|
-U.S.A. Has Spoken To The World!-- (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by kamil
^best reply ive seen yet, and which is why i said i dont hate "all" americans.....and uve put a perfect target for ppl to put the blame on (y) |
Yeah, except the target is completely wrong. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Look at the county map. There are plenty of well-populated areas NOT in the South that voted for Bush. You don't win an election by 4m votes, with huge turnout, and do it by only winning the South. You'd like to think 59m crackers elected the President...you'd better re-evaluate your conclusions.
FYI to those who haven't been to the US or who haven't been to the South...the South ends at the Mississippi. Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico are not "southern" states in the political sense of the word. They developed completely independent of the states East of the mighty Miss and south of the Mason-Dixon. The dynamics of their populations are completely different from Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, etc. |
|
|
| PhloTron |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dave Piazza
Please take note world:
This is a President elected by Rural White and Southern White American voters.
Please take note :
The entire North Eastern United States , California, Washington, Oregon, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota voted Kerry.
All Southern States voted bush too (exception for Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri which voted for Bush by slim margins).
Please put your anger to the Southern White Americans not all Americans. The problem and stupidity of America lies within this area of America.
Thank You
American Citizen |
Funniest, and most incorrect statement I've read thus far...
How far up your ass can you get your head, Dave? I'm impressed. |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
Remember...
Democracy is the tyranny of the ignorant.
Some Americans are among the most ignorant people in the world I've ever spoken too. This is a generalization, but meh... it's a very popular belief among Canadians. |
|
|
| smokeape |
I would say the pucker factor just rose significantly for the terrorists after the election! And those American fries ain't getting French again anytime soon.
;)
[[[smoke]]] |
|
|
| tecnolover |
Woooah! :nervous:
I come back from being gone a few days and find I've made lots of nice new friends here. Sheeesh! I guess now wouldn't be the time to say "check out my latest trance song"? :eek: oh well. mabye later if things cool down here.
Well what can I say? Obviously the post must have struck a bad note with a lot of you in here. Wow, I never imagined there was this much hatred here in this forum and even from US members?. At least it's good that you all get it out of your system. Thats healthier than letting it build up. Still, I'm starting to wonder if all the rumors about you canadians are true. you know the ones about how canadians say how peaceful they are but how they are really planning to stab US in the back first chance they get. yeh those.
Anyway, let me just point out a few things here ...
Election 2000
Election 2004
This election revealed a lot. This graphic shows how diverse the support for Bush was in both election. Notice in both elections there is for the most part the same regions supporting conservative and liberal candidates. Even down to the county level. Notice how the most support for Kerry was in the largest metropolitan areas. The heartland of America appears to overwhelmingly support Bush. Notice that most definately it was broad support not just in the bible belt.
Interesting that the large cities like LA and New York city are also the biggest media hubs also. The media, particularly t.v. and newspaper have been strong Kerry supporters this election. The american people have been under the illusion that this nation is dominantly liberal. I think all americans can learn a lot from this picture. With the exception of radio, it seems most every media outlet was representing liberalism.
The U.S. democratic party is going to continue to loose and weaken until they unerstand that america really a moderate majority. If the dems had chose a candidate that was more centered and didn't confuse people on what his actual position was the election would have been much different imo.
Moderation is what is best because extreme liberalism or conservatism leads to perhaps communism or religious authoritarianism.
America was founded on moderate ideals. Therfore, I don't believe it is best for our nation to move too far left or right. Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others even if I've come across that way on here at times. USA was designed to be a free nation that would welcome people from all over the world and give them the choice to worship God how they feel is best in their heart.
It must be remembered that christianity has always been the dominant religion in this nation. Politics and religion have never been completely divorced and christianity has been the moral backbone of our nation from the beginning with the first european settlers. Liberalism in recent time has tried to cover that up and bombard us with the illusion that morality and christianity no longer are important in this nation.
