The Official US President Election Thread

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Baby-K
BTW Dùnedain - just as a point of interest, did you vote for Bush in the last election? If not, what has changed your mind about the man, after all he is fundamentally still the same as he was then and I cannot believe that you'd think waging of a war could suddenly change the principles that made you not vote for him the last time? I can understand that, having lived in NY most of your life (if not all) you were probably more directly affected by 9/11 and thus the way he handled it (if you were as impressed with it as JD) could impress you, but to the extent where it'd sway your vote? Just interested in knowing.

Nope, I actually voted for Gore last election. I think the big thing that changed things and the reason why I am voting for Bush is due to 9/11 for the most part. I was greatly affected by it, as I grew up about 45 minutes from the World Trade Centers. I knew about 5 people who died, directly and indirectly (as in knowing of them, but not friends with them). 1 person I knew lived 4 houses away from me, he was a Firefighter Chief for one of the company's.

Outside of that though, I've been in agreement with Bush on a number of other issues as well, such as Iraq, the War on Terror, the improvements in national security (and continual improvement). Overall, I think our country is much more aware and safer than it was and has been for a long time. Of course there is room for improvement, but even in the best situation there is always room for improvement. Now, there are some things I disagree with Bush on, but for the most part I like and agree with everything he's done. I also don't think Gore would have been as effective in the same situation Bush was put in with 9/11. I mean it's one thing to have something like this happen as a President, but to have it happen in the first year on the job would normally have bigger disaster written all over it, but thankfully it didn't come to that.

I also think it would be bad for the country to change directions in leadership in such an important time in American and World history. The next 5-10 years are going to probably be the most important time for all of us and for our kids and their kids, compared to comparable times in history.

I know I didn't go into great detail here, but does that answer it better for you?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Falagar
But do you need them anymore? There's almost no one left to oppose the US military anyway, and I doubt that there're many people anywhere who would support the use of them.

Maybe you haven't noticed - China stil has nuclear weapons, Russia does - even if they are currently and ally, North Korea. it doesn't matter if people support the use of them or not - they are required to keep some countries in check still.

I think it was just a statement of disagreement (doesn't matter if he has any control over it or not, she still disagree with him).

Undertstandable. But I look at the things the president can change. It's funny how many of the democratic candidates say - we'll get the world community in there to help out in Iraq. or with Kucinich - he will pull completely out and have the rest of the world go in there. They have no control over that at all. Anyone that believes that they can make the UN go in there or get more of the world involved in Iraq are completely blind. Anyway - I don't want the self interests and the security of the United States being determined and handled by the world community.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by gdl96
I have a question about the primaries. How does the Iowa Caucus work?

It's sort of old fashioned. I saw how it worked on the news. The voters meet. They then go into respective areas of the room and basically try to convince people from people who support the other candidates to come over to their side.

CNN has an interactive guide to the caucuses and explains how they work...

Iowa Caucus Explained

...A caucus is a political meeting in which voters publicly discuss their preference for a party nominee...

The Iowa caucuses on January 19 are the first of four steps in the state's Democratic delegate selection process to attend the Democratic National Convention. Here is a look at each stage.

Date: January 19, 2004
How it works: Across the state, 1,993 precinct caucuses are held to elect 13,490 delegates to attend county conventions. At 7 p.m. CT (8 p.m. ET), caucus attendees are asked to indicate which Democratic presidential candidate they want to nominate. In most cases, a caucus does this by dividing attendees into different groups, each group representing a presidential candidate or an "uncommitted" group.

The preference groups must be a certain size, usually 15 percent of the entire caucus, to be considered "viable" and to send any delegates to the county convention. A group that is not viable after the initial forming of preference groups must join a different preference group until every preference group is viable.

IowaCaucus.org FAQ
On caucus night, Iowans gather by party preference to elect delegates to the 99 county conventions. Presidential preference on the Republican side is done with a straw vote of those attending the caucus. This vote is predominately taken by a show of hands or by ballot. Democratic caucus-goers express their presidential preference through a short of hands, a sign-in sheet or by dividing themselves into groups according to candidate. Democratic candidates must receive at least 15 percent of the votes in that precinct to move on to the county convention. If a candidate receives less than 15 percent of the votes, the caucus cannot end until those voters change their vote to one of the predominant candidates. A "third party" may hold a convention to nominate one candidate for president and one for vice president as well. The results of this caucus activity on both the Democratic and Republican sides are not binding on the elected delegates, but the delegates usually feel obligated to follow the wishes expressed by the caucus-goers. Thus the initial caucus results provide a good barometer of the composition of Iowa's national delegation.

ABC News gives good information on the candidates.

Hope this helps

[jerseydevil]

Dúnedain - hard to believe that YOU voted for Al Bore. But as I said before - you shouldn't claim you know anyone - particularly their politics - just because of what they post here.

