,413

31. Ohio. 30. $2,585

32. California. 9. $3,112

33. Washington. 7. $3,128

34. Hawaii. 33. $2,285

35. Oregon. 26. $2,649

36. Arizona. 20. $2,752

37. Pennsylvania. 19. $2,763

38. Delaware. 14. $2,924

39. Michigan. 15. $2,879

40. Virginia. 12. $2,947

41. Illinois. 8. $3,047

42. Colorado. 13. $2,851

43. Wisconsin. 22. $2,512

44. Maryland. 6. $2,958

45. Connecticut. 1. $2,961

46. Rhode Island. 18. $2,059

47. Minnesota. 2. $2,742

48. New Jersey. 3. $2,668

49. New Hampshire. 10. $2,253

50. Massachusetts. 4. $2,645


Makes me wonder about you so called democrats out there....

Posted by: angry mom at November 12, 2004 12:22 PM

"Kerry routinely stumped about privitization [sic]of SS when he knew it wasn't true."
Oh, really, Robert???

Just because you don't know what's going on on the Hill doesn't mean it's not going on. What might seem like news now has been brewing for a while (research Bush's 2000 campaign).

"He stumped about a draft that he knew wasn't true."
Let's wait and see on how many fronts Bush tries to fight this war with its current overextended armed forces and see about that one.

"He stumped about lies the President supposedly told even though he had made the exact same assertions. "
I can only assume you mean the weapons of mass destruction. Yes, let's blame Kerry for taking the Bush Administration at its word about the sources of the WMD being reliable. Bush wanted to get Saddam (maybe to avenge his dad, maybe not). We all (Kerry) felt the world would be better off without him. That's no excuse to doctor reports, lie to people and become vigilantes.

Details of your posts aside, you just don't get it. Stop dumping all over our dream of a nation without bigotry.

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 12:28 PM

Hi Robert,
I’m glad that you are back! Active discourse is healthy for this group.

“Bush has parted with the party platform and stated that he would support civil or domestic union. This would grant the same rights and assuage the fears of the Christian right.”

Yes, this is good news. We’ll all just have to see whether or not it is acted upon. The marriage issue is something that should be left up to individual states, and I expect that we will see gradual change over the next 10 years in state legislation. I will have to say, however, that as a Christian who has read the bible cover to cover, the Christian right-wing opposition to gays in general is based more in homophobia than in biblical prohibitions. Homosexuality is actually given scant reference in the bible. Christians should remember that, when the bible was written, homosexuality was a fairly common practice in the Middle East.

“Another fair question. I think Bush needs to take one on the chin here, but he did have some pretty pressing issues to deal with. We can criticize the President for not doing enough in his first term or we can recognize that it's a complex crisis, that was building well before Bush and requires a unified effort to solve. Also, fighting a war on terror in the wake of the worst terrorist attack ever on the heels of a recession is pretty taxing for any President.”

OK, we agree, except that the terrorism crisis could have been more easily resolved had we not gotten ourselves embroiled in the Iraq mess. This would have left the President more time to deal with important domestic issues.

“And you saw something in Kerry to justify faith in him?”

As both Ishie and I have stated, Kerry was NOT our candidate of choice but simply the lesser of two evils. As to faith in Kerry, I have at least seen him admit to mistakes. This is something that Bush has refused to do. There has never been a President in our history that did not make some mistakes. The majority of them at least took some responsibility.

“The recession was first identified in March of 2001, three months into Bush's term. On the face of it, it seems it might be a Bush recession even though all economic indicators starting falling the last six months of Clinton's Presidency…”

The recession was principally due to the catastrophic fall of the dot com industries, and certainly cannot be used as a defense against the largest deficit in our nation’s history. America’s economic health relies on far more factors than simply the stock market.

“ No, I am only comparing the tactics for change. If liberals want to get all broken nosed about conservatively influenced school boards, they are hypocritical. They deployed the exact tactics to move their agenda.”

I have no argument about tactics. Most political tactics are despicable. The agenda is another matter altogether. Independent thinking and a broad-spectrum education for ALL students of ANY religious or non-religious belief is far more in line with America’s constitutional values than is the enforced integration of Christian values in our public institutions.

“Dan, open your eyes, the comparison is right before your eyes. Tina swallowed the moveon.org propaganda that compared Bush to Hitler.”

If that was, indeed, Tina’s viewpoint than I stand corrected, but I don’t agree with the comparison. As bad as I believe Bush to be, I could hardly equate him to Hitler. At least, not yet :-)

“ My point was that in order for them to "screw up" would invariably mean that the country is run poorly and our problems are exacerbated. Why would anyone want that?”

No one wants that, but based on this administration’s record, there is little reason not to expect it.

“Wanting to preserve things the way they are isn't forcing anyone's beliefs on others.”

Here, I take LOTS of exceptions! Preserving things the way they are means NOT trying to change the constitution as was attempted under this administration.

” Quite the opposite is true. It is gays that are forcing their beliefs on the rest of us.”
When is the last time a Democrat or ANYONE for that matter tried to force you to become gay?????

“Just because their beliefs are agnostic versus religious doesn't make their efforts justifiable.”
Interesting, I have met many religious gays. Some are even church leaders! Being gay apparently automatically means that they are non-Christians simply because they do not fit the homophobic mold cast by right wing Christian fundamentalists. I can only assume that you people are truly afraid of being forced into homosexuality :-).

“You can suggest anything you want and you to can criticize me on a personal level if it helps you feel better about your positions.”

Believe me, Robert; I have no need to criticize you on a personal level. I’m very comfortable with my position, thank you. A position, I might add, that is forged in scrupulously examining the issues from all points of view with the exception of those of extremists on either side.

I will let Ishie speak for herself on those issues addressed to her with two exceptions. Your use of the word “liberal” is in the right wing demonized definition. I still do not forgive Democrats for allowing that demonization to go unchallenged. Please see my copy from Mrs. G in one of yesterday’s posts for the actual definition of the word. If we do nothing else, we will, by God, not stand idly by and watch the corruption of word definitions to happen for purely political purposes!

My other issue in your response to Ishie is in regards to “flipping burgers as manufacturing jobs”. I ask you to review the history of industries included in the US National Product Index over the past years. You will find that service industries are nearly in the majority today because America has very few “products” left.
Dan

Posted by: Angry Mom at November 12, 2004 12:34 PM

Sorry. The web page below (news article detailing Bush's revival of his plans to privatize social security) got omitted from my post.
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/Stories/0,1413,206~24533~2526717,00.html

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 12:50 PM

Robert,
Apology accepted :-). Sometimes this site gets so busy, it's easy to get confused. Don't get me wrong, however, I still disagree strongly with your arguments. I simply haven't the time, or the typing skills :-), to answer for other Coastopians.
Dan

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 1:14 PM

Mike,
I say ONCE AGAIN, how did this Socialist discussion get started? Who proposed Socialism as the economic system for Coastopia?

As to the differences between Communism and Socialism, I AGAIN refer you to Lenin, Marx, and Trotsky. They proposed the foundations for both the political system (Communism) and the economic system (Socialism). Works of fiction don't quite provide a foundation for intellegent discourse. The mainstream Republican party does NOT consider any of the Socialistic nations in Western Europe to be Communist. For that matter, our good neighbor to the north is considered to be semi-socialistic, but I have never heard Canadians referred to as Communists.

In any case, I don't see that this Socialist debate belongs on this site. Perhaps you are simply listening to the far right wing's definition of the word "liberal" equating it to Socialism. I am not going to, yet AGAIN, include the dictionary definition of liberal.
Dan

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 1:45 PM

tigger1974,

Did I miss another post? Perhaps my ISP is censoring this site :-). You may be referring to Ishie's post wherein she stated that certain welfare REFORMS should be made. That is pretty much of a bi-partisan issue.

As to "going to Coastopia in our minds whenever we donate to charity", there is FAR more at stake here than just welfare issues. To the best of my knowledge, welfare has not killed well over a thousand of our soldiers in Iraq! I could go on almost indefinately listing other very important issues to which we are fundamentally opposed with this administration, but most have been covered from both sides in previous posts by many.
Dan

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 2:27 PM

Fellow Coastonians,

On a very sad note, 22 soldiers have been killed and 170 wounded so far in Falluja according to a Reuter's bulletin.
Dan

Posted by: Robert at November 12, 2004 2:32 PM

"Active discourse is healthy for this group." Some people don't think so, but I agree

"as a Christian who has read the bible cover to cover, the Christian right-wing opposition to gays in general is based more in homophobia than in biblical prohibitions." Dan, I'm not sure how you qualify this statement. Does anyone who feels that homosexuality is immoral qualify as homophobic? I'm glad that you consider yourself a Christian and have read the bible. That makes your reference qualified and but also in the minority. Most Christians that study the bible come to other conclusions about the subject. Regardless, the meaning of the bible has certainly be contested hotly for many centuries and our personal interpretation means little when it comes to secular worship. Meaning it's not our place to tell Catholics that they have it all wrong. This is their faith and just because you read the bible and concluded differently doesn't invalidate their faith or religion. Now government is a different story I am sure you agree. Last, I am sure you are aware that muslims also condemn homosexuality vehemently. Good thing Arafat was in the closet about it!

" the terrorism crisis could have been more easily resolved had we not gotten ourselves embroiled in the Iraq mess" As you know, many people see to think they are closely related. We could go on about the "evidence" but I am sure we disagree. Also, it's rather easy to be monday morning President by determining that had we not gone into Iraq, he would have more time for domestic issues. It's not a fair criticism because going into Iraq should be judges on it's own merits. Agree or disagree, the decision should not have been referenced around the health care crisis.

"The majority of them at least took some responsibility." I hear you on this and it's a valid point but let's agree that it's a live or die "gotcha" world we live in especially presidential politics. I don't know what liberals are looking for other than a tacit apology and acknowledgment by Bush that going into Iraq was wrong. The problem with this is that he doesn't believe that. I'm sure there is dozen, maybe hundred of mistakes that the President could make on himself, but why should he give the opposition more fodder when they seem to have enough already? I know Kerry wasn't your man but he dodged questions just like this especially if they pertained to how he felt about his post-Vietnam activities.

"The recession was principally due to the catastrophic fall of the dot com industries" Which happened while Clinton was president. You didn't even acknowledge my point about Bush's first economic plan being 6 months into the recession. Blame the recession on whatever you want or makes sense to you, but I don't know how any thinking person could blame it on Bush.

"Independent thinking and a broad-spectrum education for ALL students of ANY religious or non-religious belief is far more in line with America’s constitutional values than is the enforced integration of Christian values in our public institutions." Dan, I agree with you but we are talking about much more than "enforced integration of Christain values" Liberals have taken the so called seperation of church and state and bastardized it to mean that we can't do anything that offends anyone. I say hogwash to that. The notion of seperation was only meant to prevent government from mandating a religion and allowing people to practice the religion of their choice. Stone monuments to the ten commandments or the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance hardly violate this and it hardly deter, detracts or impairs a secular education for all children regardless of faith.

"No one wants that, but based on this administration’s record, there is little reason not to expect it." Erika actually "hopes" for it to happen. Sad.

"Preserving things the way they are means NOT trying to change the constitution as was attempted under this administration." First, it's important to understand what was attempted. As it is now, federal law mandates that states more or less recognize marriages from other states. This means that if a liberal judge in Vermont decided that gay marriage is ok, it could determine the status of gay marriage in the entire US. The Amendment was attempted only because Bush wants it to remain a state matter. Last, the overiding them here is to keep things the way they are, which is without gay marriage. So I'm not sure how your logic works to say that this was an effort to change anything. It wasn't, it was an attempt to keep things the same. I don't agree with the Amendment in case you're wondering, but I do think we need to find a way to ensure that it is always a state issue.

"When is the last time a Democrat or ANYONE for that matter tried to force you to become gay?????" If I say that gays are forcing their beliefs on us, it's not meant to imply that they are trying to make me gay. It's meant to suggest that they want to force me to recognize their union as a "marriage" when I don't want to.

"Being gay apparently automatically means that they are non-Christians simply because they do not fit the homophobic mold cast by right wing Christian fundamentalists. I can only assume that you people are truly afraid of being forced into homosexuality" I didn't mean to suggest that gays can't be religious. I know gay people who are more religious than me!

"Your use of the word “liberal” is in the right wing demonized definition" Not at all. I don't use the word as a pejorative and I can never figure out why it is taken as such. It's simply a way to characterize left leaning people. I mean no disrespect in the use of this word. I am conservative and proud of it and I think liberals should feel equal pride in their beliefs. If some folks want to demonize the word, I am not with them.

Robert

Posted by: Ishtar at November 12, 2004 2:52 PM

"They are called moveon.org, which is sponsored by George Soros, which has the same proximity to Kerry that the Swift Boat Vets had to Bush."

Just went to moveon.org for the first time. Despite what you may believe, I do not get my information from right wing/left wing sources, though I will surf news channels to watch the spin wars. What I get on the demeanor and attitude of the candidates along with the policies they are publically supporting comes from watching them speak directly. Though often uninteresting, I find this is best done by watching the WHOLE SPEECH, not the selected soundbytes they put on the news.

Moveon inconveniently doesn't seem to have a developed search section, so I searched elsewhere. I found two ads in which Bush is compared to Hitler, contributed to the bushin30seconds.com website, sponsored by moveon.org. This website has people send in their ads and has prizes for different categories. The two Hitler ads were submitted to that site, and were pulled from the site.

"Kerry didn't have an ad that didn't lie about Bush. Lies are hate!"

I didn't see a whole lot of lies. On both sides, I heard some numbers that upon immediate fact checking turned out to be inaccurate. If this had only come out of the Kerry speeches, I'd say yes, he was lying; however Bush was making claims not quite true as well. Since their numbers were up for IMMEDIATE check and revealed by the news organizations, it would be stupid to deliberately lie knowing you're going to be outed thirty seconds from making the statement.

"Bush often spoke about his accomplishments, his plans and his vision without mentioning his opponent."

I saw Kerry speak without addressing Bush, though less frequently, yes, that is true. If you'll recall my posts rather than trying to argue against what you think my position is based on your perception of liberals, you may notice I am not a huge Kerry supporter. I think the man is basically weak, dull, and ineffective. I suspect that a presidency under him would have been mediocre and would have gotten little done. I still think this would have been preferable to where Bush is taking the country.

"Kerry never opened his mouth without a lie to say about Bush. All the man had was hate, lies and more hate."

No, all Al Sharpton had was hate, lies, and more hate. Kerry slung his share of mud but he by no means drove a campaign BASED on hate. If he had, he might have been more successful. A lot of us REALLY dislike this administration.

"Not true at all. Bush's strongest detractors were flaming liberals like Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Terry McAauliff and hollywood types like Barbara Streishand, Chevy Chase and Bruce Springstein."

Ahh, apparently strongest detractors to YOU are the ones who say the most outrageously liberal things. In which case, the strongest detractors I've seen have been standing on the corner of 16th and J St waving "Bush is a Nazi!" "No War for Oil!" signs.

What I MEANT was to me, the strongest detractors are the ones who make the strongest cases. The ability of a person to be noisy says nothing to me. Richard Clarke was a big one. After he came out, from the vitriol coming out of the Bush camp directed at him, you'd think he brought down the Twin Towers. They speculated he was coming out because of sour grapes due to the stripping of his Cabinet-level position when Bush came into office, though he maintained staff level. They did not explain why he waited two years, and why he would stoop to these tactics after thirty years of political service.

"And your example is what? I know the democrats that threw Kerry a picnic in the summer at Sorgels Farm in Western Pennsylvania."

I've heard all the "Kerry is a creep" stories. There's enough of them that there's probably some truth to it.

When I say "nice", what I mean is that in public appearence, the Republicans tend to treat people who break from party lines as hideous blasphemers. They are absolutely vicious in the primaries (more so than I saw out of the Democrats), making statements about their opponents that are absolutely outrageous. When they later buddy up with those opponents (like Bush and McCain), it says a lot about the diplomatic skills of the people opposing them, not to tell them where to go.

In this administration, when Republicans have dared speak against them, they get a hailstorm of abuse rained down on them. Before you get the "The Democrats do it too, so that makes it all right!!!!" hissy going, let me first say I don't doubt they do. I think it's a despicable tactic that causes complete polarization of the parties. I also have seen a more totalitarian technique in this manner by the Bush administration. Before you make the same accusations of liberal sources, blah blah blah, I got this long ago when I watched the address of Congress over the Patriot Act. For the Patriot Act or for the terrorists!! Gee, that's not bullying. My view of the administration as lying, arrogant bullies comes DIRECTLY from watching their unaltered speeches, debates, and conferences. The only slight improvement is when Ari Fleischer left.

"Why? Because he refused to allow liberals to create a rift and divide the party?"

It must be really scary in your world, with the armies of liberals with torches and pitchforks surrounding the fortress. It's a shame because McCain is someone I actually do respect, and I think he would have proved a far better leader than Bush.

"McCain certainly had a reason to be bitter but don't get upset when you see Republicans take a page from the liberal handbook that dictates party first!"

Yawn. Again with the assumption that due to my being a liberal, I agree with the tactics and policies of the Democrats. Just because you toe the party line doesn't mean I have to. McCain certainly has a reason to be bitter. He also was painted as a traitor and less than a hero for fighting in the war the administration couldn't be bothered to attend. I think it should be people first, not party first. Clearly you disagree.

"First, no there isn't. All military personnel are committed to the inactive reserve for at least two years beyond their active commitment, which essentailly says that they agree to stay in if needed."

From CBS (I know, they're biased too, but I've heard this one from other sources since the man in question is from my home town)

'The Sacramento-based soldier is an eight-year veteran with combat experience who is married with two children. Court papers said the soldier's family faces financial hardship because of his extended absence from his civilian job.

He signed up under a National Guard program for veterans that offers military education and family medical benefits for a one-year trial. Before that term expired, he was called up for an 18-month tour that will extend his enlistment by nearly a year.'

In another case, a captain was told to go to Iraq despite having resigned. He was able to gain his discharge AFTER a legal fight.

Sounds kind of sketchy to me.

"Second, Kerry didn't bother to make this distinction as he tried to scare 18-35 year olds into believeing they could be next."

We just re-elected a president in the midst of a pre-emptive war on a country falsely believed to be a threat to us. This has led to an increased recruitment drive for terrorism and condemnation by the world. To fight the 'war on terror', there are a number of countries we may end up tangled with, including Syria and Iran. North Korea hasn't seemed to be a major concern by the administration, though I'm hoping they aren't suicidal enough to send troops there too. 18-35 year olds *should* be worried. I don't think Bush is going to institute a draft for Iraq. I think he may for wherever we invade next.

"Third, how is it that Kerry claims that our military is spread too thin and we will need a draft, then turn around and criticize the President for not committing enough troops to win the peace and promising at least another 40,000 when elected? If the military is spread so thin, where is Kerry going to get these additional 40,000 troops??? Interesting question isn't it?"

No idea where he was planning on getting them. The charge that the troops are spread too thin seems accurate though. We have lost sight of our original target (I was saying that before Kerry was, thank you, I was just glad to hear him say it), and the situation in Iraq is going very badly. We're having to send in our own national guard, which includes a number of people with insufficient training to fight the sort of battle we have going on in Iraq. I'm also not sure how this is protecting the homefront? If we are attacked again, the people that are supposed to defend us are largely tied up in the Iraq mess. That doesn't make me feel safer.

"Not any more than serving in Vietnam, coming home and distancing yourself from the military, telling lies about your fellow servicemen, providing aid and comfort to our enemy and 35 years later, pretending that the four months you spent committing war crimes qualifies you to be commander-in-chief."

Wow, we have been watching the Swift Boat ads!! I also want some clarity on something. If Kerry was committing "war crimes", then what lies was he telling about his fellows? If neither were, but he felt like he was, isn't that sad? American soldiers, the vast majority of which were not committing war crimes, still had to commit acts that felt like them. If a pregnant woman or a child is trying to kill you or your platoon, you have to kill them. You just do. It doesn't mean you're ever going to be able to look at yourself the same way again. Plenty of Vietnam vets, including the ones on KERRY'S boat, support him. Plenty of those who fought in Vietnam, upon arriving home, protested the war. That does not make the actions of people appropriate, even in the face of My Lai (which we seem to have forgotten? We act like any criticism of American actions in Vietnam is based on lies).

I do think Kerry hailed Vietnam too much, NOT because I don't think he's a war hero (and there are many, including McCain), but because he was railing on issues of years gone rather than ones affected today. What I have seen is the same deplorable effort out of the Bush camp to paint him as a traitor that I saw when they launched the same tactics at McCain. That in itself makes me suspicious of their claims.

"Bush didn't lie and the country agrees with me here."

He didn't? When was it we supposedly "won" the war? When was the date by which our troops would be out of Iraq? What was our reason for going into Iraq?

For our reasons going in, I have to conclude Bush lied because his partisan tactics have convinced me he's a lot smarter than I gave him credit for in 2000. With the intelligence failures BOTH pre 9/11, and more notably (since hindsight is 20/20), pre-Iraq, Bush was either lying to make his case, or he was completely incompetent. I'd like to believe he was lying because the alternative is even scarier.

"If you count every floor motion and committee votes, that number rises well over 300."

So Kerry has SEPARATELY voted for issues that only concerned a rise in taxes, not separate policies that included a rise in taxes, well over three hundred times? Remarkable.

"The man voted against every weapons system now in use on the war on terror."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp
This is a pretty reliable urban legends site, and has a good habit of fully developing the facts surrounding the issues. They address this one at length with references to the specific senate resolutions, including Kerry's vote to kill the AH-64 Apache helicopter program six months AFTER Dick Cheney had advocated the same thing.

"Perhaps he developed a bad taste for them while committing all those war crimes?"

Ohhh, I get it!!! He stated he committed war crimes while in the midst of a horrible, unpopular, confusing war, and maybe his Senate record reflects how horrible it was! Wow, that's a funny one! Definitely have to include that in the Christmas card. Tell the other good one about the new Iraqi prisoner dog breed because they do well on leashes. That'll have the laughs rolling!

Yes, I am too young to have been in Vietnam, but I have talked to a lot of people who were in it and saw horrors I cannot contemplate. I also understand the fierce division of philosophies during the war. Many who went to war saw the horror and did not want to support it. Many who went to war saw the horror and felt by not supporting it, there was no justification for the horror. With the public's incitement against the war and often against the soldiers in it, particularly with *actual* traitors like Jane Fonda fueling the abuse of American soldiers and the discovery of the My Lai massacres, in some cases criticism of the war and actions in the war became tantamount to treason. I'm sure there are plenty of Vietnam vets who are pissed at Kerry; just as I know many who aren't. Given the political atmosphere at the time, that is understandable.

I do not think it is the role of people supporting partisan interests to criticize a war they didn't participate in. They can't know, just as I can't know, what it was like. For the Swift Boat Veterans, if they were not spreading demonstrated lies (such as that he got his medal for chasing down a dying enemy who was out of ammo and killed him), but expressing their view that he was a traitor for speaking out against the war AND they didn't have close ties to the Bush administration, I wouldn't have a problem with them. It also speaks strongly to me that most if not all of the people who KNEW Kerry in Vietnam support him.

That being said, I do not think that service in Vietnam or lack of it makes one qualified or unqualified to be a president. I do think that chickenhawks shouldn't try ripping apart veterans with lies to try and forward the politics of a candidate. They did this with McCain and Kerry.

"Did you watch the election at all? They lost because this is ALL THEY DID."

I watched the whole election with great interest, though not on Fox News. I watched the debates, I researched the position. I saw a lot of waffling and passive aggressive stuff by the democrats. When they did go on the attack, they were idiotic and immature about it and avoided the real issues. I saw Al Sharpton making trite statements to any of the Bush supporters when people on the Bush side were actually trying to hold a civilized conversation. I've already addressed the "lesbian daughter" stuff. I think the strongest position should have been on the war, but instead we had someone saying "well... I would have gone in, but not that way." Ooh, powerful words. That's one of the reasons I don't think Kerry was the right candidate. It's hard to go fully against Bush when you voted for the stuff he did. I don't deny that at all.

You still fail to recognize that part of my view though. You're far too busy making partisan assumptions about me despite my departure from key liberal issues and my lack of enthusiasm for their candidate of choice. To you, I seem to be young, liberal, and stupid, believing all the lies I hear from soundbytes in liberal news sources and failing to see the real picture which you have deigned to bring to my attention with your impartial view of the election, which seems to be "if the Democrats do it or have done it, it's okay".

Well, save it. Most of my objections come directly from watching the Republicans themselves and saying "What??? Illegal search and seizure? What? Saddam Hussein??? What has he done in the last ten years?? Where's Osama? What? Gays? Who the hell cares about gays! We're at war!"

One of my objections towards the democrats is I didn't here any of this from them until six months ago. There were too busy trying to be inoffensive, chase red herrings, and boycott state senate meetings. They also allowed this idea that dissent is unamerican to flourish by being stumped by it themselves.

Long before the actual election, I watched EVERYTHING going wrong for this administration that seemed could possibly go wrong except another terrorist attack on our soil and I said to many people, and still believe: "With the number of blunders, screw ups, and obvious problems, if the democrats lose this election, they should be disbanded as a party and it should be someone else's turn." Ask my dad. Said it to him too. I NEVER said Kerry would be a good president. I said he'd be a better president. That's not a ringing endorsement. When I saw that he'd taken the primaries, I groaned.

Despite your painting of me as a misguided young buck swayed by party tactics, it's simply not true. I'm not happy with the democrats. I also think that using what the "other guy" does as a basis for what you should do is the way we got into this nasty partisan situation to begin with. If you are unable to see me as anything but a liberal kiddie mouthpiece, that is a problem from your end.

"Next, you had a candidate like that, his name was Howard Dean."

Yup, liked him better than Kerry. Unfortunately, the party wanted to find someone that seemed less abrasive, because after looking at Bush's rampant success throwing diplomacy to the wind and shooting from the hip, the party, as a whole, in the states where the primaries actually matter, decided the best way to combat someone with an abundance of cowboy charisma and a lot of ignorance was to pit him against Frankenstein the accountant. Brilliant.

You may also notice also that the only people proposing Kerry as the president of Coastopia are Republicans.

"Only a radical Islamo fascist would argue that or maybe an America hating liberal."

Hmm... you seem to get offended when people paint your side of the argument as a bunch of inbred, ignorant, warmongering hillbillies, yet you embrace the anti-liberal stereotypes with gusto. I am attempting to address your points with the assumption that you are not a reactionary idiot, so I would appreciate it if you would do the same. I feel the 9/11 attacks were murder and terrorism. I mourn the loss of so many lives. Also, despite the recent trend of not caring who dies if they live in another country, I care about the deaths of Iraqi citizens. I also care about the deaths of American soldiers.

Besides whatever twisted ethical cause the terrorists thought they had for attacking us, there was no reason for them to attack us. It was terrorism, plain and simple.

With Afghanistan, we were not carrying out a pre-emptive attack. We were carrying out an attack to apprehend/kill those who perpetrated the attacks on our soil. One hundred percent with the president up to that point. After 9/11, despite the fact that I didn't trust Bush and voted Gore in 2000 (though didn't feel the animosity that I do now), I actually praised the way in which the administration was handling the situation. They did not go off half-cocked; they did not, at first, start violating civil rights. They identified the perpetrators, pinpointed the main location, told the government to hand them over, the government refused. We went in. Supported it.

Fast forward. We've been doing fairly well in Afghanistan, but are having some trouble. We're really having trouble locating the kingpin, bin Laden, who also led attacks on American embassies. Out of nowhere, Iraq gets dragged into the picture. We list them as a threat to us, try and make our case to the UN. Didn't go over well there. We ignore the wishes of the UN, get some countries to send a few troops in and call this minor contribution (which gets smaller and smaller as more show more wisdom than we did and get the hell out) "The Coalition of the Willing". We rename french fries and french toast, sell bumper stickers that say 'f the UN' and charge into Iraq, determined to get the evil terrorist cells and those pesky weapons of mass destruction. Oh yeah, we did issue them a warning to disarm. They showed the destruction of some weapons, but not the big ones they'd already sold to get more Saddam statue building money because they apparently no longer had them. We gave Saddam 48 hours to leave the country, which is not our right despite him being a Very Bad Man. Then we started "shock and awe", bombing the hell out of them. Now we occupy them, appoint our people, and we're not leaving.

What did Iraq do? NOTHING. What did we do to get the 9/11 attacks? NOTHING. This comparison may horrify you as being anti-American liberalism, but it's pretty real. I think the action itself was anti-American. What the administration does, to me, doesn't represent "America", otherwise the communist witch hunts would be American.

What is also horrible is that by invading Iraq without sufficient cause, we've merely proved Osama bin Laden right to the Muslim world, including the moderates. We do pose a danger to them. We can't even claim we're simply against radical militants. Of all the fundamentalist countries there are in the Middle East, we picked Iraq!! We picked a country with a secular dictator when logic would dictate al qaeda wouldn't associate with him anyway because he'd sell them out in a heartbeat with a fairly moderate population! It makes a good campaign speech for terrorist recruitment "We attacked the Americans where they live because they were gearing up to rain fire on the Muslim world! They have weapons of mass destruction and a delivery system, and they will destroy us! They will invade, convert us to the heretical Christian belief, parade our proud people around on leashes like dogs, and build a McDonalds at the site of our mosques! No one is safe! Even in Iraq they are doing this thing! We must strike at them while we can! Sign up here! Free keychain with enrollment if you've lost a husband, wife, child, or sibling in American bombings and are REALLY pissed off with nothing to lose!"

I am not saying cater to terrorists. The kingpins of terrorism are the ones that hide and direct other people to do the scary stuff. But we also must recognize that we cannot punish "suicide bombers" for obvious reasons, and suicide bombings are largely sparked by desperation and revenge. Direct people who are desperate who have lost loved ones into the hands of evil manipulators like Osama bin Laden and you have a real problem. Creating more desperate people doesn't fix this.

"Now, I have to assume that you know that this was ONE isolated incident conducted by overzealous election volunteers, not the Bush campaign."

Ohhh.... Wow, I didn't know that. From the Boston Globe:

"RIO RANCHO, N.M. -- A Republican National Committee practice of having people sign a form endorsing President Bush or pledging to vote for him in November before being issued tickets for RNC-sponsored rallies is raising concern among voters.

When Vice President Dick Cheney spoke July 31 to a crowd of 2,000 in Rio Rancho, a city of 45,000 near Albuquerque, several people who showed up at the event complained about being asked to sign endorsement forms in order to receive a ticket to hear Cheney.

[Nick]Lucy, who was not asked to sign a form, said he has seen every president since Ronald Reagan, but he was denied access because he is not a registered Republican. He is a Democrat and a past commander of the American Legion in Dubuque who plays taps at veterans' funerals."

"It was a mistake, it was recognized as a mistake"

The Bush administration doesn't make mistakes. Remember?

"and it wouldn't have even been necessary if the liberals would respect our right to peacefully gather."

Oh boo hoo. Also from the Globe, same article:
"The campaign of John F. Kerry, the Democratic nominee, has had to deal with Republican hecklers at events. The Kerry-Edwards communications director for New Mexico, Ruben Pulido, said that when Kerry visited New Mexico on July 10, several Bush supporters shouted ''Viva Bush" and waved flip-flops"

Ah, from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

"With a friendly crowd in Canonsburg lobbing softball questions yesterday, Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry could have ignored a pocket of hecklers that tried to disrupt his campaign.

"Instead, Kerry pulled the detractors into his Labor Day speech, part of the "front-porch discussions" he's been holding across the country. He told them their shouts and taunts couldn't cover up facts — namely, that America has had a net loss of 1.6 million jobs under President Bush.

Gasoline prices are up 31 percent since Bush took office, and college tuition has grown more expensive by the year, he said.

At the same time, he said, wages are down by $1,500 for "the average family."

One heckler then shouted, "Yeah, Kerry, you're really average."

Kerry pounced on the comment, replying: "No, I'm privileged, and my tax burden went down. I don't think that's right."

So don't give this "poor Republicans having the mean nasty dissenters not respecting their right to peaceful assembly" nonsense.

"What you conveniently left out was my "context", which was by doing what is right for the US."

LOL, you're talking about context?

"Kerry will not act in a way that is condemnable by the world EVEN IF IT IS RIGHT FOR THE US."

Never heard him say that.

"This is NEVER a good qaulity. It undermines our sovereignty."

Strawman. This wasn't his argument.

"...and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." What if you can't convince the world???

This is interesting. RIGHT under the quote of what he said, you changed the meaning. "Convince" and "Prove" mean entirely different things. The creationists are Proof of that. If we had found WMDs and ties to 9/11, that would PROVE to the world our actions were legitimate. If they were unconvinced, then it becomes their problem.

"you are claiming that our interests NEVER conflict with the world. That's a pretty narrow view!"

Never claimed that. Strawman.

"'Many cite an involvement by Saddam's regime in 9/11.' Nobody says this. Not Bush, not conservatives, nobody."

Bush doesn't. His administration implied it at the beginning, and Cheney held onto an Al Qaeda link even after Bush had abandoned it (before you accuse me of liberal sources AGAIN, I SAW him say it). MANY conservatives believe it. Polls indicate that. It is an ignorant position. It is not one believed by Republicans who have closely followed the situation and have relied on a variety of news sources. It also helped win a lot of votes. I am NOT, by the way, calling conservatives stupid. I am calling a vast percentage of them uninformed. Before you start chirping at me again, a vast percentage of liberals were uninformed too, and like those of the Bush voters that were uninformed, can be easily exposed by their misinformation.

But denying anyone thinks that 9/11 and Al Qaeda were linked to Iraq is false. And the administration did encourage that presumption, particularly Dick Cheney.

"This tells me that you have no economic or even mathematical understanding. First an across the board tax cut is obviously going to impact those you pay more taxes more than those who pay less taxes."

Because ten percent of 20,000 dollars is less money than ten percent of 500,000 dollars! I get it!! I KNEW I should have paid more attention in seventh grade.

The tax rates dropped across the board. The tax rates on the upper 1 percent dropped by 6.8%, the upper 5 percent by 5.2%, significantly higher than the lower classes. The rich were/are paying a larger SHARE, naturally. The share of the tax burden dropped more for the wealthy than it did for the lower classes, though not by as wide a margin. In addition, Bush has provided financial motivations for businesses which violate Clean Air Laws.

"Your class baiting doesn't work!"

Glad to hear it. The rates and shares add up to larger weighted benefits for the wealthy, whether you like it or not.

"An across the board tax cut means everybody gets a break."

I did not deny that people received money back, even though Howard Dean downplayed it and misrepresented the numbers. Like the White House, I even gave them a helpful suggestion for what to do with it. I'm saying the wealthy got a bigger percentage break.

"This was true between September 2000 and early 2003. Read the latest salary report available from the labor depatrment. It tells a different story."

Going up but maintaining a net loss doesn't make things all right, particularly when coupled against the cost of living.

"Uhh, no they didn't. Where is your proof of this? moveon.org?"

Again with the assumptions. I generally assume that parties will trump their own policies without self-criticism, and as such try to avoid partisan spin in favor of actual data. But of course, you won't acknowledge that because that doesn't fit onto your Liberal-stamp voodoo doll.

"It's rare that anyone would be trying to feed a family has a minimum wage job."

Many people trying to feed a family have lost jobs with the downturn in the economy, and have had to seek jobs elsewhere in an employers' market. They take what they can get.

"Having worked in retail management for several years in the inner city of DC, I know a LOT about the opportunities available."

If you live in the inner city of DC, perhaps. If you're trying to make the case that finding a job within a poor city district is easier than finding one out in a small town reliant on a few industries, I would strongly agree with you. Cities have high turnover.

"Anyone that shows up for work, is reliable and works hard will not make minimum wage for very long."

Define long. If your company has just gone under, and you're scraping for a job, though the unemployment is a help, if you have a mortgage to pay, going on minimum wage for a MONTH, which is shorter than it takes most people to get a raise, is enough to drive you into financial ruin.

"ANYONE. If someone is making minimum after years and years, I can gaurantee you that there is another problem."

Wow, someday I need to meet this person you're arguing against, because it isn't me. Big job losses. You follow? Job creations. Big deal made by White House. Still with me? New jobs don't pay as well. Some jobs recategorized to sound better. Man lose job. Man get minimum wage job. Man spend next month desperately trying to hold on and going deeper into debt. Man get raise. Man still make six dollars an hour less than man did at former job. Man work hard enough to finally earn his prior salary. By now man's kids chasing rats to eat. Man go on welfare? No. Man above poverty line. Man sad.

Does that help clarify? I'm afraid I have to be condescending since you clearly cannot understand my position when I speak to you as an adult.

"Gas prices have been at an all time high" How is this possible since we went to war for oil?

When did I say that?

"Get a new job! Again, you don't need big government to solve your problems."

Getting a new job. I'm looking for one with benefits. It's far easier for me to handle this because I am young, and have a LOT of different skills which makes me eligible for a lot of different kinds of work which potentially offer good pay and benefits. If I were in need of a job, had been let go from an industry I'd worked in for ten years whose opportunities had dried up in my community, it would be very difficult to start over.

"The fact that you think it is their job tells me that you feel that you are entitled to what other people work for!"

Oh please. For starters, I am employed, and I pay my taxes, so don't give me this "what other people work for" crap. I do not expect the government to "give me health care". What I have SEEN is that health care costs are higher than people can conceivably pay without insurance, and the cost of insurance is unattainable for many people. I do not believe that whether you DIE should be determined by how much money you make, even if it means I get hit a bit for it.

My point in saying I'm young and healthy is that a slightly better job, even without health care, will result in my being able to pay for it. My rates aren't that high. Having too many businesses unwilling to provide health care for employees burdens the system. The employees still get sick, still are hospitalized, cannot pay their bills, and they get absorbed. The patient's credit is ruined, but does it help the economy? No. It also leads to substandard medical care which can cost the system someone who was working and paying taxes. The employee, if their job doesn't cover it, can always pay for themselves, right?

For me, it's easy to say yes. For a forty year old with pre-existing conditions who may be overweight or smoke? Pretty impossible. I could use your logic and tell them to get over it, get a new job, and stop smoking?

"The economy is spurred when the private sector is free to invest and profiteer. Tax cuts do just that!"

Then wouldn't the economy prosper more if we did away with taxes altogether?

"I laugh at liberals who throw the deficit up! I notice that deficit spending didn't bother you for 35 years prior."

Considering I've been alive for almost twenty-four years, and concerned with politics for about seven years, I suspect you are again waving your pitchfork at the liberal hordes instead of addressing the issue.

"Also jobs are up, up and up. Look back over the past 19 months!"

Net loss, lower annual salary, higher cost of living, huge numbers who've lost health care benefits. Hooray!

"Again, thanks to the GOP controlled Congress and the "Contract with America" in 1994"

Wow, and you accuse *me* of biased sources.

"Ishie, I know you won't be swayed. You are so partisanly blinded, nothing I say is going to make a difference. I just wish your opinions were based on facts and not the leftist propaganda."

In other words, you realize you have no real position, so instead of acknowledging that, you're going to paint me with a liberal paint brush, accuse me of positions I do not share that I did not state and treat me like a misguided young buck who is a tool of the traitorous Kerry, and tell me I'll grow into your position. Really the last bastion of someone who has no argument.

If you're tired of it, if you disagree, if whatever, feel free to state it, but don't insult my intelligence, Robert. I have consistently backed my statements up with sources and logically explained my position. You have tossed off accusations, been condescending, and deliberately misrepresented my position by setting up strawmen left and right. I'd say your tactics are no better than your president's, but he is better at using them.

"But I'll always remember what Winston Churchill said. "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.""

Again, meaning once I 'grow up', I'll see your point of view, and for now you can pat me on the head for being cute, provided I don't get "stupid" when I age.

This has been an exceptionally long post. Perhaps you will surprise me by actually acknowledging MY position instead of what you perceive a dehumanized liberal mass to be. Somehow, I doubt it.

Ishie

Posted by: Mark at November 12, 2004 2:55 PM

where can I send money to help move those who live outside AC and want to live there?

how long will it take for the AC residents to determine they are going to have to demand non-residents help support them?

Posted by: Ishtar at November 12, 2004 4:04 PM

Since my last post wasn't novelesque enough.

"Does anyone who feels that homosexuality is immoral qualify as homophobic?"

I know you were speaking to my dad, but I'd like to make my thoughts known on this subject as well.

Though given little attention, homosexuality (the sex at least) is not supported by the Bible not just in Leviticus (most of which is completely ignored by Christians), but Romans as well.

Feeling homosexuality is immoral is not homophobic. Everyone has a different idea of immorality, and I don't label people for it. Orthodox Jews largely condemn the practice of homosexuality, as do Muslims, as do many Christians. The same group also condemns adultery with various definitions on what the word means.

When people want to pass legislation to prevent gays from having the same rights as other couples, THEN it starts appearing homophobic.

"The problem with this is that he doesn't believe that."

But the fact that he doesn't believe that is problematic. He can no longer even come up with a clear reason for why we invaded Iraq, but he still acts as if it was a necessary decision, and seems not to care at all about our diplomatic backslide. I want America to be a part of the world, not above it.

"I'm sure there is dozen, maybe hundred of mistakes that the President could make on himself, but why should he give the opposition more fodder when they seem to have enough already?"

You aren't avoiding fodder for democrats. By acknowledging it, you take the wind out of their sails. So long as you hold true to "no errors", they can hold your arrogance up to the records. If you say "this happened, it shouldn't have happened, I'm taking steps so it won't happen again, and I'm sorry"... what do they say? "Bush said he screwed up!" "Yeah? We all saw it. Get a platform."

"I know Kerry wasn't your man"

Hallelujah, praise the lord!!!!

"Liberals have taken the so called seperation of church and state and bastardized it to mean that we can't do anything that offends anyone."

Since when? "Liberals" tend to support not having religion pushed through public institutions. Some of the far lefties take it way too far, I agree, but probably on different issues than you would think. By the way, when people mention you using 'liberals' as a dirty word, this is the sort of thing that supports it. Liberals bastardize the separation clause to avoid offending anyone. Come on.

"Stone monuments to the ten commandments"

Which version? Protestants, Catholics, and Hebrews have altered versions. And which Biblical version? The commonly accepted ones which were broken, or the ones Moses brought back to the people which includes "all the first-borne are mine"?

Why would these be in federal institutions? They're predominantly religious. If we're going for a display on history of ancient law, then at least toss Hammarabi's code in. It was more specific and inspired much of Biblical law. It would be an excellent addition to a historic display.

"or the words "under god" in the pledge of allegiance"

Not to be trite, but the Pledge was written in 1898. The words "under God" were added in 1956 specifically to distinguish our oath from secular "commie" ones.

The problem isn't so much with these things themselves, but the sentiment attached. How DARE people try to keep the Ten Commandments out of schools and courts? And I think... "uh... why would we put them in?"

"...impairs a secular education for all children regardless of faith."

The fact that creationism is still taught alongside science, despite the ONLY reason for it being political pressure, is a sign we are not necessarily far enough along to be strengthening federally supported religious influence in schools.

"It's meant to suggest that they want to force me to recognize their union as a "marriage" when I don't want to."

It does? I thought it wanted to force the government to acknowledge it. Since many gays are religious, as you've stated, they may believe it best and moral to be united under God.

You don't have to acknowledge it. Some strict Catholics do not acknowledge marriages if one or both parties have been divorced before and consider their union adultery. That is their right. It is not their right to make that legal.

Ishie

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 4:29 PM

Robert,

“Most Christians that study the bible come to other conclusions about the subject.”

That, I’m afraid is subjective. I know of no unbiased studies or polls that conclude either way. That is perhaps because, on this subject, there are NO unbiased groups :-).

“Last, I am sure you are aware that muslims also condemn homosexuality vehemently. Good thing Arafat was in the closet about it!”

Having lived for two years in Afghanistan many years ago, I found that the preaching and the practice were VERY separate issues. At that time, Afghanistan was heavily fundamentalist, and the Koran is much more specific than the bible in its prohibition. How the widespread practice of homosexuality was justified with their religion is something that I never learned. They weren’t even in the closet about it. Of course the prohibition of “letting tobacco touch the lips” is also a doctrine that is seldom followed. No argument here, just some interesting facts.

“I don't know what liberals are looking for other than a tacit apology and acknowledgment by Bush that going into Iraq was wrong. The problem with this is that he doesn't believe that. I'm sure there is dozen, maybe hundred of mistakes that the President could make on himself, but why should he give the opposition more fodder when they seem to have enough already?”

A simple admission of mistakes would have been an excellent start. He need not even say that the whole Iraq thing was wrong, although many Americans and I fervently believe that it was. But admitting to NO mistakes while he was in office was far more fodder for the opposition HAD THEY USED it correctly.

“Blame the recession on whatever you want or makes sense to you, but I don't know how any thinking person could blame it on Bush.”

I’m not! But anyone who believes that recession is the cause of ALL of our current economic woes hasn’t been following the news (even Fox “Fair and Balanced” news!)

“Liberals have taken the so called seperation of church and state and bastardized it to mean that we can't do anything that offends anyone. I say hogwash to that. The notion of seperation was only meant to prevent government from mandating a religion and allowing people to practice the religion of their choice.”

I wasn’t aware that the US Government automatically disenfranchises atheists and agnostics, as abhorrent to you as they may be. Bear in mind that they too have beliefs, simply not in God. I have met many non-believers who were FAR more tolerant, kind, and law-abiding than many Christians. Hell, they can even get married as long as they’re not gay!

“Stone monuments to the ten commandments"

If they are in a state house, a school, or other public buildings, damn right that’s wrong!! It tramples on the beliefs too many other religions.

“As it is now, federal law mandates that states more or less recognize marriages from other states. This means that if a liberal judge in Vermont decided that gay marriage is ok, it could determine the status of gay marriage in the entire US.”

This is simply not true. Neither a federal ban on gay marriage nor a federal approval is appropriate. It is an issue that has and should be a state-by-state issue. That is why the bill was so resoundingly defeated in a predominantly Republican Congress.

“It's meant to suggest that they want to force me to recognize their union as a "marriage" when I don't want to.”

You don’t have to recognize a man and a woman as being married if you don’t want to! Aside from the Christian bias on this issue, the important matter here is EQUAL BENEFITS. That is the ONLY reason that we require state marriage licenses for anyone! If not for this fact, marriage licenses for ANYONE would be unnecessary. In a previous post, you admitted that Bush has broken from the party line for exactly this reason. Your exact words were, “Bush has parted with the party platform and stated that he would support civil or domestic union. This would grant the same rights and assuage the fears of the Christian right.” Beyond that, if it actually becomes fact, what more is there? Personally, I’m all for letting Christians keep the word “marriage”. For everyone else it can simply be called a “union”.

”I know gay people who are more religious than me!”

But not as right wing, I’ll bet :-).

“Not at all. I don't use the word as a pejorative and I can never figure out why it is taken as such. It's simply a way to characterize left leaning people. I mean no disrespect in the use of this word.”

I was referring to the following line: “Only a radical Islamo fascist would argue that or maybe an America hating liberal.” Lots of people in the world hate us, especially under this administration. The “liberal” tag that you used simply made me suspect that you were using it in the demonized context.

“If some folks want to demonize the word, I am not with them.”

That’s good to hear. Even your boy used the demonized version when he referred to Kerry as the “most liberal Democrat in the Senate”. If he reads nothing else, I would really like to see Bush occasionally look things up in the dictionary.
Dan

Posted by: Dave at November 12, 2004 4:59 PM

I've never read so much drivel in my life, what a bunch of babies,, lol,, my god, I have more intelligence in my little finger then all of you have collectively. Keep up the crying, it really show's how simple minded you all are,, lol,, lol,, lol........

Posted by: Ishtar at November 12, 2004 5:06 PM

"I have more intelligence in my little finger then all of you have collectively."

Hmm... then maybe you should let *it* speak for you. Your head seems to be failing the mission. Maybe you could use it as a doorstop?

Ishie

Posted by: Dave at November 12, 2004 5:25 PM

Hey Ishie,,,,

OK, I'll assume you do have some intelligence since you were able to find this web site, and type a little comment.

With that said can you actually say that because we elected someone you don't agree with the only choice you have left is to secede?

Come on,, really,, how intelligent is that?

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 5:50 PM

Dave,

My sympathies to you :-). I don't think that you are aware of the hornet's nest that you opened with your last post.

In preparation, you might want to read some of her earlier posts :-).

(GET HIM, ISHIE!)
Dan

Posted by: Dave at November 12, 2004 6:04 PM

Thanks,, but no sympathies needed.. I took your advice and went back and partially read thru some of Ishie's posts. We probably agree on more things then I would of originally of thought. But my comment is specifically about secession being someone's only course of action.

Hope everyone has a great weekend,, I know I will in my very red state....... Afterall,, Alaska is the best of them all.. :-)

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 6:26 PM

Robert,

Just a short one this time.

"But I'll always remember what Winston Churchill said. "If you're not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 40, you have no brain.""

Churchill was speaking about the Liberal and Conservative parties in Parliament. If you are familiar with British politics, those two parties have strayed WAY away from any dictionary definition of those words, as have the Democrat and Republican parties strayed from THOSE original definitions. I’ll admit, though, that it sounds good if not interpreted too factually. :-).
Dan

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 6:29 PM

Dave,

The old phrase "better dead than red" is starting to take on new meaning :-).
Dan

Posted by: Ishtar at November 12, 2004 7:21 PM

"But my comment is specifically about secession being someone's only course of action."

Most with the intelligence you have claimed would recognize this site as a way to blow off steam and feel some unity with people who feel the same way, rather than an actual proposal to move forward?

Ishie

Posted by: Dan at November 12, 2004 7:31 PM

To all,

Since many of you have either enjoyed or been enraged by Ishie’s posts so much :-), I would like to share with you a few of her credentials.

Ishie holds a Bachelor of Science degree with high honors in Biological Anthropology. This is in preparation for medical school. She is also a Certified Emergency Medical Technician. In her "spare time", she is an Internet systems operator and news administrator for a major American website. Ishie is an expert marksman, an accomplished SCUBA diver, and is trained in the martial arts. With her extensive knowledge of human anatomy, one of her main hobbies is forensic science. Some of the Christian fundamentalists who have posted to this site may know her as the scourge of creationist websites. Her rapier wit and extensive knowledge of the bible have reduced many hardcore creationists to such snappy rejoinders as "SHUT UP, YA PINKO COMMIE!!". Her early belief in Christianity was pounded out of her by bible thumping Christian fundamental extremists. As a proud papa, I will add that she is beautiful and personable, but she does not suffer fools. In addition, tomorrow is her birthday!!!!!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ISH!!!

Dan

Posted by: Amber Rehling at November 12, 2004 9:24 PM

So relieved I can be part of this new independent state and don't even have to leave home! But two questions:
1) What do we do about Arnold? Is the guy still governor?
2) Can't you color in some of the Great Lakes states, too? I mean, they might not be as cool as us, but, man, they're trying! Gotta give all the blue states credit.

Having spent most of Bush's first regime in France, I'm glad to see I can stay here this time and not regret it, since I'm in good company. (Not that France isn't amazing, just tired of being an ex-patriate for the moment!)

And one last thing: irony is great for the heart and soul, but anyone who's pissed off at Bush, don't stop there (though it's a great place to start). Find some constructive action to take about an issue you care about, something Bush and his cohorts are going to threaten, and go do it!

Posted by: Sarah at November 12, 2004 9:42 PM

Don't we all love the fact that this country has made us all fear so much that the best come-back we can come up with is "the terrorists will blow you to smitherines" dearies, yes September 11th was bad but don't you think that our lovely government would be attacking somewhere other than IRAQ if the terrorists were as threatening as they say? How about Saudi Arabia? No wait, why not finish with Afghanastan? Ah well. I suppose there either is no threat or our very own government is trying to kill you. How can you NOT secede? I think that just about every other country could do moroe damage to the US than "terrorist" Iraq. This is still a lovely idea, and all my friends at school are joining you. Your idea is marvelous and I wish with all my might that it could actually work but thanks to our red-neck friends with guns under their pillows there would be another civil war and we'd probably lose because we're the peace loving hippies... but it would still be nice not to be with the rest of Jesus land (I have nothing against Jesus except people who use his name to back prejudice or racism. people, if we went word for word by the bible we'd still be able to buy slaves from any country except our own and of course sell our daughters into slavery!)

Posted by: Robert at November 12, 2004 9:50 PM

Happy Birthday Ishie!

