The 2008 Election

Yeah, my sister was furious about that today, and I agree, we shouldn't even have to vote on things like that. People should just have that basic human right, whether the closed minded folks like it or not.

"The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open." - Frank Zappa

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Interesting stuff Seds

Let's hope the 'war' stage in Iraq really is over. The signs do look pretty good (whether 'the surge' paralleled events brought about by long-term occupation or prompted them. At least it showed continued dedication to not leaving a warzone behind - and on that I'd have to disagree with your man there's assessment. Though he's at the hard end, so he's welcome to his opinion ).

No time for cooling boots tho. Afghanistan has needed the US there all along, coz as Marky's post suggests, it's a mess. I've read that Obama already has a tougher line on that than McCain's, so perhaps he's already fired up for that particular fact-on-the-ground. (The bonus fact that nuclear-Pakistan is practically bankrupt and looking thoroughly flaky is just one of the many extra complexities he's gonna be facing. Not to mention Russia moving missiles about while the cheers still resound. He better get used to the sleepless nights )

Always been much that is suspect there. Sure more will come out as time passes.

Amen to that

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I'm a bit confused on this one. Everyone keeps calling it 'gay marriage', but did it refer to the religious ceremony or civil recognition of partnership (IE all the legal privileges & incentives etc)? It can't be about the actual marriage end can it (thought you guys had separation of Church & State for a start)?

Yeah, it's legally acknowledging a marriage and all those extra incentives that they're talking about here. But then we've got civil unions and common law marriages and it really does tend to get a bit confusing. I don't know if you were joking or not, but we do have separation of Church and State. More or less.

No i was straight up on that. (Oh wait, excuse pun ). I was just checking it wasn't about legislating for whether churches could/should hold same-sex marriages etc. (Mmm, it's equally confusing here in the UK, although I believe same-sex couples can have civil unions with all the attached rights etc these days, but think it's a fairly recent thing)

I saw that on the news today and was rather bewildered. It seems a little comical to be honest, the cold war is over and now they're trying to restart it...Christ. Men and their toys.

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

Sarah Palin was so busy campaigning that she forgot to check on Putin from her Alaskan porch.

I think Russia's been flexing for a while - and you could say the US has too with the missile defence shield move into Poland etc. (Not to mention more 'covert' support for countries nearer the Russian border). Some talking heads have been saying that Iraq etc has overstretched the US both in financial & manpower terms -and Russia has been boosted so much by gas prices & access- that some kind of 'Bear resurgence' was inevitable. (Believe they're now as credit-crashed as anyone though, so this probably is just an exercise in waving their willies in the wind )

Another lovely sight to greet the newly-anointed-one

I don't even know where to start. I saw this post, and while I feel I shouldn't respond because people are tired of us (probably) I'm just so frustrated with your constant alluding to the fact that my reasons are illogical, nebulus, surface-level, and by extension, wrong, for supporting Obama.

It's just not the case. I've said it time and time and time again that I support this man because of very real and logical reasons.

No, I'm not. I will repeat that in the last two months of this campaign (AFTER THE CAMPAIGN SPEECH), the national campaign went negative. At one point, 100% of McCain's ads were negative! There is empirical evidence of this fact.

And just look at this thread. Go back and read it. I sorta remember doing nothing in here but trying to defend Obama against the latest label that was thrown at him. Socialist being the last one. And I enjoyed Ayers' comment yesterday, "I hardly knew Obama." LOL

No, it is not. And I'm not making any point for you. I happen to vote for character and for what I see inside a man's heart and soul. He simply wasn't in the national eye long enough apparently to do all these ACTIONS that you think I'm supposed to base my opinion on. Jeez, every election is between TWO people. You have to go on what they stand for. You know that. Your argument is disingenuious at best.

And to be honest, I wouldn't have found anything desirable in 2004-2007 of a Senator working with the other side! After all the policies of the Bush Republican party (which was completely unified) that had been pushed through for years, I wanted a fighter. So I simply don't care about this issue. I know moving forward he will try to work with others -- he proved himself with many people in Chicago who talked about how much he worked across the aisle. There is plenty of proof out there. And you'd be shocked to know that I fear for him being too centrist in the first two years. I believe we need radical changes in energy policy, healthcare, and environmental regulation (which Bush is destroying right now).

