| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Cary Kittrell" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2004 02:27:06 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Bush's Mandate |
In article <1099511078.osYendA5finkB6BcbusL7g@bubbanews> Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> writes:
It's not a "bitterly divided country" when:
1. The Republican president just won over 50 percent for the first time in 16
years.
Winning a simple majority -- barely, 1 part in 100 -- is evidence that there's
no serious division? Getting 1.06 votes for every one vote cast against you
means that we're all pulling the same direction now?
He won more raw votes than anyone ever has, including Reagan.
He did indeed. John Kerry also won more raw votes than Reagan, about
twelve million more than Reagan did.
2. The GOP has 55 senators.
And the Dems have 45. Does having only 9 senators for every 11 on the
other side indicate that there's hardly any dissension?
3. The GOP has over 230 House members.
Giving us a House in which, were the same numerical proportions applied
to a baseball team, the shortstop, center fielder, catcher and first baseman,
would be playing for the opposing team, while the pitcher couldn't seem make
up his mind. That's hardly a lack of division.
4. There are at least 28 Republican governors, including those of the 4
largest states.
5. The majority of state legislators and legislatures are Republican.
6. The GOP has just performed miracles, like ousting a Senate caucus leader
for the first time since 1952, and getting a Republican senator elected from
Louisiana for the first time ever.
And so forth. Clearly the Republicans ARE in charge. And just as clearly
there is a very sizeable segment of the populace who disagree with them.
-- cary
.
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
03 Nov 2004 05:16:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:27:06 +0000 (UTC), (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
And so forth. Clearly the Republicans ARE in charge. And just as clearly
there is a very sizeable segment of the populace who disagree with them.
But the majority agrees with us.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
03 Nov 2004 05:23:54 PM |
|
|
In article <8jpio0l8d3hm5dbh9dhuoig2195oecctpt@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:27:06 +0000 (UTC), (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
And so forth. Clearly the Republicans ARE in charge. And just as clearly
there is a very sizeable segment of the populace who disagree with them.
But the majority agrees with us.
Quite true. Nor did I deny it. What I did contest was the original
poster's saying that the election numbers showed that
It's not a "bitterly divided country" when: ...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Donalbain" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
04 Nov 2004 07:42:19 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<8jpio0l8d3hm5dbh9dhuoig2195oecctpt@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:27:06 +0000 (UTC), (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
And so forth. Clearly the Republicans ARE in charge. And just as clearly
there is a very sizeable segment of the populace who disagree with them.
But the majority agrees with us.
Nope. As always, the majority either did not vote, or voted for the other guy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BC" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
04 Nov 2004 05:03:34 PM |
|
|
(Donalbain) wrote in message news:<983b42a3.0411040542.55415ec0@posting.google.com>...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<8jpio0l8d3hm5dbh9dhuoig2195oecctpt@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:27:06 +0000 (UTC), (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
And so forth. Clearly the Republicans ARE in charge. And just as clearly
there is a very sizeable segment of the populace who disagree with them.
But the majority agrees with us.
Nope. As always, the majority either did not vote, or voted for the other guy.
It doesn't matter. The venal and the not well-informed
have spoken. It's too bad we didn't get more information
like this beforehand:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/04/iraq.weapons.ap
But then, it still may not have mattered....
-BC
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrPepper11" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
04 Nov 2004 10:25:27 PM |
|
|
Minneapolis Star Tribune
November 5, 2004
Editorial: 'Moral' mandate? Election didn't provide one
President Bush was magnanimous in victory Wednesday and promised truly
to work at being a uniter. That was important. Other members of the
GOP team are singing from an entirely different playbook, however.
They expect to see a "revolution" in which they get to force through
their conservative, religion-based social agenda. This election, they
believe, was a mandate for that. Plainly put, that is nonsense.
The elements of their religious social agenda include: a
constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage; a Supreme Court
that will reverse Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 ruling that prohibited
government from interfering in a woman's right to end an early,
unwanted pregnancy; a ban on RU-486, the "morning after" birth control
bill; an even more stringent ban on stem-cell research and numerous
other initiatives dear to the hearts of the religious right.