Robert

Posted by: Ishtar at November 12, 2004 9:55 PM

Arrrrggghhhhh.... thanks dad. I'm blushing deep.

Amber,
"1) What do we do about Arnold? Is the guy still governor?"

Pit him against Jesse Ventura!!! Political Smackdown XIV (it's never number one). Put them in the death match cage, play some hard rock, stick the whole thing on Pay-Per-View and use the profit to balance the budget. The one who crawls out alive gets to be Secretary of Defense for Coastopia. We keep the winner in a small room fed steroid enhanced raw meat. We grab one bigwig terrorist trainer, stick him in the room with a superpumped, vein humping, screaming wide eyed aged action figure, and then send him back to his terrorist friends. No terror in Coastopia and for a low low fraction of the price.

Ishie

Posted by: Ishtar at November 12, 2004 9:57 PM

::blink::
Thank you, Robert.

Ishie

Posted by: Ian at November 13, 2004 12:37 AM

Happy Birthday, Ishie!

I keep telling her she should have her own blog, but she never listens to me.

By the way, don't everyone stick to this particular 500+ comment blog entry. There's other entries too - why, you could be rhapsodizing about AM radio soft rock hits!

-ian

Posted by: Robert at November 13, 2004 12:41 AM

Ishie....Happy Birthday once again. Before I begin ripping your quotes apart, I will concur with your dad about just how challenging you are to debate. I run in pretty good conservative circles and can hold my own. I also consider the executive assistant to Teresa Heinz Kerry, as a friend of mine and we routinely exchange diatribes, but never at the expense of our friendship! So while I know I am not a significant relationship in your life, I would like to caution you to ensure that your ideals never interfere with relationships, which will be part of you long after any political party or candidate has moved on.
"I found two ads in which Bush is compared to Hitler" Good then we agree that Kerry had radicals in his periphery as well as Bush.
"Since their numbers were up for IMMEDIATE check and revealed by the news organizations, it would be stupid to deliberately lie knowing you're going to be outed thirty seconds from making the statement" Well, not all lies are about numbers. Second, I think even you agreed about the spin available from most media organizations. They pretty much gave Kerry a pass in my view.
"Kerry slung his share of mud but he by no means drove a campaign BASED on hate. If he had, he might have been more successful.." He told a lot of lies. SS, Draft, Tax Cuts, Iraq. You name it, Kerry lied about it. If lies dont equal hate, what does?
"A lot of us REALLY dislike this administration." A lot of us REALLY like this administration.
"What I MEANT was to me, the strongest detractors are the ones who make the strongest cases" Ok, there is Richard Clarke and Paul O'neil, both of which had some condemning things to say. But they both had an ax to grind and though both had some compelling things to say, neither proved their case. Ok, Bush identified Iraq as a threat to the United States prior to 9/11 and discussed with his cabinet scenarios on how to deal with that threat. So did Clinton!
"Republicans tend to treat people who break from party lines as hideous blasphemers" Zel Miller!!!!!
"They are absolutely vicious in the primaries " It's a wonder why Edwards even agreed to join the Kerry campaign.
"It must be really scary in your world, with the armies of liberals with torches and pitchforks surrounding the fortress. It's a shame because McCain is someone I actually do respect, and I think he would have proved a far better leader than Bush." Why do you respect McCain more? Because he shares more of your views? Respect shouldn't always arise out of assent. I respect my liberal friend who works for Teresa Heinz Kerry more than I could describe, but I disagree with her an aweful lot. Your assertion about McCain would be equivalent to me telling you that Lieberman should have been your man. I respect Lieberman....blah balh blah. Why would you care which democrats I like? Get the point?
"Just because you toe the party line doesn't mean I have to" I don't. In fact I have several differences but I don't bring them up when I am defending what I feel they do well.
"He also was painted as a traitor and less than a hero for fighting in the war the administration couldn't be bothered to attend." This is a bit outrageous on both ends. Bush doesn't consider McCain a traitor and the characterization of the administration is simply a partisan hack job.
I described the enlistment commitment which includes active duty, reserve duty and inactive reserve duty and you cite examples of people being called to fulfill their comittment. So we agree that there is no backdoor draft. Good!
"We just re-elected a president in the midst of a pre-emptive war on a country falsely believed to be a threat to us" Uh, no we didn't. Iraq was a viable threat to the United States with or without stockpiles of WMD. If you don't know that, than do a little historical research and try to understand the strategy of Hussein and what his real capacity was. He had WMD, he has used WMD and even if he didn't have WMD, he could certainly make WMD as soon as he relieved himself of the UN sanctions, which he paid the French, Germans and Russians to accomodate with the corrupt oil for food program. Add the documented terrorist ties and you have a recipe for disaster.
" This has led to an increased recruitment drive for terrorism and condemnation by the world" Here is a list of countries that support the war: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom and Uzbekistan. Hardly seems like "world" condemnation. And if the terrorist have galvanized their resolve and increased recruitment and now migrated to Iraq as other liberals claim, I say EXCELLENT! We can fight them with our military instead of having them plotting attacks on innocent civilians.
"the situation in Iraq is going very badly" Uh not exactly! We have success stories in agriculture, airports, bridges and roads, community action programs, economic growth, education, electricity, food security, health care, local governance, seaports, telecommunications, transition initiatives, water & sanitation and more! The Iraqi's are now fighting side by side with the allied forces to dislodge the insurgents and their first elections are imminent! Yes there are many casualties, however anyone who expected to undertake this challenge without casualties was naive. But to suggest that things are going badly is to deny our troops the credit they deserve for so many accomplishments!
"We're having to send in our own national guard, which includes a number of people with insufficient training to fight the sort of battle we have going on in Iraq" No, the reason that the National Guard is going is preciesly because they HAVE the training! And in case you didn't know, our National Guard troops train alongside our other military forces. I know, I was one of them!
" If we are attacked again, the people that are supposed to defend us are largely tied up in the Iraq mess" Do you really think that the terrorists are planning to storm our beaches? What can 40,000 troops do to stop a terrorists who smuggles a bomb into a crowded train station? This is an absurd criticism likely based in nothing more than your hatred of Bush and the war.
"If Kerry was committing "war crimes", then what lies was he telling about his fellows? " Well all be damned! This is the same damn question the swift boat vets have been asking? If Kerry committed these "crimes", should he be made to answer for them and if he didn't, he must have been lying. You can't have it both ways. You pick!
"American soldiers, the vast majority of which were not committing war crimes" Go back and tell that to the POW's whose imprisonment and torture was extended by Kerry's testimony before the Senate. Tell that to the scores of soldiers returning home who were spat on because of the organized effort to portray them all as "baby killers" by people like Kerry.
"including the ones on KERRY'S boat, support him." That would be 3 to be exact. Seems everyone else including every one of his commanders feels that he is not qualified.
"We act like any criticism of American actions in Vietnam is based on lies" No we don't but the actions of a few don't define the whole. Kerry fabricated his atrocities and characterized them as US policy and WHY? Because he wanted to be President!
"He didn't? When was it we supposedly "won" the war? When was the date by which our troops would be out of Iraq? What was our reason for going into Iraq?" Bush never claimed to have won the war. He never gave a date to get out of Iraq and he made our reasons very clear. So where are Bush's lies?
"With the intelligence failures BOTH pre 9/11, and more notably (since hindsight is 20/20), pre-Iraq, Bush was either lying to make his case, or he was completely incompetent" You seem smarter than to conclude such a thing. You admit that there were intelligence failures and yet you maintain that there was lies. Interesting. If there were intelligence failures as you claim, why is it not a reasonable conclusion that Bush was simply acting on what he felt to be true at the time. Also, it wasn't as if he was alone. The French, the Germans, the Russians, the British as well as the IAEA and a host of other foreign intelligence services ALL concluded that Saddam had WMD. So with virtually every notable intelligence service concluding the same thing, Bush acted and ithe information turned out to be wrong. But somehow, Bush was supposed to know they all had it wrong right? In case you don't know, Bush had many reasons to go into Iraq. the reason he pinned it on WMD was because at that time, it was agreed by EVERYONE! A political miscalculation to be sure, but not a lie and not a mistake.
"So Kerry has SEPARATELY voted for issues that only concerned a rise in taxes, not separate policies that included a rise in taxes, well over three hundred times?" Why are you twisting this issue? Go and check the record. There were 23 individual tax increases that Kerry supported over the years. Some of them were of course part of larger legislation but that doesn't change the fact that they were individual tax increases. If you include every committee vote and floor motion to get those taxes passed, the votes increase. Why is this so hard to comprehend. If you don't want to do the research, answer this. When has Kerry EVER voted for a tax cut in 20 years in the Senate?
So I tell you that Kerry voted against every major weapons system now used in modern combat. That he voted for arms reductions while Reagan was building up arms to defeat the soviets and that he voted against the first gulf war. I say all this to suggest that Kerry is anti-military and you give me the AH-64 Apache helicopter??? Good point, I hadn't thought of that!
"He stated he committed war crimes while in the midst of a horrible, unpopular, confusing war" Well I guess that makes war crimes ok. But we know he didn't actually commit them don't we?
"With the public's incitement against the war and often against the soldiers " The public was incited against the war because of people like Kerry who lied to fuel their fantasies.
"I do not think it is the role of people supporting partisan interests to criticize a war they didn't participate in." Well can they criticize their post-war actions?????
"It also speaks strongly to me that most if not all of the people who KNEW Kerry in Vietnam support him." Not exactly See Swift Boat Vets. MANY of them KNEW him.
"I do not think that service in Vietnam or lack of it makes one qualified or unqualified to be a president" Funny because you have mentioned it several times to demean Bush.
"To you, I seem to be young, liberal, and stupid, believing all the lies I hear from soundbytes in liberal news sources and failing to see the real picture " You are no doubt young and liberal, but you are by no means stupid. I don't know where you get your "news" and I don't care. You have no arguments that I haven't dealt with on a dozen or so blog sites that I frequent. So when I see the same arguments time and time again, I get a bit desensitized to them. You are very smart, but you don't have a unique perspective on American politics any more than I do.
"Despite your painting of me as a misguided young buck swayed by party tactics, it's simply not true. I'm not happy with the democrats" I would suggest that the party has been taken over by ultra-liberals but you seem to be one of them so I don't know if you would agree. IMO the democrats will perform better when they at least APPEAR to come back to the center like Clinton.
"the party wanted to find someone that seemed less abrasive, because after looking at Bush's rampant success throwing diplomacy to the wind and shooting from the hip, the party, as a whole, in the states where the primaries actually matter, decided the best way to combat someone with an abundance of cowboy charisma and a lot of ignorance was to pit him against Frankenstein the accountant" That is quite an analysis but I don't think it's so simple.
"Hmm... you seem to get offended when people paint your side of the argument as a bunch of inbred, ignorant, warmongering hillbillies, yet you embrace the anti-liberal stereotypes with gusto" No, you embrace the stereotype when you suggest that an argument can be made that the 9/11 attacks were preemptive for the terrorists. I say that's nonsense! No reasonable person can make that argument! I listed the people that WOULD make that argument but notice carefully (and this is for your dad as well), I added the connotation 'America hating' in front of liberal. This was meant to imply that certain liberals are 'America haters' NOT that all liberals hate America. Anyone making this argument, to me, hates America.
"despite the recent trend of not caring who dies if they live in another country" Again, implying because I support the war, I don't care. Not good!
"whatever twisted ethical cause the terrorists thought they had for attacking us, there was no reason for them to attack us" So I guess you agree with me that there is no argument to be made that their attack was preemptive.
"They did not go off half-cocked; they did not, at first, start violating civil rights" Whose civil rights were violated?? And please don't tell me Jose Padilla. Do you have another drum to pound?
"We ignore the wishes of the UN" We ignored the UN?? You mean like Clinton did for Bosnia? Interesting. Hey, I wonder if the French got UN approval to attack the Ivory Coast?
"We gave Saddam 48 hours to leave the country, which is not our right despite him being a Very Bad Man. " Actually, you should read the UN resolutions regarding Iraq's terms of surrender. They were very specific with consequences. The fact that Saddam violated the terms of his surrender gave the allied forces all the authorization they needed. It's only because of certain countries on the take from the corrupt oil for food program that decisive action wasn't mandated by the UN. Mainly the French, the Germans and the Russians. But of course, they were all voting their conscience right?
"Now we occupy them, appoint our people, and we're not leaving." Allawi is "our people"?? Hey since we aren't leaving, do you think we can make them a state? Maybe oil prices will drop. What are you thinking? Do you actually believe that Bush has empirical aspiration in Iraq?
"What did Iraq do? NOTHING. " Well ,not exactly. They invaded a country, surrendered and agreed to terms which they violated. Built and used WMD programs and harbored terrorists both at home and abroad. Offered bountied to familes of suicide bombers. Thwarted the UN weapon's inspectors and perpetrated an illegal collusion with the French, Germans and the Russians in order to circumvent sanctions. Filled mass graves. Kept torture and rape chambers active and violated every human right imaginable.
"We picked a country with a secular dictator when logic would dictate al qaeda wouldn't associate with him anyway because he'd sell them out in a heartbeat with a fairly moderate population" Wrong again. Saddam turned a blind eye to them and allowed them to train in country and he gave them medical care. Of course he publically denouced them as radical muslims, but in secret he recognized their mutual hatred of America and he colluded with them.
"Creating more desperate people doesn't fix this" No creating more dead desperate people fixes this.
"Ohhh.... Wow, I didn't know that. From the Boston Globe:" Well gee, if the Boston Globe characterizes those volunteers as the RNC, it must be true!!! But let me tell you something that I know PERSONALLY. When Kerry met in Pittsburgh to announce his running mate, I tried to get in and I was thwarted. Kerry had hundreds of people bussed in and everyone else was kept out! So I suppose this is a better tactic than the loyalty oath but please stop pretending that this mistake was made by the campaign. If it was true, this would have happened all over the country!
"LOL, you're talking about context?" It was sarcasm because of your whole "contect" BS.
"Strawman. This wasn't his argument". My name is Robert, not strawman. But this is a reasonable conclusion made from Kerry's statement even if you don't want to admit it. You keep telling us that the global test was only meant to convince people that what he would do was justifiable. So my question remains. What would Kerry do if protecting the US meant action that he could not justify to the world? From his statements, I can only conclude that he would do nothing!
""you are claiming that our interests NEVER conflict with the world. That's a pretty narrow view!" ...."Never claimed that. Strawman" So what should an American do when our interest conflict with the world???
" His administration implied it at the beginning, and Cheney held onto an Al Qaeda link even after Bush had abandoned it " This isn't accurate. The administration had claimed and continues to claim that there is a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, not 9/11.
"I am NOT, by the way, calling conservatives stupid. I am calling a vast percentage of them uninformed" Funny I feel the same way about democrats. But the real question is this. Why, historically does large voter turnout favor democrats?
"The share of the tax burden dropped more for the wealthy than it did for the lower classes" Here is your homework. Find out what EXACTLY is the tax break for the "middle class" and compare it to the percentage break of the "rich". Then I want you to look at the marginal tax rate of the same two classes. Compare the actual "break" and then come back and tell me again how Bush's tax break only benefited the rich.
"In addition, Bush has provided financial motivations for businesses which violate Clean Air Laws." Bush is setting more reasonable time frames for companies to adhere to the overzealous restrictions. He does this to keep the doors open on companies that may close. This is one way to foster jobs! Hundreds of manufacturing firms simply said "fuck it, it's too expensive" and moved their operation overseas. This is exactly what we don't want to happen. We all know there are corporate "fat cats" who are overpaid and underworked but this won't stop them from closing their doors in a heartbeat while they exercise stock options with their golden parachutes. So while we find ways to clean that mess up, it's probably a good idea if we protect jobs!!!
"Going up but maintaining a net loss doesn't make things all right, particularly when coupled against the cost of living." It matter when the President oversaw the shortest recession in American history at a time of war. The question is how does it make you feel as the economic indicators improve every month? When will you be convinced? When EVERY american has health care?
"Many people trying to feed a family have lost jobs with the downturn in the economy, and have had to seek jobs elsewhere in an employers' market. They take what they can get" Yes this happens but anyone that is willing to work will move up quickly. I have worked retail and restaurants in 5 states and every type of area. If you want to work, you will not make minimum wage for very long.
"Define long. If your company has just gone under, and you're scraping for a job, though the unemployment is a help, if you have a mortgage to pay, going on minimum wage for a MONTH, which is shorter than it takes most people to get a raise, is enough to drive you into financial ruin." Anyone who just lost a job will qualify for at least 6 months of unemplyment. Add to that a host of other welfare and social programs. And yes, people can scrape by with minimum wage until they find a better job. But this isn't happening nearly as much as you claim.
"I'm afraid I have to be condescending since you clearly cannot understand my position when I speak to you as an adult" If you must, but go slow....
"If I were in need of a job, had been let go from an industry I'd worked in for ten years whose opportunities had dried up in my community, it would be very difficult to start over." Yes it would and I hope like hell that doesn't happen to anybody. But before I start forking over your tax dollars, I would want to make sure they did everything to help themsleves first! The problem with most liberals is that they feel that everything bad that can possibly happen requires a government solution. "You're out of a job??? Well, here's a check!"
"What I have SEEN is that health care costs are higher than people can conceivably pay without insurance" Really? Than tell me please how so many people do it? I know many people who are self employed middle class that buy their own insurance. Being difficult and veing impossible are distinct. If you want government to start providing everything that is difficult, forget about paying down the deficit. Also, were you aware that hospitals are required to provide emergency health care to anyone? Then of course there is medicaid.
"Then wouldn't the economy prosper more if we did away with taxes altogether?" Do I need to answer this or is the answer obvious?
"I suspect you are again waving your pitchfork at the liberal hordes instead of addressing the issue." No, don't have a pitchfork, but don't pretend that politics started when you decided that you were interested. I am quite a bit older and I can tell you that for many many years, the democrats were on a spendthrift without any regard to deficits or debt. But now that a republican is in office, all of a sudden, it's one of their top priorities. This is just the nature of politics.
"Net loss, lower annual salary, higher cost of living, huge numbers who've lost health care benefits" The numbers just keep improving but that mean NOTHING to you as you parrot the "net loss" line. I suppose that the increase in jobs over 19 months doesn't indicate an improving economy to you? Or the low unemployment? Or highest home ownership? Or stock market? Or improving average salaries?? No, none of that matters to you because you hate Bush and no matter how well he does, you will credit something else.
Do you really believe that Clinton was responsible for the balanced budget during his term? I am curious. Maybe you had better check with your dad.
"you have no real position" Wow, I don't know how you could say that. I think I have made my position very clear!
"you're going to paint me with a liberal paint brush, accuse me of positions I do not share that I did not state and treat me like a misguided young buck who is a tool of the traitorous Kerry" Your positions are very liberal. If you don't want to characterize them as such, it matter not to me. I didn't accuse you of anything. I made logical conslusions from your posts. If you disagree, it's fine, but it hardly sugeests that I accused you of taking positions you didn't take. And last, I think you have made your distaste of Kerry quite clear and I have no reason not to believe you.
"don't insult my intelligence, Robert. I have consistently backed my statements up with sources and logically explained my position. " You have indeed, as have I.
"You have tossed off accusations, been condescending, and deliberately misrepresented my position by setting up strawmen left and right. I'd say your tactics are no better than your president's, but he is better at using them" I'd say you are doing exactly what you just accused me of. That's very Kerry-esque of you!
"meaning once I 'grow up', I'll see your point of view, and for now you can pat me on the head for being cute, provided I don't get "stupid" when I age" The implication was there so I apologize. You are not stupid. I do however stand by Churchills's statement as a generality. There are exceptions of course. Also, it really only means that you get wiser and more knowledgeable as you grow older. Surely you can agree on that? The question is if you will turn into a conservative as a result. It is doubtful. You are very passionate about your beliefs for someone so young. I estimate that this will only stregthen as you grow older. But don't lose patience for the other side. I do and it doesn't serve me well. Instead, I ask only that you consider my thoughts before you dismiss them and I will pay you the same courtesy.
Good luck and Happy Birthday!
Robert

Posted by: Nebo at November 13, 2004 4:12 AM

Posted by: Tigger1974 at November 12, 2004 11:33 AM
I have heard something that has disturbed me. Why is it that now Democrats are belittling welfare?? I mean, hello?? Isn't charity and welfare part of being a democrat?? I read a post here that claimed to want to seceede and said "Whoever is president, it doesn't have to change who we are or how we act. It is frustrating, but we can go to Coastopia in our minds every time we give our time or money to charity or argue with a homophobe."

Well the states listed here as blue states are the states that give the least to charity. Why is that??? The Catalogue of Philanthropy released the following this week: 1. Mississippi. 49. $4,070

2. Arkansas. 46. $4,157

3. South Dakota. 44. $4,394

4. Louisiana. 42. $3,637

5. Tennessee. 34. $4,572

6. Alabama. 39. $3,733

7. Oklahoma. 43. $3,451

8. Utah. 27. $5,314

9. North Dakota. 47. $3,079

10. South Carolina. 37. $3,469

11. Wyoming. 24. $6,868

12. West Virginia. 48. $3,021

13. Nebraska. 32. $3,578

14. Idaho. 41. $3,120

15. Texas. 21. $4,447

16. North Carolina. 28. $3,331

17. Missouri. 29. $3,137

18. Kansas. 25. $3,356

19. Florida. 16. $3,798

20. New Mexico. 45. $2,710

21. Georgia. 17. $3,547

22. Montana. 50. $2,374

23. Kentucky. 38. $2,742

24. Iowa. 36. $2,749

25. Alaska. 31. $2,915

26. Indiana. 23. $3,106

27. Nevada. 11. $3,281

28. New York. 5. $3,485

29. Maine. 40. $2,091

30. Vermont. 35. $2,413

31. Ohio. 30. $2,585

32. California. 9. $3,112

33. Washington. 7. $3,128

34. Hawaii. 33. $2,285

35. Oregon. 26. $2,649

36. Arizona. 20. $2,752

37. Pennsylvania. 19. $2,763

38. Delaware. 14. $2,924

39. Michigan. 15. $2,879

40. Virginia. 12. $2,947

41. Illinois. 8. $3,047

42. Colorado. 13. $2,851

43. Wisconsin. 22. $2,512

44. Maryland. 6. $2,958

45. Connecticut. 1. $2,961

46. Rhode Island. 18. $2,059

47. Minnesota. 2. $2,742

48. New Jersey. 3. $2,668

49. New Hampshire. 10. $2,253

50. Massachusetts. 4. $2,645


Makes me wonder about you so called democrats out there.... "


Makes me wonder how much of that money go's for the "Reverend" Billy Bobs new Elderodo


Nebo

Posted by: Ishtar at November 13, 2004 5:29 AM

"Before I begin ripping your quotes apart, I will concur with your dad about just how challenging you are to debate."

Thank you. You are as well.

"So while I know I am not a significant relationship in your life, I would like to caution you to ensure that your ideals never interfere with relationships, which will be part of you long after any political party or candidate has moved on."

Though he went Kerry in the last election due largely to the Iraq situation, my boyfriend is a Clinton hating, Bush 2000 voting, gun lover who can understand the voodoo that makes cars work, so I'm already taking your advice.

On this last election, I do confess a "holy shit" feeling due not to Bush 'stealing' an election, which would be comforting, but due to the fact that he didn't. This hasn't really swayed my relationships given its occurence ten days ago, but I do have plenty of friends, generally who started as debate partners, who are fundamentalist Christians who've battled me on gays, abortion, and/or creationism. As an anthropology major, really creationism is the easiest way to get me worked up.

"Good then we agree that Kerry had radicals in his periphery as well as Bush."

I live in California. You think I haven't seen left wing radicals? They likely piss me off more than you because they don't snarl up your traffic endlessly preaching to the choir. Forget Michael Moore. Once you sit parked on I-5 for an hour and a half so that protestors can convince tired, employed liberal people to vote against Bush, you do start to feel a temptation to vote Buchanan.

"Well, not all lies are about numbers."

Those are the easiest to out as lies. Once you get away from the numbers, it becomes spin.

"Second, I think even you agreed about the spin available from most media organizations. They pretty much gave Kerry a pass in my view."

Really? I saw equal representation... not from one news organization, don't get me wrong. But channel surf and you get the biased conservative media nailing Kerry and channel surf more and you get the biased liberal media nailing Bush. Oh, and Dick Cheney apparently has a lesbian daughter.

"He told a lot of lies. SS, Draft, Tax Cuts, Iraq. You name it, Kerry lied about it. If lies dont equal hate, what does?"

I hate to sound like Clinton, but it depends on what you mean by lie. I saw Kerry put a spin on the data. I saw Bush put a spin on the data. I saw both sides screwing up the data. On the backdoor draft, I don't like screwing people on the fine print. I know it's legal, but I don't like it. Referring to it doesn't make it a "lie", it makes it a spun position.

And Bush lies? Government run health care, more taxes on the middle class? I'm sure you don't feel those are lies, but I can provide the same "spun" evidence that you can for Kerry's "lies".

Policy spin I accept, though dislike. Namecalling in a political campaign is simply immature and hateful, as is dragging up issues for no reason. I know I've mentioned this, but I really saw the Cheney's daughter thing as being that way. It was not a lie in the least, but it was nastier behavior than party spinning.

""Republicans tend to treat people who break from party lines as hideous blasphemers" Zel Miller!!!!!"

Uhh... there's breaking party lines and there's challenging people to a duel.

"Uh, no we didn't. Iraq was a viable threat to the United States with or without stockpiles of WMD."

Say again?

"If you don't know that, than do a little historical research..."

Done some. America really needs to stop this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff. And no, I'm not blaming that on Bush.

"He had WMD, he has used WMD and even if he didn't have WMD,"

Uh... he had WMDs that we helped supply... but apparently, not anymore.

"he could certainly make WMD as soon as he relieved himself of the UN sanctions, which he paid the French, Germans and Russians to accomodate with the corrupt oil for food program."

Why not simply keep the ones he had? Also, Saddam... evil man, not terminally stupid one. Developing the WMDs, getting a delivery system, getting the US, even if successful, would lead to the complete obliteration of his rule. We've done that NOW, and I am not suggesting waiting until another attack. What I am suggesting is that Saddam, again, not a stupid man, and also not a devoutly religious man, knew this. What would he stand to gain by this? He saw how pissed off we got when he invaded a country that prior to his invasion, probably 80% of the US couldn't find on a map, and he's going to develop WMDs to send off at us?

"Add the documented terrorist ties and you have a recipe for disaster."

How do the ties compare to those with Saudi Arabia and other countries in that region? Considering the number of terrorists and camps stemming from Saudi Arabia and the anti-Christian, anti-Americanism there actively encouraged, I'm a little more concerned about them. They are also a far more fundamentalist country.

I'm not saying bomb Saudi Arabia, but if we want to fight terror, maybe we should try doing SOMETHING with the place that seems to be a never ending supply of terrorists, training, and weapons.

"Here is a list of countries that support the war: Hardly seems like "world" condemnation."

With Eritrea involved, we can't lose! Sorry. It is a long list until you examine public sentiment and the relative contributions made by each supporter. Polls reflecting world opinion are drastically put against us. Though the UK is one of our supporters, the sentiment of the UK, including the majority of their government, is incredibly negative. Tony Blair is called "Bush's poodle", he's faced intense criticism by his own people (and they do have some all out brawls), so we can't really claim much support there. Other countries are on the list and have contributed NOTHING in the way of funds or troops. In many cases, the people either don't support the war or are completely uninterested in it. I'm betting that includes a big part of Eritrea.

"I say EXCELLENT! We can fight them with our military instead of having them plotting attacks on innocent civilians."

It's not having them move to a single location which disturbs me, and by all means, I hope they would. It's the "increased recruitment" that troubles me. The 9/11 attacks were highly organized, but they didn't have to be. It was not a high tech, WMD assault. More terrorists means more chance one of them gets through. More world sympathy for terrorists means less help. Look at the damage McVeigh did as one guy.

"Uh not exactly! We have success stories in agriculture, airports, bridges and roads, community action programs, economic growth, education, electricity, food security, health care, local governance, seaports, telecommunications, transition initiatives, water & sanitation and more! The Iraqi's are now fighting side by side with the allied forces to dislodge the insurgents and their first elections are imminent!"

Uhhh... Attacks are raging. It did not turn out to be a nation that was simply Saddam over a poor oppressed people, as it was presented. Innocent people are dying. In Fallujah they did make an effort to get the civilians out before they stormed the place, but thousands of Iraqis are dead.

Unemployment in Iraq is at an all time high, worse than under Saddam's regime! Some of the 'success' in feeding people is based on an infrastructure set up by his regime. We are trying to get Iraqis to work beside us, and many are. They're getting picked off in droves. Being an Iraqi police officer has to be more dangerous than being an oil rig firefighter, but it has become their duty to take on the danger now because we decided they needed liberating?

I also think we are demonizing Saddam to a point that we were ignoring structures in his country that were already there. A great number of Iraqis already had electricity. Our 'success' is finally getting their power back on after we bombed them. There were bridges, roads, museums and schools there already, and in the schools women were even allowed to attend them! Many times we act like Iraq was bare deserts with nothing, and then Saddam's palaces. Not so. Iraq had a fairly developed society going with the unfortunate trait of being under a brutal dictator.

"Yes there are many casualties, however anyone who expected to undertake this challenge without casualties was naive."

Didn't. Many who supported the war said it was going to be easy. I am not saying you are one or anything, but I MET people. I also met people who into the war said "Please! It's successful, only a hundred soldiers have died!"

"But to suggest that things are going badly is to deny our troops the credit they deserve for so many accomplishments!"

Ohhh no. Badly doesn't mean they haven't taken most of the country or that the troops haven't done a commendable job.

Largely, I mean (should have been) badly for the Bush camp.
Badly:
1. No WMDs
2. No links to Al Qaeda
3. Prisoner abuse scandals followed by documentations showing really shady dealings surrounding the administration's position on torture and the Geneva convention. Granted, the most damning stuff appeared to be Rumsfeld, not Bush, though when Bush started talking about enemy combatants not qualifying under the Geneva Convention, things got scary.
4. Loss of the weapons
5. No decrease in attacks, and targeting of Iraqi police force.

This doesn't mean whether we're kicking the country's butt is in question. But we're stuck in this for the long haul because he screwed up. I'm not saying it's good to bomb people and then leave, but with no weapons or ties, and our new 'liberation' motive, we have to stay as long as it takes. We can't just pack up.

"Do you really think that the terrorists are planning to storm our beaches?"

Nope. I think they're planning to attack on a lot of fronts because it only takes one to take down a building. I'm all for getting the heads of the organizations. I am not for inspiring suicide bombers.

"What can 40,000 troops do to stop a terrorists who smuggles a bomb into a crowded train station?"

Be available. If we don't need a National Guard, why do we have one?

"If Kerry committed these "crimes", should he be made to answer for them and if he didn't, he must have been lying. You can't have it both ways. You pick!"

Kerry Senate Testimony (1971)"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

He goes onto describe the stories of chopping off ears and such, which is one of the things misrepresented by the Swift Boat Veterans... then

"...1971 NBC "Meet the Press" interview that he had personally engaged in "atrocities" like "thousands of others" who engaged in shootings in free-fire zones. He said then that he considered the officials who set such war policies to be "war criminals."

Are the shootings in the free-fire zones the crimes you are referring to, or were you referring to what the SBV were saying in their ad where they clipped: "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads..." from the Testimony vs. putting it in the correct context?

"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads..." This refers to statements made by those 150 men which Kerry seems to have fully believed. This is not the story the Swift Boat Veterans tell. Instead, we have Kerry as Fonda, but he had a gun.

"Go back and tell that to the POW's whose imprisonment and torture was extended by Kerry's testimony before the Senate."

Tell it to the 150 who testified in Detroit months prior to that.

"Tell that to the scores of soldiers returning home who were spat on because of the organized effort to portray them all as "baby killers" by people like Kerry."

The actions of a few helped portray this image as the actions were made public. Kerry was not (like Fonda) calling them baby killers and was critical more of the commands.

"including the ones on KERRY'S boat, support him." That would be 3 to be exact. Seems everyone else including every one of his commanders feels that he is not qualified.

The statements I've read seem quite favorable. Sources?

"No we don't but the actions of a few don't define the whole."

No, but they shouldn't be hidden either.

"Kerry fabricated his atrocities and characterized them as US policy and WHY? Because he wanted to be President!"

Fabricated? Which ones? By the way, 2004 Meet the Press: "I think some of the language that I used was a language that reflected an anger. It was honest, but it was in anger, it was a little bit excessive."

Had he been doing the Jane Fonda thing, I'd say tough. However, as a veteran, as someone angry, and in a political climate where anger was prominent, this is pretty likely. Fabricating stuff isn't okay, but it doesn't look like he did. Being angry is another matter. There was a LOT of anger surrounding Vietnam. To me, those sentiments seem pretty typical of one waxing on their youth. Your comments to me would indicate you understand this trend?

"Bush never claimed to have won the war."

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. (Before Saddam was even caught, by the way)

They also tried to sell us on the idea of an easy war. Obviously, such a thing doesn't exist, but they tried to push it. This Meet the Press from March 2003 is almost cute:

Cheney: "Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

RUSSERT: "If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

Cheney: "Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators...The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that."

Hmm...
One could say that some Iraqis greet us as liberators, though with less enthusiasm then they did when we first rolled in with big promises, but I'm sure you can gather from the context of that conversation that Cheney wasn't saying "Well, some will support us... others... will make this hell". In case we could question his intent, Russert goes out and asks the vital question.

"and he made our reasons very clear."

1. WMDs. Nope
2. Links to Al Qaeda. Nothing yet.
3. Freeing the Iraqi people... depends on which ones you ask.

"So where are Bush's lies?"

Uhh, the one about Saddam posing an imminent threat to the United States was a big one. The uranium whopper wasn't actually (I don't believe) a lie, and the British believed it too, but that was a huge d'oh!

"You admit that there were intelligence failures and yet you maintain that there was lies. Interesting. If there were intelligence failures as you claim, why is it not a reasonable conclusion that Bush was simply acting on what he felt to be true at the time."

If you say you have a concrete case for invading Iraq based on solid intelligence, and you don't, that could be considered a lie. Now it's also fair to say he's being misled by false intelligence, though aren't there supposed to be checks in place against this sort of thing?

So intelligence failures revealed all around, but then he maintains we were right in going into Iraq and we had good reason to go in. To me, that's a lie. Incompetence in intelligence gathering is not a good reason.

"So with virtually every notable intelligence service concluding the same thing, Bush acted and ithe information turned out to be wrong."

They were still giving the weapons inspectors more time and did not initiate action. You need very strong evidence for a pre-emptive war. It's not about which countries had intelligence reports. It's about which one led the assault based on incomplete data.

And considering some of the pre 9/11 stuff, it doesn't sound like Bush was blameless in intelligence failures. I know people in the CIA are mighty pissed at some stuff they told him, it wasn't acted on, and they still took the heat for it.

"But somehow, Bush was supposed to know they all had it wrong right?"

Yup. Before you bomb a country, you need to know. Thousands of people are dead. That is a significant mistake. Except it wasn't a mistake. He doesn't make mistakes.

"In case you don't know, Bush had many reasons to go into Iraq. the reason he pinned it on WMD was because at that time, it was agreed by EVERYONE!"

I thought it was BS at the time, though everyone kept calling me an idiot for it. I figured the Weapons Inspectors would have found more, and again, that whole "Saddam has a lot to lose, and that would the equavalent of a high level suicide bombing".

"A political miscalculation to be sure, but not a lie and not a mistake."

Well, to the rest of us, it looks like he is... flip flopping?

"If you don't want to do the research, answer this. When has Kerry EVER voted for a tax cut in 20 years in the Senate?"

Factcheck.com
"But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”"

"So I tell you that Kerry voted against every major weapons system now used in modern combat."

He voted against strategic nuclear weapons like the B-2. Horrors. Same ones that Bush Sr. ceased production on while putting forward his plan to reduce military spending.

I'm not saying that Bush Sr. was anti-military. I'm saying that if Kerry is anti-military, then you also have to paint the Republicans who voted or proposed the same way into that corner.

"I say all this to suggest that Kerry is anti-military"

So are Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney? Then why the votes to increase military spending consistently since 97?

"and you give me the AH-64 Apache helicopter???"

You missed the point. Many of the cuts to these programs were ones supported by the Republicans themselves, including Dick Cheney for the Apache helicopter. Their "anti-miliary" claims mainly revolve around 1990 and 1995 Pentagon appropriations bill. Surely you recognize the magnitude of these documents?

"Well I guess that makes war crimes ok. But we know he didn't actually commit them don't we?"

Firing rounds in the fire free zone?

"The public was incited against the war because of people like Kerry who lied to fuel their fantasies."

People like Kerry had their 'fantasies' fueled by people like the 150 people mentioned?

"Well can they criticize their post-war actions?????"

Sure, if they're willing to read all the documentation rather than just the pieces the Swift Boat Veterans pulled out.

"Funny because you have mentioned it several times to demean Bush."

I don't like chickenhawks. It's not that he didn't fight. It's that he didn't fight, tore apart John Kerry for being there, now wants to 'play soldier' while gambling with other people's lives and is making decisions to do things to people that are merely "fulfilling their contractual agreement" which would have sparked his run to Canada had they been instituted in Vietnam.

"I don't know where you get your "news" and I don't care."

You should care. You have repeatedly assumed that I get them from left wing sources, including insulting me with the moveon.org stuff.

"You have no arguments that I haven't dealt with on a dozen or so blog sites that I frequent."

Likewise on your end, Robert. Developing opinions similar to people who share my position may be based upon a similar viewing of the facts. This is, without a doubt, influenced by our OWN perceptions, but assuming that it must have come out of a liberal rag is insulting.

"but you don't have a unique perspective on American politics any more than I do."

Never claimed to. If I thought I had a unique perspective, the results of the elections would not have left me feeling the way I did.

"I would suggest that the party has been taken over by ultra-liberals but you seem to be one of them so I don't know if you would agree."

Define "ultra-liberal" so I know whether to be offended. The fact that I am a capitalist, pro death penalty gun owner with a low tolerance for welfare fraud seems to make the ultra liberals think I'm not ultra-liberal.

"IMO the democrats will perform better when they at least APPEAR to come back to the center like Clinton."

Did you just say something positive about Clinton? You're getting kicked out of the association for that one.

I don't know where the center is anymore. I felt 'center' during the Clinton years (those where I was concerned with more than boys and school) I do not like the polarization and would favor a country more united. Do you feel Bush is a 'uniter'? Because that hasn't been the impression I've gotten.

On the civil rights issues, depending on where the middle is, I suppose there I am swung way to the left. I believe strongly in church/state separation, believe in upholding the Constitution (including the 2nd AND 4th Amendments), and pretty much figure that if it doesn't directly concern other people, it isn't any of their business as far as moral issues go.

On economics, I'll go either way. I am not anti tax cuts, by the way. I felt the timing on this one was not good.

"No, you embrace the stereotype when you suggest that an argument can be made that the 9/11 attacks were preemptive for the terrorists."

I try to look at things from the perspective of others even when such things are distasteful. My tendency to do this regarding the Holocaust has caused some people to miscast me as thinking Hitler was a good guy.

Terrorists=BAD!!! is a useless way of looking at things. When you so demonize your enemy that you cannot understand their logic, you will fail to see what's coming. It may feel good to be the prevaling good against the forces of inconceivable darkness, but this tendency will tend to get the crap bombed out of you when the inconceivable darkness does something logically consistent rather than cackling and chewing babies.

"I say that's nonsense! No reasonable person can make that argument!"

Define reasonable. From the perspective I described, it upholds a certain kind of logic very effective in recruiting terrorists. Terrorist recruitment is up. By bombing us and causing us to rally the troops, Osama bin Laden, whether he meant to or not, led to a very real fear by much of the Muslim world that we are waging a holy war. The fact that we then attacked the fairly secular Iraq (comparatively) without solid cause simply shows them no one is safe.

"This was meant to imply that certain liberals are 'America haters' NOT that all liberals hate America."

The stereotype of the America hating liberal is a common one, you must admit.

"Anyone making this argument, to me, hates America."

Anyone seriously considering the 9/11 attacks justified, I would say. I do not think they were justified. I think that when we bomb Iraq for posing a nebulous threat to us makes a case for them to rally people by saying they bombed us because we posed a threat to them. One of bin Laden's early claims was that he was bringing the war on the Muslim world out into the open. So we said "Are not!" and attacked Iraq. Great.

"So I guess you agree with me that there is no argument to be made that their attack was preemptive."

Nope, not at all... I consider such attacks to be terrorism... which means what we did...

"Whose civil rights were violated?? And please don't tell me Jose Padilla. Do you have another drum to pound?"

Uhh... Ashcroft was overturning the 4th Amendment quite a while ago, though he got blockaded when he wanted to base arrests on illegal search and seizure rather than just performance of things. The civil rights of people were violated when they were detained indefinitely without arrest, charges made, or rights afforded to them. That is not a solitary incident. People have also gotten this at airports for no reason, and have been detained for hours, drilled, denied contact with their family, etc, without being told why.

"But of course, they were all voting their conscience right?"

Conscience? Please. I may be young, but I'm not naive. A combination of financial interests within Iraq and a likely desire not to engage in a long, bloody, costly war over something that could turn sour. Lucky them.

"Now we occupy them, appoint our people, and we're not leaving." Allawi is "our people"??"

Appoint the people we approve. It would not do to have us leave after instituting a perfect little American democracy and have the people choose a fundamentalist extremist as a leader, would it?

"Do you actually believe that Bush has empirical aspiration in Iraq?"

I think Bush has the aspiration of making Iraq a "friendly" nation that is a stronghold of democracy in the Middle East that will show the beauty of American ways. This may sound very nice in the wonderful world of magical pixies, but I don't think it will pan out well.

"What did Iraq do? NOTHING." Well ,not exactly. They invaded a country, surrendered and agreed to terms which they violated."

So did Germany. When was the last time we bombed them? What I mean was that Iraq was not doing anything to warrant our actions in there, but we did it anyway.

"Offered bountied to familes of suicide bombers."

Once we were invading them, yeah. Suicide bombers are kind of a last resort when you don't have those WMDs to use.

"Filled mass graves. Kept torture and rape chambers active and violated every human right imaginable."

Question on this last one. Do you favor invasion of every country with these traits? Because I am strongly against this kind of crap but also realize that if we try and get everyone doing it, we're going to be a third world country.

"Of course he publically denouced them as radical muslims, but in secret he recognized their mutual hatred of America and he colluded with them."

Source? Besides, I'm not discounting a willingness by Saddam to make connections. I am discounting a willingness by fundamentalist Muslims to trust a wine swilling, cigar smoking bastion of secular immorality.

"No creating more dead desperate people fixes this."

Uhh... no... this causes the problem. Revenge for killed family members is a big suicide bombing motive. If you think that's stupid, try talking to people right after they've had a child murdered.

"Well gee, if the Boston Globe characterizes those volunteers as the RNC, it must be true!!!"

Do you have an argument to support why they weren't, or were you hoping I wouldn't notice? You painted this as isolated incidents with the Bush camp when simply watching him speak publically reveals his distate for being questioned.

"But let me tell you something that I know PERSONALLY."

Don't take this the wrong way; it's something I picked up in school, but I generally will trust a newspaper over a "trust me" story over the internet.

"When Kerry met in Pittsburgh to announce his running mate, I tried to get in and I was thwarted."

When I've tried to see Republican speakers, I've been thwarted. You might see this as being their attempt to silence my voice except for the fact that I was thwarted because the attendence was full already. I could be a dissenter, but a dissenter willing to spend the night on the curb. ;)

"Kerry had hundreds of people bussed in and everyone else was kept out!"

Bush did this repeatedly. When dissenters have been at Kerry rallies and speeches, unless they are preventing him from speaking, I have seen them allowed to wave Bush signs, chant stuff, etc. At Bush rallies, dissenters who get in are generally escorted out quickly. Dissent includes wearing anti-Bush sloganry.

"If it was true, this would have happened all over the country!"

Refusal by Bush to have criticism in his public appearences was all over the country. In his rare press conferences, you could also tell he took exceptional offense to having his policies questioned.

"So my question remains. What would Kerry do if protecting the US meant action that he could not justify to the world?"

Ask him... and then give me a scenario in which this would happen.

"From his statements, I can only conclude that he would do nothing!"

From his statements, you actually conclude that he would because of his promise to protect the US. Whether or not he would stand by it is another issue entirely, but his WORDS did not lead to your conclusions, nor to those perp'd by Condy's attempts to play dumb.

"So what should an American do when our interest conflict with the world???"

Give me a situation.

"This isn't accurate. The administration had claimed and continues to claim that there is a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, not 9/11."

You're right on the 9/11 thing. That's the opinion of voters, not government, and I apologize (sincerely). On Al Qaeda, they flip flop. Colin Powell or Rumsfeld will say there's no connection, there will be a hurried fluttery few hours and then they'll come back a little paler and say that's not what they meant.

""I am NOT, by the way, calling conservatives stupid. I am calling a vast percentage of them uninformed" Funny I feel the same way about democrats."

You cut the part where I said that.

"But the real question is this. Why, historically does large voter turnout favor democrats?"

Because they can actually drag my age group away from the Playstation II long enough to vote? Long lines in this one though, so forget it. San Andreas isn't going to shoot up itself.

By the way, if you can't tell, I'm agitated with my peers. I saw how riled up they were, but then vote? Nah. Why? Had a date. ARGH!!!! THEN they got pissed Bush won.

"Compare the actual "break" and then come back and tell me again how Bush's tax break only benefited the rich."

Had this been my claim, I wouldn't. My claim was favored the rich MORE.

"Bush is setting more reasonable time frames for companies to adhere to the overzealous restrictions."

Define "overzealous".

"He does this to keep the doors open on companies that may close. This is one way to foster jobs!"

I agree, but giving them benefits to stay if it involves screwing our air and water also doesn't fly.

"Hundreds of manufacturing firms simply said "fuck it, it's too expensive" and moved their operation overseas. This is exactly what we don't want to happen."

Agreed. Unfortunately, one major factor is labor costs, and we aren't going to lower that enough to inspire people. That's not a Bush criticism by the way. Americans aren't going to work for fifty cents a day.

"Anyone who just lost a job will qualify for at least 6 months of unemplyment."

Aware of that.

"Add to that a host of other welfare and social programs."

Most aren't going to apply to the situation I have described.

"And yes, people can scrape by with minimum wage until they find a better job. But this isn't happening nearly as much as you claim."

It may be happening more often than you claim.

"Yes it would and I hope like hell that doesn't happen to anybody. But before I start forking over your tax dollars, I would want to make sure they did everything to help themsleves first!"

I agree. I am not for people sitting on welfare.

"The problem with most liberals is that they feel that everything bad that can possibly happen requires a government solution. "You're out of a job??? Well, here's a check!""

Hell, no. My boyfriend's ex sits on welfare... endlessly, she goes out to dinner, she has no bills because she lives with her parents (at 36). My taxes are taking care of her very nicely. Even paying for her diabetes medications and treatments because she has type II diabetes, won't stop eating, and weighs 300 lbs.

I am sympathetic to people in genuine in trouble and I am concerned about our own system because when these people get into trouble, they end up costing us money ANYWAY.

"Really? Than tell me please how so many people do it? I know many people who are self employed middle class that buy their own insurance."

Me too. Most of them are not smokers with pre-existing conditions. When I was checking out Kaiser, which is still rich for my blood, I looked at their rate plans for people in their fifties smoker/nonsmoker. Holy crap!

"If you want government to start providing everything that is difficult, forget about paying down the deficit."

Didn't say that. I also didn't say my answer to these problems was "cut a check", did I? Creation of jobs is far more important than paying someone, particularly with the way welfare tends to rope people into not working.

"Also, were you aware that hospitals are required to provide emergency health care to anyone?"

Trained as an EMT? Yes. This is part of the problem. We do not leave uninsured people to do. Uninsured people cannot pay hospital bills.. they just can't. In the unlikely event now I have a massive heart attack, the state's getting the bill. I'm not going to have 40 grand to blow for a while. So they become a drain on the system. Health care reforms that make health care more affordable help reduce this. I do not want health care merely handed out. I want it more accessable.

"No, don't have a pitchfork, but don't pretend that politics started when you decided that you were interested."

I don't. I expressed a personal problem with the deficit. You laughed and said liberals did that sort of thing. Understand the offense?

"I suppose that the increase in jobs over 19 months doesn't indicate an improving economy to you? Or the low unemployment? Or highest home ownership? Or stock market?"

What reports are you reading? We had major drops, stagnation with wavers up and down for a while, creation of the new "military" jobs supposedly had from people put on active duty, and then little until a major rush of jobs in October.

"No, none of that matters to you because you hate Bush and no matter how well he does, you will credit something else."

Incorrect. Though it grates on my soul, when Bush does something right, or worse, Cheney, I grudgingly admit it. One of my favorite Bush actions was the no-call telemarketer list despite the loss of jobs with it.

I'm hoping he'll surprise me in the next four years. Right now I'm disappointed by the vomiting of money and lives into the Iraq war.

"Do you really believe that Clinton was responsible for the balanced budget during his term?"

I do not think that any ONE person or action was responsible for anything major. I also do not think Clinton was dragged along kicking and screaming by the GOP. Similarly, I do not simply blame Bush for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, but our Congress for buying the "With the terrorists" crud, and continuing to whine about procedure rather than the issues themslves.

"Wow, I don't know how you could say that. I think I have made my position very clear!"

I have been in a lot of debates, and I have been in a lot of debates with people older than I am. Usually when they give me the "You're a young buck; you'll grow into it" or the "older and wiser" angle, it is a signal that their argument is failing and they are incapable of defending their position. That clearly was not the case, so I apologize. Since age is something that cannot be changed, once people stoop to lording the one thing over me that they will ALWAYS have over me, it's usually a clue that the debate is over.

"Your positions are very liberal. If you don't want to characterize them as such, it matter not to me."

I have repeatedly referred to myself as liberal. I objected to what appeared to be demonization of the liberal position coupled with assumptions of what I believe based on your view of the liberal position. I am liberal because my beliefs happen to be liberal, not because I give a damn what Kerry does. It also doesn't mean that it's okay to say "follow your party" when I express something that doesn't fit your definition of liberal.

"If you disagree, it's fine, but it hardly sugeests that I accused you of taking positions you didn't take."

In several places, you actually did.

"And last, I think you have made your distaste of Kerry quite clear and I have no reason not to believe you."

THANK you.

"That's very Kerry-esque of you!"

Dammit, I KNEW I shouldn't have worn my flip flops to the store today.

"Also, it really only means that you get wiser and more knowledgeable as you grow older. Surely you can agree on that?"

Generally, though some stagnate with age, and no, I'm not saying you. Age does not necessarily impart wisdom over those younger. My best friend was an air force brat who had seen four countries by the time she was fourteen. Despite being near the same age, she had a lot more wisdom in the world than I did. I have also seen eighteen year olds who have made a point of educating themselves who are 'older and wiser' than they were at 14 who still possess more wisdom than a 70 year old who has never left his hometown who never wants to hear about the world outside of it. I do not feel age grants superiority. Maybe I will once I'm old enough to have superiority over people who are old enough to drive?

"You are very passionate about your beliefs for someone so young. I estimate that this will only stregthen as you grow older. But don't lose patience for the other side."

I don't. Generally there's a swing. When I'm in the deepest depths of "God these people are morons"ism, someone like you has to come along and remind me that I'm wrong.

"Instead, I ask only that you consider my thoughts before you dismiss them and I will pay you the same courtesy."

Agreed. And I actually wasn't dismissing your thoughts. I was pissed off that you were playing the age card. ;)

Ishie

Posted by: Ishtar at November 13, 2004 5:31 AM

Thanks Ian!!!!!

I've got some thoughts on the Halloween stuff, certainly. Maybe later I'll address that Strappleberry Trident. Why they marketed a chewing gum that tastes like vomit...

Ishie

Posted by: Dave at November 13, 2004 6:25 AM

I have to say thanks to all you "Coastopians", anyone that makes me laugh as much as I have reading your posts cant be all bad... But I have much better things to do with my time now. Have a great four years, hope you all survive so we can do it again.. (Even you Ishie) lol,, lol,, lol....

Posted by: Bitme Assholes at November 13, 2004 1:22 PM

http://helpthemleave.com/

Just for you Moronic, Elitist, Pretentious, Fucks. Use It!