I happen to think that a split government isn't always a good thing. Sometimes it can be questionable, and sometimes it becomes GRIDLOCK. I'll give the Dems two years to see what they can do. But I have to laugh at all the Republicans that suddenly believe we will become the Soviet Union.

Talk about a "logical disconnect!"

So I have his WORDS that Obama believes in unity and wants to bring us together. And that's good enough for me. You are being so incredibly unfair, I don't think you can see that. You expect too much and are unrealistic in your expectations, if you ask me. And I think you're that way because you are not happy with him. That's fine, you have a right to feel that way, but what you don't have a right to say is that somehow I'm not thinking logical or whatever for disagreeing with you.

I don't believe anything I've said is "false." (Did you just say I lied?) And of course I can argue that my dislike for the McCain campaign is entirely valid.

That's the problem here. You just won't accept the fact that it is perfectly valid to criticize the tone of a campaign.

And speaking of POLICIES, I don't believe what you believe about how the economy could be fixed. And the empirical evidence I have is my retirement account nearly cut in half; the fact that I will not get a raise next year from the county; that my husband is nearly bankrupt (he's a realtor); and that I will NEVER be able to afford to send my sons to college. That's all I need to know. I'm not an economist but I can surely BELIEVE that the tax cuts was a bad idea (McCain actually agreed with me); deregulation is a bad idea in some cases (Alan Greenspan agrees with me); and all the other Reaganomics hasn't served this country well. I BELIEVE that.

And do you want to know why I'm even bothering to answer this? Because you tell me there is a "logical disconnect" in my response. It is perfectly logical to me and perfectly valid to question a man who voted with Bush 90% of the time, who is a member of that same party. It is perfectly valid for me to question what I saw in McCain as I felt he changed his own personality to cater to the far-right mean spirited part of the party. The praise I heap on Obama is for his desire to work toward healing this country. There is nothing illogical about that for ME.

Wow. I'm so glad you want to tell people how they feel.

You are trying to tell us that we were so caught up in this emotion that we couldn't really see. Well, I disagree. I think we saw in McCain more of the same old ****. And we rejected it.

I'd respond to the rest, but this is too long as it is. And you got a response from Swedish Chef that said a lot of things I agree with.

The last thing I want to say and I end with this -- my reasons were based on policies, actions, and words that I have endured for the last 10 years from a political party that I find morally reprehensible.

I'm sorry, Yoda, but that's how I see it. And I think you do need to take a bit of responsibility here. You are a member of that party. You vote with them. You support them. And you are in a party that is sending a convicted felon to Congress. I know you don't agree with that, you wouldn't vote for that, McCain doesn't support it, but then you need to understand how frustrated I am that people like that are active in your party. I saw people like that interviewed at McCain/Palin rallies.

I hope the moderate and intelligent Republicans kick out the evangelical, right-wing group.

Republicans put a ballot question regarding Gay Marriage in California. And now people there have voted to ban gay marriage in California. These are the evangelicals Joe Scarborough likes to tell me came out in force and elected George Bush (there were many gay marriage initiatives on ballots around the country). These people are so righteous that want to DENY the rights of people that simply want the same rights as everyone else. These people influence and belong to the Republican party. And as long as they have a place in that party, count me out. I will vote against them time and again until the party kicks them out and becomes the party I remember from decades ago.

Reagan respected those that disagreed with him. He did not create division to win elections or marginalize a people to win an election. When those days return, I'll take a look again at the Republican party.

I know what you will say, this has nothing to do with McCain, that it is emotional, not logical, and it isn't about the nuts and bolts of economic policy. What you should understand is that it is valid and logical of me to reject any party that engages in that kind of hate. Because I believe it is hate. And McCain catered to that part of the party when he picked Palin. There was no reason for me to believe he wouldn't cater to them in White House, even if it isn't this particular issue. He is a member of that party and he believed he needed them to win.