In support of their "mandate" notion, folks like the Rev. Jerry
Falwell, Dr. James Dobson, Bill Bennett and a number of congressional
Republican leaders cite GOP gains in the House and Senate, the defeat
of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and the strong role that
evangelical Christians played in Bush's victory.
In the Senate, Republicans did indeed make an impressive gain of four
seats. But Daschle's defeat -- in a sparsely populated, overwhelmingly
Republican state -- has no national meaning. Moreover, the Republicans
still fall short of the 60 seats required to overcome the Senate
minority and bring controversial issues or people to a floor vote.
In the House, the GOP pickup of three seats was due entirely to House
Majority Leader Tom DeLay's gerrymandering of Texas congressional
districts. That allowed the GOP to knock off four veteran Democrats.
The legality of DeLay's effort is still being litigated and numerous
close associates have been indicted for financial crimes associated
with the redistricting. DeLay himself is being investigated, has been
slapped three times by the House Ethics Committee and could lose his
seat. There is no House mandate.
As for the conservative religious right, while it provided slightly
more than half of Bush's support, it still represents only one-quarter
of the electorate. Alone, this group wasn't enough to elect Bush; it
also took concerns about terrorism to do that.
Which means that something approaching three-quarters of the American
electorate do not share the religious right's social views. CNN's
election-day polling confirmed that. A majority, 55 percent, of voters
surveyed said that abortion should "always" or "mostly" be legal, and
60 percent supported either same-sex marriage or civil unions.
This means there will be no constitutional amendment prohibiting
same-sex marriage. Congress might pass such an amendment, although
even that is doubtful give the two-thirds votes needed, but such an
amendment would never receive the necessary affirmation from
three-quarters of the states.
The split in the Senate makes it unlikely the Supreme Court will get
the justices to overturn Roe vs. Wade or advance other elements of the
conservative agenda. Indeed, on Thursday Sen. Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania, the Republican expected to be the new chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, explicitly warned Bush against sending
Supreme Court nominees with that agenda to the Senate for
confirmation. They wouldn't survive, he said.
Bush won a decisive overall victory Tuesday, but he did not win a
single state in the Northeast or on the West Coast. Nor did he do well
in the Upper Midwest. Even in states he did win, it was that potent
combination of terrorism and social conservatism that fueled his
victory.
Looking ahead, Bush faces an enormous, uphill struggle to keep Iraq
from turning into a disaster. Should he fail, and should the right
insist on trying to force-feed America its radical social agenda, the
2006 midterm elections could bring real congressional grief to the
Republicans. This is still a centrist, tolerant society, and any
effort to remake it into a conservative theocracy will bring swift,
decisive repudiation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
04 Nov 2004 10:52:57 PM |
|
|
(MrPepper11) writes:
Minneapolis Star Tribune
November 5, 2004
Editorial: 'Moral' mandate? Election didn't provide one
President Bush was magnanimous in victory Wednesday and promised truly
to work at being a uniter. That was important. Other members of the
GOP team are singing from an entirely different playbook, however.
They expect to see a "revolution" in which they get to force through
their conservative, religion-based social agenda. This election, they
believe, was a mandate for that. Plainly put, that is nonsense.
Not only is it nonsense as the editorial states, but at this point
nobody in his right mind would believe one word coming out of Bush's
mouth. When you go to war, justifying it to the American public by a
string of lies, that alone is reason enough not to believe anything
you say. The price of those lies is over 1000 young Americans killed
and an estimated 100,000 Iraqis, and over 200 billion dollars borrowed
at a time when the country can't pay its bills.
Bush's credibility as far as I'm concerned is zero, and that he fooled
a tad over half the voters doesn't change that one bit.
The "conservatives" are IMHO little better than Osama et al. Both
share the same family values - kill with impunity, force your beliefs
(religious and otherwise) on everyone else, and spin like crazy about
how God is on your side. The main difference is that Osama is a rank
amateur in the killing department by comparison (even if many
Americans don't think so because he targeted us instead of someone
else.)
