The Winner of the US Presidential Election Is, Again...

[The 14th Colony]

And the winner of the US Presidential Election, for the second time in a row is.....complete confusion, paranoia, frustration, bickering, and incompetance. Arghh!!!

[The 14th Colony]

:wtf: WTF is happening to our voting system? We're in the modern age, after 224 years of practice,and it still comes down to confusion and indecision again. Of course back in the early days when votes were hand counted and riders had to carry the results to Washington from other states, the results took weeks to determine, but this is freaking 2004 for crying out loud! :confused:

[Darth Marley]

The results have been determined.
It is just the loser has refused to give up.

Perhaps if we brought back the practice of dueling...

[Rowan]

Perhaps if we brought back the practice of dueling...:eek: dueling? LOL

[Darth Marley]

Bush should have suggested "pistols at dawn!"

[The 14th Colony]

Pistols at damn, what a novel idea. Or like Klingons, with batleths to prove who was the better warrior.

[kingfish]

BUSH!!!!!!!



I didn't vote. Glad he won!!!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[kingfish]

14th very cool avatar.

[kingfish]

BUSH!!!!!!!



I didn't vote. Glad he won!!!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:




bush 254
kerry 252



Holy deja vu. At least it isn't Florida again.

[Darth Marley]

What are you watching? CNN?

Bush has 269 evs, and has won Ohio.

[julix]

If Bush had won by a landslide there would be no dispute and no argument, no problem.........but he didn't so what does that tell you?

[The 14th Colony]

That this nation is evenly divided, and not united?

[The 14th Colony]

14th very cool avatar.
Thanks. From the version that never became.

[Darth Marley]

If Bush had won by a landslide there would be no dispute and no argument, no problem.........but he didn't so what does that tell you?

Depends on how you look at it.

Do you want to go back to the popular vote?

Much was said about Bush being "illegitamate" because Gore won the popular vote.
Looks like Bush won the popular vote by millions, so everyone that thought Gore should have won because of the popular vote should be honest and consistant, and support Bush as the victor, unless of course they are hypocrites.

Look at the map...map don't lie. Red states good, blue states few... stil no landslide?

[Charybdis]

I have to admit, this waiting thing to decide the presidency is getting on my nerves. This is a clear cut victory for Bush.

Modern presidential election losers need to look back at 1960 when Nixon lost the election. He and Kennedy were separated by 100,000 votes nationwide and Nixon did not pursue a challenge for the good of the country.

We all need to see a little of that attitude again...

[cranky1c]

Landmass doesn't quite equal a landslide, given the electoral college system. While I must sadly agree (concede, if you will) that Kerry has lost the race, anybody who accumulated better than 200 electoral votes should not be considered to have lost by a landslide.

I'm going to go watch Farenheight 911 and read my Al Franken books now..... :cry:

[julix]

Depends on how you look at it.

Do you want to go back to the popular vote?

Much was said about Bush being "illegitamate" because Gore won the popular vote.
Looks like Bush won the popular vote by millions, so everyone that thought Gore should have won because of the popular vote should be honest and consistant, and support Bush as the victor, unless of course they are hypocrites.

Look at the map...map don't lie. Red states good, blue states few... stil no landslide?
I was merely saying it wasn't such an overwheling victory that would lend itself to no dispute. If Bush had totally defeated Kerry by and overwhelming amount there would be no dispute. I was not getting into the issue of popular vs electorial college. It is obvious (to me) it is a hard to choice and the american people where very close on trying to decide....for me it is the lesser of two evils...I didn't like either candidate and I think it is seems(when I checked last) it was not a clear cut choice(by an overwhelming margin)........that is ALL I was saying

[kingfish]

What are you watching? CNN?

Bush has 269 evs, and has won Ohio.



Yes CNN.

[Darth Marley]

Landmass doesn't quite equal a landslide, given the electoral college system. While I must sadly agree (concede, if you will) that Kerry has lost the race, anybody who accumulated better than 200 electoral votes should not be considered to have lost by a landslide.

I'm going to go watch Farenheight 911 and read my Al Franken books now..... :cry:

Howls of derisive laughter!

I hate M Moore and Al Franken much more than I dislike Kerry.