Posted by: Another Dave at November 13, 2004 1:29 PM

The bumper stickers are now in http://home.nycap.r.com/mcganns and are being distributed to friends and family.

For those of you who wish to have your own we have made them available at http://www.cafepress/coastopia for 3.99 each (that's their pricing) and I think their is a handling charge. Any "commissions" will be forwarded to our local food pantry

Posted by: Dan at November 13, 2004 1:48 PM

To "bitme assholes",

In 40+ years of following the politcal scene, I have never seen such disgruntled winners. You are an excellent example of the right wing vituperative that used to appear here before Ian stopped it. Your idiot WON. What more do you want? Burning at the stake for all who don't agree with you? If we are "moronic" and "elitist", then allow me the same courtesy in name calling you an "ultra right wing, redneck hillbilly". If you can read without someone else's help, try scrolling up (that's the little button thingee with the arrow on the upper right side of the page). You will actually see some intellegent discourse from BOTH sides, although I doubt that would be of interest to you. I guess Ian's "idiot filter" was malfunctioning when you made your post.
Dan

Posted by: Bitme Assholes at November 13, 2004 9:16 PM

Danny, buddy, I feel you pain. I'm just trying to help you all out, I even contributed to this web site. Think of it as entitlement. I do appreciate the compliments you gave me.

http://helpthemleave.com/

Posted by: Robyn at November 14, 2004 4:15 AM

After living in Europe for 12 years, I am, for the first time, ashamed to be an American. I am even honestly considering giving up my passport and taking Swiss citizenship.

I am confused, horrified and saddened by the results of the elections. Less because Bush was reelected, but because the majority of the population actually supports this megalomaniac. I have a few comments / questions for the Red States (for those of you who were responsible enough to vote against Bush, I apologize).

Do you realize that most of the rest of the world has lost respect for the U.S. and think most Americans are uneducated, war-waging, gun-worshiping, uninformed, environmentally destructive religious fanatics?

After reading the analysis of the election results, it appears that “Jesusland” as it is being called, voted mainly on moral issues…hmm…

1) Is the political party now in power really acting morally responsible? Why do they have virtually NO support from our allies (well, they USED to be) for this war? How can you be for “family values”, against abortion, against stem cell research, against gay marriage and FOR the death penalty, war, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ethnocentric imperialism? Killing is killing, no matter what you call it. I’m trying to imagine Jesus supporting this war, demanding his right to own a weapon, sentencing people to lethal injection… I can’t.

2) OK, I thought: maybe the people in the Red States are not receiving adequate information. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than those who receive their news from NPR or PBS to have misperceptions (for example UNTRUTHS such as: links between Iraq and al-Qaeda have been found, or world public opinion approves of the US war in Iraq). After Fox News was piped into Britain, they protested and pressed for regulations that require “respect for truth” and “due impartiality.” Fox News’ response? They claimed to have a level of impartiality and accuracy “appropriate for its American audience”. VERY disturbing.

3) WHY did the red states vote on “moral issues”? Shouldn’t we as individuals make our own moral decisions? I want children to learn the difference between right and wrong AT HOME, not from the GOVERNMENT! The government should focus on other issues, like regaining our allies, supporting peace efforts, saving the earth from an environmental catastrophe... I get the feeling people in the Red States rely on the government to make moral decisions for them. Why? As a graduating medical student, I do research on stem cells from volunteers’ bone marrow (note: “stem cells” do not automatically imply umbilical cord/fetal origin- get your facts straight) that will probably help those with hip fractures who voted against it! This rising “MORAL COMMUNISM” in the U.S. is what scares and outrages me the most… And this is why I support secession of the Blue States from Jesusland!

Robyn

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 14, 2004 7:06 AM

Ishie, Dan et all,

Came across this rant and left a mouthfull of French Market(w/honey & coffeemate) on my keyboard! This is the mother of all red-state-rants (R3).

Pretty much says it all for me...

Ishie- please take a "stab" at it. No hollow points, please?

Your buddy (remember- buddy is only 1/2 a word!),

badbobusnret
off "Dueling with Sam & Charlie"

Living on the southern most point, of the reddest of counties, in a blue state, below the Mason-Dixon line!
-------------------------------------------
Whatcha gonna do

Okay, is anybody but me sick yet of the Left’s floundering and flailing about, trying to find any way they possibly can to blame somebody else for their failure to espouse a message remotely palatable to the majority of eligible American voters? Is anybody but me wishing right about now that somebody would clong them upside the head with a shovel and say, “Look, morons, here’s the deal….”?

Well, let’s try this then. Let’s stipulate for the sake of argument that everything the Left claims to fear about the Bush admin and mainstream red-state America is true.

Yep, that’s right, you commie bastiches, we’re coming for you. It’s only a matter of time now until you hear that late-night knock on the door you’ve been dreading all along. Our jack-booted gendarmerie is going to be working overtime rounding up every non-white and non-rich subject of our fascist regime, and we’re going to be baking every last one of you into pies that we’ll then refuse to share with the poor and hungry. We’ll be baking those pies in coal-fired ovens, and those ovens will be devoid of any sort of exhaust-scrubber whatever, because we want to release all the toxic gases and chemicals we can into the atmosphere.

We’ll be spiking the rivers with DDT, alar, thalidomide, and whatever other chemical bugaboos we can think of so as to pollute the drinking water, too. We’ll cram the landfills (which will be more numerous than ever) with deadly silicon breast implants, and we’re going to wipe our asses with copies of the Kyoto Treaty, after which we’ll staple the soiled pages to your foreheads. Halliburton will be sending you the bill for that, too; we’ll call it “cosmetic surgery” and charge a rate tied to the market price for the harvested, tanned, and cured pelts of starving homeless Americans, whose numbers will be rocketing even higher than those for the aforementioned landfills, which is where said homeless will be forced to live while we hunt them down for sport.

We’re going to subjugate the entire world through violence and capitalist exploitation. We’ll be sending our duped, mindless killerbot soldiers to the remotest corners of the Earth to deny freedom to every little brown person currently enjoying an idyllic, bucolic existence in harmony with unspoiled nature, every racial, religious, and cultural minority who has thus far lived relatively free of the sting of our rapacious lash. We’re all going to get rich from it, and we’re going to make the poor noble Bob Cratchets and Tiny Tims of the world pay for our sumptuous lives of piggish, rankly self-indulgent consumerism, and then we’re going to kill them when we’ve bled them completely dry.

Yep, it’s all true, every bit of it; the New Gulags, which we Nazified Tolkien geeks like to refer to as Barad Ashcroft, or just Shrubthanc, have been under construction since early 2001 and are almost ready to open for business. The ultra-right-wing corporate media establishment has known all along, and have been helping us cover it all up, and now it’s too late; there’s nothing you can do to stop us. You all are going to be fed into the ovens by the millions, and we’re going to destroy the environment and nuke the Third World, and it’s all going to be done because Jesus told us to, and that’s the only reason we’re ever going to need. Because hey, we’re stupid.

Michael Moore? Dead soon, at our hands, as punishment for daring to dissent. Karen Finley? Ditto. Hillary Clinton? She’ll be crawling around our (segregated) private club on all fours in a Playboy Bunny costume, forced to beg for the privilege of bringing us drinks, dropping grapes into our mouths, and mopping the floors with her hair—just to remind any of you other strong, uppity women who might get ideas about overturning the established patriarchal order who’s really in charge here. Other younger, more attractive women will be forced into sexual slavery, and abortion will absolutely not be an option for dealing with the inevitable unwanted pregnancies that will result. Rusty coathangers will be available at the door, although using them will be punishable by electrocution—electricity provided by the nuke plants that will be on every corner and completely unregulated and unsafe. But it’s just as well that they are our slaves, because there ain’t gonna be no welfare to help them out, and they’re not going to be allowed to work at anything other than pleasing their oppressors.

We’ll be burning the UN HQ in New York down, of course, and we’ll be locking all the delegates inside the building before we set it alight. Then we’ll be invading France, just to teach ‘em a lesson about how we Texas cowboys do bidness. The world’s oil, of course, is ours, and we’ll be boiling tons of it and pouring it over the heads of those who refuse to acknowledge our Xtian God. There’ll be no stem cell research, there’ll be no health care at all for the poor (whose numbers we will be increasing by every means we can think of), and if you dare to complain about life in the New Conservative Amerikkka, we’re going to kill you for it.

All of that: so stipulated. Now, the question for you moonbat Lefty baglappers: what the hell are you going to do about it?

I mean, seriously; if you truly believe that all this is now in the process of happening right before your very eyes, doesn’t it become incumbent upon you, as the most basic imaginable of moral obligations, to do something to prevent it, or overturn it? I mean, obviously, you tried peaceful means of stopping us, but that didn’t work—because us right-wingnuts rigged the election and disenfranchised everybody. And you can’t go to the courts because they’re in the Bushitler’s pocket too, all the way up to the Supreme Court, which you’ve been saying for four years now illegally handed him the White House after the tainted 2000 “election.” So your last legal, nonviolent means of resistance has been taken away from you, and you can’t even count on the media to publicize the reality of what’s going on because of their right-wing slant, their fondness for the status quo, and of course the fact that they’re really nothing but money-grubbing corporations themselves whose only concern is the bottom line.

So what’s left, Lefties? Where do you go from here? What are you gonna do about it?

I’ll tell you what you’re going to do about it: you’re not going to do one damned thing but continue with your whining, that’s what, and it’s not because deep down you’re all cowards either. It’s because deep down, you know you’re full of shit. You don’t even believe half the stuff you’re currently crying about yourselves.

Because if you did, you wouldn’t be talking about it. You wouldn’t be writing whiny letters to the editor; you wouldn’t be fearfully mincing down to the Canadian Consulate to half-seriously inquire about moving; you wouldn’t be sitting in coffee houses denouncing the moronic inhabitants of Jesusland with your fellow smug, self-satisfied pseudo-hip doofuses. You’d be gearing up and arming yourselves for the fight of your lives. And much to your surprise, you’d have a lot of us over here on the right offering to help load mags.

And that’s why you’re going to keep right on losing elections. If even one third of what you say was true, you’d have Americans of every political stripe rushing to your side to man the barricades. But it isn’t anything like true, and we all know it, and we’ve all known it ever since you tried to claim that proposed reductions in the annual rate of increase of various federal budget items during the Reagan years were actually heartless “slashing” of the budget by people who wanted poor people to die. We’ve known it ever since you railed during the Clinton years about how the welfare reform forced on him by the evil Gingrich Repubs amounted to cultural and economic genocide, and then watched as hordes of welfare cheats—who you always claimed didn’t exist—were quietly expunged from the rolls and went back to work.

In other words, you’re all hype and no hump. Your party has become the Chicken Little Party, weeping and wailing about disaster, catastrophe, and the end of the world as we know it every time a new idea for running the government gets put forth by someone who isn’t a card-carrying liberal.

And the proof is in the pudding. Your delirious ideas don’t even inspire your like-minded cohorts—those who really do believe the sky is falling—to get out and fight to save their very lives; you certainly aren’t going to inspire a majority of Americans to rally to your banner if you can’t even get your own true believers off their asses and into the streets. That’s the problem with what you people used to like to call “false consciousness,” which is exactly what you’re now reduced to peddling. Your hysteria is based on plain and simple untruths, and nobody is willing to go out there and risk injury or death for something they know in their hearts is a lie. There ain’t gonna be any Revolution, televised or otherwise, because too many of us know that none is really called for, and the more you try to promote an addle-pated apocalyptic vision of a theocratic MegaMurrika the more the rest of us just sit back and wonder what the hell you’re talking about, as we watch life gradually improve for more and more of us despite your doomsaying.

Afghanis just voted, in the first real free election they’ve ever had; they didn’t vote in any Lefty flamethrower, and they didn’t vote in any Islamist terrorist either. And this occurred only a couple of years after we all watched you people wax apoplectic about the coming disastrous “quagmire.” Well, if that’s a quagmire, most of us figure the world could do with a few more of ‘em. It didn’t come cheap, and it didn’t come easy, but it came anyway, and no thanks to any of you, either.

And the same thing is going to happen in Iraq soon; the ordinary people you claim to be concerned about will see how their lives have improved since Saddam’s removal, and, despite all your supposed “concern” for their welfare, they’re also going to remember who it was who bitched and whined about the only recent President who was willing to lift a finger and take a political risk to help make it so.

And you smarmily call yourselves the “reality-based community.” What a laugh that is.

And that’s what it all comes down to, really. Those of us who do have some adult grasp of reality are sitting back and laughing at you and your dipsomaniacal ravings. You don’t inspire trust and confidence in your ability to run the world’s only remaining superpower, because you can’t resist the adolescent urge to hyperbolize every last little thing. Just as a small example, look at your pals in the liberal MSM. There are no mere “problems”; instead, we’re deluged with one “crisis” after another in their newspapers and on TV. You’re like little kids whose experience of the world is so limited as to define the boundaries of your intellect far too narrowly to ever be trusted with the responsibility of governing a nation.

Grow up, Chicken Little. Lead, follow, or get out of the friggin’ way. Or, at the very least, you can stop trying to get the rest of us to guzzle a bunch of Kool-Aid that you can’t even swallow yourselves.
http://coldfury.com/index.php?p=5071

Posted by: Erika at November 14, 2004 3:20 PM

Unless someone has just written back in the meantime, I just read that awful diatribe, and Im left wondering.... with all that rage and bitterness, why hasn't that asshole up and joined the army and gone over to do some real good, and to help our guys?? The Red guys seem to mostly like shooting their MOUTHS off, but don't have the balls to go and do the real work. So how's about it, big shot? Go show what you're really made of.....

Posted by: Gecko at November 14, 2004 3:22 PM

I am a Democrat. A real Democrat from Oklahoma. Not like the 500,000+ Democrats that are holdovers from the days of the Democrat-Republicans back in the 1800's. I voted for Kerry, I voted for a lot of Democrats, sadly my votes do not truly count in Repoklahoma. I would be willing to immigrate to Coastopia.

Posted by: Dan at November 14, 2004 3:46 PM

Badbobusnret,

Whew…I read your post with amusement. I can’t say that I know where all of that rant is coming from, ESPECIALLY since it was directed toward Ishie, others, and me. If your assumptions are based on both MY and ISHIE’S viewpoints as expressed in THIS blog perhaps Robert the Republican can translate them for you. Naturally, I can understand that you would like to paint everyone who did not vote for your man with a liberal…ooops, I mean generous coating of tree-hugging, vegan-embracing, pacifistic, anti-Christian, Communist varnish. I am afraid, however, that it is not quite that simplistic. There are as many differing points of view amongst Coastopians as there are amongst conservatives. Since we in Coastopia encourage free intelligent discourse, I will let my fellow Coastopians who DO adhere to some of the ingredients in your varnish speak for themselves. You can’t even taunt me for being a typical Democrat since I have always voted based on a thorough study of issues and candidates on BOTH sides, not simply a particular party line. I respectfully ask if you have done the same over the years? It must be very comforting to live in a black and white world. For me, it is a bit more tedious because I look at all shades of gray as well as colors (yes, even mauve, teal, and pink).

Coastopians are united on one major issue, however. We have looked at the record of this administration and foresee four more years of the same thing as being VERY unhealthy for America, and we can envision the PROBABLE catastrophic mess that will be left in its wake for others to clean up. Many of us voted, not FOR Kerry, but AGAINST Bush. It is sad that Democrats abdicated their Congressional powers post 9/11, and then failed to acknowledge their error during the campaign. It is very likely (in my opinion) that this cost them the election.

As to your posted blog, I can only assume that it was created as humorous commentary. For a THINKING individual of ANY political leaning, it can hardly be taken seriously. If, in the future, you wish to debate issues, by all means, bring it on! Robert certainly has the temerity to do so. If you cannot do this, I suggest that you stick to simple name-calling. That, at least, is far less tedious to read.

To Erica,

The fact that his user name is "badbobUSNRET" probably speaks for itself. He no longer has to worry about backing up his stand with action in the military.

To gecko,

WELCOME!

Dan

Posted by: Reason at November 14, 2004 4:55 PM

Hey Gecko,

A little fact about democracy. Just because your candidate loses doesn't mean that your vote doesn't count. Stay in the fray!

Voice of Reaason

Posted by: Randall at November 15, 2004 4:35 AM


Badbobusnret,
Damn! That was great!

Coastopia. With this nation being comprised of two opposite ends of the country, wouldn't the name "Bi-Coastopia" be more accurate? (Damn, that was funny!) And what the hell's an "Ishie"?

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 15, 2004 6:07 AM

Randall,

"Ishie" seems to be short for "Ishtar". The goddess of light in ancient Babylon, sort of a formidable (martial arts and .357 M type, "A-femme") "sacred prostitute" (no offense Ishie)! Read "Story of Gilgamesh"....

BTW- Happy B-day Ms. Ish!

Here's a link- http://inanna.virtualave.net/ishtar.html">http://inanna.virtualave.net/ishtar.html">http://inanna.virtualave.net/ishtar.html

Now for Mr. Dan- Badbobusnret,

"Whew…I read your post with amusement"
- Good, that's a start!

"I can’t say that I know where all of that rant is coming from"
- simple, check out the link

"Naturally, I can understand that you would like to paint everyone who did not vote for your man with a liberal…ooops, I mean generous coating of tree-hugging,....."

- I never box any body up Dan you shouldn't either....

"I am afraid, however, that it is not quite that simplistic."
"Since we in Coastopia encourage free intelligent discourse"
"You can’t even taunt me for being a typical Democrat"
"I respectfully ask if you have done the same over the years?"
"It must be very comforting to live in a black and white world."
"For a THINKING individual of ANY political leaning"

- In each one of these six statements you give yourself away Dan. For some strange reason you have "boxed me as uneducated, living in a small town in Kansas, believing in creationism and living a life of hypocritical gay bashing and on the sly promoscuity with my secretary (since when has anybody had a secretary?)! LOL

re- "He no longer has to worry about backing up his stand with action in the military"

- Bingo Dan... you've got me pegged 21 years as a naval aviator and Tailhooker to boot! Not anymore because it's a young man's (womans too) game for the under 35 crowd! I've ordered cerveza in 40 different countries and visited most of them before McDonalds and Budweiser hit their shores. So I know a little about the world and the strange "stuff" that goes on in it and what seems to be common human traits. I would say that from a practical standpoint I just MAY be a little more "worldly" than you..(nah- that can't be true-you'all in the creative class are just so special!)

"Many of us voted, not FOR Kerry, but AGAINST Bush."

- "ABB" seems contrary to your reasoned approach to voting (STUDYING ISSUES, ETC. ETC.) you talked about doesn't it?

VR/
BADBOBUSNRET
you may call me B2

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 15, 2004 6:45 AM

All-

I am compelled to comment re this exchange above (R =robert; I= Ishtar):

R- "No, you embrace the stereotype when you suggest that an argument can be made that the 9/11 attacks were preemptive for the terrorists."

I- I try to look at things from the perspective of others even when such things are distasteful. My tendency to do this regarding the Holocaust has caused some people to miscast me as thinking Hitler was a good guy.

Terrorists=BAD!!! is a useless way of looking at things. When you so demonize your enemy that you cannot understand their logic, you will fail to see what's coming. It may feel good to be the prevaling good against the forces of inconceivable darkness, but this tendency will tend to get the crap bombed out of you when the inconceivable darkness does something logically consistent rather than cackling and chewing babies.

R- "I say that's nonsense! No reasonable person can make that argument!"

I- Define reasonable. From the perspective I described, it upholds a certain kind of logic very effective in recruiting terrorists. Terrorist recruitment is up. By bombing us and causing us to rally the troops, Osama bin Laden, whether he meant to or not, led to a very real fear by much of the Muslim world that we are waging a holy war. The fact that we then attacked the fairly secular Iraq (comparatively) without solid cause simply shows them no one is safe.

Robert- I understand your angst.

Ishie-tar:
Please go to this site and read this article in the AWC periodical. If you are time contrained at least read the summary. All are invited to read and comment (feelings don't count..let us do qualitative analysis):

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/ceto/when_devils_walk_the_earth.pdf

What I would like everybody to understand is what WE (IE-collectively us as westerners) are dealing with here. Even Sun Tzu wrote about symmetrical warfare mainly.

Posted by: Erika at November 15, 2004 8:48 AM

Apologies to BadBobUSNRET: you have earned your stripes. Admittedly, guys, I have not followed EVERY word cast here (some of you get pretty long-winded), and I sometimes think you are really arguing for the same things, but curiously, from different sides.

For myself, I am no spring chicken -- 60's, husband a Viet/Vet pilot, from generations of military men/fighters/patriots/Democrats,Republicans,Independents/mostly New England(even an academy cadet or two); I also work every day around men and women from every generation and from every war that the US has been involved in: I can see one of the TRUE costs of war, for many years afterward -- broken bodies, broken souls. The costs are truly horrific.

I have lived around the country, and world, am highly educated (northern PhD), and I have never seen such hatred, racism (cutting both ways), small-mindedness, Bible-thumping, general religious and moral hypocrisy, and basic DUMBNESS, than I have seen down in the southern states. It is mind-boggling to actually confront the degree of ignorance in this day and age, even in supposedly educated people. (I know, because in hiring people, I have come to see that even those with local Masters' degrees are for the most part dumber than a bag of rocks. Not all, mind you, but I have never seen anything like this -- makes me doubt all southern institutions of "higher" learning, and suspicious of everyone from them.)

My story is already getting too long -- what I wanted to say is that I am no "liberal" in the 50's & 60's sense of the word (the Reds are really operating on the assumptions of some very outdated definitions) -- I have gone Republican more than the other way. What I see is the people in the Heartland and South have voted Red because they basically are homophobic and anti-abortion (by the way, did you know that the Blue States have the lowest rates of divorce?? Hmmmmm). Never mind that it is also basically the Blue States that would probably be targeted in any terrorist attack; they wouldn't make the distinction that "we" voted the "other" way and should be spared: this war belongs to all of America now, in the eyes of the world. Thanks, you folks with nothing to lose and the short-sightedness to think only of yourselves and your petty little paranoias. PLEASE, please, please -- next time, watch something in addition to Fox TV, just to see that there IS another way to interpret the world; get better informed, and think outside of the tiny circle that encompasses you, your guns, and you personal level of discomfort with the choices that other people make in their PERSONAL, PRIVATE lives.

Posted by: David Duke at November 15, 2004 9:17 AM

WOW!!!! What a hoot! This site is sooooooo funny I nearly wet my Right Wing BVD's.

Post this one, I dare you.

PS Please make this secession happen. I have a home in a small quaint town in rural Pennsylvania up for grabs to the first liberal with $350,000.00 cash, American. {no frog money}
I will move South the first of the 2005 so you and your species can attempt to reproduce and fill the earth with your eminations. Oh wait! I forgot! Homosexual unions cannot reproduce like all bastard unions in nature. Wierd aint it.

Sorry I lost control of my redneck.

Posted by: Erika at November 15, 2004 10:18 AM

You're probably not the "real" David Duke, but by all means, move to the deep south -- I think you'll be much happier around like-minded simpletons.

Posted by: Alaska Dave (formerly "Dave") at November 15, 2004 10:26 AM

I know,, I said I wasn't going to be back but my will power was weak and I had to check in again. Hope all had a good weekend.

Anyway,, on to my point..

If we look at the real "voter map" broken down to the county level we really see that this isn't a division by state but a rural/city division.

You've probably all seen the map but here's a link anyway http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

Any comments?

Posted by: Ishtar at November 15, 2004 10:55 AM

"Please go to this site and read this article in the AWC periodical."

A fascinating document. I read it with great interest.

I find that it has excellent points and failing points. The distinction of the two categories of terrorist with relative descriptions was quite good. In the realm of the practical terrorist, the article allowed a wide range of motivating factors and types and the likely manifestations seen. In the realm of the Apocalyptic terrorist, while I thought the clarification on the role Osama bin Laden plays was phenomenal, I felt the rest of the characteristics surrounding the description might have been a little simplistic. I also didn't see as much attention to the potential for practical terrorists to lean into an Apocalyptic position, since much was made of a practical terrorists 'secular' (though I don't recall the article using that world) position within the world for his/her people, without allowing for a potential for highly religious practical terrorists to go fully off the deep end.

One thing that struck me was the caption "directing God from below" rather than directed by God. Not only was this a very good point on motivations behind master terrorists, specifically Osama bin Laden, but I felt it perhaps was not applied on a broad enough scale. In dealing with some extreme fundamentalist Christians (generally online or seen in newspapers after doing something, since I haven't had the opportunity to deal with them in society since they don't function well in society), I have seen a tendency to, despite being "directed by God", have extreme egos, an ability to completely remove humanity from those they disagree with, and generally, a complete departure from what even functionally extreme fundmentalists would consider Biblical. Counters to arguments based on religious principles leave no room for argument, so with some of your anti-choice terrorists, as the article was discussing, I see a tendency to direct God from below. Thought that was interesting.

Few things I saw that struck me as either simplistic or heavily biased?

There was a very "us vs. them" mentality expressed in the article, not with terrorism, but with the Middle East and the spiritual crises within it. To me, it seemed to paint all the non-terrorists there with a wide brush drawing on a history to explain the ethical and religious philosophies of all people.

There was also a heavy pro-Israel bias that presented things from a limited POV which is often expressed to a large part of the western world, but is not wholly grounded in reality. I do not think Palestine is correct in terrorism tactics, but I also know that the Israelis are doing more than simply punishing terrorist leaders. I've seen plenty of video footage of Israeli troops using completely unnecessary force against small gatherings of people armed with rocks, including children, and the bulldozing of homes with families in them that tried refusal to leave. Plenty of Americans have gone over themselves to see the conflict at the street level, so to speak, and opinions coming back are conflicted. Many Americans have seen brutal actions taken by Israel.

Linked to this, and one of my problems with Iraq, is the article's failure to really address the issue of women in terrorism. While it mentions women as being far more commonplace in the realm of practical terror, it does not go into one of the major motivators for women in terror.

Looking at terrorism attacks conducted by women, particularly in lone attacks, they are in large part driven by revenge for a killed family member, particularly a child. This doesn't really fit the scope of practical terrorism, as the woman (men do this as well) is not trying usually to awaken the world to a problem, change legislation, nor is she often showing concern for certain populations or life. Driven by rage and grief, she becomes a powerful tool of hatred against whoever took the life of the loved one. In terrorism cases, we generally see the offending party as being representative of a large group. Many of the female Palestinian suicide bombers had family (in some cases, small children) that were killed by Israeli forces, in some cases justifiably (wives, daughters, mothers of men who were directing terrorism), and in some cases, not. We are familiar with the sentiments in our own country when witnessing actions by family members when a loved one is murdered (or victimized in other extreme ways). In these cases, since there is generally one person responsible for the death rather than a directed action, the anger is directed to that person directly. Though actions against those who commit crimes is technically illegal, we can also witness a great deal of sympathy among our own people for the "Father that kills the man who murdered his daughter". Such people are also often dealt a law enforcement break with even a "temporary insanity" plea to often back it up. It is clear that death of a loved one by another's hand does often produce a legitimate temparory insanity, where the grieving act in ways they would find inconceivable.

We, as Americans, even find a sympathy to Man/Woman against evil empires. In how many movies over the years do we begin the flick with the murder of a family by some higher organization, and through the rest of the movie the "hero" essentially commits acts of practical terrorism through the flick, killing all deemed responsible in the organization, even implicating lesser figures as "expendable", and then often dying heroically at the end, his job finished?

Life clearly is not a movie, but when we can find sympathy for the revenge motive killing, even when based against a large structure (which we, of course, assume is evil from the kingpin to the security guard, thus dehumanizing the people who are about to be killed), it becomes crucial for us to literally put ourselves in the place of "villain" for the purpose of examining the terrorist organization.

The piece did mention the revenge motive and also the ability to spark it in otherwise 'normal' or nonviolent people, such as collective rage in the face of the 9/11 attacks. I didn't think it went far enough in the revenge motive and turned back to perceptions of the entire Muslim world.

I also felt the piece was too cavolier about casualties that weren't ours. I can understand "be swift, be brutal, do not show weakness." In dealing with the terrorists directly, I agree completely. Osama bin Laden cannot be reasoned with. He is even more of a liability than he is now if he is captured alive. The cells must be captured and destroyed.

In doing so, we cannot risk turning the cause of terrorism into reasons to act as practical terrorists ourselves. We run the risk of that. We have the values we are trying to protect. We have issues we are trying to show the world, and we have lives we hold sacred (American). That does not give us a license to slaughter other people in the interest of being vigilant. No single life is disposable. Sometimes taking lives is necessary, and in necessary wars, there is the price of innocent lives (I refuse to use the term "collateral damage"). Where it can be avoided, it should be avoided.

With any action that risks innocent lives, we also risk the creation of more sympathy for terrorism and more recruitment for terrorism. In some cases, this is a necessary risk that far outweighs the potential harm of increased recruitment. Destroying Osama bin Laden is one of those things. He needs to be found and killed.

Iraq, to me, seems like we are murdering a number of innocent people without cause and justifying it by citing the number of people Saddam had killed under his regime. It also seems like we are taking a fairly secular nation and turning the whole country into a martyr for the extremist cause. We cannot lend support for either the practical or Apocalyptic position or we risk having acts of terrorism backed up with public and military support. We also create potential terrorists in those we have left behind. Though we are attempting to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure (though this does seem like trying to reason with people who hate us, as the article suggested?), it is not going to change the directed rage felt by someone who has lost everything in this war. If my child is dead and my house is leveled, having a wonderful school built near the wreckage is only going to compound the insult.

So while I have a great deal of respect for many of the piece's issues, I think in some cases it misses, and advises us to be a little too "balls to the wall", the practice of which I think could lead to the internal corruption of our national identity and, particularly with our steadily failing diplomatic position, lead not just to increased terrorism, but world action against us.

Ishie

Posted by: Ishtar at November 15, 2004 12:29 PM

I'll take a crack at the red state rant. They are more than entitled to their angry rants (though I can't imagine why they'd need to rant at present), as we are entitled to ours, but since you asked...

If we look at this piece from a logical perspective, which clearly would be our first mistake, we see that it sets up a straw man. I know I'm using that term a lot lately.

The rant takes this vast group that makes up the perceived "Left", and assigns to each member the extreme of every issue that has ever been made by a prominent liberal person, including people who are complete whackjobs. This is a huge misrepresentation of the opposing viewpoint, and quite clearly this extremist position against the right (which no one that isn't holed up in a bunker would share) does not represent nearly half the country.

As a rant, that isn't a problem. Rants blow off steam and necessarily mischaracterize the opposition because it is not satisfying, when you're pissed off to say "Damn people with differing levels of political separation from my point of view!!" It *is* satisfying to say "Damn pinko Frenchie libbies!" or in our case "Damn right wing moron rednecks!" This isn't problematic if we do not get so involved in blowing off steam that we begin to believe our own stereotypes, or when we inadvertantly offend the opposition when they happen to wander in on a rantfest. It's actually healthy, even when I'm the pinko Frenchie libbie.

As an actual argument, it doesn't hold water. The rant paints a picture of the insanely paranoid leftie, thus setting up a straw man argument for the author to try to knock down by pointing out our innate whiny cowardice and inability to even believe our own BS when facing the reality of what all of us dread will happen, the fulfillment of every extreme right-wing stereotype, leading to a sort of Bladerunner 1984 Terminator Dystopia.

"So what’s left, Lefties? Where do you go from here? What are you gonna do about it?"

Given the described circumstances, try to wake myself out of the coma I am no doubt in that is producing such dreams... after sneaking into a nightclub dressed as a man so I can balance a rum and coke on Hillary Clinton's back. I don't hate the woman or anything, but it'd be a good story to tell at parties.

"It’s because deep down, you know you’re full of shit. You don’t even believe half the stuff you’re currently crying about yourselves."

See, this takes the fulfillment of the right wing view of how the left wing views the right wing, and assigns it to the legitimate (or at least sane) spectrum of more liberal beliefs, then accusing us of not believing our own hype. We do believe what we say. We do not believe in the views the rant spouts because opposition is notoriously bad at characterizing the true values of the other side. There is also a tendency by conservatives AND liberals to take all the arguments ever made by members of the other party, condense them into a stereotype, and then accuse those who do not conform to the stereotype (everyone) of not believing their own position.

"you wouldn’t be sitting in coffee houses denouncing the moronic inhabitants of Jesusland with your fellow smug, self-satisfied pseudo-hip doofuses."

In other words, ranting ourselves. This part really sums it up. It characterizes our rants about the right (stupid, ultra-Christian) and assigns us its own rant values (smug, self-satisfied, latte suckers). Perfectly healthy for both sides when blowing off steam. Useless in an actual debate because both sides are based upon fallacious views. And most people (who can dress themselves) know this.

This does not mean that issues on either side are invalid as a result, and there, I do suggest action on the part of those who feel disenfranchised. We are not at a stage where forcible action is advisable or acceptable. Vehement disagreement with the policies of the administration is a good reason to rally for sociopolitical change no matter whose side your on and even if you lost an election. Lobby, vote, increase public awareness of issues, perform nonviolent protests (that don't snarl freaking traffic for hours!), contribute money to causes, fight to change people's minds. Vehement disagreement with the policies of the administration is NOT a good reason for violent action, at least until the costs of the continuation of the administration are more significant than the costs of an intense civil war and potential destabilization of the country for decades to come. If the administration were truly getting that bad, we would have far more unified action.

In the time being, things do feel like their getting bad enough for some of us to feel like leaving, not because of the direct actions of the administration but because this country, many feel, no longer represents us and we can no longer take pride in its values. Again, this has nothing to do with our described Terminator future, but with the current trends and sentiments.

"And much to your surprise, you’d have a lot of us over here on the right offering to help load mags."

Wouldn't surprise me a bit. Atrocious actions unite us, and the appointment of apparently a network of Bond villains through the entire government would be an atrocious action. While I may think Cheney is the emperor from Star Wars and feel Bush is bad for the country, I do not think he is Dr. Evil.

"And that’s why you’re going to keep right on losing elections."

Because we're locked in a two party system and the "other" party at present is weakening itself in an attempt to define a platform while other parties with more definitive and cohesive points of view, cannot possibly advance until the Democratic party has either fallen completely or gets bad enough that it finally redefines itself (hopefully at that stage now).

"you tried to claim that proposed reductions in the annual rate of increase of various federal budget items during the Reagan years were actually heartless “slashing” of the budget by people who wanted poor people to die."

During the Reagan years, I was predominantly concerned with political issues like whether Barbie should run as an independent or take She-ra on as a Veep, so this certainly doesn't characterize me.

"We’ve known it ever since you railed during the Clinton years about how the welfare reform forced on him by the evil Gingrich Repubs amounted to cultural and economic genocide, and then watched as hordes of welfare cheats—who you always claimed didn’t exist—were quietly expunged from the rolls and went back to work."

Older during the later Clinton years. Really disliked Gingrich, and disagreed with some Repub policies, but I've always been for welfare reform. Even if I disagreed with the policies, I would not claim it was "genocide", a word tossed around far too much as it is.

"Your party has become the Chicken Little Party, weeping and wailing about disaster, catastrophe, and the end of the world as we know it every time a new idea for running the government gets put forth by someone who isn’t a card-carrying liberal."

And here, by devaluing the liberal position with the straw man argument presented earlier, we toss out all legitimate concerns held. Concerns about an illegal war? Chicken Little stuff. It also ignores the fact that many of us do not ally ourselves with the values of "Our Party", but choose them as the lesser of two evils.

"Your hysteria is based on plain and simple untruths, and nobody is willing to go out there and risk injury or death for something they know in their hearts is a lie."

So in other words, if we want to prove we believe our position, we should riot in the streets? Does this mean that every problem the Repubs had with Clinton was just partisan lies because if they Repubs REALLY believed what they were saying, they'd have declared war on the rest of us?

"Afghanis just voted, in the first real free election they’ve ever had;"

Assuming on the stereotype as the liberal-as-pacifist. I supported invasion of Afghanistan. They had the number one bad guys. Also, while I do not support the US using its money to nation build when it has its own problems to deal with, the Taliban was a regime that essentially kept its entire population in unwilling slavery, not in a dictator's simple way of demanding allegiance or else (which isn't good either) but imposing a strict code on everyone which punished religious 'disorder' with death. By itself? Not reason for us to essentially declare war, but if in the efforts to get Osama bin Laden, the Taliban wants to make enough of a nuisance of itself to take them out? Good.

I don't feel this is the case in Iraq.

"And this occurred only a couple of years after we all watched you people wax apoplectic about the coming disastrous “quagmire.”"

Which disastrous quagmire we were anticipating? Like I said, all for invading Afghanistan. If you mean the first Bush election, while I voted against him, didn't like him, and then felt the method by which he won was highly suspect, I just thought he'd be a mediocre to cruddy president whose speeches would annoy me. Didn't think he'd invade Iraq.

"but it came anyway, and no thanks to any of you, either."

Entirely untrue. For the first election, many who went Bush then went Kerry this time (though not most). For the Afghan invasion, last I checked, the military didn't ask whether you're liberal or conservative before joining up. Don't ask don't tell.

"And the same thing is going to happen in Iraq soon; the ordinary people you claim to be concerned about will see how their lives have improved since Saddam’s removal,"

It isn't an equivalent situation. Additionally, if the lives of the people 'left' improve, that doesn't change the thousands who were killed. I know it's a stupid situation, but if Germany launches an attack on us, kills our president, and in the process of "liberating" us, kills thousands of people, having better schools and safer streets afterwards doesn't bring those people back. No matter how whiny liberal people think it makes me, I have a deep respect for human life, even human lives that don't belong to Americans.

And speaking of American lives, the future 'happy Iraq' promised isn't going to bring those thousand-plus soldiers back to their families. I also want to know what stops us from continuing this trend in other countries. Our standard of life is better than most of the world. The world's resources would have been gone ages ago if every person on earth had our land space, our food availability, and our consumption. Many people around the world live under hideous oppression, dictators far worse than Saddam Hussein who was bad himself, and in constant fear of shifting borders or changes in power which will lead to their annihilation. In the US, having Bush elected doesn't mean that the South will mobilize and kill every man, woman, and child in the blue states. In some regions of the world, the person in charge does determine which region will be plundered.

We cannot be the policeman to the world. We can protect ourselves, but I don't feel Iraq posed any real threat. We cannot save everyone; we cannot invade everyone (are we going to invade Canada because they'll like our health system better?); so having a future 'happy' people (though we do not have that in Iraq) doesn't justify anything. You want noble conquerors, look at Ancient Rome. Everywhere they went, brutal combat, but then? Roads, taxes, increased citizen rights under the empire... is this what we want to do for everyone?

"And you smarmily call yourselves the “reality-based community.” What a laugh that is."

Nope. I do think it is more reality-based to see Iraq as an unwarranted invasion rather than a freedom mission. I try to keep abreast of world news. Many Iraqis were oppressed, but on a global scale, they didn't need freedom as much as a lot of other nations do. How about the women of Saudi Arabia? An oppressive rule there was even getting our female military harrassed during the first Gulf War (though no one was stupid enough to try beating them) for being improper, driving, and so forth when we were there to help them.

"because you can’t resist the adolescent urge to hyperbolize every last little thing."

*snort* like turning a run of the mill secular dictator into a terrorist nuclear mastermind whose people were just begging to be freed?

"Just as a small example, look at your pals in the liberal MSM. There are no mere “problems”; instead, we’re deluged with one “crisis” after another in their newspapers and on TV."

MSM? I have problems with the "crises" as well. They shut down the logical faculties on BOTH sides. The phenomenon of the school shooting is one of these things. The perception of the fall of the high school into a Gaza strip with lunch breaks is one of the arguments people use for school prayer and the posting of the Ten Commandments, despite school shootings being relatively uncommon and not new. You also don't see the reports on the vast improvements in schools previously swimming in violence (like some in Compton and Harlem). You hear about gang shootings and violence, but you do not hear half as much about the communities that got sick of it, banded together, old ladies and all, and ran the bad guys out of town.

This isn't a liberal aspect to the news. It's a marketing aspect to the news. There's only so much people are going to be interested in human interest stories and water-skiing squirrels. Scaring people sells. More people watch "WHAT'S IN YOUR WATER???? Tonight at Ten" than "Child wandered off and got lost; scary looking homeless man gave him a piece of candy and walked him home safely Tonight at ten"

If the media is not reporting the success stories in Iraq (which there are, of course), it also has colored the perception of many Americans so that they believe they are living in a rotting cesspool of moral and social decay and are on the brink of being overwhelmed by toxic drinking water, gang violence, and gun wielding 7th graders at any second.

This helps breed the mental illness known as 'nolstalgia". In it, people recall that they had a normal, happy, idyllic upbringing, mentally gloss over unhappy things going on (like the Cuban Missile Crisis), watch the news, and wonder what in the hell happened. They blame a network of causes (Vice City) while failing to see potential causes from their own time (Looney Tunes).

"You’re like little kids whose experience of the world is so limited as to define the boundaries of your intellect far too narrowly to ever be trusted with the responsibility of governing a nation."

Trust us, quit whining, and let daddy run the nation? No thanks.

So there you are. Deconstruction of what is, quite obviously, an angry rate, similar in sentiment to what many of us have felt towards you. As an angry rant, it works quite well. It has all the "we can rule better anyway" stuff, miscategorizations of the opposition, tongue-in-cheek 'suggestions' for what the opposition can do given a variety of unlikely scenarios, and so forth. As a statement of an actual position? Useless.

Ishie

Posted by: Ishtar at November 15, 2004 12:40 PM

"Ishie" seems to be short for "Ishtar". The goddess of light in ancient Babylon,"

Bingo. A long lasting Goddess whose first origins traced to the more ancient Sumeria, she has ties to a lot of things. My favorite aspect of it was Fire Goddess, which is how I got the nickname, due to a knack I had in early high school for getting bored and doing butane tricks. A friend of mine, a fellow history/mythology geek dubbed me after I birthed a flame on my palm that had epic fireball proportions. The name stuck.

By the way, kids, don't try this at home.

My favorite Ishtar-trick has to be the sacrifice of virgins by throwing them off ziggarats into fires though. Like it's not hard enough to be a thirteen year old girl.

"sort of a formidable (martial arts and .357 M type, "A-femme")"

9mm with hollow points, but close enough. Though archaeologists have yet to find it...

""sacred prostitute" (no offense Ishie)!"

Offense taken!!! Who are you calling sacred?

"BTW- Happy B-day Ms. Ish!"

Thank you!! I wanted all armies of the earth to go forth and fight in my honor, but instead I got dive gear and a dance pad... how the faithful have fallen...

Ishie

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 15, 2004 1:33 PM

Enough already!

I've grown weary of the "Dan and Ishie Show." In tonight's episode, Dan and Ishie rehash the same points they've been making since the website stood up...and their loyal foil, Robert, will attempt to rebut with his equally many-times-repeated arguments.

Does anybody else in Coastopia have something to say?

Anybody?

Please?

Posted by: Robert at November 15, 2004 3:18 PM

Ishie,

Sorry to take so long. I spent the weekend trying to convince my daughter that being awake does not have to mean being sad and fussy. Unfortuantely I think the only one that learned something was me. I learned that trying to get a 7-week old baby to cooperate is like trying to teach a pig to sing. All you do is annoy the pig and waste your time!

Let's get to it!

"Those are the easiest to out as lies. Once you get away from the numbers, it becomes spin." & "I hate to sound like Clinton, but it depends on what you mean by lie" We are fortunate to live in a time when the dissemination of information is so quick and gratuitous, we always have information with which to make a decision or form an opinion. Unfortunately, having so much information and with so many different and conflicting perspectives, the truth can be as easily distorted as it was prior to the information age. Like you, I acknowledge the simple fact that news is biased and spun. I tend to believe that most of the elite media are liberally inclined and treat their version of the news as such. Be that as it may, as idealists (That both you and I are) we tend to reach out and grasp the version that supports our beliefs. I know you don't agree with this. You have made an impassioned assertion that you don't get your news from unbiased sources and that you get the whole picture before you decide. That sounds wonderful and I don't doubt that you do indeed gather a lot of information and make yourself more informed than most. But, I can almost gaurantee you that you do not do so as part of an independant, open analysis, but more from a dissertational, outcome based research viewpoint. I don't say this to paint you as a partisan, though I think it is clear that we both are, but more to say that just because you feel that you have gathered and reveiwed all the facts doesn't necessarily make you an independent thinker, perhaps only a well informed liberal.

Now having said all that, let me relate it to your comment on 'spin'. I think spin is nothing more than a precursor to propoganda and equally as dangerous. Not that I don't spin, I do, but I think we can do better and that real debate should be something more than a simple exchange of biased quips.

Look at jobs for an example. Yes, we all know that there is a net loss of jobs, but we also know that the past 19 months have all shown steady job growth. So there are facts that support an assertion that the President is presiding over a failed economic policy and there are facts that support that his economic policy is starting to work. As someone who agrees with that economic policy and the administration in general, I emphasize the positive spin (glass half full). As someone who disagrees with his economic policy and administration in general, you emphasize the negative spin (glass half empty). Is either of us wrong?? Take the issue further and I argue that the job loss started during a recession that begun prior to Bush. You point to the fact that the average wage is down, which means that the growth of jobs isn't as positive as Bush wants to take credit for. All this conflicting analysis on two simple facts and we are no closer to agreeing on whether Bush is good or bad for jobs. The last compelling fact is that I was hopeful and positive about Bush's economic plan before I saw results that supported my belief. It is likely that you were skeptical before you saw the same results. I can't really speak for you in this regard and I am only surmising.

So whether we see the glass half empty or half full depends largely on our perspective, which is likely influenced by our ideals. But one thing is for sure, If I claim it's half full and you disagree and tell me it's half empty, neither of us is wrong.

"On the backdoor draft, I don't like screwing people on the fine print" It's not fine print. It's made very clear at the time of enlistment. As someone who has taken that oath and made the commitment, I'm asking you to trust me on this (or check with the Boston Globe LOL). I know it doesn't jive with your hatred for the war, which is totally legitimate, but try to consider that this is one issue that is really a non-issue.

"there's breaking party lines and there's challenging people to a duel." Is there really a difference or can we just agree that it's frustrating when you lose someone in your party to the other side and the natural tendency is to marginalize and malign them to mitigate the shock wave in your party?

"he had WMDs that we helped supply... but apparently, not anymore" Yes, we were an arms supplier when it was necessary for our effort in Iran, however, we did not give him any biological or chemical weapons, which he has developed and used. But the finer point here is that you recognize that he had them. I know you don't agree on the imminent threat part, but it seems we can find common ground with the fact that he had them and used them at one point??

"he's going to develop WMDs to send off at us?" Obviously, this possibility isn't as strong as it was beleived at the start of the war. But most weapons experts (even at the UN) agree that Saddam had the infrastructure to get his WMD prorams up and running again in a short period of time. All that was required was to do so without the watchful eye of inspectors, which weren't going to go away unless sanctions were lifted. Perhaps this was Saddam's motivation for bribing the French, Germans and Russians with oil for food money?? Do you not see a connection between Saddam's economic ties to these counties and his effort to get sanctions lifted? Is this really a right wing conspiracy theory or is it a viable scenario under which Saddam trys to free himself from restriction and position himself to reconstitute his WMD programs??

"Polls reflecting world opinion are drastically put against us" As the election should have proven, polls mean very little. Even elections aren't always effective at determining the real will of a body of people. Is it true to say that 52% of America supports Bush? It MIGHT be but it MIGHT NOT be. All we know is that 52% of the American voters in the last election support Bush. To that end, is it fair to say that America supports the war? My point here is that it is impossible to ever truely gauge global support. Leaders do not always represent their constituents. Polls are inaccurate and sometimes biased. At some point we have to agree (if it's possible) just how we gauge world support. It seems to me that liberals often use the UN as that barometer. I don't necessarily agree but if this is the case, wouldn't the UN vote be that barometer regardless of polls taken in those countries? Or should we abolish the UN and simply do global polling in place of UN votes? If the UN votes in your favor, do you disregard the vote in favor of polls or do you always require that they jive in order to be of any real value? Can we agree that Bush felt that he had the backing and support of all those countries based on their vote at the UN at the time he went to war? Political forces can posture change over night, but like a vote for war, it's irresponsible to vote yes, only to change your mind at a later date. The President, who stood with a willing coalition of Congressmen, Senators and foreign countries has stood by while those who previously stood with him recoil in the face of a political shit storm leaving him holding the bag. It must be nice to be able to "change your mind" but as the President of the world's most powerful country and the Commander-in-Chief of a military engaged in mortal combat, he lacks that flexibility. It's nice for would-be Commander-in-Chiefs, but the real one needs to show more resolve, lest he leaves doubt, hesitation and anxiety in those troops whom he commands. Any study of leadership tells you why this is important. Political pressure surely countermands his responsibility as the leader of the military. Liberals dream that this President would simply admit that the war was a mistake. Nothing could be more disasterous even if it was true. The fact is that the President sees many factors that justify the war aside from the WMD. So as a leader who has committed forces in combat, several to their death, should he admit that their sacrafice and service to their country was for a mistake? Or should he emphasize the nobility and justification for it otherwise? Again you need to have a peripheral understanding of leadership to get this point. (Not saying that you don't) You see, regardless of liberal hysteria, there were other reasons to go to war with Iraq. Just because the President, in a political miscalcualtion "hung his hat" on WMD, doesn't change the fact that there are other compelling reasons to make this decision even if you disagree with them. And yes, you can marginalize them and you can use hind sight to invalidate them, but if you believe for even a second that the administration does indeed believe these things to be true, you need to recognize the potential legitimacy of the war even though you disagree with it. The legitimacy of this war hangs not on what you believe, but what the President believes. Disagree and dissent if you will, but the legitimacy rests not on our opinion. You see, this is where most liberals go wrong in my mind. To them it doesn't seem adequate to simply oppose the war, they feel like they need to totally undermine it as well. Hey, it's free speech for everyone so why not and simple dissent rarely changes things right? I don't agree that abortions should be legal, but they are. I live with it. I don't view those that have them as law breakers. They are simply acting in accordence with the law of the land. I voice my dissent and I will support efforts to change it. But I don't undermine them by calling them murderers or baby killers or harlots are whatever. I don't make efforts to highlight their deeds for society. I don't spin the truth to try to prove somehow that the law was circumvented or broken. Nobody can argue with someone who opposes the war. But if your going to "spin" the truth to portray a lawful and justified action as hitler-esque in an effort to undermine leadership as prescribed by our Consitution, I will meet you point for point, word for word because I think that if all you have is a "half empty" spin on the facts, it's our responsibility to honor the sacrafice and duty of those that died for the "half full" version of those same facts.

"Unemployment in Iraq is at an all time high, worse than under Saddam's regime!" According to who? We are putting Iraqi's to work in record numbers with real jobs. Did Saddam really keep track of unemplyment anyway? Are you simply going by various stories coming out of Iraq? According to our military, people are damn glad lately and more and more of them are working. Again, I see this as half full.

"Many who supported the war said it was going to be easy" Who? Certainly not the President or his administration.

"No links to Al Qaeda" Ever hear of Al Zaqawi? (half full)
"Prisoner abuse scandals " Those that did wrong were punished accordingly. Certainly you can't expect any President to preside over a mistake free military? Also, what's so bad about forcing prisoners to pose naked with underwear on their head? It's wrong for sure, but it's not a horrifc crime against humanity.
"Loss of the weapons" We have impounded/destroyed nearly 500 tons of weapons. It's another half full thing!
"No decrease in attacks, and targeting of Iraqi police force." Goes to show it's freedom that is the real enemy not the US.

"If we don't need a National Guard, why do we have one?" Only a small percentage of the National Guard troops are deployed and I never said we didn't need them. I am saying that another terrorist attack will not likely warrant their domestic involvement.

"MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. (Before Saddam was even caught, by the way)" First, Bush didn't say this, it was a banner hung behind him on the ship that he visited. It was in reference to the mission of the airmen and sailors aboard THAT ship. This has been blown out of proportion just like the Mary Cheney comments.

"I'm sure you can gather from the context of that conversation that Cheney wasn't saying "Well, some will support us... others... will make this hell"." If you want that kind of blatent honestly, vote for Jessie Ventura. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that support our effort, but since the media's motto is "If it bleeds, it leads" these stories are scantily reported.

