Pangloss

Oh I see. Well, that is where all the embassies are....

I don't understand what it is that you think the DC vote is indicative of. If you're going to make an assertion there, go ahead and make it, so I can debunk it.

Sure. I mean generally speaking I agree with that, although there's a reason why I'm more of a "centrist" than a "populist". If a crowd's heading for a cliff, I'm not about to follow 'em off. (chuckle) There's a reason why you balance popular rule with a strong constitution.

Nah. He's just busy negotiating with the Rigelians for our remaining supply of aluminum phosdate (the shaving cream atom). (It's alarmingly low, you know.)

An absolutely perfect example of what I'm talking about. You go right out to the extreme of assuming that you cannot possibly be "with us", and therefore you are against us. Then you go on to use it to rationalize a really extreme assessment of the administration based around a *single point*. Amazing. Like I said, I think this sort of thing happens *all the time*. That's what I'm talking about when I say that your opinion will not be the sole determining factor in our thinking, no matter how often or how loudly you insist that it be exactly that.

Neither the UK nor the US actually has a Greek-style democracy (nor would any of us likely want that), so there's no real relevence in that point at all. It's just protest-sign fodder.

Actually the southern conversion from Demo to Repoob is mostly a Reagan-era phenomenon, although its roots do extend into the problems of segregationism in the 1960s. Conservative Democrats practically split into two separate sub-sub parties over the issue. But for the most part they were over that, and still voting Democrat, when Reagan came along. Good books on the subject: "The Vital South" and "The Rise of Southern Republicans" by Earl and Merl Black. (I might not have spelled their first names correctly -- the books are on the other side of the house at the moment.)

I think your attempt at moderation is overshadowing your sense of reality. Clearly you and I both know a very large number of people who believe *exactly* what I just said -- that Americans should do what world opinion is telling them to do, and nothing else (such as American opinion) is relevent. Note: I haven't said that Europeans expect the US to follow European orders. Rather, it's a question of whether Europeans understand what the reasons are for Americans being in favor of continuing its presence in Iraq (amongst other specific matters), or are even interested in what those opinions might be. Mind you, there's no question in my mind that Americans fail to appreciate the opinions of Europeans. They've gotten an earful about the fact that Europe is angry. But they're not getting a lot of expository reasoning and calm, logical opinion. They're just getting pictures of demonstrations in Trafalgar Square. That's something that needs to be fixed. But I also believe that we're seeing a lack of understanding of *American* opinion amongst Europeans. I suspect you're not getting enough of *our* expository reasoning and logical discourse on these subjects in your media. Understanding is a two-way street. (Edit: Just to give an example of that, check out this quote from Tetra in another thread.)

Why would it? It's not news, it's not based on a preponderance of all the issues facing Americans, and it's not voted on by Americans. How many times do we need to say "world opinion will not be the sole determining factor in our choice of actions" before it sinks in?

Just wait for the coldest day of the century, and then check all the global warming conferences. He'll be there.

Exactly. Well put. It's hard to say how much of an influence that sort of thing really has. I think human nature is to be more influenced in general by positve rather than negative things (although I'm sure a lot of people would disagree). But the whole business of Hollywood and the liberal media and their impact on politics plays VERY big in middle America. It's long since reached the stage of "truism" and "common knowledge".

Say what you like about the Brits, but they sure have a sense of humor. CBS News showed a bit of Tony Blair addressing that government body (House of Commons?) with the rectangular room, where the speaker stands at a table in the center of the room. He was reading off a piece of paper, and said something like "we congradulate president.... Karzai of Afghanistan", and the room erupted into laughter.

Well okay, I would have to agree with your there, and it's a valid point. How 'bout we compromise and put the religious nuts on a par with the other special interests.

It's not the religious people you need to watch out for. In fact, it's that kind of thinking that got you into this mess. Special interest groups run this country. They control congress, and they control the agenda. They're *why* you think the agenda is religion. If Democrats can solve THAT one, they'll bowl this country over in 2008. - Stop *making* an enemy out of people who happen to have religious beliefs. - Do something about special interests. - Dominate the CENTER of political discourse, instead of the EXTREME LEFT.

I did. Martinez took such a flying leap to the far right in the two televised debates that even Castor's "bully of the world" statement and her opposition to Amendment 1 wasn't enough to drive me back to Martinez. I was halfway expecting him to drive his car into the hall and run over a gay person or something. But I have no particular reason to think he'll make a poor senator.

Keep an eye on Denise Majette of Georgia. She just lost her Senate bid, but she has both popular and moderate appeal. I have conservative and moderate friends and family in Georgia who voted for her. Looks like a real up-and-comer for the Democrats.

Just as an aside, Florida passed an amendment yesterday which limits lawyers to 10% of damage awards, plus fees. This will hopefully stop those ridiculous 40% contingency cases. Lawyers can still make an *ssload of money on these cases, and the bigger award the more they make, so I think it's fair. If they don't like it, they can go into another line of work.

The last prez to serve more than two terms was FDR, who died in office at the end of WW2. I believe (someone check me on this) that the 22nd amendment changed the constitution to limit prez's to two terms during the next (Truman) administration.

No. Two elected terms is the max. (Edit: Which is kinda sad, actually, I like Bill a lot more since he left office.)

On my list already, but thanks.