I agree that the electoral vote does not constitue a landslide, but the margin of the popular vote should mean something, especially to those that thought it relevant to Gore in 2000.

Map dont lie...Red states rock!

[Micheleh]

Darth, act your age. :LOL:

In too many of the red states, and yes, the blue, the percentage was incredibly close. That is what Julix is saying, I believe.

I said this at CA, and I'll say it here.

"Ok, I'm making my statement now, before things have a chance to get started. I know everyone has strong feelings right now, and are going to be tempted to say things they normally wouldn't. For some reason, you can say things you would never say to a person's face if you say 'damn Republican/Democrat'. Don't forget that there are real people behind any kind of statement like that.

We *all* want a better country. We *all* value family, home, prosperity and rights. We *all* try to create the best world we can. The election system is the way we try our best to achieve this. The partisan accusation is the unfortunate side effect.

We all have to 'live' here. Try not to say anything you wouldn't say to someone's face, when that face has a name, and it's someone you would normally call a freind.

That's all. I want to congradualte Bush and his constituents for showing the strength of their convictions, and the Democrats for doing the same, and both for showing grace. I am speaking of the millions of us, btw. All of us, because without us, they would have no power.

Lol... *ahem* Thank you, and don't forget to support me in the next election.

You all know what I'm saying."

[Gemini1999]

Michelle -

That was one of the most intelligently thought out and well written posts I've ever seen when discussing the topic of politics. You did yourself proud, kiddo!

For the rest, I'm glad that some can discuss politics in an intelligent manner, but to those that lower themselves to the level of 10-year olds saying the equivalent of "my daddy can kick your daddy's ass", you should take the time to think about what you are saying and why?

Someone had to win and someone had to lose. Those that were on the side of the losing candidate are probably feeling somewhat disappointed. Let's not add to that disappointment by being a jerk on top of it. If the shoe were on the other foot, I'm sure that you would be in agreement.

The election is over (thank god!), let's all act like the adults we say we are and move on...

Best,
Bryan

[Darth Marley]

Ok, if you want a Spock-like deadpan response, I can go that route as well.

With a greatly increased turnout as a percentage of voters, Bush won by a greater margin than any president in over a decade.

The Bush margin of victory is a higher quality win than the 2000 election.

While not a Reagan landslide, this is a significant win.

Huge margin, plus gains in house and senate means Bush does indeed have a governing mandate.

[cranky1c]

Howls of derisive laughter!

I hate M Moore and Al Franken much more than I dislike Kerry.

I agree that the electoral vote does not constitue a landslide, but the margin of the popular vote should mean something, especially to those that thought it relevant to Gore in 2000.

Map dont lie...Red states rock!

Darth, act your age. :LOL:

I was deliberately tweaking Darth.

Your right, the popular vote does mean something. It wasn't a landslide, but it is a majority and it means we're going to get the government we collectively deserve. By the numbers, Bush got more of the popular vote than Clinton did in either of his two elections. It means there can be no challenge whether he was legitamately chosen by the electorate, a claim that was open to serious question the first time around. It's one thing to be on the loosing side, it's another to wonder if you lost fair and square. No arguement on last night, but in 2000..... .

But that's ancient history now.

[Micheleh]

Ok, if you want a Spock-like deadpan response, I can go that route as well.

With a greatly increased turnout as a percentage of voters, Bush won by a greater margin than any president in over a decade.

The Bush margin of victory is a higher quality win than the 2000 election.

While not a Reagan landslide, this is a significant win.

Huge margin, plus gains in house and senate means Bush does indeed have a governing mandate.

That makes a helluva lot more sense that "Red states rock!", which makes you sound like a sports fan. ;)

[Spike The Cylon]

I'm so glad to be on a board where there's no flaming over this topic. Another board I'm on has erupted into a flame war, with me recieving a few "threating" pm's about my choice for President.
The more I'm here, the more I like it. I salute you, members of Colonial Fleets! :salute:

:viper: :viper2:

[bsg1fan1975]

I'm just sick of people telling me that I should have voted party line to what they wanted. As far as when I registered to vote I was unaffiliated and still are! I made an informed decision when I cast mine. Will be counting the days till the next election, and no I am not revealling my vote either. That is between me and my maker!