"the one about Saddam posing an imminent threat to the United States was a big one" Not a lie, just a mischaracterization due to faulty intelligence. The threat was real, but not "imminent". Liberals like to clamor about how the President should have been "sure". He verified his own intelligence with a dozen other foreign intelligence services that ALL concluded the same thing. How much more "sure" could he have been? Haven't you ever been thouroughly convinced about something that turned out to be false?? Does that mean you lied about it? To me this is just common sense. If liberals were pounding a "BUSH WAS WRONG" drum, I'd join them, but to suggest that it was a "lie" simply because it wasn't true doesn't meet the basic criteria for a lie, which is that the person telling it must KNOW it's not true.

"Now it's also fair to say he's being misled by false intelligence, though aren't there supposed to be checks in place against this sort of thing?" Yes, it's called comparing all available intelligence souces including foreign, which all concurred.

"So intelligence failures revealed all around, but then he maintains we were right in going into Iraq and we had good reason to go in. To me, that's a lie" This goes back to the difference between "imminent" and "potential". Its also a half full thing! The President can't tell the people that 1000+ troops are dead because if the "half empty" spin. Instead he reinforced their sacrafice with a "half full" argument. As Commanderin-Chief, you shouldn't blame him for it. It's not the quite the same as denying the truth as you claim.

"They were still giving the weapons inspectors more time and did not initiate action. You need very strong evidence for a pre-emptive war. It's not about which countries had intelligence reports. It's about which one led the assault based on incomplete data." 12 years wasn't enough? When every major foreign intelligence power comes to the same conclusion, that's "strong evidence".

"I thought it (WMD) was BS at the time, though everyone kept calling me an idiot for it" You prove my point. Everyone, including Kerry & Edwards concluded that Saddam was an "imminent threat". When that turned out not to be true however, everyone cut and ran leaving Bush to hold the bag. Fine, but understand had the recent dissenters in Congress all voted against the war, Bush wouldn't have done it. But according to you, it's Bush's failure alone to burden? This is one of the responsibilities a Commander-in-Chief must accept. He can't waiver in the face of political pressure. He made a decision based on the most reliable information available in the world. His fellow representatives in both houses stood with him as did a multitude of foreign countries and now that there is a political shit storm, everyone ran for cover.

" Factcheck.com
"But in fact, Kerry has not voted 350 times for tax increases, something Bush campaign officials have falsely accused Kerry of on several occasions. On close examination, the Bush campaign’s list of Kerry’s votes for “higher taxes” is padded. It includes votes Kerry cast to leave taxes unchanged (when Republicans proposed cuts), and even votes in favor of alternative Democratic tax cuts that Bush aides characterized as “watered down.”"" This is the 350 figure, which we have already agreed includes floor motions and committee votes as well. But there are 23 distinct tax increases with Kerry's vote. But again, you keep dodging my question about when, if ever, Kerry thought Americans needed tax relief???

"He voted against strategic nuclear weapons like the B-2. Horrors. Same ones that Bush Sr. ceased production on while putting forward his plan to reduce military spending." & "You missed the point. Many of the cuts to these programs were ones supported by the Republicans themselves, including Dick Cheney for the Apache helicopter" You're scratching at straws. There is nothing wrong with voting against a particular weapons system or military spending initiative. I say that the fact that Cheney voted against particular systems shows that he wasn't blindly in favor of defense spending. But when you're in the Senate for 20 years and you vote against every major weapons system in use today, it's hardly an adequate defense to say that Cheney also voted for a few defense cuts. Instead, the voting record clearly shows a pattern of undermining our military.

"It's not that he didn't fight. It's that he didn't fight, tore apart John Kerry for being there" Why is it that liberals expect us to see the gaping hole that exists between them and the radical leftists fringe but for some reason, the same holes that seperate us on the right are dulled or grayed out? Bush is on the record with praise for the Senator's service to his country and acknowledged that Kerry served "more honorably" than he did. But despite this, you have no problem claiming that Bush "tore apart John Kerry for being there". Aren't you more intellectually honest than this?

"You have repeatedly assumed that I get them (news) from left wing sources, including insulting me with the moveon.org stuff." I don't assume anything, in fact I admitted that I don't know where you get it. What I do know is that you advance the same theories and "half empty" spin that I see from highly biased sources like moveon.org. My reference to it was more of a question, not an insult. Many liberals that I engage simply spit out the stuff they read on these types of web sites. You give me the exact same arguments. It's good that you do more independant research, but I will treat your arguments the same as if they come from the kool aid drinkers. All I can do is apologize if I have offended you.

"Define "ultra-liberal" so I know whether to be offended" People who always use the "half empty" argument who wouldn't think twice about using the "half full" argument to support their cause. People who when given a fact immediately assume that there is a counter fact. (wait, I could be describing myself) The fact is that I don't know you to be one of these people. Either way, there is no reason to be offended.

"Did you just say something positive about Clinton? You're getting kicked out of the association for that one." Clinton was a master at cloaking his liberalism, which endeared him to the powerful moderate or swing voters. He was a great orator and wasn't bad at receiving oral either!

"I do not like the polarization and would favor a country more united" Websites like this don't help (although our exchange is prett healthy). Also see www.sorryeverybody.com. If unity is what you seek, than you can start by telling those disenfranchised Americans that they aren't helping.

"I believe strongly in church/state separation" This is another hot button for me. The so called "seperation" doesn't exist in the Constituion. It appears in the Federalist Papers, which liberals want to ignore for nearly everything else. But the intent of freedom of religion was two-fold. First, it was a protection against a governmentally mandated religion. Second it was a right to practice the religion of our choice. What it has come to mean is that we can't do anything or have anything in a public place that offends another person. This is hardly what was intended.

"Terrorist recruitment is up" Not saying you are wrong, but how do you know? Al Jazeera?

"The stereotype of the America hating liberal is a common one, you must admit" Sure I do, but I don't prey on it and if I use the words "America hating" in front of liberal, I am talking about a certain faction of liberals.

"Ashcroft was overturning the 4th Amendment quite a while ago" Tell me more about this.

"The civil rights of people were violated when they were detained indefinitely without arrest, charges made, or rights afforded to them" Tell me more about this too.

"It would not do to have us leave after instituting a perfect little American democracy and have the people choose a fundamentalist extremist as a leader, would it?" I think we have a responsibility to epower an interim government that shares our goal of freedom. Turning the reigns over to someone who will likely enslave them again wouldn't be the brightest thing. It is certainly legitimate to argue the finer points of converting a dictatorship to a democracy, but I think characterizing those that share our vision as "our people" is a little "half empty" if you know what I mean.

"I think Bush has the aspiration of making Iraq a "friendly" nation that is a stronghold of democracy in the Middle East that will show the beauty of American ways" Good then we agree it's not some petty pay back for trying to assasinate his father.

"Once we were invading them, yeah. Suicide bombers are kind of a last resort when you don't have those WMDs to use" Saddam was subsidizing the familys of suicide bombers for years and years.

"You painted this as isolated incidents with the Bush camp when simply watching him speak publically reveals his distate for being questioned." I don't think that ANY politician wants to be heckled while giving a stump speech. It hardly is indicative that he has a "distaste for being questioned" In the waning days of the election, he was all over TV. He did O'reilly which is known to shred both sides.

"I generally will trust a newspaper over a "trust me" story over the internet" One has no more credibility than the other, especially when it's the Boston Globe but I thought we had something between us! LOL

"Define "overzealous".(environmental restrictions) One size fits all with some environmental beurocrat deciding that everyone will comply with arbitrary standards by an arbitrary date certain. I don't think there is anything wrong with forcing companies to clean up their act, but if being tough on polluters means having them close their doors in favor of outsourcing their entire operation overseas, I'd rather be lax by extending deadlines and working with companies on an individual basis, that indicate that they need help or more time to gain compliance over a longer period of times, especially if it meant saving jobs. Liberals abhor "my way or the highway" defense policy, but don't have a problem with environmental policy doing just that. IMO

"giving them benefits to stay if it involves screwing our air and water also doesn't fly." It's another half empty thing. We would characterize it as fixing the problem over a longer period of time. You classify it as "screw the air and water" Proposing more flexible timelines and being weak on environment are different things but not according to liberals.

"Creation of jobs is far more important than paying someone, particularly with the way welfare tends to rope people into not working." First, this is very conservative of you! ;) Next, how do you propose we "create" jobs? My assertion is that jobs are created when free markets are left to pofiteer, not when they are taxed into oblivion.

"Uninsured people cannot pay hospital bills, So they become a drain on the system" Yes, this is true and if Health care didn't cost so damn much, it wouldn't be such a drain. Is it fair to say that hospitals charge a premium for health care that they know isn't going to get paid for in order to maximize their subsidies and increase their write-offs? One of the best things we can do for health care is to allow small businesses to band together to qualify for group rates. Another is the whole malpractice thing, but not by mandating lower insurance premiums for the doctors, but by reforming the laws to limit what qualifies for damages and also the damages themselves. This will automatically lower rates.

"creation of the new "military" jobs supposedly had from people put on active duty" I am not convinced that the payroll report actually reflects these people, but assuming they do, out of the 1.9 million new earners in America, how many of them are Reservists and National Guardsmen? Does this really sway the results or is this another half empty argument?

"I also do not think Clinton was dragged along kicking and screaming by the GOP" Actually he was. If you recall the government was shut down for a while while they ironed out their dispute. It wasn't until Clinton realized the popularity of a balanced budget that he acquiesed.

I can certainly take time to look more at the 'half empty' viewpoints. Can you benefit from the 'half full' viewpoints?

Robert

Posted by: Randall at November 15, 2004 3:22 PM

WindRider95

If they did have anything to say, it wouldn't matter anyway. Nothing they have said up to this point has made enough sense to equal the mass of a pissant's brain. This Coastopia thing has me befuddled. Isn't this just venting?

Posted by: Jean Chretien 4 Prez at November 15, 2004 4:55 PM

why aren't michigan, wisconsin, and minnesota invited? i think they proved their worthiness in 2000 and 2004. besides, we probably need the access to the great lakes.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 15, 2004 4:59 PM

Randall,

It started off as venting...now they're in love with the sound of their own voices, as it were. You'd think they'd take the hint and take their 'back & forth' off-line...private email or the like.

But no.

They insist on bludgeoning us with their Political Science/Economics 101 knowledge.

I actually found some of the early commentary by others interesting...but now...these three carry on ad nauseum.

Posted by: If only .... at November 15, 2004 5:34 PM

If only... Talk about your Christmas miracles.

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

(Seriously, though, there could be something to this. I was an outside poll watcher in FL and I was skeptical when I got our poll results, since they differed from what I thought they'd be, since almost everyone leaving got into a Kerry bumper-stickered car and/or gave verbal support to the pro-Kerry campaigners outside. I would guess we had about 95% Kerry votes in our heavily democratic Palm Beach County precinct that came out only about 2 to 1 for Kerry. Still, nothing can come of it, since there's no paper trail to expose it if there were small irregularities from the electronic machine.) But, ridiculous as it seems, my denial keeps turning my mind to Ohio. Politics aside, I'd just like to see the look on his mandate-claiming face.

http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm

Posted by: If Only you had a brain... at November 15, 2004 6:36 PM

Talk about your Christmas manure is more like it; it's certainly not a Christmas miracle. Betsy Vasquez is full of conspiracy theory garbage like that espoused at 'If Only's' website. The election is over. Bush won. Kerry lost. It happens. Get used to it. Get a life. Move to Coastopia. The sooner, the better.

Posted by: Robert at November 15, 2004 6:36 PM

If Only,

Some people simply can't accept the truth that Bush won the election. Since it didn't go their way, it must be fraud. It's just completely void of any credibility. You lost, now get over it and try to find some common ground.

Besides, Kerry had an Army (3000+) lawyers in the battleground states, so if the republicans managed to pull of fraud right in front of their eyes, you don't deserve to win anyway! Also, it's hardly suspect that your precinct's results differed from the expectations created under your trained, expert, watchful pollster eye.

I thought Gore was a sore loser, but at least he had the majority of the popular vote as some sort of impetus for his challenge. Why don't you have a modicum of class and dignity and concede like Kerry did.

Also, I checked out your link. "Not Left, Not Right" What a joke! It's some of the most liberal hysteria and spin I have ever read.

Robert

Posted by: Dan at November 15, 2004 8:17 PM

Fellow Coastopians,

I agree that too much rhetoric has been flooding this blog for too long. I apologize if I have added to this clutter. With the exception of rants, the informed debates have taken on the characteristic of beating a dead horse. I’d love to see some new, intelligent issues raised for debate here. Until then, I really have better things to do.

Robert: I truly did enjoy our debates. You, at least, helped to make this an intelligent forum for differing viewpoints, although we still disagree, you understand :-).

Badbobusnret: I hope that your rants help you to sleep better at night :-). FYI, We’re about equal in nations visited. The main difference that I can see is that mine weren’t simply on shore leave. For the most part, they were either meetings with industrial clients and government officials, or engineering symposia.

Ishie, my love: I’m not abandoning you :-). Keep up the good fight!

All others: I hope that this blog moves onto an even higher plain and becomes a good forum for informed political debate. Coastopians, take heart. The “badbobs” et al have far from eliminated the historic two sides of the aisles in the US Congress. If that ever happens, American democracy will truly be dead!

Bye for now,
Dan

Posted by: Dan at November 15, 2004 8:37 PM

Damn! I forgot one final comment that I had meant to make. Since I first accessed this blog, I've been truly puzzled by the rants of Bush supporters here. If my candidate won in any national election, why in hell would I waste my time seeking out blogs of the losing party to vent my spleen? I'd simply be satisfied that the candidate for whom I voted won! Am I alone in this? :-)
Dan

Posted by: eric264 at November 16, 2004 12:17 AM

Before I pledge my allegiance and stuff, a couple of questions. What about poor DC? (92% Democrat) And why did you lop off the Eastern Shore of Maryland? Virginia may be for (heterosexual, married, tobacco smoking) lovers, but Maryland is for crabs.

Posted by: eric264 at November 16, 2004 12:40 AM

I wonder if the red states will let their atheists, foreigners, tree-huggers and sodomites emmigrate. Think of all the money they'll save on concentration camps.

Posted by: Randall at November 16, 2004 4:51 AM

Erika-

After reading your rather insulting comments about the South, I am more than tempted to tell you to kiss my Rebel ass. Perhaps it would be better to try to appeal to your intellect, supremacist in nature though it is. If being tagged homophobic is the result of not endorsing the gay lifestyle, not supporting "gay marriage", and choosing to believe what the Bible teaches us about this matter, then count me in. As far as being anti-abortion, you bet. Set aside for a moment the Biblical implications. How the hell can one kill a sweet little baby as a means of birth control? One would think that would go against maternal instincts. Medical problems, life of the mother, rape and incest? As distasteful as it is, I could go for those exceptions. Under those circumstances, there is no good solution and no matter what is done, a shitty deal is there to be had by all.
As far as the institutions of higher learning down in Dixie being sub-standard, I know exactly what you mean. Vanderbilt, Sewanee, Cumberland College, etc. Those places turn out nothing but intellectual whack-jobs of the highest order. (S-A-R-C-A-S-M)
I, like you, have had the opportunity to live around the world (due to my military service) and in different parts of the country. I have met interesting and intelligent people everywhere I have been. Good, solid people, as well as small-minded ones and hypocrites. That will always be the case. Everywhere. Around the world.
We like the way things are down here. We like our small town ways. Our good, solid rural ways. Our larger city ways. We are fortunate not to have had to experience the cultural upheaval that has been forced upon other parts of the country by people of your ilk, at least not in the same proportions as those other unfortunate areas. We will continue to resist attempts by people like you to come here and basically tell us what we must think, what we must accept as right and wrong, and to tell us how we must live our lives. We will continue to resist your attempts to replace our good, solid Christian values, our simple home-spun ways, and our sense of Southern pride and honor with some godless, humanistic dogma that places its victims in a hopeless moral vacuum from which they so often seek escape. I know for a fact that I will resist attempts to take the very guns with which I protect my family. As far as your assertion that we should be better informed and think outside the tiny circle that encompasses us, you can take it to the bank that we are in fact well aware of what is going on outside our region and that is exactly why Kerry lost the election! We watch the news (not just FOX-you would be surprised at how many misguided fools down here still watch CNN) and see what is happening to our country. We are smart enough to know that we don't want all the bullshit that is coming down the pike to fall on us. We do have a higher rate of divorce, but I do believe we have a higher rate of marriage as well, so go figure. All is not perfect here. One can't get a latte (did I spell that right?) on every (streetcorner?), but then I don't think it would go well with biscuits and gravy or grits. But it's one hell of a lot better here than in some other dicked-up parts of the country, for which you can thank the liberal mind-set and the policies it produces. There are some racists and bigots here, to be sure. The exact same sort that you will find in all parts of the country. The one thing that I find so amazing, though, is that we do not have very many serious incidences of racism or bigotry here. Gays do their own thing and keep it PERSONAL and PRIVATE. Just like EVERYONE else. They don't try to force their choices upon everyone. It seems to me that most of the real problems are happening in parts of the country where the reverse is true. When we start dragging people off the street into churches down here, then I will accept your description of folks down here as valid. Until then, please keep your liberal, whiny, socialist world-view of how all people should think to yourself and live it to the fullest, because until that time, there is nothing here to be fixed. Damn, we've got it made. God Bless America!

Posted by: Rick Beyer at November 16, 2004 7:05 AM

What about Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade counties? How could you possibly ignore them? We want in and will send a force to make you comply!

Posted by: Mike at November 16, 2004 7:10 AM

Let me just first that I did NOT vote for George Bush (I'm a Libertarian) and I can't say that I'm glad he's our president; however, I will say that John Kerry, one of the most liberal senators out there (I'm from Mass., I know), would continue to steer the country down its current path of a greater capitalism/socialism mix. Increasing government programs exponentially is one of the worst recipes for inefficiency imaginable, as not only is some of the nation's net value thrown away, but every dollar that finds its way into a government bureaucracy will retain only a fraction of its value when it leaves. The main problem is that many northernerns like me assume that since we have college degrees we're automatically more equipped to answer economic questions, and the truth is that the liberal bourgeoisie of this country is more concern with idealistic aid to the poor than the tough solutions to economic problems. Now I can only hope Bush can stop his raising of government spending and start us down the right path. I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 16, 2004 7:54 AM

Ishtar,

Delighted to see you read "When Devils Walked the Earth". See link above if you haven't.
Re your analysis:
"So while I have a great deal of respect for many of the piece's issues, I think in some cases it misses, and advises us to be a little too "balls to the wall", the practice of which I think could lead to the internal corruption of our national identity and, particularly with our steadily failing diplomatic position, lead not just to increased terrorism, but world action against us."
World action against us? LOL. What, are the French, CHICOMs and Russians going to create a coalition to face us militarily? Well if that happens I guess we'll have another "Cold War". And we'll win that one, too. You may laugh, but the emerging countries of Central Asia, Former Soviet Bloc and South America /Africa are allies we can deal with. Old Europe is well- old europe, diminished, and not a full fledged partner in Western civilization anymore (except for the UK which is tottering).
Overall Ishie, you need more nourishment on the nature of the "enemy". Recommended read: "The Arab Mind" by Ralph Petai (circa late '60's). It can be had on ebay or you may find in the local library. Enlightening read.
--------------------------------------
Dan,

Sorry to see you go. I was just trying to get you folks past this bad time for you'all; talk of secession and all…….

Re your "final" post:

"Badbobusnret: I hope that your rants help you to sleep better at night :-)."

I'm a fighter pilot; we can go to sleep at a moments notice- like a baby. Thanks for asking though! I must admit I was a little sleepless night of 2 November though!


"FYI, We’re about equal in nations visited. The main difference that I can see is that mine weren’t simply on shore leave. For the most part, they were either meetings with industrial clients and government officials, or engineering symposia."

Is this mine is bigger than yours?
When I visited, it was either to chase local woman, drink beer, or once in a great while, drop 500 lb'ers on 'em! Sort of funny that now when I go overseas its to do those exact things you discussed above. You see- I "are" an engineer, too!


Eric264- Re your:

"Before I pledge my allegiance and stuff, a couple of questions. What about poor DC? (92% Democrat) And why did you lop off the Eastern Shore of Maryland? Virginia may be for (heterosexual, married, tobacco smoking) lovers, but Maryland is for crabs."

The Eastern shore of MD is the most red of red areas, and that includes all the counties. Check it out. As a matter of fact, so is Maryland geographically. MD is basically a red horseshoe with a minor blue spot (blight?) on the center (Baltimore City, PG & Montgomery Counties).

Maryland IS for Blue Crabs-- but they turn red when you steam them!
------------------------------------

Robert-

I came across this on powerlineblog.com this am.(see below) Pretty much sums up the endgame on progressives/liberals thought processes.

Advice- Debating with these folks is a lost cause…plus who's keeping score? The WWII generation is almost gone, your college professors are all liberals and Mrs. Smith from 5th garde ain't around anymore! : -)

"George Will notes how disdain for the judgment of average Americans has become a dominant theme in "progressive" thinking, to the point that some Democrats "relish interpreting the party's defeat as validation." Will connects this phenomenon to the culture of victimhood under which liberals implement their pet projects (or power grab) by positing an infantile American public.

I agree with Will, but think that something else is at work too. The deepest urge of many liberals is their attempt to prove their intellectual and moral superiority. One of the ways they accomplish this is by eschewing obvious explanations for misconduct -- greed, cruelty, or (in extreme cases) evil -- as too simplistic. Liberals would rather identify "root causes," as if the basic motivations just mentioned are insufficiently rooted. And the root causes that satisfy liberals generally turn out to be flaws in America and its policies. Such liberals thus are able to trash the American public coming and going, as too simple-minded to focus on root causes and, ultimately, as the root cause itself. President Bush can be viewed as the representative of this cartoon version of the public. No public figure seems less inclined to worry about the things liberals deem root causes, and few public figures have more vigorously pursued the
kinds of policies that constitute the alleged root causes of our woes. No wonder why they hate him."

Posted by: Phil at November 16, 2004 10:42 AM

I agree with the comments above which suggest an immediate inclusion of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota (one of the most progressive states there is and the home of Walter Mondale, Hubert Hunmphrey, and the late Paul Wellstone.). I voted in Rural Michigan for Kerry and the entire county (Marquette) went blue, so don't focus solely on Ann Arbor. The blue collar workers of Michigan are predominantly die-hard Democrats.

This way you have the entire "third coast" and all of the Great Lakes.

Lastly, what's with the indentity card? Very authoritarian / Orwell's 1984. Axe the identity card idea, guys.

My two cents.

Thanks.

Posted by: tigger1974 at November 16, 2004 11:12 AM

Wow, what are you all saying to your children??? If we lose we run away??? Make our own rules??? What???

I definitely wouldn't be too proud of myself if I were any of you!!

In four years rally the troops once again and fight a good fight. Don't walk away, how will you ever make it change if you walk away? Don't teach our children that we are quitters. Teach them to VOTE!!!! Teach them to be good citizens in all ways. Teach them to give their time and money to charity. Teach them to stand up for what they believe in, even if it isn't the popular opinion. Give them the education they deserve. Start working to pass your school board's budgets, our children are the future, let's educate them. Better educated children will in turn to better educated adults, and that will be how our country becomes a progessive thinking and acting country.

Posted by: tigger1974 at November 16, 2004 11:12 AM

Wow, what are you all saying to your children??? If we lose we run away??? Make our own rules??? What???

I definitely wouldn't be too proud of myself if I were any of you!!

In four years rally the troops once again and fight a good fight. Don't walk away, how will you ever make it change if you walk away? Don't teach our children that we are quitters. Teach them to VOTE!!!! Teach them to be good citizens in all ways. Teach them to give their time and money to charity. Teach them to stand up for what they believe in, even if it isn't the popular opinion. Give them the education they deserve. Start working to pass your school board's budgets, our children are the future, let's educate them. Better educated children will in turn to better educated adults, and that will be how our country becomes a progessive thinking and acting country.

Posted by: tigger1974 at November 16, 2004 11:12 AM

Wow, what are you all saying to your children??? If we lose we run away??? Make our own rules??? What???

I definitely wouldn't be too proud of myself if I were any of you!!

In four years rally the troops once again and fight a good fight. Don't walk away, how will you ever make it change if you walk away? Don't teach our children that we are quitters. Teach them to VOTE!!!! Teach them to be good citizens in all ways. Teach them to give their time and money to charity. Teach them to stand up for what they believe in, even if it isn't the popular opinion. Give them the education they deserve. Start working to pass your school board's budgets, our children are the future, let's educate them. Better educated children will in turn to better educated adults, and that will be how our country becomes a progessive thinking and acting country.

Posted by: Pooh at November 16, 2004 1:04 PM

W-w-wow Tigger. You sound like a school teacher I know.

Posted by: If only at November 16, 2004 5:15 PM

Robert,
My "if only" comment meant that not only would Kerry be President but also that the result I had been hoping for since 2000 had occurred: the democrats won the electoral college and lost the popular vote.
It would be the only way that there would be any chance for abolishment of the electoral college, and it would be some sort of vindication of the 2000 election.
The electoral college is outdated and discourages people from voting. It is not generally understood by people and makes people distrustful and really feel that their vote does not count. The only chance it will ever attract meaningful debate is if both major parties feel screwed by it.
As to the fraud possibility, 3000 lawyers in Florida can make sure everything is on the up and up on the surface (and we did in my precinct), but obviously computer hackings into tons of machines would not be visible to anyone at a polling place. I know I sound paranoid, but you're naive if you think governments and other people of power are not capable of such things.
The exit polls bear out what I saw, and don't talk to me about the 2000 exit polls being wrong, too. They weren't -- thousands of people in Palm Beach County thought they were voting for Gore when they didn't. My mom is still nervous that she was one of them, and my sister got it right but did say it was confusing.

Posted by: If only at November 16, 2004 5:18 PM

And no, I'm not saying that we should have won Florida. My guess is that there was some subversive fraud in Florida but not nearly enough to change the results in Florida -- it simply wasn't close.

Posted by: Dan at November 16, 2004 6:07 PM

I just had to make a couple of short responses :-),

-To “Tigger1974”: No one is truly walking away from anything. This blog is simply an outlet for many of us who are frustrated. I agree on the education part. My daughter, “Ishie”, is an example of all the good traits that you point out. In addition, she was encouraged from an early age to look at the world and make her own assessment as to where she stands. She was even admonished not to simply accept her parents’ views as her own. Needless to say, I’m very proud of her!

To “If Only”: Couldn’t agree with you more about the Electoral College system! Before moving to the East Coast, California was my home. Since I’ve been old enough to cast a ballot, I felt disenfranchised there because BOTH parties ignored the state. I expect that those Californians who voted Republican feel equally disenfranchised because their vote didn’t count any more than did the votes of Democrats in the red states. The Electoral College is a totally outdated system that had its roots in the horse and buggy days! This is something that all sides of the political spectrum should be agreed on.
Dan

Posted by: Alaska Dave at November 16, 2004 6:49 PM

Dan,, you couldn't be more wrong about the electoral college. It just shows you have a basic misunderstanding of how our system of voting works. I don't suppose I could ever put up any argument that would change your mind (and the same goes for you trying to change my mind) so we'll just have to disagree. I would agree about the education though, but as long as it's not from our very left leaning public education system.

Alaska Dave.....

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 16, 2004 6:57 PM

Actually the Electoral College is still quite valuable and serves its original purpose. As usual, the 'Founding Fathers' were right on the mark. If you don't understand it, go take a political science/civics class at your local university, college, junior college or community college. Contrary to most opinions expressed on this site, our great country is NOT a democracy, it is a Republic. Don't know the difference? Again, go take a class. The purpose of the electoral college, in broad terms, is to give states a more equal voice in national affairs...in other words, to protect us from the 'tyranny of the majority.' Words as true today as when they were first uttered.

Posted by: B2 at November 16, 2004 6:59 PM

This is scary:

Blue State Blues as Coastal Parents Battle Invasion of Dollywood Values

(or "journalism is important, but the world needs plumbers too.")

"I'm not sure where we went wrong," says Ellen McCormack, nervously fondling the recycled paper cup holding her organic Kona soy latte. "It seems like only yesterday Rain was a carefree little boy at the Montessori school, playing non-competitive musical chairs with the other children and his care facilitators."

"But now..." she pauses, staring out the window of her postmodern Palo Alto home. The words are hesitant, measured, bearing a tale of family heartbreak almost too painful for her to recount. "But now, Rain insists that I call him Bobby Ray."

Even as her voice is choked with emotion, she summons an inner courage -- a mother's courage -- and leads me down the hall to "Bobby Ray's" bedroom, for a firsthand glimpse at the psychic devastation that claimed her son.

She opens the door to a reveal a riot of George Jones CDs, reflective 'mudflap mama' stickers, empty foil packs of Red Man, and U.S. Marine recruiting posters. In the middle of the room: a makeshift table made from a utility cable spool, bearing a the remains of a gutted catfish.

"This used to be all Ikea," she says, rocking on heels between heaved sobs. "It's too late for us. Maybe it's not to late for me to warn others."

Pandora's Moon Pie Box

While poignant, Ellen McCormack's painful battle to save her son is far from isolated. Across coastal America, increasing numbers of families are discovering that their children have been lured into "Cracker" culture -- a new, freewheeling underground youth movement that celebrates the hedonistic thrills of frog-gigging and outlaw modified sprint cars. No one knows their exact number, but sociologists say that the movement is exploding among young people in America's most fashionable zip codes.

"We first detected it a few years ago, with the emergence of the trucker hat phenomenon," says Gerard Levin, professor of abnormal sociology at the University of California. "At first we thought it was some sort of benign, ironic strain. By the time we realized the early wearers really were interested in seed corn hybrids and Peterbilts, it had already escaped containment."

Levin points to 'Patient Zero,' who in 1997 was a 23-year old graduate student in Gender Studies at San Francisco State University.

"During a cross-country trip to New York, he stopped at the Iowa 80 Truck Stop in Walcott, Iowa, and bought a John Deere gimme cap as a gag souvenir," says Levin. "Within a year, he had dropped out of graduate school, abandoned his SoMa apartment, and was working at a drive-thru liquor store. Today he is a wealthy televangelist in Bossier City, Louisiana."

The contagion of 'Patient Zero' would prove devastating. Soon trucker hats were appearing throughout trendy coastal neighborhoods like Williamsburg and Park Slope and Portrero Hill, often accessorized with chain wallets and 'wife beater' t-shirts. A new alternative youth movement had emerged, rejecting the staid norms of establishment NPR society and embracing the 'tune-in, turn-on, chug-up' ethos of the Pabst Blue Ribbon underground. Before long, it would broadcast its siren call to an even younger generation -- one whose parents were woefully unequipped to recognize it.

Youthquake

"It was one day last spring," says Ellen McCormack. "My life partner Carol and I were in the garage, working on a giant Donald Rumsfeld papier mache head for the Bay Area March Against the War, when Rain walked by. I thought he looked kind of strange, so I stopped him and looked closely into his eyes. Then I realized the truth -- he was wearing a mullet. I was shocked, but he swore to me that it was only ironic."

"After a few months, it was clear Rain had lied to us -- that hideous Kentucky waterfall was completely earnest," she adds, choking back sobs.

Her 18-year old son would soon exhibit other signs of disturbing changes.

"I was driving past a McDonalds one day last summer, and I thought I saw Rain's bike outside. He had told me earlier that he was going to a friend's house to stuff envelopes for the Dennis Kucinich campaign. I pulled a U-turn and headed back," she recalls. "When I confronted him in the parking lot, he started giving me a lame story about how he was only there to protest globalization, but I could smell the french fries on his breath."


McCormack says that Rain's erratic behavior would also come to include excessive politeness and deference.

"Everytime I tried to talk to him it was 'yes Momma,' and 'no Momma,' when he knows damn well my name is Ellen," she says, anger rising in her voice. "It was like I didn't even know him anymore."

McCormack tried an intervention with friends from the Anti-war community, but to no avail. In October, Bobby Ray packed up his Monte Carlo and left for basic training at Camp Pendleton.

"I have no son," she says in a barely audible whisper.

Across the country In toney Westchester County, New York, Jim and Sandy Vandenberg describe a similar tale of family grief.

"We are people of faith who keep the sabbath," says Sandy, a curator in the Dada collection of the Museum of Modern Art. "Even when she was a toddler, we made sure Emily got up early every Sunday morning to read the New York Times Book Review. Sunday morning was our time, until..."

"Until those damned Jesus bastards stole my little girl," interrupts her husband, barely containing his anger. Once a Freshman honors student in Lacanian Deconstruction Theory at NYU, their daughter is now better known as Lurleen McDaniel -- reigning Princess of the Tulsa Livestock Show and Rodeo.

In Bainbridge Island, Washington, single mom Jane Michelson says she began suspecting that her son Brian was in trouble after he started hanging with a new crowd at school.

"These weren't normal kids, neighborhood kids in Che t-shirts who want to drop a couple of hits of X and chill on Radiohead," she says. "They would talk in a sort of strange code language, like 'Roll Tide!' and 'Gig 'em Ags!' and 'Piiiig Sooieeee!'"

Signs of trouble would soon multiply.

"One day I got into my Volvo and hit the stereo preset for Pacifica Radio, and then I heard this obscene 'Save a Horse Ride a Cowboy' song coming from the speakers," she recalls. "The very next week, the maid found a tin of Skoal in his Wranglers. I told him him right then -- it was either me, or his tobacco-spitting friends."

Now known as Randy Dale Cash, her estranged son is a starting linebacker for Sul Ross State University in Alpine, Texas.

Peer Pressure

Jane Michelson is not alone in her story. Throughout coastal America, school adminstrators and parents are reporting an alarming surge in 'Cracker' cliques on campus. Also known as 'Y'alls' or 'Neckies,' officials say the groups thrive by attracting outcasts and misfits from the student body.

"We try hard to engage all of our students in fun, healthy activities like Progressive Eco-Action March and Rage Against Intolerance Week," says Lawrence DiBenedetto of Patrice Lumumba Magnet School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Unfortunately, there are going to be those who fall through the cracks, into a life of bass fishing and stockcar racing."

It appears those cracks are widening. In one recent three-week period, fourteen high school students in Portland, Oregon were suspended for distributing pork rinds; a Burlington, Vermont high school was briefly closed for decontamination after janitors found a bible hidden in a restroom; and forty-six undergraduate coeds at Swarthmore were expelled for staging clandestine Mary Kay cosmetics parties.

"We became suspicious after several heavily made-up students arrived at a Katha Pollitt lecture in a pink Cadillacs," says Swarthmore Dean of Students Geraldine Marcus.

Some say the craze threatens even the nation's most exclusive prep schools. At Exeter, Andover and St. Albans, rumors abound of secret societies where initiates are steeped in the black arts of restrictor plate cheating and satellite descramblers. Washington's elite Sidwell Friends School was nearly forced to close after scandalized parents learned that several students were openly touting Sams Club cards.

The Eclectic School Aid Hayseed Trip

To better understand what attracts young affluent students to the subculture, I spent a recent evening interviewing a group of self-described 'Neckies' from exclusive New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. Like countless other Friday nights, the close-knit group had made the 80 mile ritual journey to rural Belvidere, Illinois, to cruise Steak 'N' Shake and hang out at the Mills Fleet Farm parking lot.

"Y'all, check out these new mudders," says 17-year old 'Dakota,' proudly displaying the gigantic knobbed tires under his radically lifted 4x4 Audi Allroad. "I'm fixin' to get me a winch and Tuffbox fer it next week."

Not to be outdone, friend and fellow Neckie 'Duane' sounds 'Dixie' on the novelty horn of his jacked-up BMW M3. An early graduation gift from his parents, Duane has turned the expensive German coupe into an homage to the Dukes of Hazzard's General Lee, complete with orange Stars-and-Bars paint job and spit cup on the console.

"Grandma gave me some money fer a summer study trip over ta Paris, but I thought the paint job was cooler," laughs Duane. "Hell, she thinks I'm over in the Sorbonne right now, studying Foucault and all that s**t."

"I'm a-fixin' to put in a nitrous system on the General Lee, so I'ma call Grandma up and aks her for some book money," he adds.

Like most of their classmates, these North Shore Neckies were once bound for some of the top universities in America -- Yale, Duke, Stanford, Northwestern -- until they succumbed to the allure of the Downhome slacker lifestyle. Now some openly talk of dropping out, learning TIG welding, waiting tables at Waffle House or draining oil at Jiffy Lube; some even hint of enrolling at Iowa State. What drives privileged teens to such seemingly self-destructive behavior?

"I guess you might could say we're rebels," says Rachel 'Tyffanie' Stern, 17, lighting a Merit Menthol 100. Once destined for Vassar, Stern is now living with friends after her parents kicked her out of the house for spending her bat mitzvah money on a bass boat. Last month she became the youngest Jewish female to win an event on the Bassmasters Pro Tour.

Pausing for furtive glances, several of the teens share sniffs from a bottle of Harmon Triple Heat deer scent.

"Wooo-eee, s**t howdy, that's gonna bring a mess of them whitetail bucks," says 19-year old Wei-Li 'Lamar' Cheung. A former Westinghouse Science Award winner, Cheung has devoted his chemistry and biology skill to building a fledgling hunting supply business.

A first generation Asian-American, Cheung says he was drawn to the group by their acceptance of minorities. "Hell, I kept tellin' all my family and teachers I wanna play fiddle, not violin," he explains. "The 'Necks accept me the way I am."

African-American Kwame 'Joe Don' Harris agrees. "Just because I'm black, teachers were always pushing me to go to Spellman to study Langston Hughes and Thelonius Monk," says the 17 year old. "These ol' boys here never laugh at my dream to be a crew chief for the Craftsman Truck Series."

If there is one aspiration that unites them all, it is the dream of moving to Branson, Missouri. Long famed for its laid-back attitude toward religion, country music and the military, Branson has become a Mecca for radical young Neckies seeking an escape from the stultifying conformity of their coastal hometowns.

"s**t, y'all, I heard Branson's got like four Wal Marts, and more $5.95 all-day breakfast buffets than Glencoe has Starbucks," enthuses Dakota, adding quickly that "pardon my French."

"Plus it's only a short drive up to Fort Leonard Wood," adds Tyffanie.

Talk arises of Branson's 'Summer of Bubba,' the upcoming hedonistic hillbilly festival of music, hog calling and nightcrawler gathering expected to draw millions of Neckies from as far as Santa Monica and Ithaca -- even Europe.

"Y'all, I heard them Swedish 'Necks are hardcore," says Joe Don. "They digitally remastered all the original Jerry Clower albums."

A live-for-today attitude permeates the group's ethos, with little concern about consequences. I ask Justin 'Jim Rob' Borowski, 18, what motivates young men and women to abandon promising academic careers in Gender Theory and Critical History to take a wild ride in the dark world of roofing and drywall contracting.

"My daddy was sorta mad when I tolt him I was gonna skip Columbia Journalism School for a plumbing apprenticeship," he answer philosophically, popping a plug of Red Man into his lip. "I tolt him that journalism is important, but the world needs plumbers too."

"After the toilet backed up, I think he got my point."

From Iowahawk.typepad.com

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 16, 2004 7:07 PM

For B2:

Your piece on the 'Neckies' was hilarious...I had tears rolling down my cheeks...thank you for the levity!!!!!

Posted by: Van Orden at November 17, 2004 5:12 AM

PARDON ME WHILE I GLOAT

by Dick Van Orden

I am not normally a cheerful loser or a gracious winner. Whether its tiddly-winks or
war at sea, I want to win, win, win! In fact, I hate to lose and when I win I
sometimes want to rub the loser's nose in his defeat. After a sleepless night I feel
just rotten enough that the past six months of lies and innuendos from the Kerry
camp have it all come home to make me more vindictive than usual. As a result, I
want to gloat. Here's why:

I am happy that the sound common sense of a majority of America's voters resulted in
a solid victory for a true patriot-and in the humiliating defeat of a lying traitor.
There was no doubt in my mind that Bush's truthfulness and forthrightness would
prevail against the lies and half-truths of Kerry and his supporters, and I am
pleased that a majority of good folks saw the light and pushed the Bush/ Cheney
button for justice and for increasing support for the nation's bright future.

I am pleased that the left-leaning media-newspapers, radio, TV and newsmagazines-got
their bell rung, but good. Now we are assured that these self-appointed "opinion
makers" cannot pull the wool over the eyes of most of us, no matter how hard they
twist the facts. Their early reporting of the "leaked" fraudulent exit polls, and
their sponsorship of other badly skewed voter polls were designed to mislead voters,
in which they failed-miserably. And Dan Rather deserves a special place in hell.

I am delighted that the fat, disgusting a-hole, Michael Moore did not achieve the
success that he wished for and that he was repulsed by so many intelligent
Americans. May his soul burn in hell.

I hope the Hollywood friends of Michael Moore-especially Barbara Streisand, Whoopi
Goldberg, P-Diddler, and their friends-are roasting in the hell of their own making.
It seems to me that they all offered to depart the U.S. if Bush won the first time,
which they did not do. The time is now doubly ripe for their exit.

I am blissful that all the treasure and invective of George Soros devoted to
defeating George Bush went for naught. I only wish for a financial future of similar
poor decisions by Soros; I want to see him as bankrupt in bank account as he is in
patriotism.

I find it particularly satisfying that the high ranking military suck-ups whose lack
of integrity led them to desert their commander-in-chief and follow a lying cheat,
even though they knew, or should have known, that his dismissal from the Navy was
"less than honorable," as detailed in the military record that he refused to
release. It is sad that such Navy types as Bill Crowe, Stan Turner, and even Jimmy
Carter would be in that group. It is obvious that their motivation was the hope of a
cushy job when their new-found knight in shining armor moved into the White House.
Even their strategy was flawed, for Kerry is, and always has been, anti-military; he
only used his military service-and those military "advisors"-for personal political
gain. He would never have offered that cushy job, once he had used them, just as he
never voted for the needed armament that they and their shipmates and their Marine
Corp! s, Army, and Air Force brothers-in-arms needed so badly.

I am thrilled that the whiners who have complained bitterly about the "stolen" 2000
Presidential election must leave that fallacy in the past and now try to find
something else to whine about-maybe they can even develop a fantasy that the four
million vote plurality was a miscount, and continue their whining as they slink away
into their caves.

It pleases me that Kofi Annan and the other United Nations sycophants failed
miserably when they tried so hard to influence this election to ensure that a more
pliable President Kerry would be elected. I hope they will now realize that either
they clean up the bureaucratic, corrupt, do-nothing UN, or they will be short of
funds when the Bush-led US decreases-or ends-its support.

I am overjoyed at the failure of Osama bin Laden's carefully timed video of
invective against the US and its President in hopes of using Islamic scare tactics
on the American people. Bin Laden's aim was to entice our voters to elect a new
President who will not be as robust in his pursuit of terrorists and more willing to
"negotiate" with Islamic Fundamentalists. He did not understand that Americans are
not so panicky as the French, fearful as the Spanish, or unthinking as the English.
(As for the Germans, they should know better; we have defeated them in battle often
enough to convince them of the rightness of our ways.) I hope Osama dies in a blast
from a bunker-buster before he gets a chance to make another video or another attack
on our nation.

The blatant attempts of European nations and the EU to cause our President
discomfort in his efforts to bring peace to the world make me glad that they are so
disappointed with the election results. My joy is unbounded at the chagrin of the
French and German and other anti-Bush, anti-American nations (including the people
of the UK-but not their loyal and faithful government led by Prime Minister, Tony
Blair). Now let those U.S.-sheltered Europeans worry about the end of American
financial and military assistance when they have problems. Let them beg for American
military aid and other handouts that have helped to sustain their economies. And let
them perish in their own sweat when we remove our troops from Germany, the Balkans,
and other trouble spots where we have pulled their chestnuts out of the fire.

I relish the hope that Islamic fundamentalists will now understand the election
result as a blow from which they cannot recover. It fills me with joy that their
dreams of world domination will be shattered by Bush's and the American nation's
resolve to see them defeated and sent to join their Allah-without the 72 virgins
waiting for them.

It pleases me more than I can say that the Senate Minority Leader, Thomas Daschle
lost his seat. As the leading obstructionist for the Democrat party, he was
primarily responsible for withholding approval of many Bush appointments to Federal
judgeships, high-level positions, and other necessary personnel. Good riddance.

The demise of the junk-yard dog, loudmouth James Carville, also brings me great
happiness. That happiness is further enhanced by the victory of the first Republican
to win a Senate seat in Louisiana, Carville's home state.

I am delighted with the success of John O'Neil and his Swift Boat Vets-and with
those thousands of non-Swifties who joined with them-on their forthright revelation
of the truth of Kerry's service in Vietnam. They took a truthful but difficult
position and made an impact-good and honorable Navy men all. Bush gets gentlemanly
credit for not using them and their data in his campaign to demean Kerry, but the
word was out that they spoke the truth. I maintain that they were the MVPs of this
election; their testimony turned the tide against Kerry, and he never recovered.

And, finally, I must express my unbounded gratification at the defeat of Senator
Kerry, a worthless Senator, anti-military extremist, lying self-promoter, and former
Naval officer who disgraced us all. His traitorous collusion with the enemy is
second only to that of Jane Fonda. He should have been court-martialed for giving
aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war. His dishonorable quest for medals and a
quick return to the US, where he turned against his shipmates and lied about their
actions resulted in a less than honorable separation from the Navy. Jimmy Carter's
amnesty allowed him to file for, and get, an honorable discharge 18 years after he
left the service. He should have received a court martial.

While my thoughts may seem to be mean-spirited, do not be confused-they really are
mean-spirited, as I mean them to be. I have suffered the tortures of the damned over
the past year as I heard and read the lies and nasty remarks from politicians,
citizens, and media "experts" about our President. I have barely tolerated the
feeble but divisive attempts of foreign and domestic peaceniks to build a case
against our war on the Islamic fundamentalists, who use terrorism as a weapon
against us in order to intimidate our citizens and drive some of our gutless
politicians to seek "negotiations" to avoid "confrontations" with those who seek to
kill our citizens.

Most of all, I have seethed with anger at those who shamefully derided our military,
blissfully reporting on their failures and neglecting their successes. They
triumphantly celebrated our difficulties by running daily body counts of our own
heroic men killed in battle with the enemy, even publishing their pictures in papers
and on TV as if to mock the President who sent them to defend our nation. I have
only disgust for such tactics. And those are the very same people who now plead for
"united actions" in the House and Senate, now that they are in a steadily declining
minority. I would advise our President to "watch your six" because these are really
enemies and they are not to be trusted.

Four more years! How sweet it is!

Posted by: Tigger1974 at November 17, 2004 5:25 AM

Pooh, I am not a teacher. I am a 30 year old mother of three children, who happens to be an accountant as well. I see people arguing about how to spend all our tax dollars and it pains me to see that education is such a low priority.

Maybe if our children and their futures were our MAIN priority, then we could get this country out of the quagmire that we are in. I am not saying that we shouldn't protect our borders, but hey, if we educated our kids, then someday... maybe some of them will come up with better ways to protect our borders more effectively..maybe someday some of them will figure out how to keep our jobs here... In the future anything is possible, if we have an educated public.

And, ummmm.... Alaska Dave, if you don't like the curriculum that is at your local schools... DON'T complain about it.... DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! If you can't gather enough support to do something about it... then teach your children what you believe and leave it up to them to make their own choice as to what they believe. Just because a school teaches something to my kids, it doesn't mean, I have to allow my child to participate. If I didn't like something that was being taught, I would pull my child from that class and DEMAND an alternative. Just because you send a kid to a public school, it doesn't mean you don't still have control over what your child sees and hears... If the left has control of the public school system, it is because they worked to get their ideas accepted and taught in the schools, if you don't like it... Well take a page from their book and use it.... Become an activist for your children... Work to get your ideas accepted and taught...

Posted by: If only at November 17, 2004 5:28 AM

Alaska Dave,
I would really like to hear your arguments as to why the electoral college is not outdated. Bear in mind, I do understand that our country is a republic and I do not misunderstand how our system of voting works. I assure you I am well-educated and well-versed in the Constitution. I'll bite my lip on your liberal education comment, and I'll silently wonder if you would prefer an education that ignores scientific and other discoveries (evolution, computers, whatever) just so that adults would not have to fear their kids knew things they didn't.
WindRider,
Yes, I understand the electoral college. I am an attorney and have studied the Constitution and its roots in great detail. Yes, I understand the purpose, but in practice, the electoral college does not really give states an equal voice in affairs. It assures that certain states are given a great deal of attention and others are basically ignored (which is likely why voting in non-swing states was actually down this election).
Do you really believe that a system which disengages voters makes sense in this day and age?

And, as to "tyranny of the majority," I don't know if the Founding Fathers could have meant anybody different than a body that chooses to impose its religious beliefs on others, but look who's in power anyway.

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 17, 2004 7:22 AM

re- "Van Orden" gloat

Bravo Zulu sir, what a G-dam, great, gloating, mother of all rants!

The last year has been hell for all of us, hasn't it?

Specifically, your: "and former Naval officer who disgraced us all" hit home big time. That he was USN made it even more embarrassing. As far as Crowe he had his time at the Court of St. James under Clinton, you would have figured he had enough for himself...but no, he pulled himself out of wilderness again for a shot at the bigtime!

You missed another good thing to gloat about over the last two weeks of triumphs-- the demise of the worlds premier terrorist, one Mr. Y. Arafat!

game, set, match

VR/badbob
CDR USN ret.

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 17, 2004 7:36 AM

"AlaskaDave", "Windrider" and "If only" re Electoral College discussion. My $0.2 cents:

After the elections of 2000 and 2004 I would wager that the constitution will not be amended in our lifetimes to do away with the electoral college.

Why? Simple. Ain't no way the redstates (low population mainly) like AK, WY, ID, MT, KS, NM, etc., etc. are going to vote to radify any timne soon. It would be like them giving up all their soverienty over what happens in their state. No way Jose!

As a lawyer you have to be pragmatic "If Only"....

Those long dead old white men who collaborated on the constitution sure were Nostradamus-like!

B2

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 17, 2004 7:44 AM

If Only commented:

WindRider,
Yes, I understand the electoral college. I am an attorney and have studied the Constitution and its roots in great detail. Yes, I understand the purpose, but in practice, the electoral college does not really give states an equal voice in affairs. It assures that certain states are given a great deal of attention and others are basically ignored (which is likely why voting in non-swing states was actually down this election).
Do you really believe that a system which disengages voters makes sense in this day and age?

And, as to "tyranny of the majority," I don't know if the Founding Fathers could have meant anybody different than a body that chooses to impose its religious beliefs on others, but look who's in power anyway.

Response: Your comments lead me to believe that you really don't understand the electoral college (EC). I stated that the EC gave states a "more equal voice in national affairs," not an equal voice. In determining the best method for selecting a President, the Founding Fathers rejected the idea of solely using the popular vote because use of the popular vote guaranteed that the President would ALWAYS be decided by the largest, most populous states with little regard for the smaller states. The EC is designed such that the number of electors for each state is equal to the number of Senators (always 2) plus the number of U.S. Representatives (subject to change every ten years based upon the results of the census). The geographical dispersion of these electors is such that no one region of the country contains the required 270 votes to become President. Without such a system in place, the entire country would be ruled by the wants and desires of 10 or fewer states. And we certainly don't want that, do we?

"Tyranny of the majority" has nothing to do with religion, but refers to the notion of popular vote determining the Presidency.

If you want more in-depth information, I encourage you to type "electoral college" into Google...and read away!

Posted by: Bushisamoron.org at November 17, 2004 9:37 AM

Van Orden:

*yawn*

Posted by: Eric264 at November 17, 2004 9:41 AM

There sure are a lot of red staters screaming at us on this blog. I don't get it. You've won. Enjoy it. You've got you're Fox News, pretty much all of talk radio and more Appleby's than I can hit with a stick. A year from now every fourth grader will have a creationist textbook in their knapsack and a pack of Skoal in their lunchbox. Why care what a bunch of sore loser tree hugging perverts are whining about? What exactly do you want from us?

Posted by: JeffJeffJeff at November 17, 2004 9:42 AM

BELIEVE ME, you DON'T WANT NEW ORLEANS. I live there. It's awful. Basically it's the same redneck antichrist loving South, but drunk, with the lovely smell of sewage wafting through the air. The red-state toglodytes can keep it. I will GLADLY move.

Posted by: Alaska Dave at November 17, 2004 9:44 AM

Tigger1974

Tell me,, why do you assume I did't do anything about it?