I didn't particularly want Bush - in the primaries I was really upset he won. I wanted McCain who is more moderate. But I think Bush has done a remarkable job. As you said - 9/11 came after only 9 months into his presidency. This from the person so many people here are claiming is ignorant, stupid and inexperienced. He handled 9/11 remarkably well. People outside the US amy disagree with iraq and his handling of the "allies" and the UN - but that is from outsiders. The majority of Americans supported and still support the Iraq war.

Democratic candidates who want to turn over the welfare of the US to an international body as incompetent as the UN doesn't have a chance for the election I think. They can argue about how much the UN should have been in charge and stuff - but the UN only has a 30% approval rating in the US. Not much of a rallying cry there.

[gdl96]

Why doesn't Iowa just have a regular vote? This caucus method seems too complicated.

And I too would have prefered McCain over Bush. I think the 2000 election would have been a lot different if he won the primaries.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by gdl96
Why doesn't Iowa just have a regular vote? This caucus method seems too complicated.

I think partially it is to get a debate going. People on either side of the room try to state their opinions and why others should join their candidate and abandon their own. It's like a free for all debate from what I understand. It may be complicated - but I think it's interesting.

[Nurvingiel]

I read everyone's posts, but I'm really behind so I'll just comment on one or two. This thread has even faster posts then the "Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals" thread!

Originally posted by jerseydevil
can't have a small militaryu when you are expected to fight the UN battles and NATO battles. Europe is so far behind us in military technology and so is Canada. We do have to protect South Korea and we are fighting and have fought and lead multiple military campaigns under Bush as well as Clinton. We need the military if you want and the rest of the western world wishes to live in the freedom you enjoy.

This is true, but I don't think it's fair to you that one country is expected to keep the peace for the world. I can understand that you have a large army because you wouldn't want to leave your allies undefended. However, I would rather see all wealthy nations support a useful UN more equally, and keep the peace in a coalition including Canada, and many other countries. I would actually support a larger millitary budget for Canada in this case. We may be behind technologically, in some areas, but we do train our soldiers very well.

Nuclear weapons helped prevent the Soviet Union from overrunning Europe - not to mention the world.

I don't agree with any country having nukes, including the former USSR. I didn't mean just the United States there.

[Gay rights] is a state issue - not a national. Bush has no control over this. Even if he does want a Constitutional Amendment - I do not think it will happen. New Jersey this week became the 5th state to honor same sex unions.

Since it is a state controlled issue, I’ll amend my statement to this:
I would like to see Bush, as the leader of the country, encourage the states to acknowledge gay rights, and be a vocal supporter. It would be very important to the gay rights movement. If he is actively anti-gay, then I still disagree with him.
Go New Jersey and the 4 other states! California is one of the other 4 right? I think they were the first. (In Canada, it is a national issue.)

Please tell your politicians to stop being a$$holes - liek saying "damn Americans, I hate those bastards" You might have gotten the tarriffs lifted if it wasn't for the attitude of your former PM. You know - Chriac clone.

I don't agree with politicians insulting you, it's unprofessional and accomplishes nothing. However, I don't agree with the continuation of unfair tarriffs just because one person pissed you off. I believe you should look past the insult in the name of fairness and to adhere to NAFTA's rules. WTO has ruled against you at least two times.
Jean Chrétien is not a Chirac clone. The only similarity they possess is not supporting the war on Iraq. Trust me, Jean Chrétien is very much his own person and unique. I don't actually know of an instance where he said Americans were bastards or any insult. If he has, then I'd appreciate a quote to show that I'm wrong. (Or the quote from any other politician who was insulting you.)

He kept his "No Child left Behind" idea, he kept his "perscription drug plan". I don't remember many of his election promises. As I said - 9/11 and the war on terrorism sort of changed America's goals.

Fair enough about the election promises. What is the "No Child Left Behind" program? Is that why people say he has good family values?

By the way IR, were you referring to the incident where his daughters were drunk or something like that? That doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have good family values.

Why were you asking about the Iowa caucus gdl96? Are they the only state that does that?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
This is true, but I don't think it's fair to you that one country is expected to keep the peace for the world. I can understand that you have a large army because you wouldn't want to leave your allies undefended. However, I would rather see all wealthy nations support a useful UN more equally, and keep the peace in a coalition including Canada, and many other countries. I would actually support a larger millitary budget for Canada in this case. We may be behind technologically, in some areas, but we do train our soldiers very well.

The UN doesn't do anything and we are not going to always wait around. Did the UN do anything in Bosnia? No. Did the UN do anything in Rwanda? No. (of course neither did we, but that was a result of somalia which is next), did the UN stay in Somalia AFTER the US left? No. Has the UN done anything about North Korea? No - other than declaring them nuclear free. The UN is a debating society made up of human rights abusing countries who like to make speeches to the US and criticize the US. They do nothing for peace - except turn a blind eye or back down.