[Darth Marley]

That makes a helluva lot more sense that "Red states rock!", which makes you sound like a sports fan. ;)

Well, it was meant to sound foolish.

And old friend with diametrically opposing political views sent me a study that "discovered" that "red states" recieved more federal dollars than the "blue states" over the last four years.

While I do not discount the probability of preferential dispensing of the pork, I did find a few problems with the study's methodology.
Less populated states are always going to be greater per-capita beneficiaries than more populous states.

[Senmut]

Bush should have suggested "pistols at dawn!"


But would it have passed Kerry's global test, Darth?

[BST]

I'm glad to see that the "healing" is already underway, here. Although, I didn't notice many bruises or black eyes.

:D

It's very healthy to have disagreements since, many times, they give us an opportunity to learn more about the other (person's) point of view. Overall, we do a pretty good job in not letting those disagreements get out of hand, although, we do have our moments.

:D ;)

Good job, folks! :thumbsup:

[BST]

Putting spin aside (or at least trying to) :) --

I don't view the election results as a mandate, but more of an affirmation of current policies. Not an overwhelming affirmation, but an "approval", nonetheless.

Given the results, it would seem prudent for the "electees" to pay a bit more attention to some of the issues from the "other side" and to, at least, try to extend an olive branch, of sorts, by addressing some of those issues. They are important to a great many folks. That may help to accelerate the "healing process".

"Red Rocks"? -- aren't they in Colorado? ;)

[julix]

Thanks Micheleh.....
that was what I was trying to say and your post was very well said!!!
Thank you :salute:

[braxiss]

bush!!!!

yea!!!!!!!!!!!

now that that's over with let's get back to donig what we do best, enjoying fleets

[Dawg]

"Red Rocks"? -- aren't they in Colorado? ;)

I thought it was Utah.

:blink:

Anyway...

Even though I'm on the "winning" side, I take no joy in it. Even though there are certain individual aspects of this administration's policies that I find acceptable (one of them, in fact, is responsible for my decision to vote the way I did), I felt that regardless of who won this election the next four years will bring hardship and suffering to our nation. It was a matter of choosing what issues I care about that I'm going to have to fight my government over.

At least with this President and a Republican Congress, I don't have to worry as much about them taking my guns away. Which is good - I might need them.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Antelope]

I am glad to see Kerry make a good concession speech that was both optimistic and held out some hope we may see a reduction in the divisiveness we have seen over the past 4 years. Let's hope he and his party are able to live up to their words. In a time of war I wish we were a more united nation.

[Rowan]

Even though this is not my country's election I feel devastated, nauseous and terrified for the future :( just needed to say that...

[Eric Paddon]

"Even though this is not my country's election I feel devastated, nauseous and terrified for the future just needed to say that... "

I don't mean to inflame things but I think Americans ought to have the right to decide who is better qualified to lead them. If America is not your country then why should you be concerned over what we do since Bush isn't going to have anything to do with your taxes, appointing judges making decisions that impact your life, and whether people from your nation go to war or not etc. You should be concerned more with who you get to vote for in your own country and let us be in control of our own destiny.

One thing (among many) that drove up voter turnout for Bush was considerable resentment over the idea of foreign countries trying to meddle in the election, especially the Guardian's stunt over targeting voters in Ohio (which was then followed by one of their columnists wishing for someone to assassinate the president).

[Darth Marley]

Maybe we should draft Canadians to serve in our Imperialistic war of oppression?

Join the dark side.

[Antelope]

Even though this is not my country's election I feel devastated, nauseous and terrified for the future :( just needed to say that...

The U.S. system is designed so that no one can do much domestically that isn't supported by a wide constituency. I don't think you will see dramatic changes inside America.

The War in Iraq will be going on the same way no matter which one was elected. Both were going to build up the Iraqi Army as rapidly as possible and in time reduce American forces as the Iraqis handle their own security.

The biggest difference between the two probably would be how they would handle Iran. I doubt Kerry would have done anything in the end but let them get the nuclear weapons. Bush may take military action on Iran if diplomacy fails.

America is like a ship going down a river. The President may steer it to the right or left bank but the river continues the ship toward the sea.