I kinda feel sorry for George Soros and the Hollywood crowd. Far-left 527 groups outspent far-right 527 groups something like $160 million to $20 million. And what do they have to show for it? A lesson in how NOT to tell people what to do. Obviously the Republicans have the right idea in keeping their special interest groups (with some interesting exceptions) below the radar. When you wear your agenda on your sleeve, it's right out there, and there's going to be a reaction to it. I just can't get over the fact that the House of Representatives remains virtually unchanged. It's the untold story of this election, IMO. All those people so focused on the "evil George Bush" completely missed the fact that the real evil is Dennis Hastert, and his vast alliance with mega-corporations. But he's not a neo-con, so he slides along under the radar, untouchable, and nobody seems to care. (sigh) Maybe we'll get a chance to work on that House in 2006. By the way, as I was telling one of my far-right friends yesterday, Republicans are in for a world of pain in 2008: - The White House will have been under Republican control for 8 years (no more blaming Clinton) - Congress will have been under Republican control for six years (and the House for *14* years) - The budget won't be balanced; debt and deficit will be at an all-time highs - Iraq still won't be resolved (we may even still have troops there) - Afghanistan will likely have undergone a civil war and return to despotism - Europe will still be annoyed with us Hillary is going to look like an angel from above.

Oh what the heck, a couple more. - Florida turned out to do pretty darn well, thank you very much (hehe) - 20,000 lawyers with nothing to do... that's got to be a first in the history of this country....

I'm kinda bleary-eyed at the moment so these numbers might not be all that accurate. I just threw 'em together myself, they're not from a news source. Just some stuff I thought was interesting. Please don't construe this as pro-Bush sentiment. As I've said before, I love "sticking it" to extremists on both sides, and I'm going to enjoy laughing at liberals in particular, but my positions, as stated elsewhere on this board, have not changed. I'm especially outraged at the lack of work in fixing the influence of special interests in the House. But that having been said.... - Bush won both the popular vote and the electoral college vote - He got more total votes than he did four years ago - He won more than half of the states - He set a new record for most votes ever received by an American presidential candidate (Kerry surpassed the old record as well, which was set by Al Gore in 2000) - He's the first president since 1988 (his father) to win more than 50% of the vote - Bush got four million more votes than Kerry, which is at least 4x the margin of 2000 Republicans in general: - Appear to have taken several additional Senate seats away from Democrats - Beat the (Democrat) minority leader in the Senate, for the first time in 56 years (Congressional "leaders" almost always win, because they do more for their states thanks to their greater sway over committees, oversight, and appropriations) - Increased its lead in the House - Referendums banning on marriage passed in all 11 states that had them About the election in general: - More Americans voted than ever before - In spite of a huge swell in minority and youth voting, conservatives and older folks maintained their hold; the baby boomers are getting more conservative as they age - In spite of overwhelming "anybody but Bush" strategies and at least a perception of vast foreign "anti-Americanism", Americans continue to support the president - This confirms Bush as a "legitimate" president in many ways; certainly it proves that his popularity was not just a fluke - Virtually no significant disenfranchisement issues this time around (20,000 lawyers with nothing to do has GOT to be some kind of record) - Colorado voters denied a referendum to split their electoral college vote by an overwhelming majority It was certainly a close election, but in the end it sure looks like a mandate to me. The notion that the country was overwhelmingly pissed at Bush seems to have been totally destroyed. All told, on the balance, I'm proud of the country for rising to the challenges of this election. I'd Kerry had roughly the same stats as Bush above, I'd feel the same way (and it would still indicate support for Bush). We went through a collective nightmare and came through with some smart moves in the end. Watch, now, as the extremists of the world collapse in the biggest crying fit in the Western world since Nixon went to China.

That's interesting, thanks for the info. I think it just underscore's my personal belief that you CAN in fact stop extraneous advertising. I mean if someone puts up an add that's pro or con about a specific candidate, isn't that rather obvious? And you can (presumably) always find out who put the ad together and shut 'em down, whomever they might happen to turn out to be. So the idea that the candidates can hide behind surrogates for public advertising is a little silly in the end. As is often the case, we'll be able to hold Europe up as an example.

Yes, only extremist from my point of view. It's just my opinion. Tetra, if you say you're not anti-American that's good enough for me, I'll be happy to take your word for it. Certainly your position on Afghanistan suggests a reasonable perspective. I know it's hard to come onto a board later (as I did too) and get into a conversation with folks who have already been there several times. I just wanted to be honest with you about where I was willing to go with the discussion. The only thing I would point out is this: I'm sure you're right, but if you hang around here (I'm fairly new here myself but I really like the forum) you'll probably find that I'm much more maleable than most folks you'll talk to who are willing to take the right side of a viewpoint. I voted for Bush in 2000 and have voted Republican about 50% of the time, but I voted for Kerry yesterday. (shrug) I think the left side of the debate has had many, many valid points that were worth considering. And it's a shame that many of them were ignored because of polarization. I've watched moderately conservative friends stick their heads in the sand over the last year simply because they're so fed up and frustrated with all of the distortions and half-truths they've had to put up with. And exactly the same thing can be said about the other side. I've had moderately liberal friends, whose opinions I normally respect very much, turn into salivating Bush haters right before my very eyes, just because they're so frustrated with all the distortions and half-truths that THEY'VE had to put up with. All of which has just reinforced my centralist/moderate/independent/libertarian beliefs. We've got to move past this stuff, in my country. I hope we can do that now.