I don't agree with any country having nukes, including the former USSR. I didn't mean just the United States there.

That's great, I'm against suicide bombings too and wars, but it's not a reality and never will be. You may wish there were no need for police - but there are - because there are criminals out there. The same thing. Other countries that are less stable have nukes, if we didn't - what do you think would prevent them from firing them off or holding the world hostage?

The world and the UN has done very little to prevent rogue nations from getting nukes - which means that we need ours.

I would like to see Bush, as the leader of the country, encourage the states to acknowledge gay rights, and be a vocal supporter. It would be very important to the gay rights movement. If he is actively anti-gay, then I still disagree with him.

Just because one is against gay marriage - does not make the person anti-gay.

Go New Jersey and the 4 other states! California is one of the other 4 right? I think they were the first. (In Canada, it is a national issue.)

California may be one of the first. I'm not sure.

I don't agree with politicians insulting you, it's unprofessional and accomplishes nothing. However, I don't agree with the continuation of unfair tarriffs just because one person pissed you off. I believe you should look past the insult in the name of fairness and to adhere to NAFTA's rules. WTO has ruled against you at least two times.
Jean Chrétien is not a Chirac clone. The only similarity they possess is not supporting the war on Iraq. Trust me, Jean Chrétien is very much his own person and unique. I don't actually know of an instance where he said Americans were bastards or any insult. If he has, then I'd appreciate a quote to show that I'm wrong. (Or the quote from any other politician who was insulting you.)

I had already addressed this to you and posted it in the Paul Martin Meets George Bush thread posted this. It wasn't Chretian who said it it was Carolyn Parrish. You may no see a lot of similarities between Chirac an Chretian - but there are when it came to the attitude toward the US. Even the Toronto Sun described them as "pals".

Fair enough about the election promises. What is the "No Child Left Behind" program? Is that why people say he has good family values?

"No Child Left Behind" is the education initiative to improve schools and education.

Minor Injustice thread

No Child Left Behind - Dept of Education
No Child Left Behind - Whitehouse News
No Child Left Behind - New Jersey info
No Child Left Behind - California Info
No Child Left Behind - Virginia Info
No Child Left Behind - North Carolina Public Schools
NO Child Left Behind - Iowa info
No Child Left Behind - House of Representatives
No Child Left Behind - Thomas B. Fordham Foundation

In the US the national government has very little to do with education. Education is controlled locally. This is to force states to bring their educational standards up and to make teachers and school districts accountable.

[Nurvingiel]

There was something wrong with your link. I went to the one where Carolyn Parrish insulted the US, but the one to "No Child Left Behind" goes to the same place.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Just because one is against gay marriage - does not make the person anti-gay.

Are you saying that Bush does not support gay marriage, but is not anti-gay? The line between the two is very thin, if it exists at all.
Let's replace "marriage" with "civil union". The two terms have different meanings. A civil union is what everyone has to make there marriage legal. You can get "married" at the courts if you don't want a church ceremony. It would be a civil union making you legally married. Would Bush support this for gay people? If he did, I would agree that he is not anti-gay.
If he did not, the message I receive from that is "I am not against you, I just don't believe you should have the same rights as straight people, and will essentially treat you like second class citizens."

Edit: Oops, I meant to comment on Caroly Parrish too. She was in the wrong insulting Americans, but that does not necessarily reflect Chrétien's views. In addition, this was on the SARS issue, and had nothing to do with the softwood lumber dispute. As far as I know, Parrish isn't involved in that dispute at all.
I fail to see any reason why the tarriff should not be lifted.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
There was something wrong with your link. I went to the one where Carolyn Parrish insulted the US, but the one to "No Child Left Behind" goes to the same place.

I tested them out - try again. There had been a problem with them after I posted - but I guess you looked at them before I corrected it.

Are you saying that Bush does not support gay marriage, but is not anti-gay? The line between the two is very thin, if it exists at all.

There isn't a fine line. One bring costs to it - such as monetary benefits. Anti-Gay is a matter of hating someone. They are two different things. You can be against Israel occupying the West Bank - but that does not make you anti-Jewish.

Let's replace "marriage" with "civil union". The two terms have different meanings. A civil union is what everyone has to make there marriage legal. You can get "married" at the courts if you don't want a church ceremony. It would be a civil union making you legally married.

Which would have tax consequences associated with it.

Would Bush support this for gay people? If he did, I would agree that he is not anti-gay.

The two are different - as I said before. Just because one is against gay unions does not mean they are anti-gay. It just means they are against gay unions. It doesn't say they hate people who are gay or anything like that. It's a moral issue anyway. I support gay unions. But even if I didn't - I'm not anti-gay. I'm against affirmative action - but I'm not anti-minority.