If Al Gore was President in 2001, 9/11 still would have happened and I don't think that much would really have been different. We see a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking on Bush by people who would have done the same thing if they didn't have 20/20 hindsight.

[BST]

Maybe we should draft Canadians to serve in our Imperialistic war of oppression?

Join the dark side.

Darth,

You're too much.

:rotf:

[BST]

Even though this is not my country's election I feel devastated, nauseous and terrified for the future
:( just needed to say that...


Why?

[Antelope]

Don't worry Rowan. We won't invade Canada and we definitely can't force Canada to help us. I will continue making my beer of choice Canadian (Molson).

[Dawg]

When I am Emperor the Canadians will join us willingly....

MWAHAHAHAHA

:devil:

:LOL:

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Micheleh]

That might not be such a bad thing. Then we could get our meds, and they could get decent cigarettes. (And not those euro things in the sissy boxes.)

*Joke

[warhammerdriver]

For all the Kerry supporters--------have a :beer:

For all the Bush supporters--------have a :beer:

For all the---aww heck, let's all have a :beer: and celebrate the fact that the election is OVER!

[braxiss]

For all the Kerry supporters--------have a :beer:

For all the Bush supporters--------have a :beer:

For all the---aww heck, let's all have a :beer: and celebrate the fact that the election is OVER!


i can agree to those terms :thumbsup:

:milk:

[The 14th Colony]

And for all you President Hussein supporters, have a...a...a...a :viper: up the wazzoo! :rage:



;) Thank you warhammer, don't mind if I do. :beer:

[harryfielder]

There's an old saying in the UK,,,,
''Yer pays yer money and yer makes yer choice''

[jewels]

Hey, where did those Cylon jack-o-lanterns come from? Those are funny!

[jewels]

BUSH!!!!!!!



I didn't vote. Glad he won!!!!!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:Why didn't you vote? The important thing would have been that you voted, I would think. :confused:

[Spike The Cylon]

For all the Kerry supporters--------have a :beer:

For all the Bush supporters--------have a :beer:

For all the---aww heck, let's all have a :beer: and celebrate the fact that the election is OVER!
Here here! :corona:
:viper: :viper2:

[Rowan]

I don't mean to inflame things but I think Americans ought to have the right to decide who is better qualified to lead them. If America is not your country then why should you be concerned over what we do since Bush isn't going to have anything to do with your taxes, appointing judges making decisions that impact your life, and whether people from your nation go to war or not etc. You should be concerned more with who you get to vote for in your own country and let us be in control of our own destiny.Your not inflaming things Eric I completely agree American’s have the right to decide such things. That goes without saying I’m not bemoaning your right. But it is clear from your statement that you are not aware of how much of an impact the US has on Canada and my life as a Canadian citizen.

I think it’s ironic that Americans dislike it when others take an interest in what goes on in their country since they are always taking an interest in everyone else’s country - sounds like a double standard to me.

If Americans can put their FBI and DEA in my country, test their nuclear war head delivery system on my country’s soil, and send their ambassador to my parliament and have them constantly harass my government over our desire to decriminalize marijuana or else the American government will be “upset” with us and create longer delays at the border if we fail to comply then you bet I’m going to have an opinion on who you elect!

Some of the ways in which Canada is affected by American policy:

Ever since 9/11 The American border has been negatively affecting our truckers by creating longer waits and more paper work which takes up more time which then drives up the cost of transportation of goods which in turn drives up the price of these goods.

Or lets look at the soft wood lumber industry in BC we produce 60% of all softwood in all of Canada it is one of the top 10 exports of Canada but the US has been imposing an illegal tariff against Canadian soft wood lumber. We have gone to court on several occasions over this even taken it to independent world courts like the World Trade Organisation and we have won every time yet the US still continues with these actions.

Or let’s look at the Sumas Energy 2 plant. The Canadian National Energy board and Canadian citizens have protested the use of Canadian publicly owned high voltage transmission lines by a proposed American owned Washington stated power production facility. The reason is it would be located in a sensitive air shed and that all of the pollution produced by this plant would travel north to Canada (this has been determined by environmental studies) and affect one quarter of BC’s population. In retaliation the American developer has launched a civil lawsuit against the Canadian National Energy Board and the listed protesters. It’s our power lines on our land and our air about to be affected yet we are being sued for opposing this plan.

