[karajorma]

"Knew," or "already felt that way because they disliked him to begin with"? 

Knew. Besides I was talking about the 2004 election anyway. Even if you can claim it was a simple dislike in 2000 do you really expect to get away with claiming that people outside America didn't understand what Bush's policies would be if he won a second term?

I always find it hilarious when people try to claim that they didn't know how bad Bush would be the second time around.

[Scuddie]

Fact of the matter is that I didn't know which would be worse.  One of the reasons why I didn't vote in '04.

[karajorma]

You could have voted for Nader.

[chief1983]

Why the frack do people want socially liberal?  Wouldn't you rather the government stay out of your lives and stop with the give give give BS?  We worry so much about the government's interference with other countries, but oh, if they want to spy on our daily lives, tell us how much we have to pay our workers to the point of it being unattractive to have workers here at all, tell us how fast we can drive, that we can't toke up with a harmless joint when we want, that we have to pay taxes via what's probably the worst tax system ever invented, and then try to adjust that tax system so that it appeals more to the masses than for the actual good of the economy, oh that's ok.  The government simply outsteps its bounds more all the time, and most of the country seems to be ok with that.  I'm tired of Big Brother, and I'm tired of the IRS.  I don't know why I even voted for one of the two parties at all.  I should have just written in Ron Paul or the Mooninites.

[KappaWing]

How are anti-drug and speed limit laws socially liberal?

[Rian]

Personally, I don’t think the government should be permitted to dictate whom I may marry or who is entitled to the use of my body, and to my knowledge my positions on these topics are socially liberal. By contrast, in recent years conservatives have been pushing anti-choice and anti-gay rights legislation, and more of them have supported wiretapping and content restriction on the internet and broadcast media. As far as I know it’s mostly liberals who have been advocating the legalization of marijuana as well.

[Polpolion]

content restriction on the internet

lol

[KappaWing]

Personally, I don’t think the government should be permitted to dictate whom I may marry or who is entitled to the use of my body, and to my knowledge my positions on these topics are socially liberal. By contrast, in recent years conservatives have been pushing anti-choice and anti-gay rights legislation, and more of them have supported wiretapping and content restriction on the internet and broadcast media. As far as I know it’s mostly liberals who have been advocating the legalization of marijuana as well.

^ Exactly what I was trying to articulate. 

But....

who is entitled to the use of my body

Since when was necromancy a politcal issue? 

[Mongoose]

I always find it hilarious when people try to claim that they didn't know how bad Bush would be the second time around.

Well, that makes two of us laughing, then.  But in any case, let's return back to what Ford Prefect said on the last page.  Like him, I have a core set of beliefs and values that tend to mesh far better with one party than the other.  As someone who favors socially conservative and economically right policies, the Republican Party's candidate automatically gets a huge leg-up on his Democratic counterpart for me.  While Bush was light-years away from what I'd consider the ideal Republican candidate, he was still far closer than Kerry would hope to be; thus, he earned my vote, since I felt like he'd do a better job fulfilling what I wanted to see happen to America than Kerry would. 

Amazingly enough, sometimes politics requires that you take the bad with the good when voting for a particular candidate.  In the case of this election, that bad for me was Palin, but what I saw as the benefits of McCain outweighed that bad.  I didn't think he had much of a chance at all to win, but I still went with him because he represented my interests far more than Obama did.

[Turambar]

Seriously, it isn't the terrorists that hate freedom, it's the social conservatives who feel they need to push their beliefs on everyone else through law.

Don't like gay marriage?  Don't get one.
Don't want an abortion?  Don't get one.
Don't like stem cell research?  Don't donate any embryos.
Don't like teaching evolution in school?  Don't learn it and fail your science class.

[Mars]

Lets be fair here. The premise of the social conservative fundamentalist is, essentially, that the scientific community cannot be trusted, and that God can be proven to exist more convincingly than evolution can, for example. This might not be a fully reasonable premise, but lets accept it for the sake of understanding.

If marrige is supposed to be symbolic of God's union with the Church, than it would be offenseive for the church to allow gay marrige (I personally don't think the state should even touch on marrige at all)

If they see abortion as murder, wouldn't it be morally wrong for them to do nothing? If for example, people in the USA were to practice infanticide instead of abortion, wouldn't it be wrong to just let it go politically?

I will agree with your next two comments though.