If he did not, the message I receive from that is "I am not against you, I just don't believe you should have the same rights as straight people, and will essentially treat you like second class citizens."

It's not a matter of treating them as second class citizens. It's a moral question - and one I think should be left up to the states to decide. NOT the federal government at this time.

Edit: Oops, I meant to comment on Caroly Parrish too. She was in the wrong insulting Americans, but that does not necessarily reflect Chrétien's views. In addition, this was on the SARS issue, and had nothing to do with the softwood lumber dispute. As far as I know, Parrish isn't involved in that dispute at all.

Actually her comment didn't have to do with SARS at all - it had to do with Iraq and her obvious hatred towards Americans. Chretian has also made comments against Bush and the US. If you read the article I posted in the Paul Martin thread - you will see the attitude canada had toward the US which really pissed us off. Chretian had the same general attitude as Chirac.

I fail to see any reason why the tarriff should not be lifted.

I don't know enough about the tariff to really judge it. From my understanding when it first went into effect was because Canada was dumping soft lumber onto the US markets.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I tested them out - try again. There had been a problem with them after I posted - but I guess you looked at them before I corrected it.

I did try before you fixed it. Now there's one link to the thread about Paul Martin meeting with Bush.

There isn't a fine line. One bring costs to it - such as monetary benefits. Anti-Gay is a matter of hating someone. They are two different things. You can be against Israel occupying the West Bank - but that does not make you anti-Jewish.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. However, why shouldn't gays have the same access to the same monetary benefits as straight people? That still doesn't resolve the second-class citizen issue.
Is marriage a right according to the Constitution? This is an important question, because if it's actually a priviledge, a lot of my argument will lose its validity.

Which would have tax consequences associated with it.

See above.

The two are different - as I said before. Just because one is against gay unions does not mean they are anti-gay. It just means they are against gay unions. It doesn't say they hate people who are gay or anything like that. It's a moral issue anyway. I support gay unions. But even if I didn't - I'm not anti-gay. I'm against affirmative action - but I'm not anti-minority.

If marriage is a right in the Constitution, then it would be a legal issue. As for morality, religion should not be used to make laws. This would lead to non-religious people, or people of a minority religion who feel differently not being represented by the countries laws.

It's not a matter of treating them as second class citizens. It's a moral question - and one I think should be left up to the states to decide. NOT the federal government at this time.

My answer to this hinges on what you say about the Constitution.

Actually her comment didn't have to do with SARS at all - it had to do with Iraq and her obvious hatred towards Americans. Chretian has also made comments against Bush and the US. If you read the article I posted in the Paul Martin thread - you will see the attitude canada had toward the US which really pissed us off. Chretian had the same general attitude as Chirac.

I did re-read the article, and there was no mention of Chrétien either insulting Americans, or condoning the two people who did. Relationships have been strained between Canada and the US, so it was fair for the author to have the opinion that Chrétien had been trying to undermine Bush for the past few years. Chrétien being friends with Chirac does not mean he is Chirac's clone, which implies that he thinks and acts exactly the same way as Chirac. He does not, and it is erroneous to imply this.

I don't know enough about the tariff to really judge it. From my understanding when it first went into effect was because Canada was dumping soft lumber onto the US markets.

Though we weren't actually dumping logs onto the market, we did have a slightly odd policies around lumber harvesting that led the price of lumber to be low because we harvested too many trees.
The policy was essentially that enough lumber had to be harvested so that mills in small towns would have enough lumber to stay open, and ensuring that no jobs would be cut.
We don't do that anymore, so the original reason no longer exists. Besides, don't two (at least) rulings from the WTO mean anything to the US?

[Insidious Rex]

also think it would be bad for the country to change directions in leadership in such an important time in American and World history. The next 5-10 years are going to probably be the most important time for all of us and for our kids and their kids, compared to comparable times in history.

this kind of thinking worries me actually. Basically what you are saying is lets give bush a free pass because things have been nutty the past few years. With that kind of logic why hold an election at all? And we all know Bush is riding this kind of thinking real hard and will most likely win because of it.

I didn't particularly want Bush - in the primaries I was really upset he won. I wanted McCain who is more moderate. But I think Bush has done a remarkable job.

so why are you against my suggestion of Clark/McCain? I think that’s the perfect combination. And who cares if McCain is a republican.