How about the U.S. border remaining closed to Canadian cattle and beef products eight months after a single case of mad cow disease was discovered in a western Canada herd. The border closing has had a devastating impact on Canada’s cattle industry, which until last May exported 70 percent of its beef to the U.S. market.

Or how about the following
“Sun Belt Water Inc. of Santa Barbara, California., is suing the Canadian government because the company lost a contract to export water to California when the government of British Columbia banned the export of bulk water in 1991. Although Sun Belt's agreement was with a Canadian company, Snowcap, and not the B.C. government, Sun Belt alleges the ban contravenes NAFTA and is seeking $400-million in damages. The corporation understands NAFTA gives it the right to shape Canadian government policy. "Because of NAFTA, we are now stakeholders in the national water policy in Canada," declared Jack Lindsay, its chief executive.”

US as stakeholders in the national water policy of my Country??

Lets look at the recently passed Patriot Act (the one that hardly any of the Senators read before passing) and how it affects Canada. British Columbia's top privacy official is looking into complaints right now that the U.S. Patriot Act allows the FBI to use U.S. firms -- and their foreign subsidiaries -- to gain access to Canadians' medical and financial records. This law gives the FBI broad powers to collect information from companies without the subjects of the probe knowing they are under investigation and as the federal Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada points out "The issue of transfers of personal information across borders goes to the heart of national sovereignty as well as to Canadianidentity,"

Then there is the Sugar, Wheat, and Salmon issues, BC boundary dispute with Alaska and our rights to the North West passage that Americans would like to make into international waters and I could go on and on and on.

So before you go telling me that what happens in the States doesn’t concern me or my country take a moment to look at and think about how the States is in fact impacting not only Canada but many other nations as well.

Also making comments about invading Canada is only funny if that was something the US never does but that is not the case (the US has all ready tried this 5 times in Canada alone) and if the tables were turned I don’t imagine for a moment you would think it funny especially since you take exception to my simply commenting on your elections.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - as a world super power you have no one to police you but yourselves and this is a scary concept especially when the US does not listen to the rest of us. It is only self restraint that protects the rest of us and so far I just haven’t seen that demonstrated to the point were I can trust.

[Dawg]

If I may say - that was well spoken, Rowan. Sometimes we forget in defending our own sovereignty that what we do does have an affect outside our borders. And this is particularly true as the "global economy" becomes just that.

What we must remember is that what we do as nations have effects on other nations, intended or otherwise.

I am
Dawg
:warrior:

[Darth Marley]

Well, a lot of those issues cut both ways.
Truckers, I know a lot about international transportation, it is something that effects the economy on both sides.

Lumber tariffs, I agree completely, this is a NAFTA and GATT violation, but perhaps you should take another look at which US political party is more friendly to free trade. I can tell you with authority, it is the party that won this time.

Cannabis legalization? Plenty of ballot initiatives on this over here.
If any party is going to "legalize it" here, it will be a conservative party. The liberals do not have the yarbles or the credibility, they fear the issue.

Matters of post 9/11 security I have little issue with. So what is what some think of as "personal" information is transferred? Life is not so private as we would like to think.
If it is something I could get my hands on from my computer, I would be more worried if my government was not collecting it.

So, I understand why you would be concerned with US politics, I cannot understand why you think the choice made in this election is such a bad one.

Especially after the global news reports come in, and the noble states of Europe reach the conclusion that we Americans are idiots, and that they can no longer blame Bush, but must blame America as well.

[BST]

I think it’s ironic that Americans dislike it when others take an interest in what goes on in their country since they are always taking an interest in everyone else’s country - sounds like a double standard to me.

Regarding other countries (NOT Canada) -- when other countries get out of the welfare line that begins at the US border and begin to take care of their own affairs, themselves, maybe then, we won't have as much of an interest in their country. While US monies are providing backbone support to the economies of other countries, we have every right to question the policies and actions of those other countries.



Regarding Canada -- the residents of Canada have long been America's closest friend, ally, and biggest trading partner. I truly am sorry for any troubles that US companies may be causing and wish no ill will toward our northern neighbors.