When you deny a person's rights, that is POLICY.

**** this ****, I'm joining the Pity Party.

I agree.

My daughter tells me that this has been driven by a Mormon politico. It's simply hateful IMO, to try to keep people down and unequal.

__________________
Bleacheddecay

We are supposed to have separation of church and state, yes. However, in reality no candidate could be elected in this country without playing lip service to some Christian denomination. An avowed atheist or agnostic could not get elected, IMO. Let's not even get started on Muslim or non Christian religions or belief systems. Of course there was a time when it was said a Catholic couldn't get elected either . . .

When people feel that marriage is "threatened" by allowing gay people to have equal rights it's just baffling. Haven't straight people already shown they value marriage far less than the gay people who are fighting for those rights? Seriously.

In our country you can get married in a church by clergy or in a civil ceremony. In some states you can become married simply by living together "in sin" for a bit too long or checking into a hotel and falsely listing yourselves as Mr. and Mrs. X.

Oh but this is only for a man and a woman who are assumed to be straight. It's a bit nuts.

LMAO!

I agree with the Blair comparison up to a point: he ignited new fire into more than just his party rank and file - he promised change and, for the first term-and-a-bit anyway, delivered. The seeds of TB's downfall were sown, like Bush's, in Baghdad (and what they did or did not find in Iraq after invading). Then came the David Kelly affair etc etc.

I think he was basically an honourable man who made the mistake (not unknown among British PMs) of allying himself much too closely with America politically. No more honourable than Gordon Brown, it's true, but Tony had something Gordon lacks and will never have - charisma, and thus the ability to wriggle out of situations with a smile and a promise that it'll get better soon.

Obama take note - don't ally yourself too closely with America! It'll all end in tears!

I've seen Benn speak myself (in my days as a Labour Party campaigner in West Lancs when I was at uni) and it's safe to say that he's a hero of mine.

I can see the Tories being a nailed-on cert in the next election, sadly. Cameron might well be a vacuous t*t but he's a shrewd man (or, at the very least, has shrewd handlers) and has modelled himself completely on the young Blair (Blair without any substance, though). Sadly, I think that will be enough to get them in because Labour under Brown have fallen apart and now, more than ever, image matters in politics.

Give him a term for Labour to regroup - I don't think he's clever enough to spin it beyond that - and hopefully they don't replace brown with their own versions of Ian Duncan Smith and William Hague.

In fact, these last two jokers should have been paraded in front of US Republicans before they made their nomination. People don't vote for Baldies!

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

The Swedish Parliament approved gay marriage today. Now a gay couple can get married in a church and have the same rights, privileges and obligations as straight couples. That's quite remarkable.

Lots of changes going on around the world.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Good for Sweden...

__________________

Cool article on Reason today about Liberalism and Libertarianism, and their common ground.

Do Libertarians fit in a Liberal World?

It's a comparison of similarities and a call to disconnect the decades old "Fusionist" relationship with the right; something I agree with for the most part.

__________________

All these progressives!

Imagine what it's like living in a country that only this year voted to allow football on a Sunday and have people like this woman in positions of power.

Seriously, the clowns in charge over here make Bush & Co seem like, well, Bazza Obama.

I wonder about democracy sometimes...

Cool

Good to see prejudices everywhere taking a few knocks.

What's weird on this one is that it's taken so long. The whole argument about 'devaluing marriage' seemed pretty void from the start in that gay people were never likely to get heterosexually/child-bearingly married in the first place (not in modern accepting societies anyway), so it's not like hetro-marriage numbers would drop (more than they are already, i believe).

I know there are still those that feel it redirects away from the idea of family-as-childrearing-unit, but the focus on monogamy should surely please them (given the stereotype of gays as lascivious swingers), at least comparatively

The people who would try and force all Churches to hold gay-marriages are of course too militant (and i believe they exist). It's the denomination's choice whether they embrace or abhor the phenomenon. (Excessive 'hate talk' aside, it should be their call, and the prospective worshipper/bride-or-groom's choice whether they attend that church etc)

Yeah, well.. Good for Swedish gay couples who want to get hinged anyway!