I would like to see Bush, as the leader of the country, encourage the states to acknowledge gay rights, and be a vocal supporter. It would be very important to the gay rights movement.

well keep your eye on the thermostat to hell then. for a long time…

By the way IR, were you referring to the incident where his daughters were drunk or something like that? That doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have good family values.

first off I never understood what the heck “family values” really are. And secondly his daughters weren’t just “drunk” they were arrested for being stupid enough to try to get into a bar with a bad fake ID. ARRESTED. I mean if you are the daughter of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF FREAKING AMERICA you just DON’T do that. What planet are you on? Sorry but you have to realize you live up to higher ideals then the average college student. Or else you have to be REALLY smart about it which is certainly possible. And whats worse is they tried it AGAIN even AFTER one was arrested. So I guess if nothing else we know there are truly the daughters of George Bush based on their display of intelligence alone. And its not just George’s kids, George’s brother Jeb had kid problems too. His 24 year old daughter was ARRESTED for trying to scam a pharmacy into giving her drugs. Now you cant condemn the parents for the short comings of their children. Kids do stupid things (apparently even as 24 year old adults). BUT its disingenuous for republicans to champion bush as this perfect family man and this person with the ultimate perfect family with perfect “family values” when all the kids in his immediate family have screwed up all over the place. Come one. The republicans certainly DON’T have a monopoly on good kids and “family values” as they would lead you to believe. EVERYONE has skeletons in their closet.

Just because one is against gay marriage - does not make the person anti-gay.

so if im against dutch people getting married that doesn’t make me anti dutch? What about if im against anyone under 5 foot 3 getting married? or against anyone with dark hair getting married? Im not actively discriminating against certain subsets of the population in those cases? I think its ridiculous to say I have nothing against blue people but I just don’t want them having the same rights as I do. You can “love” gay people all you want. If you restrict their rights you need to face the facts that you are against them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Okay, I see what you're saying now. However, why shouldn't gays have the same access to the same monetary benefits as straight people? That still doesn't resolve the second-class citizen issue.
Is marriage a right according to the Constitution? This is an important question, because if it's actually a priviledge, a lot of my argument will lose its validity.

There is nothing in the Constitution. Our Constitution only limits the federal government. Anything not included in the Constitution is left up to the states. The Federal Government has no say in marriage whatsoever.

As for morality, religion should not be used to make laws. This would lead to non-religious people, or people of a minority religion who feel differently not being represented by the countries laws.

morality is used to make laws though - that is why prostitution, drugs and so forth are illegal. To say that morality never plays or should never play a role in making laws is erroneous. Religion itself should never play a role in laws however - but the people should. There are many counties in the midwest which have laws against alcohol - htese are called dry counties. New Jersey itself, has two towns which are dry towns. They were founded about two centuries
agi by religious people.

I did re-read the article, and there was no mention of Chrétien either insulting Americans, or condoning the two people who did.

He may not have said anything directly - but people in his government has. It's like someone in Bush's admininstration saying something. People all around the world point the finger at Bush.

Relationships have been strained between Canada and the US, so it was fair for the author to have the opinion that Chrétien had been trying to undermine Bush for the past few years. Chrétien being friends with Chirac does not mean he is Chirac's clone, which implies that he thinks and acts exactly the same way as Chirac. He does not, and it is erroneous to imply this.

When it comes to Chretian's and Chirac's dealings with the US and the Bush adminstration - they are clones. It does not mean that they do everything exactly alike. It means that they act the same - which they do and did when it came to their attitudes of the US. You can deny it if you want - but it was because of Chretian that the US/Canadian relations are in such bad shape.

Though we weren't actually dumping logs onto the market, we did have a slightly odd policies around lumber harvesting that led the price of lumber to be low because we harvested too many trees.
The policy was essentially that enough lumber had to be harvested so that mills in small towns would have enough lumber to stay open, and ensuring that no jobs would be cut.

Hence dumping. So you don't want YOUR mills to close - but you want to bring down the cost of lumber so OUR mills close. Well - sorry - now I agree with the tariffs now that you explained it.

We don't do that anymore, so the original reason no longer exists. Besides, don't two (at least) rulings from the WTO mean anything to the US?

I don't know - did the Resolutions of the UN for the past ten years against Iraq mean anything to the world?

The issue is betwen the US and Canada - not between anyone else in the world. You shouldn't have been so concerned about your mills closing down at the detriment of American mills and jobs. Everyone thinks they can just dump their products on our markets - the japanese steel, you and your lumber, etc. without having and reprocusions. We will negotiate with Canada - just like we negotiate with ALL our trading partners and that is not through an international body.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
this kind of thinking worries me actually. Basically what you are saying is lets give bush a free pass because things have been nutty the past few years. With that kind of logic why hold an election at all? And we all know Bush is riding this kind of thinking real hard and will most likely win because of it.

For one I support most of the things Bush has been doing. Most of the presidential candidates want to turn all that back. That makes no sense - if you support Bush. So it has nothing to do with "giving Bush a free pass".

so why are you against my suggestion of Clark/McCain? I think that’s the perfect combination. And who cares if McCain is a republican.

