The folk I know who voted the wrong way in November did it because of a religious affiliation, either catholic or mormon, turns out. Both are smart people / families, but when it came down to it, both voted the way their heads of church wanted them to, whether they agreed with me on issues or not. I HATE arguing or trying to convince people of anything important, so I didn't struggle with it for very long, but I gave it the ol college try. And we're all still friends. They just felt that W could somehow protect them from whatever he scared them with in the first place... that was the mormon's biggest point. She kept saying Kerry somehow couldn't keep us "safe." I gave up.

Ok, but who in the Democrat's leadership, or policy direction has ever called for the dismantling of the federal gov't, and all of it's programs?
That's the difference. From Goldwater, to Newt, to DeLay, it has been a pattern with these guys. Less regulation, less oversite, less benefits.
It's not like John Kerry or anyone on his staff/group of advisors/dudes in left wing think tanks have ever said "I want the US under UN control, where we can force women to wear burkas, and also be lesbians."
But on the Republican side, their have been people, for over 40 years who talk about the systematic dismantling of the fed gov, be they elected (auh20) or unelected policy advisors (Grover Norquist)

That's no different from asking, "but who in the Republican's leadership, or policy direction has ever called for the bloating of the federal government, and all of it's programs?" (granted, you can point to many in the GOP leadership who are guilty of this, so your side wins either way).

There is a very real difference between liberals and conservatives over the role of government, and thus the size and scope of government.

This has very little to do with the gay marriage issue, or any of the fear mongering from either side.

Many would argue that the Republicans are as guilty as the Dems in preserving and fostering government bloat.

hey druu.

Both parties are for big government, but they differ in how resources should be allocated. The great misunderstanding in politics today is that any major politician is actually for limited government, and if they are, it usually means simply dismantling the welfare state while keeping corporate welfare and protectionism in place. We saw this trend in people like Reagan, Gingrich - the list goes on.

However, I'd like to see someone like Nader have a fighting chance because he'd at least try to cut the bloat and make government more efficient and less wasteful. I mean, just look at our insane military budget for starters.

I agree. And if "none of the above" garners more votes than all of the actual candidates on the ballot, there should be a new election held in which the defeated candidates are ineligible to run. It'll never happen...at least not until I secede from the union and declare Fracteria as an independent sovereignty.

hey, hows it goin?

Just be careful if you start printing stamps or money. There was some guy in the '50's who bought an island in the North Sea and declared independence. No one cared, until he printed stamps, then HM govt. arrested him for counterfeiting. His island was "Puffinland" and "Puffin" was the unit of currency. This is true, I have a set of the stamps.

Incidentally, I also thought that it would be cool if, instead of voting "For" a candidate, you could vote "Against" them.

The vote would be a debit against the candidate in question, but it would not be a credit to "the other guy". This could make third party candidates viable.

I say we employ a system I once saw on an old Doctor Who episode.

Strap the politician into a chair with connections to his body. Every American has a box with two buttons. You like the guy you press one button, you don't, you press the other. One button delivers pain, the other relief. If a strong majority of people don't like the guy he'll die from the pain. If not, he survives until the next time.

Oh, and televise it.

Steve

... that is, quite possibly, the smartest thing I've heard all day. Nay, all week.

I agree. Except Steve's sounds pretty cool as well.

Edit: This reminds of a CMJ thread from last year...Where's Tom?

From personal experience, I can say that my father, who loves the environment, and civil rights, and whose unemployment benefits just ran out this past week voted for the Bush administration because of his views on gay marriage (and maybe abortion, I haven't been able to get that out of him). I've seen my dad grow more and more conservative over the years as his already strong religious convictions were bolstered by financial difficulties and reliance on the church for financial and spiritual support. Now he definitely toes the line drawn by his faith - I don't think that he sees that his own church, one that fought against civil rights in the 1960s, is doing the same in the oughts.

Consider this one example of a voter getting his buttons pushed to the point where he ignores some his own convictions, and certainly his self-interest.

All because of the "sin" he sees in homosexuality.

It's a hell of a monkey to carry around on one's back. I don't envy the folks I know carrying it.

They do shit with monkeys too?

Only the muslim monkeys.

Considering his little sister is a lesbian, I would agree. It has diminished his life so much - especially when I think of how much my aunt looked up to him as a great brother. I think that this is a grave form of sin in itself - the sin of judgement. Again with the mote / plank issues.

My life is enriched by the gay folks I know - even our own Obnish cyber-queers are essential to my happiness.

My wife's got an aunt who had a falling out w/ her dad (Grampa) back like 30 years ago, because she slept w/ a black guy and got pregnant, tho it wasn't the pregnancy that was issue #1, if you get me. He kicked her out and disowned her over it. I met her last year at her son's wedding, and she was smart, quiet, tough as hell, and very respectable. Imagine my horror last month when I got an email from her promoting (demanding, to be honest) prayer in school. (I've mentioned it before, but it seems relevant, sorry.) It was all the more shocking because of who it came from - she's spent 30 years being angry at her overly conservative, curmudgeonly father who was intolerant about one thing, and she's turning into his equal about a different issue.

Needless to say, after a few traded emails, we won't be getting X-mas cards from her anymore, and I'm not really happy about it. I genuinely liked her.

things're good. what's goin' on?

that's a cool looking telephone. i want one. "Operator, i'd like Maplewood 645, please."

Some things just shouldn't go away. I wish hats would come back in style.

in october i will have had the gay for 30 years.

Don't take it the wrong way. Thats just the way I say things (from a broken english standpoint).

I've nothing against having the gay, although catching it is not in my immediate plans