If only

No need to post my arguments FOR the EC,, see above.

badbobusnret

""AlaskaDave", "Windrider" and "If only" re Electoral College discussion. My $0.2 cents:"

I agree,, the EC will not be going away any time soon, and this is a good thing..

Posted by: JeffJeffJeff at November 17, 2004 9:59 AM

The EC was founded for two main reasons: 1) to give the South a chance to use their slave population (counted as 3/5's of a person) to determine their representation in Congress (and thus the EC). 2) To "protect" the interests in small states.

Well, #1 isn't really an issue anymore (much to the chagrin of those living in the red states). What about #2? Well, Windrider, all of the high school civics classes (which I am sure is the extent of your education) won't cover the simple fact that the EC actually does the OPPOSITE.

Think of it this way: If you live in California, you are voting for a slate of 54 electors. If you live in Wyoming (my sympathies), you are voting for a slate of 3 electors.

If you plot out (using something called T square analysis, which I'm sure the red-staters didn't get to when they dropped out of school in 9th grade and married their cousins) the relationship between small state/big state electors and their weighted respective influence in on the outcome of the election, guess who comes up short--the small states! I know, I know, the "intuitive" (I am hesitant to use this word in light of some of the present company--you know who you are) deduction is that small states benefit because you tack on those two senators and it makes everything disproportional--but guess what, when you actually crunch the numbers, larger states have almost twice the power to determine the outcome of the election.

So both reasons for having the EC are invalid. Why keep it? It was an accommodation made by Jefferson and those other "dead old white guys" (most of whom were ATHEISTS)for the sake of the southern slaveocracy.

Posted by: Alaska Dave at November 17, 2004 10:01 AM

Oh yeah,, If Only,,

"I am an attorney"


Sorry,, but being an "attorney" fails to impress me....

Posted by: Jimma smith at November 17, 2004 10:03 AM

I will kill all of you while waving my rebel flag. GET A LIFE ASSHOLE

Posted by: Ishtar at November 17, 2004 10:12 AM

It seems like it is not the electoral college that is supposed to protect from "tyranny of the majority", but systems set up in the Constitution, plus the principles of checks and balances between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government. The electoral college can still produce tyranny of the majority, but may allow it to be tyranny of the minority, depending on which way the popular vote swings.

Not sure why the red states would necessarily vote to keep it. They have smaller populations, yes, but they also do not possess as many electoral college votes as larger states, which reflects that. While Bush lost the popular vote in 2000, he won the popular vote (at least the last I looked) in 2004, so electoral college or not, he would have won?

I would think both sides have an investment in the electoral college system because it allows equal voting status for ALL voters. Right now, one of the reasons CA is largely ignored is because it is virtually assured which way the STATE is going to go in the elections, and with the exception of, I believe, Maine, it's all or none.

That's quite a few red states to top our EC votes. The sad fact of the matters is that in the recent election, CA was far more closely split on the candidates than it is normally... but CA goes democrat, so except for having a stand on local issues, why vote if you're a Republican, moderate or otherwise? Getting rid of the electoral college not only means a likelihood of more voters (on both sides of the political spectrum), but it means that the 'reds' would have picked up significant numbers in CA.

Similarly, I have friends in North Carolina who feel that there's almost no real reason to vote if they don't have a stake in the local issues. The state is going to go red, and again, all or none.

In states where the outcome is virtually assured already, these places risk losing political placement. So long as one candidate doesn't actively piss off an entire state sufficiently to get them to vote for the other guy who is also generally ignoring them, they are free to ignore the very real issues of a state, and during an administration also free to give that state's issues less attention. Living in CA, I do largely feel ignored by politicians of both sides. I can't speak for Georgians, but I wouldn't feel surprised if they experienced the same. Candidates will pass through here, no doubt to get some good crab in SF and see Disneyland, but no real attention is paid. "Yeah.. uh, the environment is important, backbone of America... see you, have to go to Nevada to give the good speech".

Not sure what the misunderstanding is? The electoral votes are recalculated for changes in state population, but except in Maine, where there's a ratio of EC votes, it's still all or none. I'm also not of the opinion that redistricting should change the outcome of an election. Every vote.

I don't see it as really being a liberal/conservative issue? I've heard dissatisfaction with the EC on both sides, though largely, actually, on the red side because I live in a state where their voices are the ones not being heard.

Ishie

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 17, 2004 10:36 AM

For Jeff-Jeff,

Gee whiz jeff-jeff, take a prozac. Haven't you recovered from 2 weeks ago yet?

Get a good plate o'red beans & rice or a muffaltto (sic) and chill.

Your tone sucks. Why must you throw your argument into the realm of rant by impugning that "we're all ignorant, racist, hillbilly fundamentalists".

I hope you're not in education.

You must live a very sheltered and creative life...I would like to add that Wyoming is a very nice state (great fishing, hunting, skiing, ect.)..believe it or not there is a tiny blue-zone around Jackson where you can probably get a latte.

re- "but guess what, when you actually crunch the numbers, larger states have almost twice the power to determine the outcome of the election."

Then why are you advocating changing the constitution?

for Eric264:

I'm entertaining myself you can be sure but I am also attempting to "gauge my enemy".

Some of the folks on here (like Ishtar and others) actually haven't cried Uncle yet and fight back..albeit with most of the same stuff, but it's interesting nonetheless.

Don't give up- there's hope for you yet!

Posted by: Robert at November 17, 2004 10:41 AM

If Only,

Like others that have posted, I don't find that the electoral college is outdated. And if it discouraged people from voting, how do you explain record voter turnout in the last election. Perhaps people who misunderstand the electoral college feel disenfranchised, but it's nothing a little education can fix. Also, if you live in a state that went to your opposition, this doesn't mean that your vote doesn't count, it means you lost. This notion that losing somehow invalidates your participation is contrary to the very fabric of a representative republic. Bush has record votes in Massachussetts and despite the fact that the state went to Kerry, those votes help gave Bush a mandate. It is those votes that retard the possibility of winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote and as we saw in 2000, they are important. Also, while I see the electoral college described in another post as necessary to prevent the "tyranny of the majority", this safeguards was really meant for other purposes. The founding fathers warned strongly against what they called factionalism. Today this would be special interests. They envisioned a government that was insulated from factionalism so that the hysteria of the day couldn't carry the day. Large population centers like New York represent only a small part of the country and yet have a massive voter base. The founding fathers knew that factionalism could prevail in these select population centers forcing changes in government that aren't reasoned or measured. No, this is not saying that they felt that people just couldn't be trusted to govern themselves, it means that even otherwise rational and reasonable people, as part of human nature, can be instantly swayed without the benefit of a mandated measured process. Because this possibility exists, the founders wanted a electoral system that not only reflected the popular will, but also a geographical will. The system does indeed prevent large population centers from mandating their possibly factionalized will on the geographical majority of the country. Now before you go and say that the system instead allows the geographical majority to mandate it's will on the popular majority, go and study to results of every American Prsidential election and then make this assertion. The beauty of the system is that neither a geographical or a popular majority can govern without some faction of the other.

Robert

Posted by: Lynn at November 17, 2004 10:46 AM

Just checking in with my fellow Coastopians, been monitoring what the right wing traitors are doing to America. A lot of activity in the last few days
huh! On a serious note I am very fearful of what these people are doing to this beautiful nation of ours. The Right wing extremists that currently control all aspects of government have consistently shown nothing but contempt for America and her ideals. They hate everything about America:

Transparency in Government - There has never been an administration as secretive as the Bush administration, or one that has showed utter contempt for the press.

Freedom of religion - They want to make the tenets of their religion the law of land. I am a Christian, but I do not want to force others to adhere to my religious beliefs.

A Free Press -They hate it – It’s under constant denunciation. Any press that isn’t spewing conservative talking points is under attack. I have never seen any of the established media outlets equivalently and consistently attack conservative publications. I grant you they ignored them, but they were not maliciously maligned.

Freedom of Speech/right to peaceful protest - During the NYC peace march, the Foxers "joked" about wanting the protesters roughed up a little.

Traditional Foreign Diplomacy - In spite of what these people say, they could care less about having cordial relationships with other countries. Their actions and official oratories only exhibit their true xenophobic attitudes.

Civil Liberties - The Patriot Act - (Will it be revised, I think so, I think it will become more restrictive) The proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay "unions". Marriage is just a buzzword they've used to appeal to people's emotions; the real intent is to deter homosexuality. The consensus in the conservative and fundamentalist Christian community is that homosexuality is elected behavior that can and should be controlled. Having grown up in the church, I know these things first hand. It is not unusual to have a person ‘testify’ before the congregation, that they used to be a homosexual before Jesus came into their life. The pastors loved when this happened; it was a testament to God’s true cleansing powers. If this amendment passes, this will be the first time the constitution has been employed to restrict civil rights. It would be a dangerous precedent.

Voting Rights - They Actively worked to disenfranchise people who they knew didn't support them, you didn't see this coming from the left.

These people don’t love this country as is or as the founding fathers intended it to be. They are the most un-patriotic people that ever existed, and some of their activities are tantamount to treason as far as I’m concerned. They are in the process of destroying America and replacing it with their own warped version of what they think America should be; in their "New America" there will be conformity in all things. They have declared war on everything and everyone they perceive as being a barrier to the formation of this new country and world order. Their list of enemies include but are not limited to:

The Press,Intellectuals,Liberals (not all liberals are democrats),Democrats,The Established Minority Leadership and organizations (NAACP under investigation by IRS, after Julian Bond made unflattering remarks about the Bush administration), Labor Unions,Secularist as they define it, Scientific Community, Hollywood,Homosexuals,Urban Americans, and Moderate Republicans. (This is their new target, they had better watch their asses.)

I have never been one prone to believe in conspiracy theories. As a matter of fact I think that most conspiracy theorists are well a little nuts; but the activities of the last 10-12 years coming form the neo-con camp are frightening. These people are very dangerous to America.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 17, 2004 10:57 AM

JeffJeffJeff,

What next? Regale us with cures for the Airline industry, oh idiot savant? (Well, I was half right.)

Posted by: Derek at November 17, 2004 11:11 AM

This if the funniest forum that I have ever seen. Thanks for the laughs. Coastopia... aaahhhh hahahaha

Posted by: Judie at November 17, 2004 11:46 AM

are fucking crazy or what its not suppose to be gay ok god made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.So keep your coastopia not many want to be there with the queers.

Posted by: Lynn at November 17, 2004 11:52 AM

I see Judie has adopted the Bush communication style, where speaking in full coherent sentences is prohibited.

Posted by: Curt W at November 17, 2004 12:02 PM

Judie,

Does your head hurt worse when the moon is full? Judy, repeat after me, there is no god. Nope. No god. Nothing. You're all alone in this great big scary world, so get used to it.

Signed,
Druid-6

Posted by: Alaska Dave at November 17, 2004 12:08 PM

Judie,, your a looser,, go away..

Posted by: JeffJeffJeff at November 17, 2004 12:12 PM

Windrider:

Gee whiz jeff-jeff, take a prozac. Haven't you recovered from 2 weeks ago yet?

-Mmmm...I'd much rather have a Klonopin. I am pleased at your comment though, as it means that prozac is finally making it into the third-world portions of the country. Maybe after a few years it will make the inhabitants less obsessed with gay sex and the inner workings of a woman's uterus.

Get a good plate o'red beans & rice or a muffaltto (sic) and chill.

-It's called a muffaletta, and it's disgusting. Red beans and rice are gross too. People here eat weird things (see also: boudin).

Your tone sucks. Why must you throw your argument into the realm of rant by impugning that "we're all ignorant, racist, hillbilly fundamentalists".

-I didn't actually say that, as implied by your quotes. But most of the people around here (and having travelled the South extensively, I can comfortably lump in MS, AL, GA (except parts of Atlanta), SC, NC, TN, WV, and most of AR, as well as most of the mountain states) are ignorant, racist, hillbilly fundamentalists. You can quote me now. There are billboards of Jesus (and David Vitter) everywhere (but I do admit they aren't seen as frequently as pickup trucks in poor working condition with confederate flags in the back window being driven by extras from the cast of 'Deliverance').

I hope you're not in education.

- Actually, I sort of am. I'm currently working on a postdoc fellowship at Loyola (the only reason I moved to this hellhole from my blue sanctuary in New York).

You must live a very sheltered and creative life...I would like to add that Wyoming is a very nice state (great fishing, hunting, skiing, ect.)..believe it or not there is a tiny blue-zone around Jackson where you can probably get a latte.

-Well, if I am sheltered, it is only to avoid the natives. And what is wrong with latte? It is very tasty (much more so than, say, moonshine). Why am I not surprised that you mentioned fishing and hunting?

re- "but guess what, when you actually crunch the numbers, larger states have almost twice the power to determine the outcome of the election."

Then why are you advocating changing the constitution?

-Because the EC is an absurd system--an anachronism (and I am sure you are not familiar with that word)--and the last living remnant of the institution of human bondage in the U.S. Dumbass.

-As for the airline industry, the problems today probably could have been avoided if the Feds stepped up and bailed out the airlines a few years ago. Unfortunately the carriers weren't in a position to contribute to the republican party, so the administration just let them languish and file for bankruptcy.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 17, 2004 12:30 PM

JeffJeffJeff,

I did mention the airline industry to you (your last two sentences)...but none of the other comments were mine.

Maybe you can learn to read during your postdoc fellowship.

Then again, maybe not.

Posted by: If only at November 17, 2004 2:06 PM

Hey, Alaska Dave, contrary to what you might think, my goal is not to impress you. I mentioned that I was an attorney in explaining that I have studied the Constitution in detail, as part of my coursework, which I have.

Robert,
I do believe that, though overall election turnout was up, overall turnout in non "swing" states was down. Also, I live in Jersey City, NJ (which went 70% for Kerry), not Florida. I appreciate that you stuck to the thoughtful, as opposed to the inflammatory, in your post. I still disagree with you, though, about the conclusions that you are drawing.
Large population centers like the New York metropolitan area have a massive voter base because we have a massive amount of people. Land space, especially in our nation powered by an industrial as opposed to agrarian economy, should be irrelevant.

As to the founding fathers argument, I had always been taught that slave concerns were most prevalent in their compromises that resulted in the electoral college. But, if they were most afraid of the hysteria of the day, the world has changed too much for this to be of the same type of concern it might have been then. Illiteracy was relatively high, and the colonies were very classist and did not really trust the masses (and this is, of course the masses of I believe land-owning only men) to make the decisions about who would run the nation.
You say "rational and reasonable people, as part of human nature, can be instantly swayed without the benefit of a mandated measured process. Because this possibility exists, the founders wanted a electoral system that not only reflected the popular will, but also a geographical will. The system does indeed prevent large population centers from mandating their possibly factionalized will on the geographical majority of the country. "

But with the advents of the telephone, television, and internet, less populated areas have the capacity to be just as informed as the people in more urban areas and can be swayed just as easily. Guess what, the hysteria of the day does carry the day. That is what is accomplished by the spin of both parties and national, up-to-the-second news.
(And, though it hasn't happened, a geographical majority certainly could find itself in power w/o a popular majority and indeed without a single vote from states that went the other way.)
In this day and age, geographical majority should be irrelevant.
I'm sorry. I still don't see any justification as to why a majority of voters should not get to decide who their leaders will be.

And of course there's the "faithless elector" possibility, making many feel that their vote truly doesn't count. The fear is why vote at all when even if your state votes a certain way, the electors are not obligated in every state to vote for the winner of that state.

---Also, for who was wondering about it, the only state besides Maine which provides for divvying up its electoral votes (one per Congressional district and 2 to the winner) is Nebraska.

Posted by: Alaska Dave at November 17, 2004 3:28 PM

Hey, If Only,,,,

Contrary to what you may think,,, I never did think you cared if you impressed me or not. My comment about not being impressed by your "I'm a attorney" statement is that you throw that out there as some sort of qualifier that would know more on the subject then someone that may not be an attorney. Sorry to burst your little attorney bubble,, hope your ego isn't injured too much.....

Posted by: If only at November 17, 2004 5:54 PM

No, I did not throw it out as a qualifier that I would know more on the subject than someone who was not an attorney, and that was obvious from my words. I mentioned it to say that I have studied the Constitution. Constitutional Law is a required first year course, so every U.S.-educated attorney has spent at least four months studying it in detail.
Your comment about my ego and my "attorney bubble" is just a silly, cheap shot that is both obnoxious and based more on fashionable stereotype than truth (oddly, I'm not surprised).

Posted by: Alaska Dave at November 17, 2004 6:43 PM

lol,, lol,, too funny.. So easy to push your buttons... lol.. You just don't get it and I suppose you never will.. (oddly, I'm not surprised either,, lol)

Posted by: Dan at November 17, 2004 6:56 PM

Hello all,

Although I have stopped debating individuals here, I did not say that I was dropping out altogether. I have simply refocused my attention and activities to local forums where my voice is not just heard, but where I may actually help to encourage REAL and positive change (BTW, the right wing has yet to claim ownership of the word “positive”). While the far right wing would like all to believe that they have the stewardship of America totally in their pocket, they may be unpleasantly surprised! I re-visit this blog from time to time more for amusement than anything else since it has become a haven for many who have more than a slight list to starboard :-). This is, in large part due to the fact that MANY right wing blogs and even a number of ultra conservative public radio talk show hosts have advertised Coastopia with the suggestion that all “right minded” individuals should flame this blog and “blast those faggot loving liberal creeps”, or words to that effect. In light of their win in this past election, I find this ongoing paranoia by the “folks with solid Christian moral values” rather hilarious.

To the many here who continue to be frustrated by the election results and by the exaggerated spending of Bush’s “capital” gained from what he perceives as a “mandate from the people”, I ask you neither to be discouraged nor to give up hope. As an American history and political buff, I can assure you that this too shall pass (BTW, for whoever suggested that I take a course in political science at my local community college, thank you, but I had many such courses prior to my University graduation in 1964). This nation has a very long history of swinging both to the right and to the left, but each time that the swing has gone TOO far in either direction, there has always been a stabilizing factor that brings it back to center. In well over two hundred years, America has never gone totally out of control due to the actions of either side. It is almost as if the nation had a gyroscopic stabilizer that keeps it more or less upright. Pardon the shipboard analogies (no, I did not serve in the navy; ground games are far more personal and intimate; they also bring a truer sense of REALITY), but the nation is certainly not “holed” on its starboard side. This is nothing more than a list to starboard, which will be corrected in the near future by a return to center or, more probably, slightly to port. Such are the attributes of both gyroscopic stabilizers AND the nation

When in doubt in any situation, I always imagine the possible worst-case scenario as a mental exercise. If the Christian Coalition and its many backers had their way, Roe vs. Wade, etc. would be overturned (VERY unlikely considering its long term precedents), and America would become a church state. Were such highly unlikely events to occur, we need but to look at most of Western Europe for an example of the outcome. Church attendance there is down by an average of 80%. State sanctioned marriage between ANY two individuals is widely considered unnecessary, and more people are driven away by organized religion than ever before. So I say unto thee :-), have hope, take local action, and work to defeat the ranters and ravers of the ultra right wing. History is on our side since those of us who believe in ANY god merely pray to Him IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE. Those who do not believe in any god have just as much right to be here as anyone else. We do not have the audacity to insist that God is on our side, nor do we try to tell Him what to do!

In summation :-), BE COURTIOUS AND POLITE to all, whether or not they share your POV. To be otherwise brings us down to their level, and, I think we can agree that we do not want to be on their level! Coastopia can continue to be a peaceful place in our minds until the time comes when more intelligent, tolerant, and moderate views and government prevail.
Dan

Posted by: lisa at November 17, 2004 9:59 PM

Judie,

You are what's wrong with this country of ours. Go far, far away and take your ignorant, bigoted uneducated views with you. What an ass!

Posted by: Robert at November 18, 2004 9:18 AM

Dan,
Although I know you will not respond, I thought I would provide some thoughts on your post. For the most part, I think you make excellent points, especially about the cyclical nature of American politics.

I do however feel the need to clarify or perhaps debunk some of your assertions. First you say that "a number of ultra conservative public radio talk show hosts have advertised Coastopia with the suggestion that all "right minded" individuals should flame this blog and "blast those faggot loving liberal creeps", or words to that effect."

Now, your daughter would begin by asking what you mean by "ultra conservative". But having an assumption about who I think you are referring, let me say that I listen to or watch the following right wing commentators: Jim Quinn, Neil Boortz, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage. Now the only one of these that I consider "ultra conservative" is Michael Savage and that's only because he lacks the sensitivity and patience that most conservative pundits have with liberals. It would be a stretch for even him to say "blast those faggot loving liberal creeps". So I wonder if you actually did hear anyone utter any semblance of that sentiment or was it a characterization from a leftist news source?

Also, you mention that you "find this ongoing paranoia by the "folks with solid Christian moral values" rather hilarious" Dan, most of us conservatives don't feel that we have an exclusive on morals or faith, we just acknowledge that it's ok to allow ourselves to be politically guided by it.

"This is nothing more than a list to starboard, which will be corrected in the near future by a return to center or, more probably, slightly to port" You also mentioned that "each time that the swing has gone TOO far" as if to suggest that the election of Bush to a second term somehow is this huge right wing jaunt for us politically. And why may I ask? Because Bush opposes gay marriage and wants to appoint pro-life judges? This is hard core right wing??? First, the marriage thing is nothing more than to keep the status quo. Since when is it radical politics to maintain the status quo? It absolutely amazes me when conservatives are accused of shoving their views down others throat because they want to maintain the status quo, which is largely supported by overwhelming majorities! Amazing!

Ok, the pro-life thing is a valid ideological separation from what is NOW the norm. But this country has come to a mostly pro-choice point not because most people believed it at the time, but because 5 Supreme Court judges decided it was the new law of the land, as was their Constitutionally mandated role. But now that there is a possibility that 5 Supreme Court judges could overturn that in the SAME Constitutionally mandated role, somehow its considered some vast right wing political coup! Well how do you think conservatives felt when the Roe V. Wade decision was handed down? The difference is that we vowed to use the same system to impart the changes that we felt we necessary and now that it might happen, liberals feel that there is some inherent unjust about it. So 5 Constitutional scholars who felt that abortion was ok somehow trump 5 constitutional scholars who feel it isn't. Amazing! I don't have a problem with people dissenting or opposing a change in abortion law, but it aggravates me how they suggest that something underhanded is under way in order to affect that change. If you support our system of government, than support it when it goes against your ideals, not ONLY when it works for your ideals!!!

I don't see Bush as the Grand Wizard of the conservative agenda, but I do see the political genius in the left portraying him as such. It's a good move and I respect it, but the last election shows that average Americans aren't buyin it! Keep pounding that drum and you will continue to lose election after election after election.

I end by agreeing with you Dan, we need to "BE COURTEOUS AND POLITE" lest we stoop to the level of radicals on EITHER side. Radical right doesn't have an exclusive on rude.

Robert

Posted by: Patriot at November 18, 2004 9:44 AM

Dan,

It was pretty clear that many Kerry supporters have no clue of how to be courteous and polite to all even when they don't share their view, judging by all of the violent, hostile acts that were perpetrated against offices including 3 of them in different parts of the national being ransacked by union workers and at one of those incidents 2 people being assaulted. In another area of the country, an office had a window shot out and the office in Flagstaff, Arizona was vandalized.

My friend who put up dozens of Bush/Cheney signs in the Phoenix area said about 80% of them were vandalized or stolen. When he reported this to Phoenix Police he was told they had not heard of any reports of Kerry/Edwards signs being defaced or stolen. I can say that I personally saw several Bush/Cheney signs vandalized, but did not see any Kerry/Edwards signs vandalized.

And this was all before they lost the election. Well, as long as they're dripping with hate and make it so well known nationally, they will continue to hurt the liberal agenda, so I guess I should urge them to keep it up.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 18, 2004 10:08 AM

"It was pretty clear that many Kerry supporters have no clue of how to be courteous and polite to all even when they don't share their view,"

When others act badly, that is not a free-for-all for retribution against anyone professing to ally with the same political camp. EVERYONE needs to be polite and courteous. Additionally, the actions of a few idiots does not mean all Kerry supporters (or anti Bush people) are this way.

"My friend who put up dozens of Bush/Cheney signs in the Phoenix area said about 80% of them were vandalized or stolen."

There has been sign vandalism and car vandalism for cars with signs since the beginning on both sides. Some areas, particularly very conservative areas, have had plenty of action taken on Kerry signs including having them shot at and set on fire. In heavy liberal areas, Bush signs have also suffered abuse and theft. Cars professing political loyalty to one side or the other have had windows smashed, tires slashed, and paint keyed. People wearing inflammatory t-shirts on both sides have been hassled and/or assaulted, and in a very few cases, arrested.

This isn't really a new phenomenon, though usually it isn't elections that spark it. Creationists have been stealing Darwin fish and vandalizing the cars on which they were put for years. I know many Wiccans who've had bumper stickers like "Goddess bless!" and so forth have had their cars vandalized.

People on both sides have acted atrociously. The number of acts committed is disturbing but still represents the actions of a VERY small radical minority on both sides. I know that even most of the "angry liberals" or "angry conservatives", even those off to the far left or right typically do not commit these actions. Representative of only a few.

"When he reported this to Phoenix Police he was told they had not heard of any reports of Kerry/Edwards signs being defaced or stolen."

Try asking the Matthews, NC police. I'm sure you'll hear a different story.

"And this was all before they lost the election. Well, as long as they're dripping with hate and make it so well known nationally, they will continue to hurt the liberal agenda, so I guess I should urge them to keep it up."

It is fairly hypocritical to try to nail the entire opposition with a judgment made over by a few idiots who were matched by fellow idiots on the other side. And voting against whoever is on the Democratic ticket due to the actions of extremists is ridiculous. It would be like refusing to vote conservative because "they vandalize and bomb abortion clinics". Give me a break. I not only dislike this administration, but I fear where it could be going as well. Despite that, I maintain friendships with Bush voters, and have NEVER vandalized anything, much less a political sign.

By the way, I consider "polite and respectful" to entail more than "not committing criminal acts against the other side".

Ishie

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 18, 2004 10:33 AM

jeffjeffjeff-

re your:

Then why are you advocating changing the constitution?

-Because the EC is an absurd system--an anachronism (and I am sure you are not familiar with that word)--and the last living remnant of the institution of human bondage in the U.S. Dumbass.

Gee (jef-jeff) this is badbob (b2)..you were pretty hard on old windrider95! Man it must really stink to studying for a doctorate at Loyaola in N'Orleans..I'm sure both red & blue zoners feel compassion for you. LOL.

Yep, I "art" a dumbass and a dinosaur (I used to dig going to Tailhook every year until '91!) to boot! (not even smart enough to understand NASCAR)

But how can you be SO F'ing sure I (moi-B2), won't be grading your dissertation? We're everwhere you know.....

Geez a little civility here more becoming of the Big Easy, or, as Rodney once said (to deaf ears)- "Can't we all just get along?"

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 18, 2004 10:45 AM

Folks,

This will take your mind off who defaced who's election signs...check it out- more voter demographics for you "coastopians"!

http://www.techcentralstation.com/111704A.html

B2 summary analysis:

Could it be that liberalism is a policy associated with population density?

Ishie- take a stab at it. Right up your alley "Biological Anthropology"

Posted by: Patriot at November 18, 2004 11:31 AM

Robert,

Some great points about the Roe v. Wade decision, but on top of what you said, this is the most blatant case of judicial activism ever. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that women have the right to kill an unborn child, but the Supreme Court of that time came up with it.

I think the way they came up with that was that it was covered under the supposed right to privacy which also doesn't exist in the constitution, except for the 4th Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

Posted by: Patriot at November 18, 2004 11:57 AM

Ishie,

I did not see any articles in any newspapers about Kerry/Edwards offices being vandalized, shot at or Kerry/Edwards volunteers being assaulted. Clearly, your side has more people out of control than the conservative side. I mean, those criminals are making national news.

I printed up each of the news stories encompassing what I described, so unless you can do the same, I'll have to doubt what you claimed. Sorry, but liberals lie too much like when they claim that there's a constitutional right for a woman to kill an unborn child, particularly the abortion method where the doctors deliver the entire baby except for the head, then pierce and crush the skull ignoring that if you can deliver the entire baby except for the head, there's no reason why you can't deliver the entire baby intact and alive. Or that the phrase "the people" used in the Second Amendment means the states, but in all of the other amendments it means the individual citizens (that's how your side comes up with your position that the Second Amendment only guarantees the right of the states to maintain military bodies such as the National Guard and you guys have no problem denying individual citizens the right to bear arms in the most liberal areas of the country).

Posted by: Robert at November 18, 2004 12:15 PM

Patriot,

As someone who has debated Ishie, I will caution you about trying to use liberal stereotypes to describe her or characterize what you assume to be her position. She doesn't fit many of them and certainly not those that pertain to gun ownership. She is a gun tote'n liberal, so watch out!

Robert

Go easy Ishie, most liberals aren't like you so don't be alarmed at the assumption, especially when you do purport several liberal viewpoints.

Posted by: DaveM at November 18, 2004 2:06 PM

Count Minnesota in! We are not only a "blue state", but have two ports besides: on the Mississippi and on Lake Superior. Where can I apply for a passport and when will the flag be available?

Posted by: Patriot at November 18, 2004 2:14 PM

Dan,

Hey, I just came across an article where a person tried to run down Katherine Harris and supporters of hers with his car. He stated that he "was exercising my political expression." I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that this was not a conservative or Republican.

Posted by: Patriot at November 18, 2004 2:49 PM

Ishie,

You sound like you're one of the more rational Kerry supporters, but if you are that rational, I'd love to know why you supported a candidate who clearly said whatever he thought would score him points with whoever was listening at the time.

As far as "nailing an entire opposition with a judgment made over by a few idiots who were matched by fellow idiots on the other side," for those of us who kept up with the run up to the 2004 election, you could see how out of control the leaders of the Democrats were. The debates for the Democratic nomination wasn't so much of a debate about who was the better candidate, it was who could come up with the best criticism of President Bush.

You had Al Sharpton calling the president a gang member. You had others calling him a traitor (I think it was Dennis Kucinich). You had presidential candidate loser Al Gore trying to sound like motivational type preacher claiming the president "betrayed" the country. You had Senator Kennedy claiming the president intentionally lied without a shred of evidence. You have John Kerry blaming President Bush for the recession that started in March 2001 which was only 2 months after the president took office. A fact that even a liberal cannot dispute is that his first budget wouldn't have taken effect until at least October 2001, 7 months after this recession started (I've never heard any libs explain how he's responsible for something that passed on Clinton's watch).

These are the people who either are representatives of the Democratic party or wanted to be that party's presidential nominee, so after their actions, it would not be ridiculous to vote against them.

It all comes down to what the people who represent the party do and none of the leaders of the Republican party are bombing or vandalizing abortion clinics, so what else do you have that's comparable to what I've listed?

Posted by: John at November 18, 2004 3:10 PM

JeffJeffJeff,


"If you plot out using something called T square analysis the relationship between small state/big state electors and their weighted respective influence in on the outcome of the election"

Where did you draw the line between big state and little state? Which did you consider big and which small?

Thanks,,,

Posted by: Ishtar at November 18, 2004 3:20 PM

"I did not see any articles in any newspapers about Kerry/Edwards offices being vandalized, shot at or Kerry/Edwards volunteers being assaulted. Clearly, your side has more people out of control than the conservative side. I mean, those criminals are making national news."

Probably because the Repubs had a press conference on it and the Dems didn't. Now who's whining? Anyway, because you seem google-deficient:
http://www.channel3000.com/politics/3844232/detail.html
Both, includes description of a Democratic sign torched.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/election2004/9975253.htm?1c
"No Bush" license plate sparks vandalism of car.
http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=14453&cat=EDUCATION
More auto vandals supporting Bush.
http://www.gazette.net/200444/kensington/news/242451-1.html
Rather vicious and persistent stuff, with reports of sign thefts on both sides.
http://www.grandrapidsmn.com/placed/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=184542
Reports of theft on both sides, with heavy links to juveniles as perps.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2004/story?id=201736&page=1
Smash ups of both Republican and Democratic offices.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/5025869.html
More stolen signs, both sides, again, teens responsible.
http://www.nbc-2.com/articles/readarticle.asp?articleid=1731&z=3&p=
Both sides again, with mention of slashed tires on democrat cars.

There are plenty of "Republican targets only" stories to match the ones I put for "Democrat targets only". I chose not to include them because I never denied hostile (in most cases kiddies, it would seem) liberals were vandalizing and stealing signs, only that they are matched by the Bush element.

"I printed up each of the news stories encompassing what I described, so unless you can do the same, I'll have to doubt what you claimed."

Links posted.

"Sorry, but liberals lie too much"

Flagrant stereotype that has no basis in facts. People (particularly politicians) lie too much. I did not accuse you of lying, merely of only representing one side of the facts. I have backed my argument with evidence too.

Also, if we are talking about dishonest tactics, while the Democrats have their arsenal of BS too, I am reminded of the upstanding citizens who sent letters supposedly from the NAACP to black citizens in SC in an attempt to discourage them from voting by stating that they would be arrested at the polling place if they had minor outstanding traffic violations or child support payments. Then we have the people who sent letters to voters in West Virginia stating John Kerry would take their Bibles away! Let's not talk about dishonesty.

"like when they claim that there's a constitutional right for a woman to kill an unborn child,"

It isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution (did anyone say it was?); it was a Supreme Court case decision. I think women have a right to control over their bodies, particularly in a situation where men have the opportunity to create a child, either by cooperation or by force, and then ditch all responsibility, leaving the woman to bear the physical, mental, and financial burden.

"particularly the abortion method where the doctors deliver the entire baby except for the head, then pierce and crush the skull ignoring that if you can deliver the entire baby except for the head, there's no reason why you can't deliver the entire baby intact and alive."

Wow... that one is a bit of a stretch. If you are referring to partial birth abortions, they are VERY rarely done, and generally done to preserve the mother's life. Most abortions are done far earlier in the pregnancy. Secondly, delivering the entire baby except for the heads does not mean you can deliver it intact and alive. In fact, one of the things that DISGUSTS me with some anti-abortion activists is they display pictures of fetal demises as being "abortions", grisly pictures of doctors removing pieces of baby, piece by piece. Upon examination of many of the pictures, my mother, an L&D of thirty years identified them as demises, tragic situations where the fetus dies in utero, and the mother is forced to deliver the dead child. It is often disgusting, depending on how long the fetus was dead, and generally heartbreaking since the women usually have wanted the baby. A child can 'deliver' at any stage, often when it is not viable. Later stage stuff will still look like a baby, but not a viable one. I had the...unique and horrid opportunity to enter a bathroom occupied by a screaming woman who had just miscarried. The thing on the top of the toilet paper dispenser could have been delivered "completely, then stabbed in the head", it was the right shape, though obviously small, but it wasn't viable by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe 15 weeks?

You make it sound as if the woman goes into natural labor, pushes, the doctor arranges it breach, and then stabs it before it can get a breath. No way.

"you guys have no problem denying individual citizens the right to bear arms in the most liberal areas of the country)."

I am all for the Constitution. By the way, you can pry the 9mm S&W with hollow points out of my cold dead hands, along with my antique gun collection, throwing knives, and sword. I don't think I've been denying anyone the right to bear arms in this country, but I can promise you that if anyone tries to harm me in my apartment, I'll deny them the right to bear an unperforated lung.

By the way, I'm disappointed in your liberal stereotypes. You got lying, baby killing, and gun-phobia in there, but you forgot to call us all a bunch of unamerican atheist commies. You also forgot to tell us to all go to Afghanistan, France, or Iraq.

Oh also, I'm pretty sure the hysteria of your position requires you to sign your posts with "God Bless America!!!!!!!!"... you know, to distinguish yourself from us lying libbies who hate God... and puppies.

Ishie

Posted by: Ishtar at November 18, 2004 3:48 PM

"You sound like you're one of the more rational Kerry supporters, but if you are that rational, I'd love to know why you supported a candidate who clearly said whatever he thought would score him points with whoever was listening at the time."

Because he wasn't Bush. If he were running against anyone other than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld (or Buchanan), I wouldn't elect him dogcatcher. I don't know why people think I'm pro-Kerry just because I don't think he was a traitor. Kerry is very much my lesser of two evils candidate, and I've never claimed otherwise.

Bush scares me, and the people he surrounds himself with scare me more. For his first term, I disagreed vastly with many of his actions and the direction in which the country seemed to be heading. If it were just bad policy and stupid ideas, I'd figure another four years and who cares? Probably Kerry would have either done absolutely nothing for four years, or had some stupid ideas. I do not think Democrats are untouchable, nor am I actually a Democrat. Remember, I'm from the Barbara Boxer state, so I am used to stupid ideas.

The most disturbing thing to me about the Bush administration, and the reason that I would elect almost anyone else in his place, is the administration's intolerance towards dissent and refusal to self-reflect. I am also concerned that since neither Bush nor Cheney have re-election to be concerned with, so long as Bush doesn't get impeached, they have nothing to lose.

"The debates for the Democratic nomination wasn't so much of a debate about who was the better candidate, it was who could come up with the best criticism of President Bush."

Did you watch the primaries? Kerry didn't have the best criticism. Dennis can'tspellit screaming at the top of his lungs probably had the 'best'. The primaries were generally dominated, except for Howard Dean and Al Sharpton, by no-names the country didn't really know or trust who couldn't seem to find a defining position.

"You had Al Sharpton calling the president a gang member."

It's Al Sharpton. If you didn't know he was an ass by now, you never would. He's always been that way; he always will be that way. Most democrats I'm familiar with refer to him in the same way you might refer to that creepy uncle in the family "Argh... yeah, he's with us... Nope... won't go away... but he's family."

"You had presidential candidate loser Al Gore trying to sound like motivational type preacher claiming the president "betrayed" the country."

Though I don't care for Al Gore either, though he had a better shot than Kerry (delete obvious comment), and probably wouldn't have had the election as close as it was if he'd chose not to undergo a bout of multiple personality disorder the second he was running. And I do feel like the president betrayed the country. That's not 'out of control'. It's an opinion.

"You had Senator Kennedy claiming the president intentionally lied without a shred of evidence."

While you didn't directly accuse me of lying, you implied it and assigned it as a trait to all liberals, did you not?

I don't know Kerry's position, but when you watch the justification for a war change, is does seem like a lie.

And Cheney is a liar. He has on a number of occasions said wholeheartedly that he DID NOT SAY SOMETHING, when he was dumb enough to say the first thing on national television.

"You have John Kerry blaming President Bush for the recession that started in March 2001 which was only 2 months after the president took office."

To me it seems like racking up trillions in debt and having a huge job loss (they're raising the debt ceiling again, by the way. Clinton again?) after three and a half years in office is too much?

"These are the people who either are representatives of the Democratic party or wanted to be that party's presidential nominee, so after their actions, it would not be ridiculous to vote against them."

I think their refusal to take any kind of a position for previous years and laying down to the "if you're not with the Patriot Act, you're with the terrorists" garbage makes their qualifications questionable. I think Bush is merely potentially worse.

"It all comes down to what the people who represent the party do and none of the leaders of the Republican party are bombing or vandalizing abortion clinics,"

Not really a fair argument, since the democrat leaders are not advocating violence either.

"so what else do you have that's comparable to what I've listed?"

The Republican senator from KY calling his opponent a lip wristed faggot? Arnold I-Can't-Believe-he's-the-Governor saying why should he work with losers? The close ties of Bush to the Swift Boat Veterans, who were also sneaking around when McCain was running the primaries? Bush's misrepresentation of Kerry's health plan? The demonization of Kerry at the RNC?

Don't try to play holier-than-thou partisan games. As far as tactical integrity goes, they both suck.

If you want to make it the demon liberals to justify hating about fifty percent of the country, be my guest, but it is not grounded in reality. And also, a prominent dislike and mistrust for Bush does not make one an extreme leftist propagandist. I eat red meat barely cooked, I support the right to bear arms, I do not think nuclear power plants are going to turn us all into mutants, I'm very much for capitalism, I don't have a problem with fishing and hunting, I'm for massive welfare reform, and the death penalty (with reforms).

As Robert told you (thanks Robert), broad brushing me isn't going to work, and I can tell you broad brushing liberals isn't going to work. It is as useless as my treating you like an inbred Bible beating creationist hillbilly because you don't like Kerry.

Ishie

Posted by: Ishtar at November 18, 2004 3:56 PM

"Could it be that liberalism is a policy associated with population density?"

Depends on your definition of 'liberalism', I suppose.

"Ishie- take a stab at it. Right up your alley "Biological Anthropology""

I would, but I have to admit I found the article somewhat confusing. Minus having a clear understanding of it, I can speculate that different factors affect different populations. It is entirely possible that cities breed certain political priorities that people in them do not feel are best met by Republicans?

Oh, one thing... since the early 90s, the crime rates in cities have largely been dropping, in some cities (NYC and LA), by large percentages while crime in rural areas has been steadily rising. Not sure if this has any effect on this Malthus stuff, but I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday and found it interesting. Maybe it also explains the perceptions in some places of "crime is everywhere" when we start to see it in rural areas, yet places like NYC and LA are still seen as cesspools of crime and filth?

Ishie

Posted by: Hugh Jass at November 18, 2004 6:57 PM

ANYONE WHO MADE THIS IDEA OR AGREES WITH IT SHOULD JUST HAVE THEIR PENIS CUT OFF WITH A DULL RUSTY KNIFE!!!!!!!!!

P.S.
LIBERALS PUT BALLS IN THEIR MOUTHS

P.P.S
YOU ALL = (___|___)<==========8

Posted by: Jude, Jay and Sid at November 18, 2004 10:43 PM

Thank Buddha, we are already in American Coastopia! Yeah, for Oregon, although, our gay friends can't marry each other and if we don't staighten up we will be without trees. We'll keep fighting for what is virtuous. I just hope the rest of the world knows we didn't vote for Bush!

Posted by: Dan at November 19, 2004 5:30 AM

My swan song,

I thought that my post of Wednesday made clear my meaning, but I was obviously mistaken so let me try to ‘splain one last time :-).

When I referred to the wording used to encourage people to flame this blog, I was using a typical paraphrased suggestion of the type that I’ve seen on a number of right wing blogs. In some cases the wording was better, and in other cases worse depending on just how far right wing the blog happened to be. I did not copy blog addresses or names since I was searching merely out of curiosity. When I referred to talk show hosts, I was basing it on a sampling that I listened to while surfing Public Radio. The radio hosts (from moderate WAY through ultra conservative) never said anything nearly as inflammatory as the blog statements (they have an FCC license to protect), but a number of them revealed this blog, sometimes with the statement that if conservatives wanted to make their views known to liberals they could do so here. Considering that those radio shows are typically listened to by MOSTLY right wing individuals ranging from moderately right wing to whacko certifiables, and considering the “almost-anything-goes” nature of the Internet, "do the math" (to use a recently oft heard phrase :-) ). My POINT was that, as I’ve stated before, I am still mystified by the excessive number of right wing hate posts on THIS blog, especially since it was created as merely a gathering place for frustrated non-Bush supporters to commiserate and lick their wounds. The next time that a candidate of my choice wins, I am going to seek out the opponent’s blogs, NOT to post, but simply to see if the same phenomenon occurs.

When I referred to “the ship listing TOO far to port or starboard”, it was not to imply that I HOPE Bush goes psychotically batshit during his second term. I simply have some grave doubts based on events in the past 3+ years about his second term AND as a lame duck President with a VP who will not run in 2008. If we’re all living in a land of milk, honey, joy, jobs, wealth, and brotherhood by 2008, GREAT, but forgive me if I don’t hold my breath :-).

Seems I sure stirred the pot when I mentioned Roe vs. Wade . I was NOT trying to restart a debate that is obviously pointless. Pro-choicers and pro-lifers will NEVER agree on this issue, and it‘s futile for either side to even attempt to convince the other. It just ain’t goin’ to happen. Again, my POINT was that it is not COMMON practice for the Supreme Court to overturn a long-standing ruling of any kind due to a temporary shift in the current political breeze.

“BE COURTIOUS AND POLITE”…Once again, I was referring to THIS blog and this blog only! Did no one understand that?? Of course there have been some terrible things done on both sides! To determine an exact percentage of hate and wrongdoing per side would require a think tank looking over the records of EVERY freaking state, city, town, hamlet, and cow pasture for the entire duration of both campaigns in the WHOLE freaking country, which, btw, is rather large :). Even if this were done, they would still have to weed out vandalism perpetrated by hard-core juvenile delinquents for nothing more than the joy of vandalism. And, once again, that ain’t goin’ to happen. Thursday night’s post by Hugh Jass is the type of “hit and run” post to which I was referring. It’s not the best example since a juvenile probably posted it. I say this because of the apparent obsession with genitalia, and the fact that the poster omitted any reference to the many female liberals. I was just too lazy to scroll up.

OK already?? :-)

Many of the topics that have been debated here are showing definite signs of metal fatigue from the persistent hammer blows by BOTH sides, so I would like to propose a few new topics for you to consider:

1) Does it appear that the recent changes to the CIA are likely to start the implementation of necessary modifications as outlined in the 9/11 Commission Report? And, come on guys and gals, none of these “It’s too early to tell” copouts :-). EVERYONE has opinions on this issue.

2) Is it likely that the election monitors, who are now being selected or considered for the Iraqi elections, will be capable of a assuring a fair and honest election?

3) Are independent poll-watchers being given the opportunity to go to Iraq and watch for pro-US/pro-insurgent coercion of Iraqi citizens when that time comes?

4) Did Bush use good or bad judgment in his selection of Rice to replace Powell as Secretary of State given current world opinion? (Here’s a little bon mot JUST FOR THE LIBERALS :-): When the BBC first announced this; it came in as a news flash. The announcer began reading the bulletin with typical British stoicism, but when he got to the name “Condeleeza Rice”, I swear there was an eye blink and a discernable jaw-drop).

5) How can the Republicans preserve the stronghold that they gained in this election in 2008, and can the Democrats manage to pull their act together enough to remember the necessary tactics for winning an election? (Or do those of us with a liberal bent need to start a brand new party that has some brains and balls?)

6. Will the 2008 election be decided by the winner of a new "reality" show to premiere on CBS next fall? :-)

These are just a few that I pulled from the nether regions of my anatomy. As always, define any terms that may even be remotely considered ambiguous and cite sources :-). Some may require a bit of research, but that just adds to your enjoyment of the fray, doesn’t it :-)? As for me, I'm going to shake hands all around and take my leave. It's been fun.
Be well,
Dan

Posted by: Robert at November 19, 2004 6:50 AM

I have only one rebuttal to Dan's swan song. I agree on the futility of trying to convince people of or against the justification for abortion and that's why I ackowledged this ideological divide and instead made a point relavent to the process of change.

Dan says "my POINT was that it is not COMMON practice for the Supreme Court to overturn a long-standing ruling of any kind due to a temporary shift in the current political breeze"

But liberals didn't seem to mind when the Supreme Court overturns anything as long as it supports their agenda. But the larger point is that it matters not what is "common" as long as it's constitutional.

I don't have an issue with liberals making a case against changing the abortion laws, but it's simply an act of desperation to suggest that Bush is either radical or irresponsible to appoint pro-life judges. This is how government works and again, liberals shouldn't be babies when the same system they use to advance their agenda is used to advance ours.

Welcome to America!

Robert

Posted by: Felicia at November 19, 2004 7:33 AM

Sorry, folks... I find this blog fascinating, and usually check in on it, but have only written something once. I'm compelled to write again.

First, good work, Ishie, whoever you are! I agree with most of your views--I'm an Independent (have voted EITHER way, depending on the candidate), I'm a very well educated (Gasp!--Northern!) grandmother currently having to live in the Deep South (bigger gasp!!). I also own a gun and would readily skunk the bastard who tries to harm me or my family, come from a long line of military folks, have reservations about the death penalty the way it is administered today (although I'm sure I could pull the plug myself for the above-stated reasons), am pro-abortion because it's usually the men of this country who make the laws and I don't think a damned one of the Holy-Rollers would hesitate to arrange an abortion if they got their mistresses(or whomever)knocked up or if it (the pregnancy)was just inconvenient for them... and besides, no damned MAN should make ANY decisions about a woman's body!!.. not unless they give us the same latitude with making decisions about THEIR private parts!! (Fair is fair. And if they wanted so much to "protect human life", they wouldn't be engaging in so many senseless wars, or they would be stepping up to the plate and offering to adopt & support some of those "unwanted" pregnancies.) Most of those lawmakers are a bunch of damned lechers anyway (oh, please, investigate any of them thoroughly and you'll see I'm not making this up.) No, I don't support abortion as a form of birth control (that's just totally irresponsible.) Bottom line .. if they make abortion rights a STATE issue, does the (usually Blue)state get to deny access to the procedure to anyone from out of state? Sorry..... off on a tangent here....Just that I heard many stories from MY grandmother (now that's going back some!) and other women of her generation suffering terribly using the coathanger method of self-abortion when pregnancies resulted from rapes by strangers/uncles/fathers, etc. Yes, it does happen.Grow up,guys.

Oh, and lastly, this administration scares the hell out of me. They are a bunch of right-wing whack jobs, and for as much as their leader claims to have an open line direct to The Almighty, he's still at heart just a philandering, drunken, drug-abusing (did you know he was also once a cheerleader??? really fits with his new "macho" image) frat boy. Oh dear, just the thought of them brings out the "angry" in me.... back to my cup of orange and honey tea.

Posted by: Mike at November 19, 2004 9:12 AM

Hey granny,, better have a little valium with that tea,, calm down,, deep breaths,, in,, out.. that's good....

are ya better now?

Posted by: Janet at November 19, 2004 11:19 AM

I have been reading this very interesting site for some time now, but haven't entered the discussion until now. I think Coastopia is an excellent idea.
Let me ask this..... why aren't all you red neck "Dixie-ites" lining up to enlist and volunteer to go to the war if you are all so devout to this dumb ass SHRUB? You can't wait to tote your rifles and hang them in the back of your pick up trucks, why not join up and get in the mix that you sound like you support (maybe you can't pass the IQ test?)
I don't understand why you are not there in droves. You can join my Coastopia son in Iraq.

Answer anyone?

Posted by: cathasaigh at November 19, 2004 11:22 AM

can my dog duff come? if so, im in.

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 19, 2004 12:36 PM

Be carefull of what you ask for Janet.

I am a confirmed red-zoner who was born & raised in a blue state (CT) who could have been or may still be your son's commanding officer.....

If he is a soldier, sailor or Marine in Iraq he is a volunteer, over the age of eighteen, who chose his own vocation. He's made it through bootcamp without quitting and has been trained to do his job led by highly qualified NCOs and officers who are also professionals. He's doing a man's job and you should be proud of him and strong at this time intead of weak and nasty.

He's living with red-zoners, in fact I'll bet 75% of his "brothers" are red-zoners at least..just think of those nasty redman and NASCAR habits he may pick up...yuck!

Now the bad news...most of the military leadership is from the "deep red zones" you and the Coastopians passionately despise. Some of us may be Ivy league, military academy or God forbid... Texas Tech or Aggies! Just imagine, now that WE have "brainwashed" him, I'm almost positive he'll be singing a "red tune" when next you see him! And you WILL see him again, because those red-zone brothers of his will get him through this.

And you know what? This old broke down warrior will be proud of him for being an American even if you don't want to be.

Whereas Coastopia will never be more than a "state of mind"....

Please join Granny above and have a nice warm beverage!

Adios/B2

Posted by: Alaska Dave at November 19, 2004 12:53 PM

Hey Janet,,

Your not showing much tolerance there,,,, and how stereotypical of you... (can we all say hypocrite?) Your fellow Coastopians aren't going to be too happy with you.

Posted by: Granny at November 19, 2004 1:01 PM

Bad Bob/B2,
I have a feeling that you're not the one(s) Janet was referring to. My interpretation of her message is that it is the tough-talking "Reds" who shoot their mouths off, talk tough, (and beat up their wives and kids -- these are the ones I'M familiar with) who need to "put their money where their mouths are" and volunteer to go over and whoop some terrorist ass instead of just talking about how "we" (meaning everyone else BUT them, and who are already over there) should invade wherever and whenever we want to teach somebody a lesson, or whatever lame excuse it was for going there.

Un-American?? I think not. I happen to have 2 nephews over there right now. I am proud of them, of all our soldiers, and proud to be American/Coastopian-In-My-Mind. I am just ashamed of our leaders for the shabby excuses and thought processes (or lack of?) that brought us to where we are as a country and in the world today -- no credibility, lousy economy (and stop blaming Clinton and every one else for Bush's failures -- for goodness sake, is the man responsible for NOTHING?????), ..... sigh.