Because the democratic party wouldn't allow it probably and the republican party wouldn't allow it. Even though we used to regularly have president and vice presidents of different parties - because it used to be that it was the runner up who became the president.

first off I never understood what the heck “family values” really are. And secondly his daughters weren’t just “drunk” they were arrested for being stupid enough to try to get into a bar with a bad fake ID. ARRESTED. I mean if you are the daughter of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF FREAKING AMERICA you just DON’T do that. What planet are you on? Sorry but you have to realize you live up to higher ideals then the average college student. Or else you have to be REALLY smart about it which is certainly possible. And whats worse is they tried it AGAIN even AFTER one was arrested. So I guess if nothing else we know there are truly the daughters of George Bush based on their display of intelligence alone. And its not just George’s kids, George’s brother Jeb had kid problems too. His 24 year old daughter was ARRESTED for trying to scam a pharmacy into giving her drugs. Now you cant condemn the parents for the short comings of their children. Kids do stupid things (apparently even as 24 year old adults). BUT its disingenuous for republicans to champion bush as this perfect family man and this person with the ultimate perfect family with perfect “family values” when all the kids in his immediate family have screwed up all over the place. Come one. The republicans certainly DON’T have a monopoly on good kids and “family values” as they would lead you to believe. EVERYONE has skeletons in their closet.

Well at least laura and George Bush seem to be spending more time with their children than a lot of people before. Look at jimmy Carters WHOLE Family. Look at Bill Clinton's brother. Just because there are problems in a family does not mean that they don't have good family values. Personally I think they made way too much about that whole college thing. How many people did YOU know who didn't drink? And don't use the "well it's the president and they get held to a higher standard" because I'm sure I remember you saying that Clinton wasn't treated as a normal citizen when he tried to get people to lie under oath for him and was wrongly held up to a higher standard.

so if im against dutch people getting married that doesn’t make me anti dutch? What about if im against anyone under 5 foot 3 getting married? or against anyone with dark hair getting married? Im not actively discriminating against certain subsets of the population in those cases? I think its ridiculous to say I have nothing against blue people but I just don’t want them having the same rights as I do. You can “love” gay people all you want. If you restrict their rights you need to face the facts that you are against them.

No it's not the same thing. many people feel that marriage is between a woman and man - and that is their beleif. That does not mean they hate gays though. It just means that they don't feel that a same sex marriage or union is the same based on the lack of procriation of children. It doesn't mean they hate gays though.

So - I guess too - which is interesting because you have said that Rian doesn't hate gays in the gay thread - that actually you feel that she DOES hate gays. She does not believe in gay marriage and she even thinks that homosexual relationshiops are wrong. now please go into the gay thread and tell her that you think she and all people who don't want gay marriage/unions hate gays.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
There is nothing in the Constitution. Our Constitution only limits the federal government. Anything not included in the Constitution is left up to the states. The Federal Government has no say in marriage whatsoever.

Hm. I have no relevant points about gay marriage in the states, with respect to legality.
What was the reason New Jersey and the other four states legalized gay marriage?

morality is used to make laws though - that is why prostitution, drugs and so forth are illegal. To say that morality never plays or should never play a role in making laws is erroneous. Religion itself should never play a role in laws however - but the people should. There are many counties in the midwest which have laws against alcohol - htese are called dry counties. New Jersey itself, has two towns which are dry towns. They were founded about two centuries
agi by religious people.

I agree with you about morality in general, but where, outside of some religions, is it immoral to be gay? Or for gay people to get married? I don't understand the legality of marriage in the states, only that it's different than Canada. But as for morality, I don't see why being gay is immoral anywhere.

He may not have said anything directly - but people in his government has. It's like someone in Bush's admininstration saying something. People all around the world point the finger at Bush.

I point the finger at whoever actually said it. However, people within the organization reflect on their leaders, both Bush and Chrétien. I agree with you that some of Chrétien's actions have strained US relations, as well as the comments of people within his party. Hopefully with a new PM this will change. Martin is more moderate than Chrétien, from what I know anyway.

When it comes to Chretian's and Chirac's dealings with the US and the Bush adminstration - they are clones. It does not mean that they do everything exactly alike. It means that they act the same - which they do and did when it came to their attitudes of the US. You can deny it if you want - but it was because of Chretian that the US/Canadian relations are in such bad shape.

Ok fine then.

Hence dumping. So you don't want YOUR mills to close - but you want to bring down the cost of lumber so OUR mills close. Well - sorry - now I agree with the tariffs now that you explained it.

Well that was when the tarriff was first imposed. This is an important part of the statement:

We don't do that anymore, so the original reason no longer exists. Besides, don't two (at least) rulings from the WTO mean anything to the US?

I don't know - did the Resolutions of the UN for the past ten years against Iraq mean anything to the world?

That's why I said useful UN, not current UN.

The issue is betwen the US and Canada - not between anyone else in the world. You shouldn't have been so concerned about your mills closing down at the detriment of American mills and jobs. Everyone thinks they can just dump their products on our markets - the japanese steel, you and your lumber, etc. without having and reprocusions. We will negotiate with Canada - just like we negotiate with ALL our trading partners and that is not through an international body.