The issue of 9/11 security procedures stems, primarily (at least based on what I have read in various publications), that the entry point of many "questionable" visitors is via Canada. Ideally, there should be coordination amongst the security organizations from both countries (we both need to be on the same page since Canada is just as vulnerable as the US, to a terrorist attack).

[BST]

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - as a world super power you have no one to police you but yourselves and this is a scary concept especially when the US does not listen to the rest of us. It is only self restraint that protects the rest of us and so far I just haven’t seen that demonstrated to the point were I can trust.

The following are excerpts from President Bush's 1st post-9/11 speech, given to a Joint Session of Congress, on September 20, 2001:



And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.


This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom.


We ask every nation to join us. We will ask, and we will need, the help of police forces, intelligence services, and banking systems around the world. The United States is grateful that many nations and many international organizations have already responded -- with sympathy and with support. Nations from Latin America, to Asia, to Africa, to Europe, to the Islamic world. Perhaps the NATO Charter reflects best the attitude of the world: An attack on one is an attack on all.


Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger we have found our mission and our moment. Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future. We will rally the world to this cause by our efforts, by our courage. We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.


I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.



I submit those remarks as my response. We will NEVER forget what happened on September 11, 2001 and we will take whatever steps necessary to ensure that it NEVER happens again, whether it be in this country or in others. President Bush was right, and is right, it is EVERYONE's fight -- everyone that believes in freedom and democracy, that is.

I support the above remarks, 100%, and speaking for myself, that will not waver.

[Eric Paddon]

"I think it’s ironic that Americans dislike it when others take an interest in what goes on in their country since they are always taking an interest in everyone else’s country - sounds like a double standard to me. "

Hardly. The only thing Americans are interested in is democracy and the opportunity for people to make their choice of leader freely. Watching elections of other countries in a free society can produce at best some happiness or disappointment over what affects US interests, but no sense of being "frightened." And as an American I can state quite categorically that I resent it deeply when a British tabloid rag has the nerve to say on it's front page "How can 60 million people be so dumb?", with this following an attempt to meddle in the election by harassing Ohio residents with letters telling them to vote for Kerry and one of their columnists calling for Bush's assassination.

"my government over our desire to decriminalize marijuana or else the American government will be “upset” with us"

We have a right to express our concerns over what is in the American national interest especially if decriminalized use of marijuana in Canada leads to severe problems in the drug war in our own country. But you are talking about an issue that would not involve a substantive change in policy on America's part no matter who was elected since John Kerry and the Democrats aren't for decriminalizing it in this country either. Likewise, the other things you address that are not related to the War on Terror are not issues that would lead to substantive changes in US policy in the event of a change of administrations, or would be affected much one way or the other (Certainly not to the point of having to be frightened over the outcome.)

"Ever since 9/11 The American border has been negatively affecting our truckers by creating longer waits and more paper work which takes up more time which then drives up the cost of transportation of goods which in turn drives up the price of these goods. "

That's because we were attacked and saw 3000 of our citizens murdered because terrorist thugs took advantage of lax ways of getting into this country (not by Canada I admit) and there is no way that the US is going to let laxity at our borders prevent that from happening again. This too is something that would not change no matter who is president.

"Lets look at the recently passed Patriot Act (the one that hardly any of the Senators read before passing)"

Wrong. They read it, and then some people who voted for it shamefully backed away later on in order to co-opt an extremist wing of their party because they put their finger to the wind to determine their subsequent views.

"Also making comments about invading Canada is only funny if that was something the US never does but that is not the case (the US has all ready tried this 5 times in Canada alone) "

The last time being in 1812 which is a pretty long time to hold a grudge if you ask me.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely - as a world super power you have no one to police you but yourselves and this is a scary concept especially when the US does not listen to the rest of us. "

Except that when the "rest" includes a corrupt organization like the UN which abetted Saddam Hussein with it's crooked oil for food program, and countries who had a vested crooked financial interest in keeping Saddam Hussein in power (France and Germany), and all of them showing a shocking disregard for the magnitude of the war against America waged by terrorists in the last decade culminating in September 11, I think you have to understand why the vast majority of Americans get more than a little irritated when we get lectured on our supposed "arrogance".