Shove the tea! -- I need something stronger....

Posted by: Alaska Dave at November 19, 2004 2:18 PM

Granny,

Are you suggesting only "reds" beat up their wife's and kids? Tell me, where did you find your data on this? Please provide link. How many wife and child beaters there are in "red" vs. "blue" states.. Or are you just SHOOTING OFF YOUR MOUTH?

Tea not strong enough?,, I did suggest some valium.

Posted by: Granny at November 19, 2004 3:15 PM

Au contraire, Dave..... I said that these were the Reds that I actually KNEW ......... (and I personally have never met as many OVERT ones- abusers - as I have down here .....) No, no, no, dear, I'm not citing statistics, I'm sharing personal experience. I'm sure there are many in the Blue states, too. What I SEE are a lot of people who talk and act tough, but not in circumstances that require it (in the wrong venue - NOT in a national conflict.) These Big Shots should go strut their stuff where it could really count, and enlist.

So, no better response or argument than that I should get some valium? How chauvinistic, and yet so unimaginative!

Posted by: Alaska Dave at November 19, 2004 3:42 PM

lol,, lol,, Why is it you only know "wife and child beating reds"? Have you been hanging out at the local prison granny? Or maybe it's that bar in the bad part of town your spending too much time at.
Hmmm,,, chauvinistic because I suggest valium,, you'll have to supply the connection there.. Unimaginative,, sure,, ok,, sorry I'm not into drugs so I'll leave it up to you to come up with something better.. Happy zoned out drug induced bliss to ya granny.....

Posted by: Janet at November 19, 2004 5:00 PM

Badbob,
Well didn't you just prove my point!
Can't even answer the question....duh?
I am extremly proud of my son.....and I support him and our troops 100%. He is doing his duty and doing it well! It is the stupid,oil hungry, lying SOB that I don't support, who got us into this mess. I still say put your money where your mouth is "red states".
You must be the brainwashed one...you sure sound like it! I served in the armed forces too so don't tell me about who may be comanding......I have seen it for myself and I wouldn't brag if I were you.
Janet

Posted by: Randall at November 20, 2004 5:20 AM

Janet and Granny,
I really endeavor to keep my responses to statements like yours above board and tasteful, but I would like to take this opportunity to invite you and others who share your sentiments to line up and kindly kiss my Rebel, Dixie born-and-bred, Red State ass. You are nothing but a small-minded insulting piece of trash bumbling through life with an oh so distorted view of reality. The fact is, there are so very many of us out here in America who really support this war to the hilt who have already served and who were ready to go back. Due to age, we have been turned down. It's a bitch, but it is the way it is. It's just a shame that some people insist on questioning a person's charachter through a forum like this and not face-to-face. It reveals a lot about your level of courage, or lack of it.

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 20, 2004 7:07 AM

Janet,

I'm not much on de-constructing your two posts. The first is a challenge of sorts (?), the second a challenge to me (of sorts). Ishie is better at it than I, but I will face your extremely weak pitching! You really should read the threads above before posting- methinks.....

Janet Post 1- "I have been reading this very interesting site for some time now, but haven't entered the discussion until now. I think Coastopia is an excellent idea.
Let me ask this....." etc, etc

In your first post you insult us red-zoners by challenging our IQs, then our (as you call it) devotion to Dubya. Lastly you ask why WE (all red-zoners) we are not in Iraq.

In my post I answered your questions and I presented the facts on the military. Most folks who populate the ranks are not only red-zoners but the leadership is very red-zonish and 100% responsible for your sons training and well being. That goes double for the real trigger pulling jobs like SF, infantry and pilots. That's a simple fact. You should be aware of these facts before you embarrass your son. To re-emphasize; he is a volunteer and I am sure he would not be happy with you if he read your posts.

Lastly, my intent was to assist you assuage your hysteria by pointing out the obvious; and that being that your son is part of a different "family" now. Get it? Does anyone on this board understand or must I write several more paras?

Janet post 2- "Badbob, Well didn't you just prove my point!
Can't even answer the question....duh?"

WTF, O? My old dumb red-zone brain just doesn't get it.

"I am extremly proud of my son.....and I support him and our troops 100%. He is doing his duty and doing it well! It is the stupid,oil hungry, lying SOB that I don't support, who got us into this mess. I still say put your money where your mouth is "red states".

I can't figure this one out. You sound like Gov Dean here. We support the troops but we HATE the leadership..... This is exactly the attitude (certainly not a well thought out position) that led to the "Frauds" defeat 2 November. As far as that last sentence is concerned refer post 1 retort. Red zone minded folks make up the military on a ratio of 8 to 1! I have been to Iraq and I can confirm from my own HUMINT.

"You must be the brainwashed one...you sure sound like it! I served in the armed forces too so don't tell me about who may be comanding......I have seen it for myself and I wouldn't brag if I were you."

Like I said in much earlier posts that I have served as a carrier fighter pilot for 21 years after college. During that time I've seen combat and I've commanded (note spelling) a thing or two up to the "operational level" of war. I think that qualifies me as an "expert" witness to the above.

Madame- I do not need to brag about what I did, what I do now and what I will do in the future; are all a matter of public record. Plus, who cares anyway? This is just a discussion board. Or is it?

B2


Posted by: Robert at November 20, 2004 9:58 AM

Janet,

I think it's a shame that you put all of us red staters in your narrow steroetypical perspective, but what the hell, you only reveal your own lack of tolerance, inclusion and bipartisanship, all traits that republicans are routinely accused of not having. Apparently to you, anyone who agrees with the war and supports the administration is brainwashed. That's quite an intellectually honest assertion.

For the rest of you Coastopians, it's people like Janet that divide the country. And yes, I also have read the juvenile retorts of plenty of red staters with equally assenine sentiments. But let the record show that the country in divided because of these idiots, not because of party lines.

Robert

Posted by: susan at November 20, 2004 12:49 PM

Rather than use the title of American Coastopia, I suggest the United Coastopias. Consisting of East Coastopia, North Coastopia (Il,MI, IA,WI) and West Coastopia. Every country needs a constitution. Let's put one together. Here's a start:

A Statement of Rights for the United Coastopias

We the people of the United Coastopias, believing that rational thought is the basis upon which to conduct our lives, do hereby declare these principles:

1. All citizens are equal. There shall be no discrimination based upon age, gender, race, religion, or sexual identity.

2. There will be complete separation of church and state. There shall be no imposition of any religion or religious views on, or by, the state. All citizens are entitled to their own beliefs and are forbidden from imposing them on any other citizen.

3. There shall be a free press. Ownership of media outlets is limited to one outlet per entity and cross ownership of media will not be permitted. .

4. There shall be free speech.

5. The people will have the right to free, peaceable assembly without governmental intrusion.

6. The people will have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

7. Citizens will have the right to marry whomever they please regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage is defined as the union of 2 people of legal age, who are not directly related, who knowingly declare their intentions.

8. The President and Vice-President are elected for 1 six year term only.

9. All elections are financed by the state and may not begin more than 90 days prior to the election date. No corporate or individual donations may be made.

10. All elections are made by direct election of candidates. If no party receives more than 50% of the popular vote, run-off elections will be held within the same month.

11. All citizens over the age of 18 will be permitted to vote upon passage of an exam that demonstrates basic understanding of the facts of the pertinent issues of the day. The exams will be conducted under the auspices of the Judiciary system to ensure fairness and accuracy.

12. Use of Firearms will not be permitted.

13. If it becomes necessary, a militia will be formed that is representative of the population. Pre-emptive responses will not be allowed.

14. All citizens will have the right to free reproductive choice and birth control. Sex education will be scientifically based and universally taught.

Posted by: susan at November 20, 2004 12:49 PM

Rather than use the title of American Coastopia, I suggest the United Coastopias. Consisting of East Coastopia, North Coastopia (Il,MI, IA,WI) and West Coastopia. Every country needs a constitution. Let's put one together. Here's a start:

A Statement of Rights for the United Coastopias

We the people of the United Coastopias, believing that rational thought is the basis upon which to conduct our lives, do hereby declare these principles:

1. All citizens are equal. There shall be no discrimination based upon age, gender, race, religion, or sexual identity.

2. There will be complete separation of church and state. There shall be no imposition of any religion or religious views on, or by, the state. All citizens are entitled to their own beliefs and are forbidden from imposing them on any other citizen.

3. There shall be a free press. Ownership of media outlets is limited to one outlet per entity and cross ownership of media will not be permitted. .

4. There shall be free speech.

5. The people will have the right to free, peaceable assembly without governmental intrusion.

6. The people will have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

7. Citizens will have the right to marry whomever they please regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage is defined as the union of 2 people of legal age, who are not directly related, who knowingly declare their intentions.

8. The President and Vice-President are elected for 1 six year term only.

9. All elections are financed by the state and may not begin more than 90 days prior to the election date. No corporate or individual donations may be made.

10. All elections are made by direct election of candidates. If no party receives more than 50% of the popular vote, run-off elections will be held within the same month.

11. All citizens over the age of 18 will be permitted to vote upon passage of an exam that demonstrates basic understanding of the facts of the pertinent issues of the day. The exams will be conducted under the auspices of the Judiciary system to ensure fairness and accuracy.

12. Use of Firearms will not be permitted.

13. If it becomes necessary, a militia will be formed that is representative of the population. Pre-emptive responses will not be allowed.

14. All citizens will have the right to free reproductive choice and birth control. Sex education will be scientifically based and universally taught.

Posted by: susan at November 20, 2004 12:49 PM

Rather than use the title of American Coastopia, I suggest the United Coastopias. Consisting of East Coastopia, North Coastopia (Il,MI, IA,WI) and West Coastopia. Every country needs a constitution. Let's put one together. Here's a start:

A Statement of Rights for the United Coastopias

We the people of the United Coastopias, believing that rational thought is the basis upon which to conduct our lives, do hereby declare these principles:

1. All citizens are equal. There shall be no discrimination based upon age, gender, race, religion, or sexual identity.

2. There will be complete separation of church and state. There shall be no imposition of any religion or religious views on, or by, the state. All citizens are entitled to their own beliefs and are forbidden from imposing them on any other citizen.

3. There shall be a free press. Ownership of media outlets is limited to one outlet per entity and cross ownership of media will not be permitted. .

4. There shall be free speech.

5. The people will have the right to free, peaceable assembly without governmental intrusion.

6. The people will have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

7. Citizens will have the right to marry whomever they please regardless of sexual orientation. Marriage is defined as the union of 2 people of legal age, who are not directly related, who knowingly declare their intentions.

8. The President and Vice-President are elected for 1 six year term only.

9. All elections are financed by the state and may not begin more than 90 days prior to the election date. No corporate or individual donations may be made.

10. All elections are made by direct election of candidates. If no party receives more than 50% of the popular vote, run-off elections will be held within the same month.

11. All citizens over the age of 18 will be permitted to vote upon passage of an exam that demonstrates basic understanding of the facts of the pertinent issues of the day. The exams will be conducted under the auspices of the Judiciary system to ensure fairness and accuracy.

12. Use of Firearms will not be permitted.

13. If it becomes necessary, a militia will be formed that is representative of the population. Pre-emptive responses will not be allowed.

14. All citizens will have the right to free reproductive choice and birth control. Sex education will be scientifically based and universally taught.

Posted by: Penny at November 20, 2004 2:07 PM

B2,
What a self rightous ass............. Typical red state blather.
Penny

Posted by: janet at November 20, 2004 2:55 PM

B2
You still don't get it!
How could you re-elect a president who invaded a country that was NO threat to us?????
How could you re-elect this nut job who for NO reason has killed over 1000 of our men and women and caused over 9000 to be wounded??? This idiot who belives he is "hearing" directly from God, oh please!

I care about our service men and women..........
all in harms way for what? I wish the "red states" who voted him in cared.
Janet

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 20, 2004 7:44 PM

More reason to set up Coastopia ASAP. Breaking news:

Canada busy sending back Bush-dodgers

JOE BLUNDO

The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The re-election of President Bush is prompting the exodus among left leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.

''I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota. The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. ''He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left. Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields. ''Not real effective," he said. ''The
liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves. ''A lot of these people
are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. ''I found one carload without a drop of drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishing re-education camps
in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR.

In the days since the election, liberals have turned to sometimes ingenious ways of crossing the border. Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen
passengers. ''If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandon movies. ''I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't
support them," an Ottawa resident said. ''How many art-history majors does one country need?"

In an effort to ease tensions between the United States and Canada, Vice President Dick Cheney met with the Canadian ambassador and pledged that the administration would take steps to reassure liberals, a source close to Cheney said.

''We're going to have some Peter, Paul & Mary concerts. And we might put some endangered species on postage stamps. The president is determined to reach out."

Joe Blundo is a Columbus, Ohio Dispatch columnist .

jblundo@dispatch.com

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 20, 2004 8:50 PM

Penny,

That's not true, I'm actually a red-ass ;-)

-----------
Coastopian Secessionists at Rally Practice Free Speech (see proposed constitution above):

http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_november_3_2004/

Posted by: Randall at November 21, 2004 6:29 AM


Robert
I must respectfully disagree with one point that you made concerning the division of our country. Your take on it, as I understand it to be, is that it's the extremists and whack-jobs on both sides who are to blame for this division. I will agree that they are fanning the flames of division and making a bad situation worse, but I think our problem has a lot to do with "party lines". What we are experiencing in this country is a crisis of culture brought about by moral decay. It is a phenomenon that has been visited upon one society after another down through history. Where the political parties come into play on this issue depends upon which set of values they construct their platform. Either they embrace the traditional, down-home working class values of most Americans that the Republicans generally do, or they take the path that the Democrats have chosen, and the leadership of the Democratic Party has been taken over by the very whack-jobs we both detest. The problem then is party identification, because so many good people still vote Democrat because "that's how their family has always voted", not realizing that the party leadership has radically changed the overall agenda of the party and has strayed from their historically solid, "little guy" values of yester-year. The Democratic Party has let itself become the party of the special interest groups. They feel obligated to stand up for the feminists, the homosexuals, the atheists, and whatever other group wishes to push an agenda that is specially designed to profit themselves. Rather than insist that all of these people be Americans first and enjoy the freedom to do as they wish, the Democrats have allowed our society to become stratified into "groups" to the point where we no longer seem to be able to identify ourselves as Americans. There was once a time when "progressive" thought was good and necessary and practiced by both parties. As a society, we have evolved to the point that people can practice whatever type of sexual activity they wish. Sodomy laws have been done away with, and although I personally think that homosexual activity is wrong, this is a good thing. Once upon a time women were definitely discriminated against throughout society, and we now have labor laws mandating equal pay, an amendment extending them the right to vote, and numerous other wrongs have been righted. Racism is just about a thing of the past. We have come a long way together. The problem now is that the Democratic Party has seen fit to idenify itself with virtually every paying customer who comes its way and attempts to elevate that customer's agenda, beyond the point of reason, to a level that is supremacist and that dictates that all must accept that agenda, rather than just protecting the right of people to freely practice what they wish. The Democratic Party has abandoned the moral values that bind people together. This has been the case long enough for there to now be a large group of people for whom there is no sense of right or wrong, who feel no sense of loyalty to our country and who feel that America is exactly what our enemies say we are, and because of this last sentiment cannot even see the need to proactively defend the country against dogmas that seek to destroy the very freedoms that allow them to have and voice the opinions that they do. The Democratic Party has had enough influence on our educational institutions for long enough now that this is what we have harvested. They have been very successful. Does this suggest a "vast left-wing conspiracy"? Perhaps. There is no other logical explanation for the state of moral decay that our country now finds itself in. This didn't happen overnight. It won't be corrected overnight. One thing is for sure and historically proven. Either this country will come together enough to at least solve some of our basic problems or there will be no need for "Coastopia" or any other designation for the land mass that we now call home. There is no need for us to put down our guns, but we need to damned well change our direction of fire away from each other and towards those who seek to destroy us. For this to happen, people are going to have to expunge their selfish "me" agendas a total re-alignment of the leadership of the Democratic Party can help bring this about.

Posted by: solveighelen at November 21, 2004 9:44 AM

I"m sure it's an oversight, so if you haven't already added Minnesota, please do it now!

Posted by: Granny at November 22, 2004 7:37 AM

Goodness,....I am really appalled at the ignorance that that I see revealed in the comments of Bad Bob, Robert, and Randall.

BadBob -- I'm sorry, but you seem to be really full of yourself. In the service for 21 years? Saw combat? Would you mind if I ask where? It doesn't sound like it could have been Viet Nam, or am I wrong? Too old to re-join? That's really a lame excuse - I'm sure there is some way that you could still contribute if you really wanted to; I'd really be more impressed with actions than with words (as in, "I'm a big, bad guy -- I drop bombs!"). My husband, a (Blue State/Ivy MBA/Republican Shrub-hater) Viet Nam pilot would volunteer and go back today, if he still had his legs. He would go TO SUPPORT THE TROOPS - the younger guys who could use the wisdom and experience of a seasoned combat veteran/pilot to help them make it through and get out alive; you see, you CAN totally support the troops, but DESPISE the ignorant, dangerous bastards who put them needlessly in harm's way. (You see, blind allegiance is not a healthy thing.)So, B2, get off your butt, get a clue, and DO something constructive instead of walking around like a peacock and pathetically bragging about what you think you USED to be.

The rest of you -- well, you just continually reinforce my perception of Red Staters: you are so ill-informed and narrow-minded, that I just wouldn't know where to begin. Your understanding of the world, especially of political realities, is frightening and mind-numbing. Moral values?? Many of these are transmitted - at the speed of light - through television. And who do you think owns most of the media outlets? Democreats??? No -- most of them are owned by Republicans, who actually don't give a whit about WHAT morals (or lack thereof) that they show, they only care about the money they make (and then contribute to political whores like Shrub). Do you get you good moral values by watching the hatchet men on Fox TV?? Those same nice men that castigate everyone else who doesn't agree with them and set themselves on a high moral pedestal: you know, the (seriously) drug-abusing Limbaugh, the woman-harassing sexually deviant/don't tell my wife (vibrators??!!??) O'Really(!)--- Or are you morally guided by the likes of Newt Gingrich (mnarried man/multiple affairs), Strom Thurmon (arch-racist/"did" his family's teenage black maid, fathered a black child), Trent Lott (college Cheerleader, like Bush)... or are your moral idols the Fire-and-Brimstone Southern preachers like Jimmy Swaggart and Baker (both caught "red-handed" in motel rooms with hookers). Please!!! - DO NOT lecture "liberals/Democrats" (by the way, your understanding of EITHER is so old-fashioned and offf the mark) on Moral Values. Your Red State track record is not so good, either.

(Oh, and by the way -- on the homosexual thing -- you would be surprised at how many of your friends are closet, or overt, homosexuals. It is not always, but often that the big, burly, Macho guy is the one putting on the act of uber-masculinity to cover the fact that he has homosexual tendencies.) (Are you listening, B2?)

I'm tired and discouraged -- your turn.

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 22, 2004 10:06 AM

Re- "Goodness,....I am really appalled at the ignorance that that I see revealed in the comments of Bad Bob, Robert, and Randall. "

"BadBob -- I'm sorry, but you seem to be really full of yourself. In the service for 21 years?"

Yes, I'm a man in full.

"Saw combat?"

I am a member of the VFW. Answer your question?
"Would you mind if I ask where? It doesn't sound like it could have been Viet Nam, or am I wrong?"
1975- 1997, you figure it out

"Too old to re-join?"

I'm retired but I do work for DOD as a consultant supporting same at the Operational level. Hmmm- that must mean 30 years direct service totaled up and continuing. Bragadacchio (sic) Granny? I think not.

"My husband, a (Blue State/Ivy MBA/Republican Shrub-hater) Viet Nam pilot would volunteer and go back today, if he still had his legs."

I am truly sorry. I salute your husband's service. As to the rest of your blather I pity him. Recommend he visit SwiftVets.com soonest. Veterans Day this year was celebrated 2 November for Vietnam Vets. Sort of the parade they never got. No more "Apocalypse Now" and "Platoon" movies. As a former combat helo pilot I am sure your husband does not like to be characterized as a war criminal/agent of Genghis Khan. Vietnam was badly executed war by the leadership (mainly Dims) who involved us in it, but it was bravely and honorably fought by the troops who participated. Leaving it the way we did cost over 3 million lives to the communists but that issue is better left to other threads………

"Do you get you good moral values by watching the hatchet men on Fox TV"

I don't watch much TV Granny. . I get all my news from the Drudge report…did you read the story about the dolphin with a prothstetic flipper?

"Re- Limbaugh, O'Really (sp), Newt Gingrich, Strom Thurmon(sp), Trent Lott, Jimmy Swaggart , & Baker."

Gee Granny, it seems to be a "guy" thing with you. Don't you like men? I hate calling people bad names like Femma-Nazi's, the "B" word, etc…. so lighten up. Now as to B2's (my favorite subject, right?) "preferences": I give my oath as an officer and gentleman that I have never put my hand on any woman that didn't want it there..or I had not paid for(I married late). As to the other "fetishes" you brought to the table, I can assure you I gave all suspected "Benny-boys" in the PI a good package check before proceeding!

"Are you listening, B2?"

You're dam "straight" Granny. I promise I'll never pick up any bar of soap dropped in the shower!

"I'm tired and discouraged -- your turn."

I can see why you're tired. Taking on the worlds' problems is a monumental task Granny.

Lighten up a bit. Coastopia is just a caffeine/drug enduced state of mind. If your ideas and policies are so much better than ours…...sell 'em….... don't just whine about or litigate 'em. Just try to imagine how you would sell "gay marriage" (oxymoron) to your average Afghani.

Me and mine aren't leaving- you'll have to kill me in a fight. You really ought to read Jim Webb's book on the Scots-Irish to get a better feel for the red states and just what you are up against here.

Now, as far as you being discouraged, I can understand why. You are so blinded with hate (yes hate) you can't see it. Yes, we are just as passionate as you folks about the issues facing our country, but one thing is crystal clear to me. There is only one version of the facts and the facts as I seen 'em support "us".

Now a question for you or any other rational, sentinent American on this thread:

Go to the website I posted on my last entry and view those pics. Free speech? Hyperbole? Or just plain hate.

B2

Posted by: Ishtar at November 22, 2004 10:47 AM

"I will agree that they are fanning the flames of division and making a bad situation worse, but I think our problem has a lot to do with "party lines"."

Agreed, but probably not for the reason you're thinking. Both sides of the coin have extreme factions but they are coming to define the various positions. Party affiliation is becoming more akin to religion. You are a Republican. You must ally yourself with Republican values. Dissent is not acceptable. Same thing is true of the Dems. Everyone else, inhabiting this "third party" hell, is considered to be a fruitcake, and the third parties are essentially divided into "Republican" and "Democrat" third parties.

Look at the assumptions we have on what a liberal is or what a conservative is. To be liberal is to be a certain way, and favoring things like gun ownership with a dissenting voice is often seen as party-blasphemy. As a result we have an increasing polarization with assumptions on both sides that to be loyal to the party is to voice agreement with what it does. This places moderate people in the position of defending (or at least not voicing opposition to) extreme positions within their own party.

"What we are experiencing in this country is a crisis of culture brought about by moral decay."

Hardly. This speaks of the mental illness known as nolstalgia. The country is not in a state of moral decay, and the "good old days" that many extend back to the not so "good old days" of the founding fathers is largely a result of the McCarthy era, which may have been "golden" to some, but was rife with problems.

School violence (one claim of moral decay, and falsely linked to the removal of public-enforced Christianity) is one issue largely overrepresented. Gun violence in schools is not as prevalent as assumed and no one seems to acknowledge the advances made in areas that have been crisis points for violence since the 80s, such as schools in Harlem and Compton. Violence is up in rural areas; down in cities. We are seeing a reduction of youth gangs that have been flourishing (and in some areas continue to do so) when many of these youth gangs rose with the large drop in power and status of the mafia. People forget how much power and influence they had, and also forget that when kids in poor areas largely controlled by mafia authorities tried to start their own violent gangs, the leader tend to met a rather violent death.

If we're looking at moral decay, we can look at the prominence of drug use and promiscuity in the 60s and 70s, along with hideous actions by authorities against people protesting for civil rights. Shooting at college students, spraying nonviolent protestors with fire hoses and releasing dogs on them? Murdering Fred Hampton? Come on.

Every society has its problems; every stage of society has its problems. There is no "Golden Age" except in the imagination, so to point the finger at the current situation (as people have done throughout generations) and point to this or that as 'moral decay' is at best, ill-informed and a product of an idealized childhood, and is at worse, an outright misrepresentation designed to bully the 'old way' through when the 'old way' never actually existed.

BTW, as far as the realm of "moral decay" goes among the nation's youth, the teen pregnancy rate is at its lowest since 1946. Maybe they've all gone gay or gotten abortions?

"Where the political parties come into play on this issue depends upon which set of values they construct their platform."

Perhaps they should be working on economic platforms and leadership issues and the mechanisms of RUNNING THE COUNTRY rather than involving themselves in the work of moral community leaders? I do not want the president to also act as country pope. He should have more pressing concerns than policing the morality of the country.

"Either they embrace the traditional, down-home working class values of most Americans that the Republicans generally do,"

Oh please. The "working class values" out in the heartland used to be the height of left radicalism. Trends change. And the 'tradition' of these values stems from an enforced view in the McCarthy era, which, incidentally, is when "Under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance, NOT in 1898 when it was written.

The myth of the "down-home" (a description that should really only prefix "southern cooking" in front of a theme restaurant) value is one embraced by the Repubs because it gets them votes. George Jr. is no more down-home than Clinton or Kerry for that matter.

Do down-home traditional families get given baseball teams and go to Yale? Do they get bought out of situations like drunk driving and drug use or do they do their time? Do they raise kids that try to sneak in to nightclubs with fake ids, knowing they'll humiliate their families? Do the traditional families spend a lot of time communicating with foreign dignitaries and business leaders?

Kerry tried to play both sides, but he also tried the "down-home" image when he went hunting. Georgie did the fishing show. Do these features fall in line with old fashioned values? The ability to act like something you saw on King of the Hill?

"or they take the path that the Democrats have chosen, and the leadership of the Democratic Party has been taken over by the very whack-jobs we both detest."

I think both parties have been taken over by whack-jobs, actually. I just think the Democrats have ineffective ones. The Repubs are good at building public hysteria about physical attacks and moral decay. And apparently, people buy it.

"The problem then is party identification, because so many good people still vote Democrat because "that's how their family has always voted","

Funny, I think that's the reason many vote Republican. When I was growing up, my family was largely Republican until the Religious Right hijacked the party. I started voting democrat because I knew the third parties didn't have a prayer, and it appeared the Repubs had lost their damn minds.

"The Democratic Party has let itself become the party of the special interest groups."

You know, these "special interest" groups people claim actually make up a significant portion of the country. Additionally, you do realize the majority of political Democrats are white Christian men, just like the Repubs, right? People act like you have the entire heartland represented by the Republicans and then the Democrats are a bunch of atheist radical minorities trying to swing open the borders to let in the terrorists. In reality, as far as upbringing and social identity are concerned, Repubs and Dems in high office tend to share the same religion, gender, ethnicity, and upbringing.

"They feel obligated to stand up for the feminists, the homosexuals, the atheists, and whatever other group wishes to push an agenda that is specially designed to profit themselves."

Wow, this is close to Jerry Falwell's list of why God allowed 9/11 to happen. Coincidence? What on earth are the feminists doing? And atheists? I haven't heard a lot of Dem support for atheists. They do more strongly accept a separation between church and state while many Republicans seem to think they (in an overwhelming majority) are persecuted if they cannot read off sect-specific prayers in public schools, but I hardly thinks this makes them atheist-sympathetic.

And of course, we have the homosexuals. Who doesn't hate the homosexuals? Everyone knows they're contributing to the "demise" of America by wanting to own property together and adopt children who are otherwise waiting to be put into abusive foster homes, where they will flounder until they're 18, at which point 40% of them will be homeless. The Horror. The Horror. Gays want to be monogamous. How will the stereotypes prevail?

"Rather than insist that all of these people be Americans first and enjoy the freedom to do as they wish,"

Here's the problem... Americanism has become its own religion, and you are expected to ally yourselve with the values that latecomers have assigned to it, rather than the freedom it once represented.

"the Democrats have allowed our society to become stratified into "groups" to the point where we no longer seem to be able to identify ourselves as Americans."

That is because the concept of America has changed. I have been proud to be American for a long time for our freedom, and our ability to dissent, and so forth. Now, dissent is considered unamerican. Being a democrat is considered ultra-liberal and American-hating (and I'm not even a democrat). Those who dissent are also considered whiners who should leave the country if they don't like it.

This is not my America. This is a bullying by a majority into what they have hijacked America to be... and I resent the hell out of it. I was born here too. I am a citizen too. But think this war is horrible, unjustified, and ::gasp:: unamerican? Traitor!!!!

If this "get on board with our policy or get off" is what America is going to be, then to hell with it. Cut up the flag and use it to diaper all those unaborted babies, because it's worthless as a symbol.

"There was once a time when "progressive" thought was good and necessary and practiced by both parties."

And now that 51% of the country has gotten the country where they want it, shut up and take it like a man.

"Racism is just about a thing of the past."

LOL, really? Racism certainly has settled in volatility from the past. Laws have changed that enabled government sanctioned discrimination. But racism is still around, believe me. Ask many of the people on Death Row who were finally aquitted after DNA evidence proved they were innocent... check out the race ratio there... ask the people whose DNA samples would have proved them innocent, but too late... ooh, you can't. Ask the actual Muslims, and the Indians and Mexicans who've been mistaken for them if racism is a thing of the past? Ask the kids who were sleeping in front of their mosque to protect it from vandals and got SHOT AT (CHILDREN!!!) after 9/11.

"We have come a long way together. The problem now is that the Democratic Party has seen fit to idenify itself with virtually every paying customer who comes its way and attempts to elevate that customer's agenda, beyond the point of reason, to a level that is supremacist and that dictates that all must accept that agenda, rather than just protecting the right of people to freely practice what they wish."

Funny.. This is what I see the Republicans doing.

"The Democratic Party has abandoned the moral values that bind people together."

You mean those defined by the Repubs, so if we disagree we should just shut up and get on board with your "down-home" values? No thanks. I'd rather be shot.

"This has been the case long enough for there to now be a large group of people for whom there is no sense of right or wrong,"

Ohhh, so disagreeing with Repub "values" is akin to complete amorality?

"who feel no sense of loyalty to our country and who feel that America is exactly what our enemies say we are,"

It is difficulty to swear loyalty to a fair and free country when we are invading others without just cause. This isn't unamerican to express that. It is because I love this country that I do not want to see these sorts of things happen.

"and because of this last sentiment cannot even see the need to proactively defend the country against dogmas that seek to destroy the very freedoms that allow them to have and voice the opinions that they do."

What "dogmas" are those exactly? Once we start defending ourselves against dogmas rather than actions, we will not have a free country. Is it the Muslims? The feminists maybe?

"The Democratic Party has had enough influence on our educational institutions for long enough now that this is what we have harvested."

You have to be kidding. Creationism is still taught as a viable alternative in countless schools through the country, despite the fact that it is toting a typical creation myth (complete with talking snake) as equivalent to a validated scientific Theory (by the way, if you don't know what a SCIENTIFIC Theory actually is, you aren't qualified to comment on the subject), with countless facts to support it.

"There is no other logical explanation for the state of moral decay that our country now finds itself in."

How's this for a logical explanation? There is no state of moral decay. We actually have progress. In the 80s, gays were thought of as promiscuous, you had bathhouses all over San Francisco, and then AIDS swept through the gay community in SF, where it was identified, the drug community in NY, and the population. At present, the issue is whether gays can engage in a monogamous commitment with a chosen partner and contribute to society as a family unit.

Looks like progress to me! Teen pregnancy rates have dropped. AIDS rates in this country has dropped. Alcoholism has dropped. Drug use has dropped. Violent crime in cities has dropped. Where's the moral decay? Columbine?

"Either this country will come together enough to at least solve some of our basic problems"

Why would I come together with you? You have toted a rather extreme right position and blamed approximately 49% of the country for your perceived problems and cry unity, meaning really, everyone should agree with you.

"but we need to damned well change our direction of fire away from each other and towards those who seek to destroy us."

Agreed! So... what were we doing in Iraq? Getting Osama? But as for your direction of fire, didn't you just fire off a real round of unbased vitriol towards the entire Democrat party and imply everyone voting for them was just doing it because they always had? Practice what you preach.

"For this to happen, people are going to have to expunge their selfish "me" agendas a total re-alignment of the leadership of the Democratic Party can help bring this about."

Here's a "me" agenda. "I am threatened by changing trends despite changing trends marking every generation. Instead of embracing change and focusing on fixing specific problems at hand, I am going to decry an entire philosophy for not forcing my chosen religion on an entire people as much as I'd like them to, accuse everyone who disagrees with my moral platitudes of having no sense of right and wrong, and hole up against the secular hordes that threaten to tear this country apart so that I can once again be comfortable basking in a moral time that never existed."

Sounds pretty me-oriented to me. I don't think it's all that me-oriented to say "Maybe we shouldn't be killing thousands of people, including our own, and throwing all our money away fighting a war in the middle of a downturned economy. Maybe we should focus on improving our country."

If your views are to be the "norm" in a united America, I'd rather remained polarized, if it's all the same to you. As a woman, I'd hate for my chosen 'special interest group', the feminists, to derail the collective goals of the important part of the country.

Blech

Ishie

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 22, 2004 12:03 PM

B2,

Wow.

I just finished reading the posts that occurred over the weekend...you've been busy fighting the good fight, I see...against a couple of real wingnuts. Well done.

For whomever it was that thinks Vietnam was followed by Iraq/Afghanistan 2004, there was also Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), Desert Storm (1991) and Somalia (1993). Bullets were flying in all four places. I was in three of the four...pointy end of the spear...and like you, am a VFW member.

Dan:

On more than one occasion you have expressed surprise that so many red-staters on posting on this site. "Why?" you ask.

Why, for the debate, naturally. If we all went to a conservative site, it would be one gigantic pep rally...and where's the fun in that? Spirited debate...an exchange of ideas, even when one or both sides remain unchanged or unconvinced, is good. Sure...there is narrow-mindedness on display - both sides - but by and large, there are some good points being made. There are seven or eight folks (you, B2 and Ishie pop to mind) whose comments I read with interest. And there will always be the dim bulbs...regardless of what site you're on.

Posted by: Granny at November 22, 2004 12:10 PM

B2:
Goodness, you are tiring (and tiresome?) You know, your response has revealed a lot of things aout you;

"A man in full"--- huh? Either you didn't understand what I was saying,or you are displaying a disturbing tendency (a thread that runs throughout your comments) to overrate your "maleness". This can often be a sign, or coverup if you will, of feelings of weakness and inferiority, especially as relates to sexuality and sexual orientation. (Yes, I was a psychologist. I suppose you're an expert in that, too?)

"VFW" -- doesn't answer much(yes, I get the "foreign" thing.)

"1975-1997" -- doesn't tell much, either. (I have noticed that none of you fellas answer a lot of the above questions - from myself or others - directly, if at all. You just respond with glib comments, not real rationales or defenses.) Seems too late for Viet Nam; maybe you invaded Granada? Somehow, not quite the same thing.

DOD "concultant" -- also not very informative. In this age of downsizing and poor job prospects, "consultant" often menans "educated but unemployed". If you truly ARE working on the "Operational Level", does that mean you are one of the morons (yes, I DO dislike THOSE people!) who got us INTO this whole mess??? Thanks for nothing - you have not done your country any favors.

"Braggadocio"(sp)? -- All the way. But we are not impressed. A true hero doesn't have to advertise.

You BOUGHT IT ???!!! -- Now, I'm not naive (oh, and have never had trouble with men -- once again, that is just the defense/glib response of the person who can't legitimately defend himself.) If you did "buy" it, wasn't that illegal? not immoral?? (or were you just displaying typical republican "moral values"?) I never knew anyone who had to "buy" it" - only losers and moral degenerates (oh, wait -- that brings us back to Swaggart and Baker!! Two Southern preachers and champions of the Republican/Red "ethic"!)

The Swift Vets -- not worth the paper that this could be printed on; a bunch of liars, losers, and whiny Shrub-supporters - and not very transparent about it (and therefore not very believable.) I know MANY Viet vets, so don't go there unless you really expect to go at it.

O'Really(!) -- NOT a misspelling; a pun (didn't get it?)

"A GUY thing" -- the only person here with a "guy" obsession would appear to be yourself (I refer you back to my comment toward the top.)

"Your average Afghani" -- wouldn't know a "real" (Western-style) marriage, either, if he saw one. They treat women as property; beatings are fine, killings are even better, if they disobey their masters(husbands). Try to sell ANYTHING Western to an Afghani. You can't be serious.

"Blinded by hate" -- the last refuge of someone with no good, rational argument or retort. I have no idea who Ishie is; please refer to all of her comments above. Reread carefully.


Posted by: badbobusnret at November 22, 2004 2:25 PM

Granny-

"Either you didn't understand what I was saying,or you are displaying a disturbing tendency (a thread that runs throughout your comments) to overrate your "maleness"……..Yes, I was a psychologist. I suppose you're an expert in that, too?"

Actually Granny, I haven't understood much of what you have said! You do seem to play the role of an attacker of the perceived chauvinistic (Aye, that's me and just about everyone else). I apologize only for not being condescending enough with you. Arguing with you is a lesson in futility. Your posts attack just about every "imagined" or real non-Granny approved group, type or political persuasion I "might" be and then you attack my "gender"! (man- what a weenie word!) How PC of you! You really must have been a very successful psychologist! To directly answer your question, I have only Psych 101 in my training record but methinks you suffer from something- you wear your pain on your sleeve!

"VFW" -- doesn't answer much(yes, I get the "foreign" thing.)
"1975-1997" -- doesn't tell much, either. (I have noticed that none of you fellas answer a lot of the above questions………"

What's the use Granny I don't need a lecture about the 1st Gulf War, Lebanon, Grenada or Panama. The past is the past. Somehow, I get the feeling (not often you hear a Republican use that word, huh?) discussion wouldn't be productive.

"educated but unemployed".

Educated? Sure. Is it complete? No way- I am always learning.

Excuse me Granny but I do get paid, every two weeks and once a month by the generosity of your taxes. Thank you.

"- you have not done your country any favors."

You are correct. For everything I have or am, I thank my God first (first time I've mentioned HIS name in all my posts!) and my country second. Ain't it great to be an American?

".. But we are not impressed. A true hero doesn't have to advertise."

I am sure not a hero. What could have ever have given you that idea?

"You BOUGHT IT ???!!! -- -…."

I'm not sure what "IT" "is" and I can assure you I never saw anything at Tailhook! That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

"Now, I'm not naive (oh, and have never had trouble with men -- "

I think you meant to say men who agree with me Hon."

" Swaggart and Baker!! "

I agree Granny- both Buffoons. But would you also give an centimeter and add the Revs' Jackson and Sharpton to the company of buffoons?

"The Swift Vets ---------…."

But extremely cost effective and still poised should the "Fraud" attempt a re-light in 2008! If he has been slandered why doesn't he sue John O'Neil? Why? He will not and knows he can not because to do so he would have to sign the dreaded -180. Whatever dignity he has left would be gone……

" I know MANY Viet vets, so don't go there unless you really expect to go at it".

If I were you- ask to see their DD-214's first. I've got a funny feeling we're talking "winter soldiers" here. Recommend change of subject.

"A GUY thing" --

The only person here with a "guy" obsession would appear to be yourself (I refer you back to my comment toward the top.)

"Try to sell ANYTHING Western to an Afghani. You can't be serious."

OK, by the same logic then quit trying to sell "gay marriage" to us red-zoners…
By the way you are the first blue-zone Coastopian who has acknowledged being "Western".
That's a start Granny!

"I have no idea who Ishie is; please refer to all of her comments above."

I read her stuff. I find it well thought out and often compelling. She has the ability to swing a coherent knife while at the same time not going for the jugular. Plus, it entertains. Thanks for the reference.

windrider95-
Wingnuts…. Aye
Re your- "Why, for the debate, naturally. If we all went to a conservative site, it would be one gigantic pep rally...and where's the fun in that? Spirited debate...an exchange of ideas, even when one or both sides remain unchanged or unconvinced, is good."
I agree 110%. Well said.
B2

Posted by: Edwina at November 22, 2004 4:29 PM

B2,

So... you receive a check every 2 weeks from the DOD, and a monthly retirement check from Fed. Govt.?

Isn't that double-dipping??

Isn't that illegal?

Posted by: Sharon at November 22, 2004 5:01 PM

I am not sure what is going on here, I am sickened by the hate. First, I have checked into immigrating to another country; I do not want to be associated with a country who elects the likes of Hitler, a liar and murder. Hitler gained popularity by encouraging fear in the people and blinding them as did Bush. Millions of American dollars have been spent on proving that Bush is a liar and has other motives for this "war", why is 59% of the American population still trusting him? What I am worried about is that this is a precedent for someone who uses the same tactic and believes he can win the people in this manner to better his agenda. Second, and this is to my fellow Christians, the Christ I know is one who loves everyone, even the terrorist, homosexuals and those of other faiths. I question our tolerance as a society. We want to take the choices from others yet restricting our choice is the last thing our Savior or our Heavenly Father would do. Take abortation. Under no circumstance would I have an abortation, but under no circumstance would I take the choice away from another. I trust in God and our Savior. Think of it in another way. We, as a society, do not tolerate (we curse, back stabe, make difficult in everyway possible) people (women) who make mistakes and make it horrible for them to carry out a pregnancy, yet make is horrible for them to have an abortation. I think we need to look at all the things we have little tolerance for and remember the example Christ set for us. I use abortation as an example, but we can substitue anything for it - crime, homosexuality, poverty, HIV, homeless and yes, non-Christians. Everyone of us have the chance to be forgiven by Christ, yet not by our society. Shame on us - a non tolerant people - did Christ suffer for us for nothing. Was his life, one that set the example, for nothing. Our country was founded for freedom, not to stifle one another. What about embracing and supporting those who are different and less fortunate, pregnant or homosexual and trusting God and our Savior to help them in their time of trial. I am afraid that we are disappointing our Heavenly Father. Finally, I am so thankful for those who go beyond the surface. Those who want to believe the media and what is just told to them on the surface are the like Hitler followers, the distruction of a great country. Those who fight for truth and justice are the true Christians and future of mankind. I am thankful for the French people who oppose the Iraq war, I do too. I am ashamed of our arrogance, our lack of global community. Our lack of ability to view ourselves as part of a bigger perspective. What will we do when we return to our Heavenly Father and our heavenly community if we can not do it in this much smaller trial? Are we forgetting that we are here for trials, to believe and trust in our Saviour and God. I personally believe if we can not tolerate difference and be more humble (act like we are today), we will not be able to live in an heavenly community. I personally refuse to be arrogant, and put material things before my heavenly brothers and sisters rather they are homosexual, black, Iranian, or in any other way different from me. I do know hate and intolerance and that is what I am getting from this great country of United States. Let's try belonging to a global community and supporting one another, let's trust in our world leaders and remember God is there for them too, they are not without His guidance. LOVE ONE ANOTHER!

Posted by: Keeley at November 22, 2004 5:02 PM

The Civil War already happened.

Posted by: Randall at November 22, 2004 5:35 PM

Ishie,

Read my post again, thoroughly, and try again. I vote Republican, I must admit, because I have chosen the "lesser of two evils". Keep that in mind and understand that I do not live to support a political party, but rather I support this particuliar party in order to have a chance to live as I desire to live according to the values I believe in. The Repubs are far from perfect, but the party does the least harm to the country as I see it. As far as painting Dems with a broad brush, look again to my post. I wrote about the "leadership" of the Democratic Party. When I finish up with working double shifts on Wednesday, I'll get back with you.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 23, 2004 5:22 AM

Sharon:

Good luck in France!!

I hope you make it over there before Christmas...if you need help with a plane ticket, let me know. I'll chip in.

And while you're there, learn to spell!

Jesus H. Christ.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 23, 2004 5:26 AM

Edwina,

No...B2 isn't double-dipping.

No...drawing two checks as he does is not illegal.

Try to stay current, dear.

Ignore the voices...they'll go away soon.

Posted by: WindRider95 at November 23, 2004 6:16 AM

From The Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer: 'Moral Values' Myth.

In 1994, when the Gingrich revolution swept Republicans into power, ending 40 years of Democratic hegemony in the House, the mainstream press needed to account for this inversion of the Perfect Order of Things. A myth was born. Explained the USA Today headline: "ANGRY WHITE MEN: Their votes turn the tide for GOP."
Overnight, the revolution of the Angry White Male became conventional wisdom. In the 10 years before the 1994 election there were 56 mentions of angry white men in the media, according to LexisNexis. In the next seven months there were more than 1,400.

At the time, I looked into this story line -- and found not a scintilla of evidence to support the claim. Nonetheless, it was a necessary invention, a way for the liberal elite to delegitimize a conservative victory. And, even better, a way to assuage their moral vanity: You never lose because your ideas are sclerotic or your positions retrograde, but because your opponent appealed to the baser instincts of mankind.

Plus ca change ... Ten years and another stunning Democratic defeat later, and liberals are at it again. The Angry White Male has been transmuted into the Bigoted Christian Redneck.

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 23, 2004 7:41 AM

Edwina,

I am a consultant for DOD, DON specifically. I get paid by my company (me) from a contract with DOD. I am paid every 2 weeks. I am not a govmint employee. Nothing unusual here.

Yes, I get retired pay from the feds for my 21 years of service. That comes once a month.

No- it is not "double-dipping". What ever that means. No I am not doing anything illegal.

Now the reason I even put that information (see Granny's post above & my reply) was an attempt to prove to Granny that I am still involved in the defense of this country and I try to give as best an effort as an old fart can give. In other words, I didn't retire from active duty to work in the commercial sector or as a professional pilot, I made a decision to work in direct support of the military.

That is all. Now get with it. This board ain't about me it's about Coastopia, red state vs. blue state, etc. etc.

Being on a constant quest to uncover hypocrisy and make morally equivalent statements is the manifestation of a weak mind. This is not for you Edwina but for all who have posted here. There's an awful lot of it going around....

Why attack the messenger?

B2

Posted by: Patriot at November 23, 2004 8:22 AM

Sharon,

If you need help with the airfare to France or help packing, I'll chip in too.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 23, 2004 9:53 AM

"Read my post again, thoroughly, and try again."

No real need to try again. I said what I meant in response to your post, though I made a few spelling and grammar errors.

"I vote Republican, I must admit, because I have chosen the "lesser of two evils"."

Then we have a disagreement on who the lesser is. This isn't really a problem or anything, but it doesn't change my point on any of your post. I was not accusing you directly of this party-blasphemy idea, but it has become a prominent one.

"Keep that in mind and understand that I do not live to support a political party, but rather I support this particuliar party in order to have a chance to live as I desire to live according to the values I believe in."

And your characterization of this was the primary thing to which I took exception if you read my post. You propose a situation of moral decay in this country which has no evidence of actually existing. The state of "moral decay" is a common one used by people in power or trying to gain power as a way of scaring people into thinking the present society is going down the drain. They did this during the McCarthy era too. Hell, Elvis of the wiggling hips was once considered indicative of a decaying society. Every generation has its problems, some the same, some unique, and every generation has the 'other' generation of people decrying them as the downfall of civilization.

I think it's a useless tactic and it takes me a lot to respect someone toting that view because it's hard to get the Chicken Little image out of my head. The sky isn't falling... unless you're in Iraq.

"The Repubs are far from perfect, but the party does the least harm to the country as I see it."

I see it as the opposite. Like I've said in my posts, I'm not a Democrat and particularly recently, I think as a party, they're fundamentally useless. I see the Republicans as a very threatening force. I also see them using fear to collect votes, both the fear of terrorism, despite an inability to win votes in areas most affected directly by terrorism, and using the fear of the "secular push". I have never seen a majority act so persecuted in my life.

"As far as painting Dems with a broad brush, look again to my post. I wrote about the "leadership" of the Democratic Party."

I read your post quite carefully. First of all, you spoke mainly of the "party", with little attention to the leadership. You also accused the leadership of catering to special interest groups and the highest bidder (which I see the Repubs doing), and listed a number of special interest groups that I not only found often poorly represented by the Dems, but that I don't have a problem with in general. When it comes to the leadership in the Democratic party, I find it swings just like the Repubs do. Though not a Christian, have you listened to Lieberman? He totes the sort of moral values that people tend to like, or so I'm told. Personally, I think it's the role of government to govern and leave morality to community leaders, but what do I know?

Mainly, your post pounded the moral decay pulpit, from a position clearly of assumed nolstalgia for times that were no better than our present one. The moral issues move around but they don't really improve. It just really comes down to whether your hot button moral issues involve slavery, lynch mobs, police brutality, drug use, abortion, or gay marriage. People always seem to link sex to morality when the larger scope of morality involves far more than sex. To ME, as an apparently flaming liberal, sex is one of the least important aspects of morality in my book. I'm far more concerned with actions that directly harm others.

You may not like what I have to say, but it does not stem from a lack of understanding in your post.

Ishie

Posted by: Ishtar at November 23, 2004 9:59 AM

By the way, thanks B2.

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 23, 2004 11:13 AM

Ishtar-
Couldn't keep my mouth shut on a couple points you made re Randall's posts (2):
"I think it's a useless tactic and it takes me a lot to respect someone toting that view because it's hard to get the Chicken Little image out of my head. The sky isn't falling... unless you're in Iraq."

What about the WTC buildings Ishie, do they count? What about the pilot of that American jet that "missiled" into the Pentagon who was a friend of mine?

Moral decay may always be relative to the age we live in, but we ain't talking "The King" doing "Jailhouse Rock" here in front of shocked Kansans', we're talking about wacked out, suicidal, irrational, Apocalyptic Terrorists (remember …"Devils"?) attempting to eradicate "Western Civ". We committed a helluva lot more resources and human capital (adjusted for inflation of course) into the fight against the Japanese in WWII after Pearl Harbor than we have to date in the GWOT. A little proportionality, please.

"I see the Republicans as a very threatening force. I also see them using fear to collect votes, both the fear of terrorism, despite an inability to win votes in areas most affected directly by terrorism, and using the fear of the "secular push". I have never seen a majority act so persecuted in my life."
I would not expect any retort but this from a "sort of blue, sort of red" Coastopian but to be fair- what of the Dims "fear factory" on social security, The "Race Card", outsourcing, etc. etc. Cuts both ways and depending on the world situation can provide leverage to swing an election..

"Personally, I think it's the role of government to govern and leave morality to community leaders, but what do I know?"

On the contrary, you are quite bright, but I would like you to know that exactly what Lieberman offers IS the American experience of governing. What you seem to espouse is an antiseptic machine-like governance ala "Brave New World" or "Player Piano". I "are" an engineer by education…but believe me- you wouldn't want me as president! The more I hear you talk (I mean write) the more I see you as a libertarian, yes libertarian, whether you acknowledge that or not.

"I'm far more concerned with actions that directly harm others."

I concur- and that is why we are a nation of laws. Now that we agree, please go back to a post where I asked the folks here to view some post election "demonstration" pics (the link was provided) Can you imagine "those" individuals writing our laws? Methinks not.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 23, 2004 12:32 PM

"What about the WTC buildings Ishie, do they count?"

Got me there. The remark on Iraq was a snide one and not really relevant to the discussion, but would, I admit, fall under the category of the 'cheap shot'.

When I speak of the "sky is falling" views on moral decay, I am not talking about terrorism, since terrorism tends to be an external force on the country (though I'm sure we have plenty of terrorist cells), but morality as an internal force in the country.

Most people who claim the country is in a state of moral decay are not referring to those who would attack us, but to the common complaints of Hollywood violence, Grand Theft Auto games, school shootings, disrespect, teen sexuality, abortion, homosexuality, feminism, atheism, and so forth.

"We committed a helluva lot more resources and human capital (adjusted for inflation of course) into the fight against the Japanese in WWII after Pearl Harbor than we have to date in the GWOT. A little proportionality, please."