Initially, the tarriff probably was fair. We realized that logging to support mills was backwards, and ceased doing this. Now why is there a tarriff? We aren't dumping logs onto your market anymore. And again with the WTO rulings.

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
well keep your eye on the thermostat to hell then. for a long time…

What?

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
You can “love” gay people all you want. If you restrict their rights you need to face the facts that you are against them.

That's essentially what I mean with saying denying gay people the right to civil unions is treating them as second class citizens.

[Insidious Rex]

So it has nothing to do with "giving Bush a free pass".

it does when you say bush should be elected BECAUSE changing leadership now would be a bad idea when we are dealing with a war/terrorism. I know you have other reasons for wanting him re-elected and that’s fine. But if you use that rational for electing him I find that disturbing.

Well at least laura and George Bush seem to be spending more time with their children than a lot of people before. Look at jimmy Carters WHOLE Family. Look at Bill Clinton's brother. Just because there are problems in a family does not mean that they don't have good family values.

well the easy response here is you don’t raise your brother. Especially your older brother. That’s a big difference from having your kids being arrested all over the place for drinking and using drugs. And that being said I cant remember the last time Chelsea was dragged into the police station in handcuffs. Shes a pretty straight arrow from what I hear. Perhaps this is because she learned from her dad what NOT to do.

Personally I think they made way too much about that whole college thing. How many people did YOU know who didn't drink? And don't use the "well it's the president and they get held to a higher standard" because I'm sure I remember you saying that Clinton wasn't treated as a normal citizen when he tried to get people to lie under oath for him and was wrongly held up to a higher standard.

you remember me saying what now? And yes if my dad was the president of the united states I would definitely NOT do drugs and go out with bad fake ID’s drinking in public. Hell my dad was never the president and I never had a fake ID. Guess that makes my parents better parents then the Bushes? Now I may be pretty pissed about the unfairness of not being able to do the same things my peers were doing but I would understand WHY I shouldn’t. I mean you have to have a brain in your head. Its like super stars who get busted for doing stupid things. Look you just DON’T do that if yer constantly under a microscope and if you do yer an idiot. And don’t complain because yer getting millions of dollars to do what yer doing. Its basically the same theme only more so if you are the child of the president of the united states.

No it's not the same thing. many people feel that marriage is between a woman and man - and that is their beleif. That does not mean they hate gays though. It just means that they don't feel that a same sex marriage or union is the same based on the lack of procriation of children. It doesn't mean they hate gays though.

So - I guess too - which is interesting because you have said that Rian doesn't hate gays in the gay thread - that actually you feel that she DOES hate gays. She does not believe in gay marriage and she even thinks that homosexual relationshiops are wrong. now please go into the gay thread and tell her that you think she and all people who don't want gay marriage/unions hate gays.

nice try. Show me where I said the word “hate”? I believe I said “against” which is vastly different. I can be against a whole bunch of stuff without hating anything. And yes if you are AGAINST people getting married then you are AGAINST those people. No getting around it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
Hm. I have no relevant points about gay marriage in the states, with respect to legality.
What was the reason New Jersey and the other four states legalized gay marriage?

Because the citizens of THIS state and the others supported it. Here it was the state legislature it had to pass through.

I agree with you about morality in general, but where, outside of some religions, is it immoral to be gay? Or for gay people to get married? I don't understand the legality of marriage in the states, only that it's different than Canada. But as for morality, I don't see why being gay is immoral anywhere.

In addition to the morality - comes to tx incentives and deductions and so forth. That is a big thing. Bush is for the morality side - just not approving of marriage except between man and woman. We don't allow poligamy either - does canada?

I point the finger at whoever actually said it. However, people within the organization reflect on their leaders, both Bush and Chrétien. I agree with you that some of Chrétien's actions have strained US relations, as well as the comments of people within his party. Hopefully with a new PM this will change. Martin is more moderate than Chrétien, from what I know anyway.

I hope Paul Martin is better. So far the signs show that he is.

Well that was when the tarriff was first imposed. This is an important part of the statement:

Yes that is - but also part of the equation was the Canadian attitude. Bush even canceled a scheduled trip to Canada because of the canadian governments attitude and comments. now with Paul Martin - maybe we can discuss it.

That's why I said useful UN, not current UN.

How can it be changed - when it's controlled by the human rights violating countries.

Initially, the tarriff probably was fair. We realized that logging to support mills was backwards, and ceased doing this. Now why is there a tarriff? We aren't dumping logs onto your market anymore. And again with the WTO rulings.

Under Chretian there was no desire to work it out really - not with his attitude. It's the old "you scrach our back and we scratch yours". he just hated Bush since even before he got into the White House and made no secret of it. You may not have heard all the things. As I said - under Paul Martin - maybe we can work something out and sit down to talk. By the way - Chretian also say things right after 9/11 to the effect that we are greedy, arrogant, etc. And was basically blaming us for 9/11 - although not directly. I know the interview was very controversal and caused a huge split in US/Canadian relations.