Everything I said in my innitial post is true and thats why many don't like to hear it. The moderate majority of america came out and voted Bush in not just evangelicals. The hard liberals came out in full force otherwise the 4million difference would have been even larger. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by tecnolover
Although, I am a strong christian, I don't want to impose my beliefs on others even if I've come across that way on here at times. |
Then, presumably you would/did vote against a ban on gay marriage, correct? After all, I can think of few more obvious examples of "impos[ing] [your] beliefs on others." |
|
|
| wiregen |
| hmm seperation from church and state... |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Then, presumably you would/did vote against a ban on gay marriage, correct? After all, I can think of few more obvious examples of "impos[ing] [your] beliefs on others." |
Even if he did, how can he be imposing if he's the one answering the question posed? :confused: |
|
|
| tecnolover |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
Then, presumably you would/did vote against a ban on gay marriage, correct? After all, I can think of few more obvious examples of "impos[ing] [your] beliefs on others." |
Arbiter, I did vote against gay marriage because I don't feel my state has to give them financial benefits as married folks recieve. It doesn't not mean that I don't respect these people or that I believe they shouldn't have the natural right to practice their homosexual behaviours. As I've stated before, I believe a homosexual family unit is also bad influence on any children. It can be argued that gay families are actually destructive and abusive to children. What about the childrens rights also?
Democracy has never been about giving people unlimited freedom. Unlimited freedom is a society of chaos. The majority vote is the democratic way. The gay population is only a small minority of the US population. When gay marriage is voted against it isn't taking from their natural right to practice homosexual relations only that the state is making a statement that they will not give benefits or legally recognize the marriage. This is not imposing religion on others. Religion, particularly christian, shouldn't be targeted as being imposed on anyone here. The state society has to draw a line on what it will and will not legally support. I could say that I would like to marry myself to my dog and that I should get state benefits as well. Well that is absurd! The state shouldn't have to support this if the majority think it's ridiculous. It doesn't mean I can't still have relations with my dog however. This is my protected natural right under the constitution.
Basically, I believe the states have the right to choose whether they will support gay marriage or not. I don't believe that should be decided at the federal level. So i am not necessarily for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage but rather a constitutional amendment that limits federal powers and leaves that choice up to each state. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by tecnolover
Arbiter, I did vote against gay marriage because I don't feel my state has to give them financial benefits as married folks recieve. It doesn't not mean that I don't respect these people or that I believe they shouldn't have the natural right to practice their homosexual behaviours. As I've stated before, I believe a homosexual family unit is also bad influence on any children. It can be argued that gay families are actually destructive and abusive to children. What about the childrens rights also? |
well, so what you say is that they have the right to be who they are, but they wont get the same benefits that everyone else enjoys.
thats like the black people before, they had the right to be black, but they didnt have the same benefits as the whites. that was fair too, right? |
|
|
| tecnolover |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
well, so what you say is that they have the right to be who they are, but they wont get the same benefits that everyone else enjoys.
thats like the black people before, they had the right to be black, but they didnt have the same benefits as the whites. that was fair too, right? |
No. It means that I believe they have the natural right to make that choice to practice their homosexual ways. And don't even start with that 'it's the way they are crap' with me. I don't believe that for a second and this was discussed at length in another thread already on anti-gay marriage. If these people want an entire society to financially support their ways the burden of proof lies on them provide overwhelming evidence that it is not choice but 'how they are'. Even if there was overwhelming evidence that it was genetic that still doesn't mean a state should have to support it. Democracy isn't always fair to everyone and it's time you people woke up and smelled the flowers.
Do I have the right to run around exposing myself or engaging in gay acts in public? What about in your country? Other people may find that offensive if allowed. Yet many would say they should because it's their natural right. Well obviously there are limits to what democratic societies allow since too many rights allow infringement on others rights also. It is a balance and the US has done quite well for 200 years now. |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
Remember...
Democracy is the tyranny of the ignorant.
Some Americans are among the most ignorant people in the world |
is it really a democracy?
so u get to vote on a FEW issues, and who's president.
but then ANY decision the president makes must be accepted.
to me, "democracy" is just a scam by gov'ts to make people
BELIEVE they are making decisions.
a TRUE democracy would mean the PEOPLE decide what stand
to take on important issues.
the iraq war wasnt supported by many in the US (sure prolly more
did than not), but it wouldnt have made a difference.
60+% of british were against the war but they still went ahead,
and are still there.... is this democracy?
i should be able to VOTE on iraq, tax cuts, education issues etc... |
|
|
|
|