[Darth Marley]

Oh, come on EP.
If you think Canadians smoking grass (or Americans for that matter) is any kind of threat, then it makes all of your threat assesments seem silly.

Anyone that looks at the history of the drug war can see that it was always founded on a lie, and usually a racist lie at that.

As long as our government acts as though an individual intoxicating themself in their own home is valid cause to knock their door down, then we are a nation of hypocrites that have turned our back on our founding principles.

[Eric Paddon]

Oh, come on EP.
If you think Canadians smoking grass (or Americans for that matter) is any kind of threat, then it makes all of your threat assesments seem silly.


My point is simply that when US policy is not for the free and easy distribution of an illegal drug, and that policy is supported by the majority of the country, then America's leaders have a right to be concerned over policy actions of another country that can impact American policy at home. And that John Kerry wouldn't do that policy any differently since the only American political party on record for the legalization of marijuana is the Libertarian Party, which draws less than 1 percent in each election.

[Darth Marley]

By the same logic, the Canadians would be justified with a pre-emptive attack on us for interfering with their policies.

This is one easy case to prove when it comes to making the claim that our leaders are lying.

They put ads on TV suggesting that if I buy cannabis grown in Humbolt County, or in a basement down the street, that some of that money is going to UBL, or financing the murder of judges.
This is an outright lie.

Perhaps you did not know that the Prohibition Party still runs candidates?

[Eric Paddon]

I'm afraid you're turning this into a bit of a sideshow. The point had to do with policy disagreements between nations in the usual course of diplomacy, and the bottom line is that the marijuana example is a very weak one to use to talk about being "frightened" over the results when the election didn't even involve a choice of candidates with different perspectives on that particular issue.

I think the comments of a British newspaper that I cited get more to the heart of the matter on this particular one regarding American resentment of foreign attempts to meddle and comment sanctimoniously on how we exercised our right to vote.

[Darth Marley]

I think your views give credence to the rest of the world's notion that America is acting hypocritically.

It is not a side show, and frankly, trying to paint opposing views as such exposes your argument as weak.

America does not get everything right, and prohibition is a clear case of that, right along with slavery and universal sufferage.

The notion that one US candidate would have to have a different issue on the cannabis issue to justify fear of US meddling in terms of that issue is not a rational statment. While both candidates may be too cowardly to suggest change here, one of them might see that if Canada wants to take the same approach Alaska has regarding cannabis use, then we should not intervene.

[Eric Paddon]

"The notion that one US candidate would have to have a different issue on the cannabis issue to justify fear of US meddling in terms of that issue is not a rational statment. "

Oh yes it is when that issue is being used to justify one's characterization of the outcome of the election, which is the point you're missing.

[BST]

Ok guys, enough on the "pot" issue!

Can we at least agree that if Canada is considering the decriminalization of marijuana and does pass such a law, that it would be necessary to coordinate cross-border issues, with respect to marijuana, with the US? In other words, "importing/exporting", i.e., not having it with you as you enter Canada and leaving it behind when you leave Canada.

Bottom line, as it now stands, possession, cultivation, and consumption of marijuana is illegal in the United States and Canada.

Would you both agree that we have, at least, a bit of common ground?

[Ian_W359]

Erm.... changing the subject.... :nervous:

Given the 'reaction' of the of some of the British newspapers to Bush's victory, what do you think the US media interest in Tony Blair's attempt for a third term as Prime Minister (sometime early next year) will be?

Ian W359

[Darth Marley]

What happened to Duncan?

[BST]

Given the 'reaction' of the of some of the British newspapers to Bush's victory, what do you think the US media interest in Tony Blair's attempt for a third term as Prime Minister (sometime early next year) will be?

The media will probably follow political ideology -- I doubt very much that they would cross party lines.


Casting politics aside for a moment:

In my own personal opinion, Tony Blair is a man of honor who stands behind and alongside his friends and allies, in their time of need. Mr. Blair has my respect and thanks, for all that he's done, for the US.

I would like to think that a very healthy percentage of Americans view him in the same light, regardless of political persuasion.

Thanks for asking this question, Ian. I appreciate the opportunity to give my POV.

:)

[braxiss]

remember that we're suppose to all be freinds here, so if at all possible can we keep the blood shed to a minimum in here?