That's essentially what I mean with saying denying gay people the right to civil unions is treating them as second class citizens.

We don't allow poligamy either - does canada?

[Dúnedain]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
this kind of thinking worries me actually. Basically what you are saying is lets give bush a free pass because things have been nutty the past few years. With that kind of logic why hold an election at all? And we all know Bush is riding this kind of thinking real hard and will most likely win because of it.

Again, don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort. I said, I don't think a change of leadership is wise at this time. I say that, because I don't want some new President coming in and messing things up and not following through with what needs to be done...

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
it does when you say bush should be elected BECAUSE changing leadership now would be a bad idea when we are dealing with a war/terrorism. I know you have other reasons for wanting him re-elected and that’s fine. But if you use that rational for electing him I find that disturbing.

It would be a bad idea, because Bushes plans are good and the direction is good in my opinion. It would be terrible to stop and take a year while a new adminstration tries to throw out everything and do it their way.

[edit] I see Dunedain and I cross-posted.

well the easy response here is you don’t raise your brother. Especially your older brother. That’s a big difference from having your kids being arrested all over the place for drinking and using drugs. And that being said I cant remember the last time Chelsea was dragged into the police station in handcuffs. Shes a pretty straight arrow from what I hear. Perhaps this is because she learned from her dad what NOT to do.

you remember me saying what now?
And yes if my dad was the president of the united states I would definitely NOT do drugs and go out with bad fake ID’s drinking in public. Hell my dad was never the president and I never had a fake ID. Guess that makes my parents better parents then the Bushes? Now I may be pretty pissed about the unfairness of not being able to do the same things my peers were doing but I would understand WHY I shouldn’t. I mean you have to have a brain in your head. Its like super stars who get busted for doing stupid things. Look you just DON’T do that if yer constantly under a microscope and if you do yer an idiot. And don’t complain because yer getting millions of dollars to do what yer doing. Its basically the same theme only more so if you are the child of the president of the united states.

That still does not mean that thy are bad, I never had a fake id and I never drank in high school or anything - never even did drugs. My brother on the other hand did all those things. My sister however didn't either. But you can't always blame the parents for everything a child does - especially for how minor the drinking and trying to get into a nightclub was. Also - they weren't arrested "all over the place".

nice try. Show me where I said the word “hate”? I believe I said “against” which is vastly different. I can be against a whole bunch of stuff without hating anything. And yes if you are AGAINST people getting married then you are AGAINST those people. No getting around it.

Nice try then - because Bush being anti-gay marriage - is NOT the same as being anti-Gay. No matter how much you want to think it. Many people feel that interacial marriages are wrong - some of these people are anti-minority. Others just don't want the races "mixing". You can't say just because someone is anti-gay marriage - they are anti-gay. Marriage is far more complicated than just two people declaring their love for each other.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Because the citizens of THIS state and the others supported it. Here it was the state legislature it had to pass through.

I hope other states soon follow in your footsteps.

In addition to the morality - comes to tx incentives and deductions and so forth. That is a big thing. Bush is for the morality side - just not approving of marriage except between man and woman.

I have heard that from many people - all of whom believe it for religious reasons. Outside of religion, human rights is what we usually base morality on. Two men or two women marrying is not a human rights violation.

We don't allow poligamy either - does canada?

We don't, but maybe we should. If there was a polygamy/polyandry movement, I wouldn't oppose it. What we did is change the definition of marriage to say "two people" instead of "a man and a woman". Who's to say that it shouldn't just say "committed people"? I don't have a problem with either a man or a woman having more than one spouse, as long as all spouses are treated with respect, and treated equally. This applies to two person marriages too, in my mind. (Polyandry is not widely practiced, but it's where a woman has multiple husbands.)

Yes that is - but also part of the equation was the Canadian attitude. Bush even canceled a scheduled trip to Canada because of the canadian governments attitude and comments. now with Paul Martin - maybe we can discuss it.

I agree. And the sooner the better. Good relations with the US are really important to our economy, and in general.

How can it be changed - when it's controlled by the human rights violating countries.

I acknowledge I'm living a pipe dream for the UN, but I think human rights violators should be kicked out of the UN. They can re-enter once they stop abusing human rights, and make reparations. This action alone would garner a lot more respect for the UN. They took important action, and now none of their members aren't hypocrites when calling for peace.

By the way - Chretian also say things right after 9/11 to the effect that we are greedy, arrogant, etc. And was basically blaming us for 9/11 - although not directly. I know the interview was very controversal and caused a huge split in US/Canadian relations.

I sort of remember that. Hard to believe it was four years ago now. I think that's where everything started going downhill.