IMHO the Democrats need to pull out the stops and do everything
possible to stop Bush - blocking radical right wing court appointments
and all attempts at repression. If they don't, the U.S. will turn
into the Fourth Reich. We are getting too close for comfort as it is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
08 Nov 2004 11:30:51 AM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message news:<8jpio0l8d3hm5dbh9dhuoig2195oecctpt@4ax.com>...
cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
And so forth. Clearly the Republicans ARE in charge. And just as
clearly there is a very sizeable segment of the populace who disagree
with them.
But the majority agrees with us.
A slight majority of those who bothered to vote. I didn't bother since
none of the candidates were respectable. Bush is a robotic moron,
Kerry is a liar, and Nader is a fool.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Brokaw" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
03 Nov 2004 11:47:34 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
But the majority agrees with us.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Ah, you mean the people that voted.
The majority of the nation is against Bush and his christian based
ignorance. Most bible people are nuts, just look at Bin Laden.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
03 Nov 2004 11:22:54 PM |
|
|
"Tom Brokaw" <ryst@keington.net> wrote in message
news:Wnjid.366$W_2.74716@news.uswest.net...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
But the majority agrees with us.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
Ah, you mean the people that voted.
The majority of the nation is against Bush and his christian based
ignorance.
You are wrong, but then Bigots are always wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Firelock" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
04 Nov 2004 08:47:22 AM |
|
|
Tom Brokaw <ryst@keington.net> wrote in message news:<Wnjid.366$W_2.74716@news.uswest.net>...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
But the majority agrees with us.
Ah, you mean the people that voted.
The majority of the nation is against Bush
Since they didn't vote, what psychic powers are you using
to determine that the majority of the nation is against
Bush? All you have to go on are the poll numbers of the
people who cared about their lives and their country
enough to actually vote about it, and those poll numbers
say that millions more Americans are *for* Bush than
against him.
Dems have to accept the fact that they are a minority
in the USA - a slim one, but a minority nonetheless.
This is very difficult for them to see, because most
of them are so highly concentrated together - look at
county voting maps of even the states that went strongly
for Kerry, you'll see clots of blue around the cities and
swaths of red throughout the rest. Dems talk to other
Dems, go to work with other Dems, eat and play and
sleep with other Dems - so many can't believe that
what they see in their enclaves is so different from
what the rest of the country really is.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matty" |
|
| Title: Re: Bush's Mandate |
04 Nov 2004 09:02:02 AM |
|
|
On 2004-11-05 01:47:22 +1100, (Firelock) said:
Tom Brokaw <ryst@keington.net> wrote in message
news:<Wnjid.366$W_2.74716@news.uswest.net>...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote:
But the majority agrees with us.
Ah, you mean the people that voted.
The majority of the nation is against Bush
Since they didn't vote, what psychic powers are you using
to determine that the majority of the nation is against
Bush? All you have to go on are the poll numbers of the
people who cared about their lives and their country
enough to actually vote about it, and those poll numbers
say that millions more Americans are *for* Bush than
against him.
Dems have to accept the fact that they are a minority
in the USA - a slim one, but a minority nonetheless.
This is very difficult for them to see, because most
of them are so highly concentrated together - look at
county voting maps of even the states that went strongly
for Kerry, you'll see clots of blue around the cities and
swaths of red throughout the rest. Dems talk to other
Dems, go to work with other Dems, eat and play and
sleep with other Dems - so many can't believe that
what they see in their enclaves is so different from
what the rest of the country really is.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Not necessarily true; most of my friends tend to be sitting on the
right; I tend to be more of a libertarian, hence the reason I can't
stand either of the candiates. GWB is a religious nut and Kerry didn't
put enough radical changes forward to fix the problems. Oh well, since
I'm not affected, I shouldn't care so much.
Matty
--
"If a nation could not prosper without the enjoyment of perfect liberty
and perfect justice, there is not in the world a nation which could
ever have prospered." - The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter IX
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of
government except all those other forms that have been tried from time
to time." - Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