[Gemini1999]

Erm.... changing the subject.... :nervous:

Given the 'reaction' of the of some of the British newspapers to Bush's victory, what do you think the US media interest in Tony Blair's attempt for a third term as Prime Minister (sometime early next year) will be?

Ian W359

Ian -

Tony Blair - a third term? Now there's a man I would love to vote for!

Cheers,

Bryan

[BST]

remember that we're suppose to all be freinds here, so if at all possible can we keep the blood shed to a minimum in here?

Well, I don't know.....those 3 beady-eyed pumpkins staring at me, look like they're up to no good!

;) :D

[braxiss]

Well, I don't know.....those 3 beady-eyed pumpkins staring at me, look like they're up to no good!

;) :D


lol


i'll be good i promise :LOL:

[Bijou88]

Erm.... changing the subject.... :nervous:

Given the 'reaction' of the of some of the British newspapers to Bush's victory, what do you think the US media interest in Tony Blair's attempt for a third term as Prime Minister (sometime early next year) will be?

Ian W359


Given the ultra right wing shift in U.S. politics, Americans don't care what foreigners in other parts of the world are up to. If it doesn't involve Americans, it don't matter. We just care about our own interests and to heck with everyone else.

[jewels]

Erm.... changing the subject.... :nervous:

Given the 'reaction' of the of some of the British newspapers to Bush's victory, what do you think the US media interest in Tony Blair's attempt for a third term as Prime Minister (sometime early next year) will be?

Ian W359Ian, since Mr. Blair has stood with Mr. Bush on Iraq and our news media is opposed to the whole Iraq thing I would guess that there will be subtle and not so subtle rooting for Mr. Blair's opponent(s) in our media's coverage. I think he's been a good statesmen for you and kept the UK in the place in world politics it belongs (not overshadowed by the EU, like most of Europe and not mamby-pamby like the French). I doubt he will be treated well by our media. I think he deserves the honor of a trusted friend and foxhole mate. I think he was my country's best friend in some of our darkest-to-date days and I can only wish him well and your country well with those elections. If I'm correct, I hope our media has as much influence on your country's or parliment's vote as those Guardian folks had on my former state--none.

[BST]

Given the ultra right wing shift in U.S. politics, Americans don't care what foreigners in other parts of the world are up to. If it doesn't involve Americans, it don't matter. We just care about our own interests and to heck with everyone else.


Hmm, didn't take too long for my point to be proven. :(

[warhammerdriver]

I saw an interesting map in today's paper about the election. The states were not colored red/bush blue/kerry. Each individual county was colored red or blue. There was a lot of red on that map and very little blue. Even in states that Kerry won. By the looks of that map Kerry won in the large cities (NYC, LA, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and so on) but Bush won almost everything else.

[Eric Paddon]

Erm.... changing the subject.... :nervous:
Given the 'reaction' of the of some of the British newspapers to Bush's victory, what do you think the US media interest in Tony Blair's attempt for a third term as Prime Minister (sometime early next year) will be?
Ian W359

The liberal US media's hatred for George W. Bush will make them hope that Blair loses so they can spin it as a big story (as opposed to their total silence on the recent election in Australia). If Blair wins, I expect it to be downplayed, which is ironic because since Blair's Labour party credentials in the past made him a favorite of American liberals who despised Margaret Thatcher and the Conservatives for the same reason of supporting U.S. foreign policy in the Reagan years.

The ideal dream scenario for the US media elite is to see Blair ousted as Labour party leader so Labour stays in power with an anti-US posture in foreign policy.

[BST]

I saw an interesting map in today's paper about the election. The states were not colored red/bush blue/kerry. Each individual county was colored red or blue. There was a lot of red on that map and very little blue. Even in states that Kerry won. By the looks of that map Kerry won in the large cities (NYC, LA, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and so on) but Bush won almost everything else.

WHD,

Considering your above post and the sidebar about Tony Blair and the US media handling of his re-election bid, etc., check the map again: Kerry won in the states containing the "major" media centers of the US - NY, LA, Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC, etc, but like you said, Bush won everywhere else. Interesting, eh?

[Darth Marley]

http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg[/quote]