Naturally we committed more resources against the Japanese, but we were fighting a united conglomerate of countries in an all out world war. Different scenario. We had an Axis of countries bombing and invading other countries directly committed by the governments of those countries. It's not like we vaguely suspected the Japanese government of underhandedly providing funding for the Pearl Harbor attacks. They did it! Similarly, Germany was just flat out invading and bombing other countries. This also is unacceptable. This is also why I agree/agreed with the first Iraq war. They invaded Kuwait. Unacceptable.

We're currently (supposedly) hunting down terrorists where they gather. Unfortunately, like with the 'war on drugs', it is very difficult to get to networks with no national alliances who operate in the shadows, particularly when having to deal with cautious politics (hypothetically) in the countries where you are seeking them. I look at it as a network of serial killers. Though I think serial killers are bad and should be caught and killed, I favor different methods for catching them.

"I would not expect any retort but this from a "sort of blue, sort of red" Coastopian but to be fair- what of the Dims "fear factory" on social security, The "Race Card", outsourcing, etc. etc. Cuts both ways and depending on the world situation can provide leverage to swing an election.."

I wasn't exclusively blaming the Repubs. You know my current opinion on many Dems. Dems don't play the fear card well. The things we are supposed to fear come across, when they present it, as an annoyance and financial burden rather than abject terror.

Terrorists beating down the walls of a country which is falling from within as the secular rush attempts to criminalize religion, take the only manner of defense people have, kill babies, and empower predators scares the living hell out of people. I feel it is a highly suspect presentation of the current situation, but it is one many believe is present.

"On the contrary, you are quite bright, but I would like you to know that exactly what Lieberman offers IS the American experience of governing."

Never said I was a Lieberman fan. I find the sex and violence television hysteria to be ridiculous and find Looney Tunes to be a far more dangerous influence than NYPD Blue. I was pointing out that presenting high status Dems as caving to moral decay and special interest groups is a bit one-sided.

"What you seem to espouse is an antiseptic machine-like governance ala "Brave New World" or "Player Piano"."

Haven't read Player Piano. I'd like something a little less in the direction of 1984. I do not support such a machine-like government that we completely do away with compassion in favor efficiency or we'll end up killing off the unemployed. I also do not propose any sort of caste system which was largely the source of the dystopia in Brave New World.

I do not want a government so concerned with policing morality that they only allow their version for morality to pass. I think to be effective, morality needs to be socially installed rather than inflicted by government authorities who should be going with their business.

"The more I hear you talk (I mean write) the more I see you as a libertarian, yes libertarian, whether you acknowledge that or not."

Never denied it. In fact, it's the third party with which I fairly closely identify. It also has some true whackos associated with it, but those are a bane of every party existence. The libertarians seem big on personal accountability and minimal interference of government in personal matters, which are some of my biggest issues.

But like I've said, lately, I generally vote Dem over Repub because the Liberarians don't have a prayer, and I'd rather throw money away than civil rights.

"I concur- and that is why we are a nation of laws."

True. But I think we should concentrate the laws that regulate behavior fairly exclusively on those behaviors that *actively* harm other people. I am all for the right for adults to hurt themselves if they so desire, simply not others. "No murdering people or we'll kill you back" is a law that makes sense to me. "Marriage is between a man and a woman" doesn't. The former actively protects citizens in the country. The latter? Waste of time.

"Can you imagine "those" individuals writing our laws? Methinks not."

Didn't see it. Let me use my psychic powers though... Ultra liberals acting like idiots? I am all for demonstrations and peaceful gatherings but for the most part, when you look at people actively protesting in the street, you are not seeing a good representation of party rules, politics, or whatever. You're seeing a lot of angry, fired up people ready-set for a mob mentality who are attempting to alter the course of things in the third least effective way possible (the first and second being 'nothing' and 'internet petitions').

Ishie

Posted by: Owsley at November 24, 2004 6:30 AM

Your map is flawed by a MAJOR omission due to E/W coast provincialism. The Great Lakes "coastal states" of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan should NOT be left out!!! Outside of Chicago, Illinois is a red state and I can't imagine how you'd include Iowa(oh you "need" the soil. Living in a butthole like NC, I can understand why you'd think in such limited ways.). You obviously know nothing of the VERY strong environmental movements in all 3 of these Great Lakes states. These 3 states all have large urban areas and numerous "college towns" that are more progressive than many areas of your "Coastopia" states(see: Orange Co. California, for example.) Minn. and Wisc. have the best public schools in the (old>ie:USA) nation which would serve to enhance your new nation. How often do "leftist artists" like The Dead or Jefferson Starship or Hot Tuna or Neil Young or CSN play in NC??(FYI, they are REGULAR visitors to the Great Lakes states.) As far as your special consideration of parts of North Carolina, give me a F'ing break! Those places you mention can't even begin to compare with Madison, or Ann Arbor, et al! "Tarheeels?" Oh yeah, Roy-boy Williams is a real blue state type of guy>>>>dumb redneck Opie from Mayberry!! Besides, isn't NC the place that stuck us w/Jesse Helms for the past 8 decades??? You need to travel more.

Posted by: Randall at November 24, 2004 7:29 AM

Ishie,
The beginning paragraph in your initial reply to my intial post pretty much reveals your misunderstanding of why and how people vote. You say that party affiliation is becoming akin to religion. For some, I'm quite sure that is true. For many, many others it is a matter of allying oneself with a party because of fear or complete dissatisfaction with the "other side".
For others, I will say again that it is a matter of having been "brought up" to vote for a certain political party, regardless of the candidates or the issues at hand. As to party dissent, I have never heard so much dissent among Republicans as during this election cycle. The GOP should count itself lucky to have been returned to power, because the issues of illegal immigration and membership in the UN have created much dissatisfaction with President Bush and the Repubs. In fact, had there been a viable conservative third party candidate, I think there is a very good chance that we would have had a different result. I agree with you that the
polarization we are experiencing forces many to feel that they must grudgingly defend extreme positions within their party of choice, but then, one can't have everything their own way. One must compromise now and again. This I have done by voting for President Bush, although I must admit that I would have voted for anyone other than John Kerry because of his traitorous words and deeds during the Vietnam era. His policies aside, there are simply some things one should not do.
I still maintain that we are suffering a crisis of culture brought about by moral decay. One cannot dispute the fact that we are allowing our very foundations to be destroyed. The runaway liberal judiciary is being employed time and time again to do away with the institutions and icons that people identify with and draw their values from. No public referneces to God, no religious displays in public settings, no more school prayer? No Ten Commandments displays? What the hell is that? These are things people grew up with and drew their values from. One has to have a base. Be it religious or secular, one has to identify with something. For most of this nation's history, for the majority of people, there was at least a tacit recognition of God and most people ,liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, based their values on Judeo-Christian morals. At the very least, these morals imparted a basic understanding of right and wrong, and, while sometimes misapplied, served as a means by which people gained some guidance as to how they should conduct themselves. These values bound us together and gave us the most stable Constitution ever seen. Those morals have been under attack by certain factions in our society for some time now, and we are reaping what has been sown. School violence IS one example of moral decay. It used to be that children fought with fists and therefore had to be taught not to hurt others unless defending themselves. We would teach them to try to resolve their disputes without fighting. Now we have had CHILDREN killing children in schools. Was there no basic intruction (refer to the Ten Commandments) in not to MURDER others for these kids? No it is not as prevalent as some assume, but it is a prime example of what I am describing here. One child senselessly lost makes it a prime example, especially when such acts are preventable with just a good 'ol dose of basic MORALITY, administered in time. Teen pregnancy is down? Probably so, because we have ABORTION available to deal with this problem. Damn, if that isn't a great example of how two wrongs don't make a right. Killing a baby, I firmly believe, would be wrong in almost anyone's book. Yet if we just call it a fetus, then perhaps that will make it a bit more palatable to some who wish to use such a dastardly procedure to conveniently remove themselves from a difficult situation brought about by their own indiscretions and in the process, justify doing so because we have merely changed definitions. That sure as hell represents moral decay to me. Your references to certain events of the 60's and 70's as moral decay are correct. You cited shooting at college students, fire hoses and police dogs, and I will add a "free love" culture with all its consequences, an explosion in casual drug use, burning flags and draft cards, and random violence as a means of protest are all wrong. You see, it can come from any direction.
I do not look to "the good ol days" or some silly "Golden Age" as a basis for what I believe to be right. Nostalgia plays no part here, because after a miserable early childhood rife with physical abuse and broken marriages, I have absolutely no desire to "go back", but I have learned from what I have seen and experienced, and based on that I feel I have a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't. Cold, empty atheism nor obtuse, extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalism attract me. Just give me the simple message of the love of Christ and the basic and fair commandments God gave us. It works pretty well and if I am bullshitting myself in the process, at least I'm not harming anyone else and I'm not forcing my views on anyone, which is another important point to be made here. You sure don't see Christian lawyers clogging up the court dockets in attempts to have images or works of secularism and atheism removed from public places. No need to try to counter that with a reference to the gay "marriage" debate currently still raging. Gays should be and are free to do whatever the hell they want. I believe homosexuality to be wrong, but then what people do in private is none of my business, and I know it. But two of the same just isn't a marriage. Yet give them the opportunity and they will try to force the rest of us to accept their view. The prevailing majority view emenates from that moral base I mentioned earlier. Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is one of the foundations of our society. The push for "gay marriage" is just another attempt to erode one of our most important institutions. MORAL DECAY.
I don't understand your unhappiness with this country. Me, I'm just sitting in front of my computer, eating a ham and cheese (Kraft Cheddar) sandwich, thinking about things, and listening to the rain fall outside. I know we live in a great country, admittedly rife with problems. I know that we have opportunities and freedoms found nowhere else in this world. I have a great marriage and two wonderful kids and steady employment with a decent wage. It's probably not much to some, but what I have I earned with absolutely no help from ANYONE. I'm proud to be self-reliant. To be honest with you, I'm just about as happy as, if you'll excuse the "down-home" expression, a pig in shit (very happy). Your problem seems to be that you're pissed that everyone doesn't agree with you. Perhaps you find it difficult to play with others under established rules? You say that it is seen these days as "unamerican" to dissent. I don't see it that way at all. Democrats are considered ultra-liberal and American-hating? Well, Democrats TEND to be liberal and it's the liberals who are constantly telling us that the rest of the world hates us, so go figure. I for one could care less if the rest of the world hates us, but it isn't true anyway. I lived in Europe for 10 years and I have a unique perspective on that point, not to mention the fact that through regular contact with my in-laws there I know that this notion that everyone hates us is absolute B.S. If the major source of your unhapiness is the war in Iraq, as you seem to suggest, I fully understand that. I'm not happy about it either. It absolutely sucks that we are forced to fight the terrorists there, but it would suck even more to have to fight them here. I lived with the terrorist threats in Europe, the Red Brigade, Baader-Meinhof, etc. I didn't like having to look under my car for explosives before starting it or having to carefully inspect my mailbox before opening it. I didn't like having to run for cover at Frankfurt Airport as the car bombs were going off. That truly sucked. That aside, I would think you would be happy that our action in Iraq has eradicated the brutal Hussein regime. I think freedom is worth fighting for. Anytime. Anywhere. I'm not happy about it, mind you, but we must at times do things we don't like to do. I'm not even sure that a democracy could be sustained in Iraq, but I think it's worth the effort to try. If this doesn't succeed, then we must learn a lesson from it, and that's for damned sure. Yet I will not do or say anything that will bring down the morale of our troops, as I know all too well how this affects them. We must be careful about what we do and say, because lives are at stake. We need to understand that and put aside our petty fears and dislikes for the moment. I can assure you that the fears and dislikes of our troops in combat outweigh ours by quite a margin. They are Americans, just like you and I. They deserve our support and respect. Dissent if you must. It would "unamerican" for you not to dissent if you feel this war is wrong. The only thing I would suggest is that the dissent be constructive. This self-imposed divorce from our country of yours is what I take issue with.
Your blather about defending ourselves against actions rather than dogmas is pretty superficial. Actions emenate from dogmas, i.e. a set of guiding beliefs that promote an ACTION. World Trade Center. USS Cole. Marine barracks in Beirut. And so on, ad nauseum.
It's all the same to me if you want to remain polarized. The views I espouse are the "norm", Ishie. It's not a matter of "if" they become so. They have been for a long, long time. The everyday, normal working people of this country have been sustained by them since this country became a nation. You need to grasp that. It's only since certain folks developed an over-inflated sense of self-worth and forsaking the views of the community at large have we had such problems as we do today. We don't have to think alike all of the time, but at least a basic set of core values cuts down dramatically on the intellectual masturbation bullshit. And I must ask this. You referred to the collective goals of the "important part" of the country. Just what part is that? I tend to think the whole country is pretty damned important, even if I don't agree with what some parts of it are doing to the rest of it. I truly do wish you happiness and respect your points of view.

Posted by: Patriot at November 24, 2004 9:42 AM

Ishie,

Sorry it’s taken me this long to respond. Between work and my family, it’s very difficult for me to find the time to keep up with this and then respond.

First off, I have to start by saying that I stand corrected on the issue of supporters of Bush not resorting to sign stealing/defacing. To deny what has clearly been documented would be liberal-like.

However, on the subject of some people being threatened with arrest if they show up at the polls because they’ve committed crimes that they haven’t taken care of, seeing how the constitution doesn’t guarantee the right of every citizen to vote, I’ll take the stand that I don’t have a problem with criminals being intimidated not to vote. If they’re not responsible enough to take care of the crimes they’ve committed, they really should take care of their own lives before they worry about voting.

If you’re insinuating that most or all of those folks would have voted for Kerry, that’s an interesting claim. I heard about the Democrats registering felons, so I guess these two points could mean that a large portion of the support for liberals are literally law breakers. I guess that’s why libs didn’t have any problem with Clinton committing his felony, huh? Actually, with the history that liberals have of being soft on criminals including opposing the death penalty, that would make sense.

My point about the right to abortion was that because this right is clearly not in the constitution, it is the most obvious example of judicial activism – creating rights that don’t exist. The constitution DOES, however, clearly state how it is supposed to be changed – by amending it, not by what a judge or group of judges think it should have. Slavery in America was ended by Congress and the state legislatures, not judges. Women got the right to vote by Congress and the state legislatures, not judges. The right for the federal government to ban alcohol was given and then taken away by the Congress and state legislatures, not judges.

On Partial Birth Abortions, the medical experts the federal government got to support the federal law banning that said that it’s never needed for the safety of the mother and you didn’t explain how someone can deliver the entire baby except for the head, then crushing the skull and how that’s safer than delivering the baby alive. In other words, how would delivering the head through the birth canal AFTER delivering the rest of the body have a negative effect on the mother.

I don’t know how you can claim you haven’t denied anyone their right to bear arms without lying when you support liberal politicians who do just that. Unless you mean that you haven’t DIRECTLY denied someone that right, but you HAVE and DO deny them that right INDIRECTLY every time you help liberals get in office and stay in office. Both of your senators are the poster children for gun control. Around the time that the AW ban was passed, Diane Feinstein was quoted in an article as saying that if she could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate, she would have banned all guns.

On the subject of being un-American, you probably won’t find many Americans that will support violating our constitution. Therefore, when you support changing a constitution, federal or state, without going through the amendment process, as so many liberals are okay with if it advances their agenda, that IS un-American. We are supposed to follow the constitution and that includes the method of changing it.

Liberals do have the same goal as atheists – the removal of any mentioning or support of God, even if it’s been done as long as our country has been around, clearly showing that the people who wrote and passed the First Amendment (which, actually, the part concerning religion only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion) obviously did not have a problem with things like state mottos or the US currency containing references to God or the honoring of Christ’s birthday. So when you see a judge say that firefighters employed by a city can’t decorate their fire station for the Christmas holiday, it is yet another example of changing the constitution without amending it. I know there are a fair number of religious people who are liberals, but according to the polls I’ve seen, they’re not too dedicated (i.e. the majority don’t attend church regularly). When the ACLU, obviously a liberal organization, helps atheists sue governments over any mentioning of God (note the recent Supreme Court case versus the pledge of allegiance), you’re clearly in bed with the atheists. I wonder if liberals will ever be stupid enough to try to sue every government in the nation over recognizing Christmas. After all, it is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

The Communism comparison is interesting. Liberals and Communists/Socialists do have several common positions. All you folks believe in large centralized governments, while most of the governing for our country was supposed to be at the state or local level. You all believe in cradle-to-grave government controlled health care and no questions asked unlimited welfare, the results of which are a much higher tax burden and a decline in the quality of health care (or so I hear in Canada and Britain). As far as I know, liberals support private ownership of property, even if they want to regulate and tax the hell out of it. You all believe in elections by the people, unless they lose by a small margin, then they try to get judges to give them the ability to manufacture votes in hopes of changing the election (see Gore v. Bush 2000). You all have no problem with the government monitoring all of it’s citizens (see the use of 4,000,000 cameras in London and thousands being used in Chicago). And before you mention the Patriot Act, the difference between them is that the Patriot Act allows this in specific incidents with some kind of check, whereas the cameras monitor ALL of the citizens that pass within it’s range. So technically although there are similarities, there are a couple of slight differences between Libs and Communists. So I guess to be more accurate, we’d have to call Libs Communist-Lites. Either way, it is not how the constitution says the government is supposed to be operating. So without amending the constitution, that too is un-American.

What are you afraid will happen in the next 4 years (reinstatement of the draft, the stealing of social security checks from old people, etc.) so when it does not happen we can see how unfounded your fears are?

To clarify, it was not WHAT Al Gore said, it was the WAY he said it that made him look out of control – acting like an inspirational preacher which was VERY out of character, especially for him.

Kennedy claiming that Bush lied in regard to the WMD’s not being found in Iraq is a lie in itself. Bush made his decision on the best intelligence available at the time, which wasn’t as good as it could have been seeing how Clinton handicapped the CIA and it’s intelligence gathering ability during his administration. Without insiders in the right places on the ground to give firsthand knowledge, you rely on satellites and dissidents who claim to have heard from people they still keep in contact with from their country. We also had the fact that Saddam could not account for tons of WMD’s that the UN knew he had when they left in 1998 and that there were a few other country’s intelligence agencies that also believed he had WMD’s. Knowing all this shows that Kennedy was lying, probably trying to help out the Democratic nominee. Just like Dan Rather and his forged documents scheme. This guy ignored what the wife and son of the person who allegedly wrote them said and then ignored the people his wife and son referred CBS to because they were too pro-Bush. But then he turns around and has a Kerry supporter involved in the incident. This lib claimed that the documents had been examined by experts who authenticated them, but 3 of the 4 experts told CBS that they could not verify that the documents were valid.

Your response to the lie that Bush was responsible for the recession that started 7 months before his first budget could have taken effect was lame. What you said had nothing to do with the fact that Bush was not responsible for it. Again, another big liberal lie.

I never heard of the “if you’re not with the Patriot Act, you’re with the terrorist” quote. Who said that and do you have a link for the article where whoever said that was quoted, oh Google-enlightened one?

My statement about Republican leaders not bombing abortion clinics was the only example you gave at that time about people on the right being out of control. Whereas, I gave several examples of Democratic LEADERS appearing to be out of control, not just liberal supporters.

The opponent for the Republican senator from Kentucky who called his opponent a limp wristed faggot (I find it strange that this didn’t make the national news) and the Govenator are not leaders of the Republican party. However, the difference between those supposed examples and where the liberal leaders are out of control comes down to false allegations as already mentioned in the Kennedy claims. Was the democratic senatorial candidate from Kentucky gay? If so, the comment from his republican opponent might have been mean, but it would have been accurate. I know Arnold’s name calling was accurate after the democratic party as a whole lost big in the last 3 elections, hence the name “losers.” Mean, maybe, and definitely not politically correct, but accurate.

The close ties between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans (I’m guessing you’re talking about them having some of the same donors)? How about the close ties between the Kerry campaign and CBS’s forged documents scandal?

Bush’s misrepresentation of Kerry’s health plan (did he ever go into any details about his health plan, or was this another time when he would just state that he had a plan without going into details?)? What about all of the misrepresentation about Bush’s (take your pick)? Both sides misrepresent the other side’s positions.

Kerry being demonized at the RNC? As already stated, the liberals called Bush everything from Hitler to a dictator and claimed he single handedly revoked the entire constitution by himself. All clearly false, but how much more can you be demonized? The claims that Kerry was a flip-flopper and a tax and spend liberal were pretty accurate judging by his senate record. It is possible that since he was running for national office that he saw the errors of his way, but past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

Clearly, this is normal politics, but doesn’t match the seemingly out of control behavior by the leaders of the liberals. No Republican leader called Kerry a traitor even though he met with a foreign government while we were at war with them. I’m told this is illegal, if not one of the definitions of treason.

On the subject of moral decay, where do you get your stats from? Thanks in part to the large tax burden put on American citizens by the federal government, a much larger percent of families have both parents working just to make ends meet. Hence a lot less time parents can spend with their kids or be home when their kids get home from school. Single parent homes were almost unheard of until the 1960's. You certainly cannot deny that kids are exposed to much more violence, sexual situations and profane language than they were prior to the 1980's.

Check out another example of the moral decay, which has some comments in parenthesis that I’ve added covered in the book "Measuring Helping Behavior Across Cultures" by Robert V. Levine of California State University, Fresno. Levine found, through a series of interesting tests, such as feigning a blind person trying to find and retrieve a lost letter, that

"Far and away the best predictor of helping was population density. Density was more closely tied to the helpfulness of a city than even characteristics like crime rates, the pace of life, economic conditions or environmental stressors like noise and air pollution. Overall, people in more crowded cities (coincidentally, where liberal politicians have their strongest support) were much less likely to take the time to help. New York City was Exhibit A. Crowding brings out our worst nature. Urban critics have demonstrated that squeezing too many people into too small a space leads to alienation, anonymity, de-individuation and social isolation. Ultimately, people feel less responsible for their behaviors toward others -- especially strangers. Previous studies have shown that city dwellers (again, the larger cities are where liberal politicians have their strongest support) are more likely to do each other harm. Our U.S. results indicate that they are also less likely to do them good, and that this apathy increases with the degree of city-ness."

Posted by: Patriot at November 24, 2004 10:41 AM

Randall,

Great points about the moral decay contributing to the level of violence used by kids. From fist fighting to using guns or explosives. What's interesting, is prior to 1968 kids could order guns through the mail and also had access to guns because they were much more commonly left laying around unsecured. But the school shootings we're aware of, both those that were executed and those that were planned but foiled, have only happened in the last several years.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 24, 2004 12:38 PM

"The beginning paragraph in your initial reply to my intial post pretty much reveals your misunderstanding of why and how people vote."

People vote for many different reasons. I understand that. What I see is that once someone has chosen a political party, oftentimes the individual will then downplay extremism in their own party to make the other guy seem worse.

"For some, I'm quite sure that is true. For many, many others it is a matter of allying oneself with a party because of fear or complete dissatisfaction with the "other side"."

I agree. When I say religion, I do not mean viewing the party leaders as infallable, though I've observed that too. What I mean is a complete intolerance to voice dissent for things they do not like within their own party. I have noticed this among many religions, including, when an individual or group's actions are obviously motivated by religion, the larger group simply denies the membership of the people embarrassing them.

"I have never heard so much dissent among
Republicans as during this election cycle."

Hmm, you must get the 'special' newsletter then. I would think that many Bush issues would create division... the ridiculous gay thing, I figured, would turn off the more moderate conservatives. When he was talking about illegal immigration, I actually laughed (silly me), because I thought "Wow, that's going to piss off his extreme right supporters", but nope. Didn't appear to do so.

"In fact, had there been a viable conservative third party candidate, I think there is a very good chance that we would have had a different result."

Yeah... Kerry would be president because the conservative candidate would divide the vote. I do not agree with the two party 'requirement' and favor a trickle down vote, but with our current system, no third candidate is going to win, particularly with how much you guys seem to vehemently hate Kerry... most would do the "safe"
thing.

"although I must admit that I would have voted for anyone other than John Kerry because of his traitorous words and deeds during the Vietnam era."

Wow, those Swift Boat Veterans are good!

"His policies aside, there are simply some things one should not do."

Like fight in a war and then go home and protest the war despite the fact that more and more people were gaining appreciation for Vietnam being a hideous mistake in practice? As for the reports on the atrocities and war crimes, I investigated that one and found he was quoting the testimony of higher ups that had been discharged, not claiming personal experience.

"One cannot dispute the fact that we are allowing our very foundations to be destroyed."

I very strongly dispute it. What foundations are being destroyed? The founding of the "Christian country" is a myth. The original pilgrims were devout Christians, specifically Calvinists escaping the general party atmosphere in England after their particularly tyrant got outed. The pilgrims also were not the founding fathers. The foundation of this country was largely on deistic principles (not quite atheism, but pretty close) coming out of the Enlightenment era as set forth by people who came to America for the business opportunity.

Our general "foundations" have been established in the Constitution. I do not see a violation of that. The Ten Commandments are not our "foundation". Like I've said before, much of the principles some seem to think we're currently violating were established in the McCarthy era as a direct reaction to the rise of Communism. This is the period where "In God we Trust" was put on the money, it was when "Under God" was added to the Pledge... it was when public prayer became so ostensible. The values we long for seem to be "We ain't red commies!", which to me seems a little dated and a poor basis for a country code.

"The runaway liberal judiciary is being employed time and time again to do away with the institutions and icons that people identify with and draw their values from."

Which people?

"No public referneces to God, no religious displays in public settings, no more school prayer? No Ten Commandments displays? What the hell is that?"

LOL, I have a feeling that if we had this argument using the Muslim religion, you'd have a different argument?

NO one is doing away with public references to God by the way, NOR is anyone doing away with school prayer. This claim is a common tactic employed to try and push public endorsement of religion. Any leader, no matter how high, is free to invoke the name of God as often as they'd like. Any student is free to pray in school, and most schools not only allow Christian clubs as part of their EC activities but allow space to be used for before and after school prayer meetings!

I don't have a problem with any of this by the way. I do have a problem with people crying "Moral decay!" as an excuse to use political power to force religion on children. By the way, the beginning push against publically-enforced prayer in school? Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses. Many Christians do not want their children to have their specific sect whitewashed by the State. Many believe strongly in a separation of church and state. Many are aware that state religion tends to strip meaning from religion.

It isn't just the atheists and the flaming liberals. To me, people who want state religion seem either totalitarian or pathologically lazy.

For the Ten Commandments display, you again have problems. First of all, it says very little about general morality. It is mostly an endorsement of religion, considering the most commonly accepted first Commandment involves I am the Lord thy God, you shall have no other gods but me, etc. Veryyyy inclusive. The few (four, I think?) Commandments that actually speak to real morality do so in such a general way as to be absolutely useless. Thou shalt not murder. Murder meaning what? Does this make it anti-death penalty? How about respecting the father and mother? Some do not warrant respect. How about coveting your neighbors property, where wife is included in property?

Second, which version of the Ten Commandments should be posted? Different editions of the Bible and different sects have different wordings on the Ten Commandments which can significantly change the meaning. Should we allow the Protestants to be the "state" religion, or should we allow the Catholics to have their version.

Then we come down to which copy of the Ten Commandments do you want posted? In the Bible, there are two sets. The ones we call the "TEN COMMANDMENTS" were broken. The second set that Moses brought to the people involved one commandment that disallows the boiling of a lamb in its mother's milk. Should we post that list?

Plus, no one is disputing that the Ten Commandments (in whatever watered down Americanized form) can be posted. The prohibition is against posting it in public buildings and on public land. I'm not Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Why in the world should I pay for you to erect a religious monument in a public school when I feel much of the endorsed religion is immoral and wouldn't want my children partaking in it?

"These are things people grew up with and drew their values from. One has to have a base."

How about e pluribus unum? Out of many, one? The thing that used to inspire me about this country is the variety here. Not the base of Christian morality, which like I stated above, I find personally immoral, but the ability of people from all different ethnic backgrounds, personal backgrounds, and religions to run a country together based on freedom and respect for one another.

I will take that base over a Biblical one any day of the week. There are plenty of theocracies. America was unique.

"Be it religious or secular, one has to identify with something. For most of this nation's history, for the majority of people, there was at least a tacit recognition of God"

Which God? The Deist's clockmaker God that is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? That isn't the Christian God. The Catholic vision of God? The Protestant version of God? The Mormon or Quaker version of God? Hindu versions of gods? Muslim vision of God in which you guys are pagans?

"and most people ,liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, based their values on Judeo-Christian morals."

So they would like to claim. Actually a lot of the basis for written law, and what the Ten Commandments ripped off, was Hammarabi's Code. That's where eye for an eye originated, by the way. Additionally, when you look at the values expressed around the world in all cultures, you do not see a "Judeo-Christian moral". You see cultural traditions. The moral focus of one expressly Christian country does not necessarily mesh with those of another. If you want an example, take a look at European history.

Don't kill people who haven't done anything, don't steal, don't sleep with other people's spouses, etc are not "Judeo-Christian" morals. They are fairly universal morals that are necessary for a functional society. Judeo-Christianity also missed a BIG universal moral when it skips incest.

The morality of this country doesn't really rest in Biblical values or we would still have slaves and incest, and women would not be allowed to vote.

"At the very least, these morals imparted a basic understanding of right and wrong,"

Not really. The base of the country doesn't impart a basic understanding of right and wrong. This is the role of parents and communities. If you want a dissertation on how I think parents are failing in this duty by expecting other people to impart morality (like public schools) to their children while letting the television babysit them while crying television is too violent when in actuality they are too lazy to monitor their own kids, just ask.

Though raised loosely Christian, I was not imparted with "Judeo Christian" morality as a code, but with a code based on empathy. As a result, when I lost my faith, I still had a strong moral position, though you may disagree. I don't need the Ten Commandments to tell me not to kill someone. I don't WANT to kill someone. If someone DOES want to kill someone, an illegal monument in a public school which would have been vandalized to "Thou Art" within minutes of its installation, is not going to stop anyone.

"These values bound us together and gave us the most stable Constitution ever seen."

Perhaps you should study the founding of the country a bit more. When the Constitution was established, there was a debate between the Christian country and the free country. Patrick Henry was on the Christian side; Thomas Jefferson was on the free side. At the end of it all, it was decided the country would NOT be founded on Christianity but on principles of fairness to all people (all people meaning white landowners at the time).

I detest the way that the Right has attempted to hijack our history to try to defend unconstitutional actions.

"School violence IS one example of moral decay. It used to be that children fought with fists and therefore had to be taught not to hurt others unless defending themselves."

How is this a Biblical value? Jesus wasn't big on self defense and the OT essentially lets you smite anyone who isn't on your side. And children do still fight with fists. School shootings are sensationalized for the same reason a plane crash is... they're unusual! Most fights that take place in schools are done the old fashioned way. I went to two nasty schools, one in CA, and one in NC, and not all that long ago, and there was never a shooting. Just lots of fist fights, for which the perpetrators were arrested (which didn't happen in the old days).

Additionally, people deny the advances that have been made. Schools no one cared about in the 80s had shootings, like in Harlem and Compton, but since it wasn't hitting white surburbia, no one cared. Now schools in areas that were and/or are high crime have significant drops in crime. When I lived in L.A., they stuck the public school kids in uniforms, monitored them closely, and had little trouble. No one acknowledges what happens for the better. It's all Columbine Columbine.

I remember an early "school shooting" that shook me up quite a bit. An adult started picking people off at an elementary school. Probably an adult who was the result of the same 'base' you are. Some people are nuts. Best to get them before they hurt someone.

"Was there no basic intruction (refer to the Ten Commandments) in not to MURDER others for these kids?"

First of all, not common. Second of all, not new. Third of all, Ten Commandments wouldn't stop it. You want to stop school violence? First, break up the damn cliques that push crazy kids over the edge. Second, get parents (again, with the same moral base as yours) to start RAISING their own kids rather than expecting everyone else to do it.

"One child senselessly lost makes it a prime example,"

I would be more sympathetic until I consider how many children are senselessly lost in Iraq, Vietnam, WWII, WWI, church/home bombings during the civil rights era...

"especially when such acts are preventable with just a good 'ol dose of basic MORALITY, administered in time."

How about a good ol' dose of disciplining children and making them accountable for their actions rather than blaming everyone else when their kids screw up? How about a good ol' dose of taking your OWN kids to church if you want Christian morality rather than being too lazy to take them so you want the state to lead them in a watered down prayer that will serve to show your kid which kids in class aren't on board with Jesus, thus allowing them a prime target?

"Teen pregnancy is down? Probably so, because we have ABORTION available to deal with this problem."

LOL!!! I knew someone would take that angle on it. Abortion rates are also down. The rate of teen PREGNANCY is down, not the rate of teen live-birth (though, by nature that is down as well). The number of teens getting knocked up to BEGIN with is down. Not only are many teens waiting longer, but those who engage in sexual practices have instruction in safe sex rather than getting their tips from idiot friends (you can't get pregnant if it's your first time!!). Interestingly, teen pregnancy rates are lower in schools that teach sex ed than they are in places that restrict it, despite the restrictions largely being based on the immorality of letting these 'secular' force sexuality on teenagers!

Personally, I think it's hilarious. Working L&D for thirty years, my mother saw more abortion history in the scared kids of fundamentalist Christians than she did among the liberal hoardes. Funny, eh? It's all well and good to not want to "kill babies!" until it happens to you.

Incidentally, atheists don't have a particularly high abortion rate, and it is lower, adjusted for their population, than it is from Christians, as are their representations in prison. Some make a class argument for this, but it still kind of contradicts this "secularity stripping morality" argument.

If only the Christian kiddies could behave as well as the atheists do...

"that will make it a bit more palatable to some who wish to use such a dastardly procedure to conveniently remove themselves from a difficult situation brought about by their own indiscretions and in the process, justify doing so because we have merely changed definitions."

Not that I'm going to change your mind or you're going to change mine... A fetus is not self sufficient. It is an active drain on the mother and the mother's body will often reject it even if she does not. Estimates are that up to HALF of pregnancies end in miscarry due to improper timing on implantation and such without the women ever knowing there was a fertilized egg there. Does God hate these potential kids?

Secondly, though many abortions are caused by indiscretion, there is a lack of compassion on the part of many to see different scenarios.

Teenagers have a tendency to be stupid. No offense to teenagers, and it goes away, but there are many girls who have fallen victim to the guy who promises he will love and support her and then books it when she gets knocked up. Is the male less guilty in this, by the way? The man, if he is caught, which often he is not, suffers, as the result of this, some financial hardship, but fortunately the penalties aren't that strict on people who ditch child support. The girl, on the other hand, undergoes the social stigma of being a "teen mother", is often ostracized by her family, MORE so if they are fundamentalist Christians, her body changes, she may have to drop out of school, screwing her future, and then she undergoes the pain and danger of childbirth, often without money for prenatal care, increasing the chance of problems.

She still chose to have sex, and that decision is on her. But call me ultra liberal, I do not think that means that she should be forced to carry this child in HER body, while the offending male skates.

Additionally, you have rape cases. It sounds nice and compassionate to say "rape and incest" abortions are allowed, but in actuality it's nearly impossible to enforce. Not all rapes show evidence of rape and not all women want to report them. Women who want an abortion who were not raped could easily try to stage a rape, leaving the government to decide whether she was raped or not. The process of deciding is a process that takes time, by which point you may be upping the cruelty by going from a cluster of cells with no developed nervous system to a fetus.

If there are to be no abortions in the case of rape, then men in the state are demanding that women not only be victimized by their attackers, but then must be forced to alter their bodies and carry the stigma. In short, the state would force them to continue being rape victims for 9 months, and then risk their lives to bear their attacker's child.

I find this morally reprehensible. I also suspect that if men could get pregnant, there would be no debate.

"You see, it can come from any direction.
I do not look to "the good ol days" or some silly "Golden Age" as a basis for what I believe to be right."

So then may I ask you when the "moral decay" began? Decay involves a process of going from something at a higher state to a progressively worsening lower state. What was the higher state? Do we have to go all the way back to our deistic founding fathers and slaughter natives and enslave Africans to be morally upright once again?

"Cold, empty atheism nor obtuse, extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalism attract me."

So instead of creating a fight between the two for absolutely power of the country, why not foster a country where all points of view are welcomed, rather than one where non-Christians can live, but they'd better shut up about it?

"Just give me the simple message of the love of Christ and the basic and fair commandments God gave us."

This works for you. Why do you want to inflict it on everyone else? I do not feel the commandments are basic or fair, but find them morally repugnant except in the places where they are overly vague. Why should my country represent what only you want when I am an equal citizen? I think many principles in Christianity are immoral. If I gain power, will you support my desire to post secular humanism support in courthouses and teach secular humanism to school children?

Of course, that isn't my actual desire, because I want true equality. But if you would have a problem with me doing such a thing, maybe you might want to consider your own position.

"It works pretty well and if I am bullshitting myself in the process, at least I'm not harming anyone else and I'm not forcing my views on anyone, which is another important point to be made here."

You aren't? You want to force Christianity through the public sector because you accuse an entire faction of the country of promoting moral decay. That sure sounds like harming others and forcing your views on them!!!

I don't see how saying that people can worship freely and tote their God to the street but they cannot have public endorsement of it is harming others or forcing my views on them. Seems pretty fair. The churches even get tax exempt status.

"You sure don't see Christian lawyers clogging up the court dockets in attempts to have images or works of secularism and atheism removed from public places."

LOL!!!! You're kidding. You don't see them doing with with works of "secularism" and "atheism" because such things are not beliefs that inspire a lot of symbols. You DO see Christian protestors removing Halloween from schools and then bitching if the school then won't put up a Christmas tree. You do see Christians suing when schools go over the top and start treating Christians like they treat non-Christians (if a Christian child is ordered to remove a cross, there is a lawsuit; if a Wiccan child is ordered to remove a pentacle, there is still a lawsuit, but you have Christians screaming "What is the big deal???").

You see continuous legal battles by Christians trying to force their way, and then accusing atheist liberal lawyers of meddling when they lose the court case.

"But two of the same just isn't a marriage. Yet give them the opportunity and they will try to force the rest of us to accept their view."

How? You aren't forced to accept anything anymore than you are forced to accept atheists as being spiritually married. Why do you think it is okay to deny two monogamous people who love each other the same property, visitation, and child rearing rights that you would gladly award two strangers who got drunk in Vegas and got married at a 24 hour chapel?

The monogamous gay couple actually may contribute as a unit to society. The drunken idiots are only getting a tax break and an excuse to draw out a legal battle on trying to take each other's stuff, or tie up a divorce court. More of our money.

"Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is one of the foundations of our society."

Was this before or after the perception of women as property and before or after we finally made the Mormons give up polygamy?

"The push for "gay marriage" is just another attempt to erode one of our most important institutions. MORAL DECAY."

Slavery was also one of our most important institutions. Tradition ain't always good. I don't see gay marriage as moral decay. I see it as moral advancement. Personally, I suspect married gays will have a better fidelity and longevity rate than Christian couples because they had to fight for it. Maybe that's what Christians are afraid of?

"I don't understand your unhappiness with this country."

The fact that I am as equal a citizen as you are but am treated as lesser because I am not part of the same religion. The fact that I have gay friends whose relationships are some of the healthiest I've seen, but acknowledging the union is "immoral" while skyrocketing divorce rates are not. The fact that we do not care about casualties but our own, and consider thousands of Iraqis dead to be an "inevitable consequence of war" when we would nuke anyone who tried killing our kids in such a manner". The fact that people who claim to be pro-life seem to stop caring about the kid once its born. The fact that I am considered immoral simply for not being Christian even when Christians act in ways I find mindblowing. The cult of patriotism that seems to not only imply pride in the home country (which is fine), but hatred or disrespect of others. Pride in ignorance; people honestly think it is stupid to know anything about world politics or geography because who cares? The fact that scientists are villified in this country as being forces of secular evil.

All that really bothers me about this country.

"I know we live in a great country, admittedly rife with problems."

I know we live in a great world, admittedly rife with problems. My political and social disgust with many things in this country in no way diminishes my happiness in life. I am happy, for the most part. I enjoy driving at night on the interstate in undeveloped areas and smelling the air. I enjoy listening to the rain, talking to people. I dive, so I love being able to explore the underwater world most people don't see and watch the amazing interactions of things.

I love a lot about life and a lot about this country. If I didn't care at all about the country, it wouldn't bother me to see some of the things happening to it.

"I know that we have opportunities and freedoms found nowhere else in this world."

I can't say I entirely agree with that, but that doesn't mean I don't think America has wonderful opportunities and freedoms.

"I have a great marriage and two wonderful kids and steady employment with a decent wage. It's probably not much to some, but what I have I earned with absolutely no help from ANYONE."

Believe it or not, not everyone in this country has a great opportunity to do that.

"Your problem seems to be that you're pissed that everyone doesn't agree with you. Perhaps you find it difficult to play with others under established rules?"

Thank you for the completely off-kilter hack psychological analysis, but you couldn't be more incorrect. I am fully aware that many people don't agree with me. I'd be concerned if they all did. It also seems like you are the one who is talking about the state of "moral decay" so if anyone were having trouble playing with others, it would appear to be you. I don't see moral decay. I see changing generations. I speak about what is bad in every generation, because people insist on doing that with mine and the one closely behind me, rather than acknowledging the good things we do and have.

I get along with people of all religions and political beliefs because I don't see agreement as necessary for friendship or at the very least, a civil attitude.

What I do NOT appreciate is having my disagreement with people give them authority to try to tell ME what I believe based on stereotypes they have of what they believe my position to be. I disagreed with the war, found it evil, to be perfectly honest. That made me unamerican. Not a dissenter... not someone with honest concerns... nope! I was an antiamerican, tree hugging hippie liberal who probably thought Hussein was a nice guy. I supported Afghanistan, but did they care? Nope. Disagreement meant treason.

I disagree with the tenets of Christianity. Disagreement makes me immoral.

I disagree with prohibiting abortion. Disagreement makes me a baby killer.

Established rules are also fine. We just differ on what they should be.

But do not mistake my political and social positions for private unhappiness. Just as I may seem 'pissed off', you do not appear, in this forum, to be a happy individual. Debate generally spawns this atmosphere since issues are being discussed rather than my personal love of watching sunsets.

"You say that it is seen these days as "unamerican" to dissent."

I've been feeling this way for some time. The way people acted when I was against this war at the BEGINNING, BEFORE we had committed troops, before we had destroyed the infrastructure, was abominable and sure didn't foster a sense of healthy disagreement. I also noticed that people who had been bitching about Clinton for eight years suddenly started claiming that to support America is to support its leader.

"I for one could care less if the rest of the world hates us, but it isn't true anyway."

It's a shame you don't care. I do. I think America should be a part of the global community.

"I know that this notion that everyone hates us is absolute B.S."

So you think that the world opinion of America is positive? That we are not largely perceived to be fat, lazy, stupid, and warmongering?

"If the major source of your unhapiness is the war in Iraq, as you seem to suggest, I fully understand that."

My unhappiness with this administration rests largely on this Iraq war though other issues concern me. I recognize war as being necessary in many instances. I agree with the reasoning for the first Iraq war. I agree with the reasoning on the Afghanistan war (government ACTIVELY harboring terrorists we knew to be directly involved in the attack).

This one baffles me. It seems like murder. It seems like a waste of lives and money. It seems like a backslide in diplomatic relations. It seems to set a bad precedent for early attack of countries that you think might be a threat or countries with bad leaders. If we are merely freeing the Iraqi people from a dictator, we are going to be bankrupt by the time we free everyone from their respective dictators. If we are preempting a terrorist attack, why did we attack the hostile country with the fewest ties to terrorist activity and weapons building? Iran and North Korea were obviously much farther along on it, Syria harbors more terrorists, and Saudi Arabia provides them!

We turned a rather secular country into a martyr for fundamentalist Islam for no real reason. Brilliant.

"I'm not happy about it either. It absolutely sucks that we are forced to fight the terrorists there, but it would suck even more to have to fight them here."

Hmm, I haven't seen real convincing terrorist links to Iraq that come close to what we see out of Saudi Arabia. Also didn't see a reason to divert our attention from Afghanistan. As far as WMDs are concerned, not only doesn't Iraq seem to have any, but if they did, they probably would have targeted Israel, not us. I am not saying that blowing Israel off the face of the earth is a good thing, but trying to scare us by saying Saddam was going to launch a terrorist attack while funding these fundamentalist groups (because fundamentalist Muslims SO love a man who pays lip service to their religion)? Come on.

"I didn't like having to look under my car for explosives before starting it or having to carefully inspect my mailbox before opening it. I didn't like having to run for cover at Frankfurt Airport as the car bombs were going off."

I wouldn't like it either. This is one of the reasons I think we should continue hunting the terrorist cells in Afghanistan and going after them WITH the help of the government in other places when we know they are present. However claiming what you don't like doesn't really sway me because I think we are currently at greater risk of terrorism than we were before we invaded Iraq.

"That aside, I would think you would be happy that our action in Iraq has eradicated the brutal Hussein regime."

Why? Dictators are everywhere. He wasn't even particularly unique. We're already approaching the number of people he killed in his regime with far less time to do it, the malnutrition rates among Iraqis are skyrocketing, and thousands are homeless due to bombings.

"I think freedom is worth fighting for. Anytime. Anywhere. I'm not happy about it, mind you, but we must at times do things we don't like to do."

Get out your checkbook. If you want to fight for freedom anywhere it doesn't exist, you're going to be paying for a LOT of wars. Can we start by liberating the women in Saudi Arabia? If we invade, we'll get plenty of terrorists.

How about the constant border wars in Africa where dictators will quickly rise to power and then begin raping and slaughtering neighboring tribes? Should we declare war on all of them too? How about drug countries run by South American dictators. Get them? The Chinese government has a HORRIBLE human rights record, and a knack for invading countries that don't belong to them. Invade them too?

Where does it end?

"I'm not even sure that a democracy could be sustained in Iraq, but I think it's worth the effort to try. If this doesn't succeed, then we must learn a lesson from it, and that's for damned sure."

??????????? Thousands of people are dead! That is too high a price to learn a lesson!

"We must be careful about what we do and say, because lives are at stake."

Maybe if we'd been a little more vocal about our objections instead of lying down to cheap intimidation techniques and faulty intelligence report, lives wouldn't be at stake.

"They are Americans, just like you and I. They deserve our support and respect."

I find it far more supportive and respectful to not use them to run freedom missions promising them they will be welcomed with open arms by a relieved Iraqi people. I think it's more supportive to let them be mothers and fathers to their children and sons and daughters to their parents then to send them out on a fool's errand to be shot at.

"The only thing I would suggest is that the dissent be constructive. This self-imposed divorce from our country of yours is what I take issue with."

A mental divorce from the country helps me deal with what I see happening to its "base", if you will. It disturbs me to see so many people who seem to favor reckless killing while trying to put restrictions on women's bodies for what the same people feel is... reckless killing. Much better to kill an Iraqi ten year old than an unborn fetus, right?

When expressing dissent, I have been told that I should leave the country if I don't like what it's doing; that if I don't support the president, I should move. I have been called a number of names simply for having a disagreeing point of view, and labeled a traitor. Critical issues I have have been called "Whining" while the same people then go and whine about homosexuality causing moral decay, which I find less important than thousands of dead bodies.

This tendency of so many of my countrymen to make me out to be this unamerican hideous immoral special interests beast for the crime of disagreeing with their position does create a disgust with their percentage of America. Yes, it does.

"Your blather about defending ourselves against actions rather than dogmas is pretty superficial."

If you say so. I think your blather about supporting the troops as a veiled attempt to promote the cause of supposed freedom is pretty superficial.

Beliefs should not be crimes. Actions are crimes. If we are talking about beliefs, fundamentalist extremism is the main one that causes problems. That is not limited to Muslims. If we are going to fight dogmas, then we should start fighting against fundamentalism of all sorts, including Christianity, the extreme dogmas of which inspire some people to commit hideous actions. Are you prepared to fight fundamentalist Christianity?

"It's all the same to me if you want to remain polarized." The views I espouse are the "norm", Ishie."

Which is why a mental divorce from the country is refreshing. I find your views morally repugnant. Sorry. Remaining polarized from them lets me look at myself in the mirror in the morning. That doesn't mean I can't cooperate with you or even that I dislike you. It means that I am not going to ally myself with values I find immoral anymore than you are with mine, so why on earth should I just accept the inevitable and pay lip service to your side?

"It's not a matter of "if" they become so. They have been for a long, long time."

This myth is allowing an extreme faction to try and claim moral control over the country. I will have no part in forwarding it. If you want to resurrect McCarthy, be my guest, but don't ask me to smile while you do it.

"The everyday, normal working people of this country have been sustained by them since this country became a nation. You need to grasp that."

I am an everyday, normal working person... I am also a citizen of this country, better or worse. YOU need to grasp that. While you're at it, you might also want to grasp a functional knowledge of American history.

"It's only since certain folks developed an over-inflated sense of self-worth and forsaking the views of the community at large have we had such problems as we do today."

I agree completely. People think that being Christian and American makes them so important that they can trample traditional values of freedom and equality in the interest of maintaining their personal moral comfort level... or is that not what you meant?

"We don't have to think alike all of the time, but at least a basic set of core values cuts down dramatically on the intellectual masturbation bullshit."

But only if they're your values. That is why I call this 'cry for unity' what it is: utter bullshit.

"Just what part is that? I tend to think the whole country is pretty damned important, even if I don't agree with what some parts of it are doing to the rest of it."

You sure wouldn't know it to read your posts!!! I refer to the "important" part of the country as the 51%. Now that their values have won. the rest of the 49% is the unimportant part. We are the secular, the overliberal, the special interests part. The 49% of us need to get on board with the majority and work to establish a set of core values that some of us find morally wrong. If we don't, well, we're the ones remaining polarized. You're just trying to make an effort. Riiight.

"I truly do wish you happiness and respect your points of view."

And I bet you have property in Florida you're selling? You don't respect my points of view. I don't know if you wish my happiness. I have happiness. It's also nice to be buffered from a lot of the BS by living in CA.

My points of view are clearly misinformed, blather, intellectual masturbation, and deliberately polarized. If that is respect, then allow me to respectfully tell you where to put it.

Ishie

Posted by: Ishtar at November 24, 2004 1:29 PM

"What's interesting, is prior to 1968 kids could order guns through the mail and also had access to guns because they were much more commonly left laying around unsecured."

What's interesting is that 'back in the day', if you will, children were taught how to operate firearms by their parents, including safety instruction on them, and generally received their first weapons as birthday or Christmas presents, at which point, dad or big bro would take them out and TEACH them how to use it.

Now, due to a lot of gun hysteria, there is an attempt to classify guns as evil and try to convince children they don't actually exist. Guns in the home are 'hidden' from children who are notoriously good at finding things. As a result, many times when kids DO get their hands on guns, which they will, they have no context of how to use it, why to use it, or the seriousness of guns.

My boyfriend's children are well educated in guns. The seven year old has a bb rifle. When he stupidly, but accidentally, winged my car with it, instead of being hugged and told it wasn't his fault because guns are bad, he got chewed out and the gun got taken for a month and he got a refresher course on safety and responsibility.

How's that for an ultra liberal position?

I am big on personal responsibility. I am not pretending there is a large faction of kids who show increasing disrespect and some fascination with guns as guns become more taboo. I think that things like crying for morality in the schools serve to make the problems worse.

A change that has taken place is the "community to raise a child" thing. People don't know their neighbors. There is also a growing intolerance for disciplining children. While I do not favor beating kids or spanking them once they're past about nine, they need to learn actual consequences.

Here again, I deviate from the stereotype liberal agenda. Team sports are good. Grades are good. Kids should not be skated through the system when their behavior is bad or their grades are bad out of a fear of damaging their precious self esteem. If a child fails a subject, 49 times out of 50, it is the child's fault or the fault of parents not making sure the child gets enough help. Unfortunately about 49 times out of 50, it seems the parent chews the teacher out for not showing little Timmy enough attention.

The cult of psychology is making things worse. Psychology can be perfectly valid. Unfortunately, common behavior problems that were previously cured with punishment and time outs have been replaced by ADHD and manic-depression diagnoses and the children are force fed drugs and told their behavior isn't their fault.

My best friend "cured" a little boy I was babysitting of ADHD after he 'accidentally' brushed against her chest one too many times and she whipped her belt off (didn't hit him) and chased him into his room. He wasn't hyperactive for the rest of the night, and one of the few times we saw him later that night, he was quiet and polite.

Both liberals and conservatives aid this lack of responsibility, so I'm not picking on anyone specifically here. There is an outward blame. Look at moral decay. Kids are shooting each other because society is eroding. No, kids are shooting each other (infrequently) because when they do, the can get a free pass because people claim they did it because society is eroding.