I agree embryonic stem cell research is kind of beyond the pale.

If you believe the entire scientific community is out to fool you, you probably shouldn't be taking science class.

[Turambar]

If the state is going to make special provisions for couples who are bound together, then they should do it for any couple, not just the man-woman ones.

As for abortion, well the world is already overpopulated as it is.  One less person is more beneficial to the world than one more.  That isn't to say that we should go on killing sprees and have wars, just that if it's a choice between pumping out a little clump of cells early on or dealing with yet another human a few years down the line whose mother can't even afford to support it, the first option is clearly the better one.

[Rick James]

Mmm. Spicy flamebait.

[StarSlayer]

I gotta go with Tura on the gay marriage issue, it's one thing if the State was planning on forcing churches to support and or provide for it since that steps on the issue of church and state, but as far as i have seen they have been only providing the rights married couples currently receive from the state.  The same goes for it the church trying to dictate that the State shouldn't allow for it separation of church and state.  As for religious ceremonies if the Church of Jesus Christ of more Socially Progressive Saints is willing to allow them to marry then the State should allow for it and the rest can go smoke it.

As for abortion i don't think the population control argument cuts it Tura there are plenty of more compelling arguments for it then that

[Turambar]

Mmm. Spicy flamebait.

I know, isnt it great?

I really do wish there was some way to get to a comfortable, sustainable population of 2 billion without being incredibly mean to a lot of people :-(

[KappaWing]

Lets be fair here. The premise of the social conservative fundamentalist is, essentially, that the scientific community cannot be trusted, and that God can be proven to exist more convincingly than evolution can, for example. This might not be a fully reasonable premise, but lets accept it for the sake of understanding.

If marrige is supposed to be symbolic of God's union with the Church, than it would be offenseive for the church to allow gay marrige (I personally don't think the state should even touch on marrige at all)

If they see abortion as murder, wouldn't it be morally wrong for them to do nothing? If for example, people in the USA were to practice infanticide instead of abortion, wouldn't it be wrong to just let it go politically?

I will agree with your next two comments though.

I agree embryonic stem cell research is kind of beyond the pale.

If you believe the entire scientific community is out to fool you, you probably shouldn't be taking science class.

Well, fact of the matter is the state does touch marriage. Being married is a LEGAL state which affects secular things such as taxes and other rights/accomidations and whatnot. Therefore, the state must begin to recognize legitimate same-sex couples, or openly state their deep seated discrimination. The conservative bull**** smokescreen about judicial activism and states rights can only persist for so long before the issue itself is examined critically.

If the state is going to make special provisions for couples who are bound together, then they should do it for any couple, not just the man-woman ones.

As for abortion, well the world is already overpopulated as it is.  One less person is more beneficial to the world than one more.  That isn't to say that we should go on killing sprees and have wars, just that if it's a choice between pumping out a little clump of cells early on or dealing with yet another human a few years down the line whose mother can't even afford to support it, the first option is clearly the better one.

Sums up my point nicely.  As for the abortion thing, well, I'm just surprised so many conservatives, who are always *****ing about not being able to splurge on gold plated toilet seats because they have to pay taxes, are not whining about poor people being forced to live and suck more tax money out of the system. With conservatives, it seems to be a battle between religious idiocy and social selfishness. Their stance on these issues shows which one wins out.

[tinfoil]

 

as for abortion i don't think the population control argument cuts it Tura there are plenty of more compelling arguments for it then that

Population control indeed does not cut it for abortion. A far better way to control population is to simply not get pregnant in the first place. for god's sake the reason people get abortions is because they fail to take the precautions.

Mmm. Spicy flamebait.

I know, isnt it great?

I really do wish there was some way to get to a comfortable, sustainable population of 2 billion without being incredibly mean to a lot of people :-(

There is, just don't give them time to realize how mean you are actually being.

[chief1983]

Sorry, I didn't mean that everything I ranted about was socially liberal but it probably sounded that way.  Both sides of the government keep interfering more than they should though.

[Mongoose]

My my, it's so nice to see one's political beliefs misrepresented so completely.  Do give me a ring if you're willing to have a legitimate two-way dialogue, though.

[karajorma]

I really do wish there was some way to get to a comfortable, sustainable population of 2 billion without being incredibly mean to a lot of people :-(

There is. It's called education.

Only fundamentalists consider that mean.