Columbine? The kids did it because they'd been desensitized to violence by playing Doom... because shooting something and having it explode in blood is a FAR worse message than teaching kids that shooting someone in the face with a shotgun causes their hair to turn black. We seek causes. We try to link things that may have nothing to do with each other. If people knew the actual number of kids that played Doom and now play GTA: San Andreas, it would shock them.

Yet most of them do not commit acts of violence or become dysfunctional human beings. I wasn't censored as a kid, but my parents actively involved themselves in whatever I did. They watched movies before I would, and then they'd watch them WITH me, so they could comment specifically on each situation and make sure I didn't have any questions. Growing up, if I heard bad language and felt compelled to repeat it, instead of blaming the television for broadcasting it, I got spanked. I knew better.

I had a full working knowledge of where babies come from when I was 3. I knew the factual data about safe sex and protection and what was wrong with common myths by the time I was 12. I was allowed to date. Didn't have sex until I was 20.

Basic accountability. You want to stop any current trends that upset you like a rise in suburban school shootings, stop pointing at society and start pointing at the parents. Stop making excuses. Considering many countries with a destroyed infrastructure with vigilante justice and no working law enforcement can still raise respectful children, I have a hard time believing that gay marriage and abortion are going to ruin ours. We also need to give them productive things to do. Violence is reduced in places with afterschool programs. Kids find role models, activities they like, and are less inclined to run with gangs or raise themselves on the tv.

"But the school shootings we're aware of, both those that were executed and those that were planned but foiled, have only happened in the last several years."

Define several. Kids were killing each other in Harlem and Compton soon after the mafia took a huge hit and youth gangs began to form.

If we think that legislating morality is going to keep kids from killing each other, get ready to start back ordering the body bags. Take responsibility. If there's a kid you're worried about that isn't yours whose parents aren't doing much with him, try driving him to soccer practice and rewarding good grades. Wasn't it supposed to take a village to raise a child? Back in the disciplined days, do you think it was school prayers that kept kids from acting up or do you think it was the knowledge that Mrs. Johnson down the street was going to rat you out to your parents and might spank you herself if she saw fit.

Ishie

Posted by: Patriot at November 24, 2004 3:19 PM

Ishie,

“Columbine? The kids did it because they'd been desensitized to violence by playing Doom... because shooting something and having it explode in blood is a FAR worse message than teaching kids that shooting someone in the face with a shotgun causes their hair to turn black. “

This is so true. Retired Lt. Colonel David Grossman who has extensive experience with training soldiers to kill effectively has written a book titled “Stop Teaching Our Kids To Kill.” His position is that violence in the media, including television, movies and video games have desensitized kids by teaching them that they’re rewarded when they get high scores – kill a lot of people. I’ll be his credential in this area greatly overshadow yours. The much improved graphics also help desensitize them to the blood and gore. Although it certainly doesn’t cause a large number of children to act out like the Columbine kids, all you need is a couple to cause a lot of havoc. Obviously, all it takes is this desensitization and an unstable child being pushed too far, usually by bullies and you get Columbine, Jonesboro, etc.

“Growing up, if I heard bad language and felt compelled to repeat it, instead of blaming the television for broadcasting it, I got spanked. I knew better.”

This is something that is good because it is a method of discipline used since the beginning of time, but liberals do what they can to prevent parents from doing just that. Jeff Foxworthy has a great part in his standup material where he cuts on some liberal friends of his wife that live in California. He says they went out to dinner with them and when their friends’ kid started acting up and wouldn’t stop, the mother threatened to send the child to “time out.” He says he couldn’t believe that and recounts how when he was a kid, he would’ve gotten smacked. He goes on to note that the kid kept acting up, so clearly this was not an effective method for this child, but the child obviously knew there wasn’t any real punishment if they didn’t stop.

“Basic accountability.”

Again, something liberals don’t believe in. Recently in Arizona, our Child Protective Services was having problems and liberals wanted to just throw more money at the agency and the conservatives did not want to approve of that without more accountability by this agency. The liberals threw a fit and initially resisted over this issue (I don’t recall if it ever was resolved).

“Define several. Kids were killing each other in Harlem and Compton soon after the mafia took a huge hit and youth gangs began to form.”

Sorry about the confusion. Again, I stand corrected as I meant the mass shootings that made such national headlines in the late 90's.

“If we think that legislating morality is going to keep kids from killing each other, get ready to start back ordering the body bags. Take responsibility. ”

Here’s the problem with that – the government can’t force parents to be good parents, but they can minimize the trash that is being fed to our children. I say if we don’t start doing this, that you better start ordering the body bags.

“Back in the disciplined days, do you think it was school prayers that kept kids from acting up or do you think it was the knowledge that Mrs. Johnson down the street was going to rat you out to your parents and might spank you herself if she saw fit.”

It was that and being taught that “Thou shall not murder.”

I'm beginning to like you, Ishie. I hope you get around to responding to the rest of my points posted earlier.

Posted by: Ishtar at November 24, 2004 3:22 PM

"To deny what has clearly been documented would be liberal-like."

How decidedly left-handed of you.

"I’ll take the stand that I don’t have a problem with criminals being intimidated not to vote."

Hmmm... you either misread my post or you are incredibly racist. Some people LIED, misrepresented themselves as being the NAACP, which by the way, targeted black people... not black people with a record mind you, black people, and sent them letters claiming that things like mild traffic infractions, like an unpaid parking ticket, would cause them to be arrested when they arrived at the polls.

To the best of my knowledge, people with unpaid parking tickets are not ineligible to vote, nor are they generally subject to arrest. The people sending the letter were committing a crime (sending letters purporting to be from an organization with which you are unaffiliated is illegal), AND assuming a criminal history on specifically black people, whom they also assumed would vote Democrat.

The fact that you seem to be defending this action makes me wonder about your integrity.

"they really should take care of their own lives before they worry about voting."

Does this mean that no Bush voters with unpaid parking tickets should be allowed to vote? Does this also mean that the number of people who are lax on their child support (my boyfriend's family members do this constantly, often thousands of dollars past due and all Bush supporters) can't vote? Because if this is true, an OFFICIAL memo should have been sent to everyone, doncha think? Rather than targeting black people as criminals?

"If you’re insinuating that most or all of those folks would have voted for Kerry, that’s an interesting claim."

Apparently the Bush supporters who illegally performed the actions feel black people are criminals and would vote for Kerry... which says something pretty strong about them.

I do like how you misrepresented the post, defended people committing a crime and used that to claim the Democrats were trying to register felons and that Democrats support criminals. Wouldn't you mean that you support criminals since the only criminals were the people perpetrating the mail fraud?

"I guess that’s why libs didn’t have any problem with Clinton committing his felony, huh?"

Though I think Clinton should have told everyone to mind their own business, I am not that concerned about a man lying about a blowjob. If we imprisoned every man that had, I wouldn't have to worry about rush hour traffic. I also noticed a lot of Republicans shut up when people like Larry Flynt started trying to expose their infidelities. If I were like you, I'd extrapolate that to mean conservatives were a bunch of philandering hypocrites, but that would be presumptuous.

"Actually, with the history that liberals have of being soft on criminals including opposing the death penalty, that would make sense."

I'm pro death penalty too, Einstein. Maybe you want to debate me instead of the little liberal stereotypes you have dancing around? My only issue with the death penalty is that I think it needs major reform considering the number of people on Death Row whom DNA evidence proved innocent. That's a little disturbing.

"My point about the right to abortion was that because this right is clearly not in the constitution, it is the most obvious example of judicial activism – creating rights that don’t exist."

A prohibition against abortion is also not in the Constitution. Wouldn't this mean that making it illegal would be... *gasp* judicial activism?

A lot of issues come before the Supreme Court that are not directly addressed in the Constitution. It's one of the reasons they're there. What do you want them to do, flip a coin?

"The constitution DOES, however, clearly state how it is supposed to be changed – by amending it, not by what a judge or group of judges think it should have."

Who is changing the Constitution? Ashcroft's group of judges did when they allowed illegal search and seizure in cases of suspected terrorism. Then we have changing the Constitution by allowing (in suspicion of terrorism) people to be held indefinitely without being charged with a crime.

More activist judges? Or a Congress that didn't bother to read a bill?

Activist judges may change stuff, but they aren't supposed to change the Constitution. If abortion or gay marriage were listed in the Constitution, I'd be more on board with an amendment procedure, rather than letting judges violate it.

Abortion and gay marriage aren't in the Constitution. They aren't mentioned. You can add or subtract amendments but you are not altering the Constitution or violating it by going one way or the other on these issues without an amendment.

"you didn’t explain how someone can deliver the entire baby except for the head, then crushing the skull and how that’s safer than delivering the baby alive. In other words, how would delivering the head through the birth canal AFTER delivering the rest of the body have a negative effect on the mother."

Actually I did explain this. Perhaps you know something I don't, but I do not know of cases where a child has been ready to be born, the mother has gone into labor, the doctor has spun the kid breach, thus endangering the mother MORE and then stabbed the kid in the head. Enlighten me if you will.

What I said was that being "born" doesn't necessarily make a kid viable. There are generally two ways to get a cluster of cells, embryo, or fetus out of the uterus. You either cut in through a c-section, or it comes out the vagina. That second method doesn't change regardless of whether the kid can survive on its own.

If you deliver a fetus at 16 weeks, whether it goes head or feet first doesn't make a difference. It isn't like you can just "deliver it and it'll be fine if you don't stab it". It's dead. It cannot survive outside of the mother. It cannot breathe air; the lungs are not developed. They do not stab kids that can exist outside of their mothers, or, like you said, there's no point in delivering them in such a manner. Additionally, by the time they are viable outside of their mothers, they are large enough that attempting this manner of delivery, even if legal, would put the mother's life in danger for no reason.

"I don’t know how you can claim you haven’t denied anyone their right to bear arms without lying when you support liberal politicians who do just that."

Do I? I dislike Boxer and Feinstein. I don't generally vote for either of them. But again, thanks for the assumptions. Since I am not a democrat, and since I have no loyalties to party lines, I'll vote for whom I think is the lesser evil.

As far as specific restrictions go on gun ownership, for the most part, it's lip service that doesn't affect true gun ownership. I don't really want or need flak-jacket piercing bullets. I can't think of a legal reason why someone would, so I really don't care if they're banned.

For politicians who expressly want to ban guns, I won't vote for them unless their opposition is far worse, but since it is a button issue with me, opposing gun ownership is a big one to get me to vote the other way.

So yet again, your assumptions about me are wrong, but thanks for playing.

"Both of your senators are the poster children for gun control."

Didn't vote for them. Next question?

"On the subject of being un-American, you probably won’t find many Americans that will support violating our constitution."

Sure you will. Whether you hate them and libel them or not, those liberals who want to ban guns are Americans and may love America just as much as you do. Many conservatives favor reducing what amounts to "rights for criminals" provided by the Constitution the minute the going gets tough. You have plenty of conservatives who want to toss out the establishment cause so they can push religion. All of these people consider themselves full red-blooded Americans.

"Therefore, when you support changing a constitution, federal or state, without going through the amendment process, as so many liberals are okay with if it advances their agenda, that IS un-American."

Hmmm.. I'm not supporting anything like it. Unfortunately, you tend to think things are in the Constitution that actually aren't.

"We are supposed to follow the constitution and that includes the method of changing it."

Unless it inconveniences you. If it does, then why do you need probable cause for a home invasion if you KNOW the guy's a terrorist?

"Liberals do have the same goal as atheists – the removal of any mentioning or support of God,"

Uhhh, no. And most atheists don't have that goal. The extreme ones, for the most part, grow out of it once they're passed puberty.

This is a common claim though. Another reason why I say conservatives often think they are the most persecuted majority on the planet. No one is trying to remove mention or support of God. What people who respect the Constitution and their fellow Americans try to do is avoid having God promoted by public institutions. You can pray, give speeches with God in them and so forth to your heart's content. I simply do not feel that you have the right to spend my tax dollars pushing your religion, much of which I find immoral, on a child of mine in a public school. I would not push Buddhism or Islam on yours, so keep your faith out of mine.

"(which, actually, the part concerning religion only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion)"

Yeah, and you're ticked that the government won't establish a religion.

"obviously did not have a problem with things like state mottos or the US currency containing references to God"

Don't know about specific state mottos, though the founders weren't around when most of the states BECAME states... In God we Trust was put on coins during the Civil War. Left the five center in 1883 and back on in 1938. One cent: 1909; 1956 was when "In God we Trust" was declared our national motto. 1957 is when it was put on paper money. Hardly played into the production of our Constitution in 1789.

"or the honoring of Christ’s birthday."

All evidence suggests that Christ's birthday was not on December 25th, and wasn't actually in the year zero. Oh, and Christmas was declared a holiday in 1870. Not part of the founding. It was celebrated before that, but was actually discouraged in the days of early America because it was sacriligious.

"So when you see a judge say that firefighters employed by a city can’t decorate their fire station for the Christmas holiday, it is yet another example of changing the constitution without amending it."

Not really. It's an example of an asshole thing to do, particularly considering that most Christmas decorations, with the exception of nativity scenes are entirely secular, mostly rooted in paganism. Wreathes, trees, gift exchanges, holly, and pretty much everything that doesn't directly have Jesus (even angels are close to fairies) is rooted in paganism.

Personally, I love Christmas or any winter holiday in subsitution thereof. Decorations for the holidays are not in violation of church/state separation since almost every religion has a winter holiday, and the greetings and decorations are largely secular. Even the date of Christmas is inspired by the celebration of the winter solstice, so party away!

"When the ACLU, obviously a liberal organization, helps atheists sue governments over any mentioning of God (note the recent Supreme Court case versus the pledge of allegiance), you’re clearly in bed with the atheists."

The ACLU tries to protect civil liberties no matter how distasteful it may be. Though hated, they're a necessary organization. As for the pledge, though I don't care either way because to me sentiment matters more than lip service, the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. It's not even historical. They jammed "Under God" into the pledge in 1956. It was written in 1898. The reason specifically given for doing so was picturing communist children reciting a similar oath in their schools. Look it up.

"I wonder if liberals will ever be stupid enough to try to sue every government in the nation over recognizing Christmas. After all, it is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ."

It is? I thought it was a celebration of Santa Claus and materialism based around pagan rituals tied loosely to the birth of Jesus and a way for the budding Roman Church to make Christianity more palatable to pagans who would not have to give up their festivities (also including Easter).

It is also reasonable to close down work on days where most people are partying. Since the government equally acknowledges the religious traditions of other groups, and even rejoices with them in it, rather than treating them like party crashers, I don't see a problem with it.

"The Communism comparison is interesting. Liberals and Communists/Socialists do have several common positions."

If we are to buy your version of liberal, which would be a bit like buying Al Sharpton's version of conservative.

"All you folks believe in large centralized governments, while most of the governing for our country was supposed to be at the state or local level."

All we do??? I'm a liberterian. I favor a small central government, greater personal freedom, and greater state freeom. I see the federal government currently trying to determine morality for everyone, which incidentally is what communist dictatorships do.

"You all believe in cradle-to-grave government controlled health care and no questions asked"

Not exactly. I support basic health care for all children, since they have no control in the matter, and affordable privatized health care. I also support programs (some of which we have) that allows health care for people between jobs, and clinics for people who need immediate help, which are largely funded by donations.

"unlimited welfare, the results of which are a much higher tax burden and a decline in the quality of health care (or so I hear in Canada and Britain)."

I like this "You all" crap. I don't have a fraction of these beliefs, yet you want to tar me for them. I hate the current state of welfare. My boyfriend's ex has been sitting on it for years while living with her parents and drawing no expense, and despite sharing joint custody of the kids, he actually has to pay child support!

Welfare fraud is atrocious. I believe in welfare as a temporary means to help people through difficult periods, but then boom, it ends. There is supposed to be a two year limit on it, but people constantly violate it unchecked. I think this is wrong, and I think it's producing welfare generations. I also do not favor children as an investment in welfare checks.

Does this constitute your view of "unlimited welfare"?

"You all believe in elections by the people, unless they lose by a small margin, then they try to get judges to give them the ability to manufacture votes in hopes of changing the election (see Gore v. Bush 2000)."

Yes, by the people. Bush lost the popular vote, and the dispute went down to a state whose politics were staffed with his people, and in one case, his brother! In the end, the Supreme Court decided the election.

In this election, Kerry genuinely lost. While I am dismayed by the fact that Bush is still our president, I am not disputing the results.

"You all have no problem with the government monitoring all of it’s citizens (see the use of 4,000,000 cameras in London and thousands being used in Chicago)."

Yes, I most certainly do have a problem with it.

"So technically although there are similarities, there are a couple of slight differences between Libs and Communists."

LOL!! By your ignorant definitions of both terms.

"So I guess to be more accurate, we’d have to call Libs Communist-Lites."

This is as disingenuous as tying conservatives to Nazi-ism, which could be done as easily.

What you are doing is fulfilling the conservative stereotype of the commie fearing uninformed redneck. But notice I do not preface that with "You all". Just you.

"What are you afraid will happen in the next 4 years (reinstatement of the draft, the stealing of social security checks from old people, etc.) so when it does not happen we can see how unfounded your fears are?"

Have I said anything about social security? I have stated I do not think the draft is an impossibility if we keep invading countries we think may be loosely connected to terrorism. Because we would honestly need one.

I hope the fears I do have of increased violation of civil liberties and a flowering theocracy are unfounded. If they are at the end of this, I will gladly admit my error and breathe a deep sigh of relief. Unlike you, I can easily admit when I am wrong, even without spinning it by saying I'll admit it because I don't want to lie like a conservative.

"To clarify, it was not WHAT Al Gore said, it was the WAY he said it that made him look out of control – acting like an inspirational preacher which was VERY out of character, especially for him."

Yeah. I don't think it makes him out of control. I think it makes him two faced... that's one of the reasons I don't particularly care for him.

"Bush made his decision on the best intelligence available at the time, which wasn’t as good as it could have been seeing how Clinton handicapped the CIA"

Ah, we're back to blaming Clinton for all this. Now it's Clinton's fault we're at war for no reason!!! Wow, somehow, through eight years, he managed to fool us based on things he didn't do, and now, four years after he left office, he caused the 9/11 attacks by ignoring things (like that memo Condy was talking about?), sent the economy into a huge downward spiral, pushing the deficit higher than its ever been, and now made us take action on Iraq without sufficient evidence! Wow, that man really is the devil!

Heh heh. I get the feeling accountability is not in your "words conservatives are allowed to use" manual?

"that there were a few other country’s intelligence agencies that also believed he had WMD’s."

But they didn't lead the charge.

"Your response to the lie that Bush was responsible for the recession that started 7 months before his first budget could have taken effect was lame."

Lame? Wow, what a stunning argument. Actually my claim is that after four years, Bush should have been able to recover the economy far more than he has. My claim is also that invading Iraq probably wasn't great for our economy either, and blaming Clinton's actions four years ago seems like blame shifting.

"What you said had nothing to do with the fact that Bush was not responsible for it. Again, another big liberal lie."

Okay... so I can't say that it seems like Bush is lying, but you can accuse me and my "ilk" of lying at every turn? It isn't a LIE that I think Bush is responsible for a large part of our economic problems; he is the president after all. At worst, it is a mistake, but I don't think it's that either.

Maybe you should crack a book and learn the definition of a lie. You currently seem to think it means A. Something liberals do a lot B. an opinion that differs from my own.

I never heard of the “if you’re not with the Patriot Act, you’re with the terrorist” quote. Who said that and do you have a link for the article where whoever said that was quoted, oh Google-enlightened one?"

Ahhh, with the Patriot Act, it was Ashcroft:

'Ashcroft said that people who raise concerns about the impact of the Justice Department's actions on civil liberties actually "aid terrorists" and "give ammunition to America's enemies."

Bush said this in a joint session of Congress: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

To be fair, this is surrounded by talk of actively harboring terrorists, which is valid. On the other hand, it is a threat not simply to not harbor terrorists, but to be onboard with our goals, which many, understandably, are not.

More fun conservative higher ups:

"Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., ranted: "How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism?" He accused Daschle of trying to "divide the country."
“Meanwhile, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, R-Tx., called Daschle's comments "disgusting," and Tom Davis, R-Va., who leads the National Republican Congressional Committee, said that Senator Daschle's comments gave "aid and comfort to the enemy."

Nice.

"people on the right being out of control. Whereas, I gave several examples of Democratic LEADERS appearing to be out of control, not just liberal supporters."

Just gave you some. And I addressed Republican leaders acting out of control and addressed your claims that Dem leaders were out of control.

"The opponent for the Republican senator from Kentucky who called his opponent a limp wristed faggot (I find it strange that this didn’t make the national news)"

It did. "Democratic state Sen. Daniel Mongiardo accused U.S. Sen. Jim Bunning yesterday of allowing Republican legislative leaders to imply he is gay by calling him "limp-wristed," a "switch-hitter" and not a "man.""

"and the Govenator are not leaders of the Republican party."

Then neither is Al Sharpton. Try to apply a little consistency.

"However, the difference between those supposed examples and where the liberal leaders are out of control comes down to false allegations as already mentioned in the Kennedy claims."

Hmm... the difference seems to be that you think all liberal leaders are lying and all conservative leaders are telling the truth, thus you call the liberal leaders out of control for what you perceive to be lying while refusing to apply the same scrutiny to your own people. That good old fashioned party religion!

"Was the democratic senatorial candidate from Kentucky gay? If so, the comment from his republican opponent might have been mean, but it would have been accurate."

No, he wasn't. Second, it's still inappropriate just as it is inappropriate to make fun of Dick Cheney for being bald. Before you jump on the dem-hatred express, I think it was inappropriate, even to do it more respectfully, for Edwards and Kerry to drag Cheney's daughter's sexuality into the fray.

"I know Arnold’s name calling was accurate after the democratic party as a whole lost big in the last 3 elections, hence the name “losers.” Mean, maybe, and definitely not politically correct, but accurate."

First of all, the dems didn't lose all the elections. Second of all, the problem is not with accurate namecalling, it is with the expressed refusal to work with people representing half the country because they are "losers". I have a distinct feeling you'd be calling for Clinton's head even more if after he'd won, he'd said: "Why would I work with the Republicans? They're a bunch of losers". Ooh, fur flying!

"The close ties between the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans (I’m guessing you’re talking about them having some of the same donors)?"

Actually I'm referring to the political associate of Karl Rove, a trustee for the foundation of Bush's presidential library, the official Minnesota Republican website, the Florida Bush campaign headquarters sponsoring a SBV rally, and one of Bush's advisors. It's also suspicious that the same people came out against McCain in 2000 and the same team produced anti Dukakis ads.

Basically, if Bush were any more in bed with these people, he'd need a tube of KY Jelly.

"How about the close ties between the Kerry campaign and CBS’s forged documents scandal?"

Haven't heard anything about that other than being perp'd by a Kerry supporter. Enlighten me.

"What about all of the misrepresentation about Bush’s (take your pick)? Both sides misrepresent the other side’s positions."

I've mentioned this countless times. You're too busy making me into your little liberal strawman to notice. What I object to is that when both sides do it, you paint the liberals as pathological liars and then ignore or pardon the conservatives.

"As already stated, the liberals called Bush everything from Hitler to a dictator and claimed he single handedly revoked the entire constitution by himself."

Wow, they claimed that at the Democratic National Convention?

By the way, you may differ, but I am not of the opinion that if the other side does it, it must be okay. If your party really does have a scrap of morality, shouldn't they be above all this? How is it they come off worse?

"Clearly, this is normal politics, but doesn’t match the seemingly out of control behavior by the leaders of the liberals."

And here we go again... it's normal politics... until the liberal leaders do it. Atrocious commentary by conservative leaders? Not atrocious... or not leaders... or being cruel but honest. Please.

"No Republican leader called Kerry a traitor even though he met with a foreign government while we were at war with them."

When was this? Sources, please.

"On the subject of moral decay, where do you get your stats from?"

Published reports. Yours? I'm not saying society doesn't have problems. I'm saying that increased youth violence (though down in cities) seems less like moral decay than actions in past generations. As people get older, there is a tendency to demonize the rising generations. This also has been pretty common place through the centuries.

"Thanks in part to the large tax burden put on American citizens by the federal government, a much larger percent of families have both parents working just to make ends meet."

True... and some families also have both parents working just to have a higher standard of living. I'm sure this links to the demon feminists in some way.

"Hence a lot less time parents can spend with their kids or be home when their kids get home from school."

Yup. So the kids regulate themselves. See above post for my views on that.

"You certainly cannot deny that kids are exposed to much more violence, sexual situations and profane language than they were prior to the 1980's."

I feel that violence has gotten more realistic, which may be a good thing. The influences of past generations when left for kids to interpret unsupervised are pretty dangerous. On violent tv NOW, someone gets shot and falls down, and there's blood and guts everywhere, and people are screaming and crying, and the perp often gets dragged off to jail and beaten up while cops scream at him.

This is pretty close to what happens when you ACTUALLY shoot someone. If you compare that to Clint Eastwood getting shot through the shoulder, essentially saying "Ow", and then getting the bad guys, this leaves a far worse message.

The solution? Don't let movies and tv babysit your kid or you have no one to blame but yourself.

Sex? Yes, greater exposure to sex, but also greater knowledge of sex thus getting rid of the mythology that has plagued generations with unwanted pregnancies.

Profanity on television. Yup. Also out of the mouths of their parents, often of closer to 'golden' generations. Profanity has increased.

"Far and away the best predictor of helping was population density. Density was more closely tied to the helpfulness of a city than even characteristics like crime rates, the pace of life, economic conditions or environmental stressors like noise and air pollution."

Not surprising. Interesting, but not surprising. Also not specific to a generation, but more specific to the blase attitude people get when confronted with the same stuff over and over.

"Our U.S. results indicate that they are also less likely to do them good, and that this apathy increases with the degree of city-ness."

This is an interesting report. It does not address trends since the early 90s of a decrease in crime in cities. It does not address the rise of crime in more rural areas, perhaps in part due to unsupervised, bored kids who are also more likely to engage in sexual activity.

It also ignores my point about moral decay. It is easy to focus on a few issues and claim that it's moral decay. I do not claim we are living in a golden age. I object to people fingering the issue of the day and saying that society is crumbling while ignoring equally horrible things going on during their own time.

To me, the very idea that in fairly recent history, black people had to attend separate schools and use separate drinking fountains on a broad scale goes above and beyond any conventional immorality at present.

Ishie

Posted by: Marieka at November 24, 2004 10:21 PM

I think I can speak on the behalf of mainly floridians when it comes to the desire of being part of American Coastopia. Unfortuantly we have been overriden and held hostage to work as slaves for all the old conservatives lead by Jeb himself... Please American Coastopia, Save Florida!

Posted by: Ishtar at November 25, 2004 2:25 AM

"Please American Coastopia, Save Florida!"

Only if you get rid of the giant flying cockroaches.

Posted by: Robert at November 25, 2004 7:16 PM

Ishie,

I just checked back in after several days and I can't believe how much you have posted! I love it! Nobody writes page after page like the two of us!

We should start our own 'Hannity and Colmes'-like web page, only you are leaps and bounds ahead of Colmes!

What say you?

Robert

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 26, 2004 7:01 AM

re Marieka post:

"I think I can speak on the behalf of mainly floridians when it comes to the desire of being part of American Coastopia. Unfortuantly we have been overriden and held hostage to work as slaves for all the old conservatives lead by Jeb himself... Please American Coastopia, Save Florida!"

Perfect example of overblown hysterically buffoonish hyperbole common to the extreme left wing. Obviously written by a person attempting to "hit with impact". Marieka's post is not unique here, most of the posts above are filled with this sort of anguished pleading.

It won't work sweety...it never does. All it does it energize your narrow base already at the depths of despair and can only add to your collective need for Paxil! You'll never win "hearts and, more particlarly, MINDS" with this sort of blather....

Please keep entertaining me though....

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 26, 2004 7:54 AM

November 24, 2004
Maryland Renames Thanksgiving 'Lucky Thursday'
(2004-11-24) -- Faced with the constitutional prohibition against teaching about the Christian origins of Thanksgiving in public schools, the Maryland State Department of Education has rewritten its curriculum, and renamed the holiday 'Lucky Thursday'.

Starting in 2005, 'Lucky Thursday' lessons in public schools will instruct children in the random, yet fortuitous, events which led a band of deranged religious fanatics (called Pilgrims) to beach their boat on an unexpected continent where the native people stumbled upon, then rescued them.

"The Pilgrims jumped on a boat, spun the wheel of fortune, and whammo...they ended up here," said an unnamed professor at the University of Maryland who directed the curriculum adjustment project. "Then they knelt in the sand and thanked their lucky stars."

Donald Trump, whose casino operations declared bankruptcy earlier this week, has promised to provide dice, cards and other instructional tools to help reinforce the curricular concept that "We're Americans because biology accidentally collided with geography."

by Scott Ott
scrappleface.com

Posted by: Randall at November 26, 2004 8:05 AM

Ishie,
Come on everybody! Let's do the TWIST! I couldn't have managed such a thorough twisting of words and thoughts better myself. Nor would I desire to do so. One cannot learn anything by doing so. It can only serve as a vain attempt to forward one's own thoughts at the expense of another's and it is intellectually dishonest. You are much too intelligent for that.
I need to gain a better understanding of American history? Would that be the modern day revisionist history that is becoming standard in the textbooks? The history that seems to blame America for all the world's troubles? If that is the history that you are referring to, I'll take a pass. I'll cling to what I have learned through thousands of hours of reading and careful study from a myriad of sources. I'll stick with the one that teaches us that this country was founded by people who believed in and lived by the basic Judeo-Christian morals that form the basis of all that we have. A solid Constitution. A free society in which all men and, thanks to progressive thought, women are created equal. A society where people are free to participate in the political process. A society where people can practice any religion they wish, or not practice at all. I'll stick with the one that teaches us that the vast majority of the people who came to this great country of ours came here for the opportunity to have a better life. They came here to escape economic oppression and religious persecution. You know what? Although far too many are coming here illegally, they are still coming here for those very reasons with many of them risking death to do so. Kind of puts your notions about how much we suck to bed.
I now see clearly where we part. You confuse the very values I believe in with an active practice of religion. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don't even regularly attend church! We do Bible lessons at home with our children, because frankly we find more negatives than positives with organized "religion". One of the most basic truths of Christianity, or maybe it would be more accurate to say a fundamental tenet of Biblical understanding, is that God forces no one to accept anything. Man is free to believe or not believe as he wishes. If one adheres to a solid belief in Christian principles, then there will in fact be consequences by not accepting Christ. If one does not believe, then what does he have to fear? The message is there to be accepted or not. There is no government agency responsible for insuring that all citizens are "born-again" believers.
There is no state religion in this country, nor will there be as long as the Constitution is adhered to. There are, however, references to God and the Ten Commandments aplenty throughout the writings of our Founders. That's because they as well as the vast majority of the people in this country wanted/want them there. It has been what has bound us together. Don't feel so threatened. They are only principles! One can view them as coming from God or not, but they are simple and fair. Would you deny that most of the original settlers of this land, and I'm not talking about the Native Americans we screwed over so badly, were not escaping monarchy and/or a state religion? Of course they were. Our Founders were fairly intelligent men, albeit with many flaws and misunderstandings as all humans are. Is it difficult to think that they didn't learn by example and labor to produce a governing document that expressly forbade what inspired those people to come here in the first place?
Just because you choose to feel threatened by what the vast majority of people in this nation acknowledge doesn't mean that you are. If being referred to as immoral, un-american, or traitorous because you believe the terrible war we are involved in is wrong causes YOU to feel threatened, perhaps you should think about people the world over who are struggling to foster freedom and democracy (those ideals being championed by those same people as AMERICAN ideals for it is really the only viable example to be had) within the confines of brutal and oppresive dictatorships at the threat of death. That constitutes a real threat. That is not to say that you should roll over and just accept what you believe to be wrong. There is absolutely no reason to. This is a free country! Enjoy it and work to gain acceptance of your views. I will also say that I would defend your right to feel as you do, and the day a theocracy is announced in this country, I will be by your side in fighting to destroy it.
Your views are appreciated and respected by me. If I gave you the impression that they aren't, I sincerely aplogize. I think some of your points of view ARE misinformed, I have read a couple of examples of blather, and the reference to intellectual masturbation was directed at those who choose to rant and spout bromides without attempting to logically justify their positions, not at you. As to being polarized, you said that. I just repeated it.
You have attempted to debunk certain points I have made by citing statistics or figures. Where I have been wrong, I concede. The way things truly are as pertains to a particuliar societal problem cannot always be used as debate material by one side or the other. There can be too many factors at work and too much ambiguity to pin a certain problem to a particuliar cause. That is precisely why I generally do not cite such figures as they can be spun to support one side of an argument or the other. The points you made about children, and in particuliar teenagers, I agree with for the most part. Your reference to parents disciplining their children was refreshing to read. Parents must accept responsibility for what their children do and must teach them right from wrong. I personally believe that the values I have touted go a long way toward doing that, but then, I am talking about me and mine and that's how we are going about it.
I wholeheartedly disagree with you on the matter of liberal activism in our courts. One only has to look at the agenda and the meddling of the ACLU in communities across the nation. This is one example of many of the forces actively seeking to destroy some of the most basic underpinnings of our society! What makes it so especially sickening is that I'm helping to foot the bill by financing the lawyer crooks who are reaping the enormous fees from doing so! I hope we can change that one very soon.
The main disagreement I have with your ideas, Ishie, is that it seems that you wish to be free from any set of beliefs that places any sort of brakes on humankind. This has been tried many times before and people always come back full circle to where they started from, and this applies to individuals as well as entire societies. Left to our own devices, free from any sort of basic values to govern us, we tend to be somewhat bestial and cruel. History is replete with examples of how societies founder and fail after having lost touch with decent moral values. I also freely concede that history shows us many examples of religion being used to terrible ends, but then, there again we have realize that those deeds were committed after the people involved either dicked up or lost touch with their own morality. One thing I do know is that to disavow any basic set of moral values by which to live life and get us proud and excited about being Americans, and I happen to appreciate basic Judeo-Christian values for their simplicity and fairness, will inevitably lead this country into the darkness of socialism. So many well-intentioned people point to Europe, for example, as all peace and light and a model for what our country could and should become. I will say again, that having lived there for 10 years, fully immersed in the language and culture of Germany, with no contact whatsoever with Americans, having to be self-reliant in a foriegn land, that I have a unique perspective on this point. I DO NOT WANT THIS COUNTRY TO BECOME LIKE THEIRS. I fully admit that they do some things better than we do. We can learn from each other, in a spirit of cooperation and without the insistence of the UN that we surrender our sovereignty and become one giant polyglot of nations. Yet to see that the system of government that most European countries have is failing in almost all categories, i.e. rampant unemployment, oppressively high taxes, retirement, health and social insurance systems broke and drastically cutting back benefits, drug use exploding and becoming even more and more accepted, abortion rates through the roof, social unrest and anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head again to new levels, should cause one to think twice about what they think they want. The one statistic I will cite you is that fewer than 5% of Europeans participate in religion or pay tacit recognition to God. There exists there a humanistic set of "values" if you will, and it has produced nothing short of a terrible failure on the part of mankind.
I do enjoy the debate, Ishie. I enjoy exchanging ideas and stand ready to learn from others. Through all of the verbal combat I see that you and I agree on a lot of things. I know we disagree on how to best achieve a lot of the things we think we want, and unfortunately, a lot of the disagreement tends to be based on nothing more than semantics. Can we set a more productive tone? Thanks.

Posted by: badbobusnret at November 26, 2004 9:49 AM

re- Ishtar and Randall skirmish above:

To be specific their history debate.

"I need to gain a better understanding of American history? Would that be the modern day revisionist history that is becoming standard in the textbooks? The history that seems to blame America for all the world's troubles? If that is the history that you are referring to, I'll take a pass"

I agree.

Ishie, or more formally, Ishtar (more on this later- remember "The Story of Gilgamesh"?) is a product of the morally relative method of teaching history(IE revisionist), whether she agrees or not. Yes, she is well grounded in the realm of critical reasoning (and that is why we like her) but, and this is critical, she is "stuck" in the paradigm of "attacking" anything that she considers "judgementalbecause of her "indoctrination". Especially something as open to interpretation as history (regardless of how recent), politics or G-forbid- issues of the day. Who can attack physics or geometry? Ahh- but those humanities invite it.

Now I have a niece who is also a Californian, a recent Ivy graduate and a first year med student at a Bay area med school. Believe me she is no dummy. To the contrary, she is analytical and focused to the 10th degree..but on the subjects above she suffers the same "affliction" as Ishie. She once told me (as an Ivy freshman): "Uncle BADBOB, my generation doesn't see history as relevant....". Man I'll tell you I almost freaked out. But this was pre-911 so I held my tongue! Wouldn't you know it she would be president of the 'Young Democrats" and be involved in the 2000 election?

Now let us get back to non-judgementalism. There is a fine line between judgementalism and just plain being discriminating (I call it common-sense). Ishie shows her pragmatic side above when she discusses chid rearing (man, my kids are still a work in progress-I ain't gonna brag on my skills for another 10 years when they're adults, and only IF I am successful!)or self -defense, or even some aspects of politics such as welfare reform (we all acknowledge she has had a couple zingers!)

But if there is any hope of bringing her over to our side, our arguments will have to be quantifiable and not qualitative. That is, until she has experienced some personal,life changing event that changes her mind. This is inevitable.

She is at least pragmatic. We all can be thankful she is not a sociology major!

Now onto the "Ishtar" thing. Why would any young girl choose that for call sign? Well the answer lies above in both her or her dad's (Dan) posts. She made an early attempt at a young age(either on her own or forced)to be associated with organized Christianity. It didn't work out so she plugged the holes with other things only she knows what.

The Babylonian goddess Ishtar is interesting..she was the super-deity and center of all for the Babylonians. That is until that pesky Abraham came along and developed monotheism, which as a by-product western civilization had it's first origins. Recommended read- "The Gifts of the Jews" by Thomas Cahill. Quite a distinctive choice for a name. That choice alone shows someone making a statement.

OK Ishie and randall take your best shots!

Ishie- You are the subject only to prove a point- nothing personal.

Posted by: Michael at November 27, 2004 11:35 AM

Brilliant!!! From New Orleans moved to Cali. Need I say more.

Thanks for radiance of truth!

Posted by: Ishtar at November 28, 2004 1:59 AM

"I need to gain a better understanding of American history? Would that be the modern day revisionist history that is becoming standard in the textbooks? The history that seems to blame America for all the world's troubles?"

What textbooks have you been reading? Revisionist history is an accusation made by both sides of this little debate, and accurate in each case. BOTH liberals and conservatives are guilty of this. Each side likes to take their personal historical heroes, gloss their lives over, add a cherry tree or a noble cause for slaughter, and deify their place in American history.

I took a few history classes in college, but not specifically American history because not only am I more interested in antiquity, but the way it is taught is generally mind numbing and obnoxious.

Most of what I know about American history is from reading individual sources and books geared towards a more critical readership than disinterested frat boys.

As a result of the revisionistic tendencies of both sides of the debate, while I cannot speak for college textbooks, high school textbooks are stripped of everything but the bare bones, avoiding any of the conclusions or contraversies that might upset either side of the political spectrum that not only are they absolutely useless for learning anything, but they are so utterly boring as to make kids uninterested in anything to do with American history.

The American history that I've read, I think, stays pretty fair. I do not like mindless jingoism and I do not like liberal guilt. It is worthless to me to read books that either push America as a bastion of high morality and saintly founders standing as a light for all time or that push America as Hitler's children in Uncle Sam hats. We did horrible things; we had horrible people. So did everybody else. We also did wonderful things.

I have noticed a tendency to whitewash the sordid details of America's past and present in the interest of patriotism, and I have no use for this either. For starters, the sordid details tend to be the interesting ones.

When I pick on America's past, I do so because of a common mischaracterization of my generation and the ones right behind mine of being devoid of ethical standards, living in a whirling cesspool, departing farther and farther from the good old days of good old fashioned moral values. Those who accuse me of revisionist history, which tends, in this context, to mean stripping America of its accomplishments to only highlight the bad, seem unaware of the fact that they are doing it to the current crop. It isn't fair. Instead of acknowledging good and bad aspects of all generations, we see criticism of America's past as revisionism, and criticism of the current situation as moral decay.

My argument is that if we are going to only highlight the horrible things that happen today, we might as well do it all the way back to the country's founding.

"I'll stick with the one that teaches us that this country was founded by people who believed in and lived by the basic Judeo-Christian morals that form the basis of all that we have."

Where I am confused is where the Judeo-Christian got the monopoly on morality when other cultures were practicing values considered JC values long before it became present. I do not object to standards. They are necessary for a functional society. I object to certain religious groups taking the fundamental rules of functional society, adding things that specifically glorify their deity, and calling the whole list "their morals".

Many remote tribes who have barely heard of Christianity or at least have no understanding of it also have a society in which stealing, murdering, and adultery are considered wrong and punished. They were not influenced by Judeo-Christian morals; it's simply a logical way to make a society work.

You also ignore the diversity of the founding fathers. I am not denying that many of them were Christians. What I am denying is that all of them were and that their message was. Thomas Jefferson himself was a deist. I do not mean "revisionist history; him bad man!" I mean a deist. It was a common belief among educated men during the Enlighenment and involved a clockmaker God. I'm not seeing the spin. Other patriots, like Patrick Henry, were devout Christians.

"A solid Constitution. A free society in which all men and, thanks to progressive thought, women are created equal."

I am not dissing America, but while the founders lay the groundwork for this, is it not disingenuous into deifying to such a degree that we pretend they practiced this?

"I'll stick with the one that teaches us that the vast majority of the people who came to this great country of ours came here for the opportunity to have a better life."

During which period of time? I'm not being contrary; I'm just not sure if you're talking about the settlers, the founding fathers, the rush of immigrants during the Industrial Revolution, or the current trend?

"Kind of puts your notions about how much we suck to bed."

Didn't say America sucked. Don't put words in my mouth. When I say that I see other countries with excellent opportunities, that is not to discredit the opportunities provided by my own. Not everyone is given a fair shot, but a lot more are than are in many countries.

But I am also not so enamored by the red, white, and blue that I will refuse to critique problems where I see them and address disturbing trends within the country.

"You confuse the very values I believe in with an active practice of religion."

Not exactly. I see many of the values you have expressed here as being an endorsement of one religion if inflicted from on-high.

"If one adheres to a solid belief in Christian principles, then there will in fact be consequences by not accepting Christ. If one does not believe, then what does he have to fear?"

Christians?

"The message is there to be accepted or not. There is no government agency responsible for insuring that all citizens are "born-again" believers."

No, but the government also shouldn't be endorsing one religion over another or granting favors. It isn't a "what's the harm if it's not true?" thing. I think that some of the values expressed within specifically fundamentalist Christianity are intrinsically poor ones. I would not want them pushed onto my children for the same reason you wouldn't want yours playing Grand Theft Auto. For instance, I find the concept of Hell intrinsically immoral. Whether or not it actually exists is incidental.

"There are, however, references to God and the Ten Commandments aplenty throughout the writings of our Founders."

Perhaps the writings of our Founders contain such things, but if we are to look at that, we can look at Jefferson's respect of Jesus but denial of his divinity, and the actual text "Church/state" separation statement that so many people think is directly in the Constitution. The Constitution does not refer to God or the Ten Commandments. The Declaration of Independence refers only to "Nature's God", a deistic expression largely backed by the fact that it was written by a... deist.

The other documents have support on both sides of the secular/religious debate and are useless as a binding legal code.

"Don't feel so threatened. They are only principles! One can view them as coming from God or not, but they are simple and fair."

The Constitution does not state these. When you talk about revisionism, you should also pay attention to the attempts made on the part of conservatives to revise history to fit the model. This does not deny liberals responsibility as well.

I do not feel the Ten Commandments, if one can decide on a proper version, are simple and fair. I do not find many of the principles of Judeo-Christianity to be simple and fair. I find them to be exclusionary, specific, confusing, and often hopelessly outdated.

"Would you deny that most of the original settlers of this land, and I'm not talking about the Native Americans we screwed over so badly, were not escaping monarchy and/or a state religion? Of course they were. Our Founders were fairly intelligent men, albeit with many flaws and misunderstandings as all humans are."

Uhhh... first of all, a problem... the original settlers of this land were not the Founding Fathers. The ones we associate with 'religious persecution', though that one has to be taken tongue-in-cheek, were very devout Christians, Calvinists to be exact. Deism was not a prominent philosophy in that group seeing as how it would have probably been punishable by death.

The Founding Fathers were not really escaping religious persecution or a general 'state religion' for the most part, though most of them had enough of a working knowledge of European politics and history to know that the presence of state religion had led to hundreds of years of the Catholics and Protestants having revenge matches based on who was in power.

The Founding Fathers were largely working on a financial opportunity. This isn't a bad thing. They were intelligent men; men of business; men of politics; men of finances; men of education and higher learning. They sought to avoid the oppression of the monarchy when the government placed growing restrictions and taxes on them without representation, and then began sending soldiers to deal with the rebellious colonists after a few of their collectors ended up tarred and feathered.

I do not think the founders were stupid. I also do not think they were gods.

"Just because you choose to feel threatened by what the vast majority of people in this nation acknowledge doesn't mean that you are."

I do not choose to feel threatened. I see fear fueling alarmism and a frantic attempt to "return" to Christian values, if we have ever possessed them, in an attempt to toss a bandaid on complex social problems. Kids killing each other in schools? Well, you took prayer out of school. Put up the Ten Commandments. That'll do it. By these reactions, I am concerned by a potential for the country to abandon its true founding principles in favor of grasping for safety, resulting in no actual check to problems that need addressing which continue to blossom, which only serves to fuel the fear cycle.

This isn't limited to religion, by the way. I see a lot of attempted gutting of the Constitution due to fear. Look at the things people (on both sides) want to change. Guns. Civil rights that might allow terrorists more opportunity. Adding moral restrictions on marriage. Fear. Physical and social.

"perhaps you should think about people the world over who are struggling to foster freedom and democracy within the confines of brutal and oppresive dictatorships at the threat of death. That constitutes a real threat."

Hmm... I find it an invalid form of argument to attempt to devalue someone by claiming other people have it worse. For every worrisome lump, there's a guy with a brain tumor, and for every person concerned about an ass-kicking by a "real" American, there's the child of a dissenter being mailed to its parent in pieces.

I do feel threatened. I do not feel threatened by a brutal dictatorship that will hunt me down and kill me. I feel threatened by an erosion of the true values that make our country great, and they are vastly different than the ones you express. I feel threatened by a growing imposition by the PEOPLE as much as the government of a standard that it is treason to violate. I sincerely dislike our administration but it is the people that back it that concern me. I am very low on the government's list of priorities unless my student loan officials make good on their threats to break my legs. I am concerned about the very people you seem to think are the "heart" of America. They get ugly in mobs.

"This is a free country! Enjoy it and work to gain acceptance of your views."

Precisely what I am doing, though not simply here. I initially came here to vent with the other frustrated 'liberals' for lack of a better word, but you guys crashed the party.

"Your views are appreciated and respected by me. If I gave you the impression that they aren't, I sincerely aplogize."

Thank you. I apologize for telling you to shove it. I appreciate the tone of your current post and your willingness to debate someone as long winded as I am.

"As to being polarized, you said that. I just repeated it."

Where I objected was to the suggestions for reversing polarization by seeming to go along with policies I find unethical.

"You have attempted to debunk certain points I have made by citing statistics or figures."

You were citing moral decay, which is a pet peeve of mine. I figure if America is in a downward spiral approaching the fall of Rome, the numbers would be consistently down. Certainly anyone can manipulate them to advantages, which is why I am not using the numbers to indicate anything other than the claims of widespread moral decay to be largely the creation of a sensationalistic media.

"There can be too many factors at work and too much ambiguity to pin a certain problem to a particuliar cause."

Like abortion, homosexuality, or taking prayer out of school?

"That is precisely why I generally do not cite such figures as they can be spun to support one side of an argument or the other."

Generally. However, when making a claim that does indirectly implicate my generation and those behind as being somehow morally inadequate, it is best to back it up with *something*.

"Parents must accept responsibility for what their children do and must teach them right from wrong."

AND must extrapolate those values to real consequences while remaining active and aware of their children's lives. Instilling some moral sense is only the beginning. Particularly in the South, I saw SO many children of devout Christian parents whose parents assumed that based on their Church upbringing, the children would remain moral because they knew right from wrong, thus really ignored events in their children's lives and would not accept reports of wrongdoing (you can see them yelling at teachers on a regular basis). This unchecked kiddies could be some of the biggest drugged out whores...

"The main disagreement I have with your ideas, Ishie, is that it seems that you wish to be free from any set of beliefs that places any sort of brakes on humankind."

Incorrect.

"Left to our own devices, free from any sort of basic values to govern us, we tend to be somewhat bestial and cruel."

Clearly. This is why I talk about universal principles not as qualities every individual has, but as qualities almost any successful society has. A prohibition on murdering children is not a "Judeo-Christian value" (particularly since examples of it can be found in the Bible). It is one of the 'rules' that generally is in place for a successful society. This doesn't mean child killers don't exist. It means that the society cannot be RUN on a foundation where child killing is acceptable. You need people making laws and setting standards to allow for the proper function of society.

Where I disagree is on the government actively involving itself in personal matters or setting up a specific-religion based morality that holds non-participants as somehow inferior to those that are in and sets laws based on that specific religion's world view. Homosexuality is a perfect example of this.

"History is replete with examples of how societies founder and fail after having lost touch with decent moral values."

This is a pretty broad statement. It requires a hindsight deconstruction of "decent moral values" and forces evaluation of which ones were the most important. Why did Rome fall? They got fat, indulgent and lazy. Not decent moral values (also, not true). The fact that they got by as the most powerful empire the world had ever seen with brutal tyranny and the swift, symbolic deaths of those who opposed it while keeping slaves and pitting people against each other for fun can't factor in. Only the morals we want to emphasize. Greece thrived, led science and philosophy, virtually invented the idea of democracy all around a culture highly rooted in not just homosexuality but pedophilia.

Societal falls tend more frequently to be largely rooted in warfare and economy. You get beaten; you spend too much money and resources beating somebody else and/or your economy goes crashing down for a multitude of reasons.

"I also freely concede that history shows us many examples of religion being used to terrible ends, but then, there again we have realize that those deeds were committed after the people involved either dicked up or lost touch with their own morality."

Not really. There are plenty of religious atrocities deeply rooted in morality. Others were political power coups wrapped in a veil of religion, but others were viewed as the height of morality.

I don't think linking religion and power are a good mix. Having a leader who happens to be religious is fine. Having leadership and religion linked unfortunately seems to spawn an assumption of divine support for whatever personal acts a power-hungry leader supports.

"One thing I do know is that to disavow any basic set of moral values by which to live life and get us proud and excited about being Americans, and I happen to appreciate basic Judeo-Christian values for their simplicity and fairness, will inevitably lead this country into the darkness of socialism."

Where did socialism rear up? And in the meantime, we should probably hone in on what Judeo Christian values actually are if we are to discuss them, because I see nothing condemning socialism in them. I'm all for capitalism, but there are plenty of Christian socialists. I don't see the link. Actually, much of what Jesus said as recorded through the New Testament sounds a bit socialist.

"So many well-intentioned people point to Europe, for example, as all peace and light and a model for what our country could and should become."

Nope. Europe has many intense and hideous problems (but it is a whole continent). There are plenty of countries there that I feel are wonderful and offer freedom and opportunity, but that does not mean I want America to be Europe. America cannot be Europe. The countries which of which Europe is composed have a vast and different history than Americans do. We all have different foundings, different stories, and different economic landscapes.

"I DO NOT WANT THIS COUNTRY TO BECOME LIKE THEIRS."

Nor would I. I want this country to become like ours. I would like it to acknowledge its history, good and bad, and continue on the founding VALUES, yes I used the word, of freedom and equality. When I see those values trampled in the interest of promoting a specific belief system, or worse, of killing thousands of other people, it upsets me.

"The one statistic I will cite you is that fewer than 5% of Europeans participate in religion or pay tacit recognition to God."

Again, not a helpful use of numbers. "Europe" is a continent, and one that may be more culturally splintered than any other, despite efforts to the contrary. WHICH countries have the highest rates of religion, which religion, and what is their specific economic standing as relating to other European countries with similar economic landscapes that ha