A sad, sad day...

[kihaku]

For anyone supporting McCain!! President-elect Barak Obama has won the election, and brought in the new age of Democracy to the Executive branch of American government.

I am pleased.

However, a sour note came in when it looked as if Prop 8 (banning same-sex marriage in california) might win. Close race still, 51% pro, 49% against, but only 12% of the votes had been tallied thus far. I am hopeful that Prop 8 will be defeated, but I'm ready to face it head-on.

I mean, do people honestly believe that a man and a woman who make each other miserable have more of a right to marriage than a gay couple who love and cherish each other? >.>

[Garoten Reklor]

Don't get me started. McCain is an idiot, Obama's a Socialist: either way, America was screwed come January. Now we just know how screwed. Obama has actually stated that because the Constitution garuntees you a right doesn't mean the government can't constrain however it sees fit. Tell me again how that fits in with democracy? The people rule, unless the Government says otherwise? Then there was McCain who actually drafted legislation that purposefully limited first ammendment rights, so yeah, it was a no-win situation.

I voted third party (Chuck Baldwin), so in four years when we're less free, nobody cry to me. I'll be in Japan. I'm not just whistling Dixie either.

And proposition 8 is irrelevant. No matter what the pople of California decide they want (isn't that the vaunted democracy in action?), the Supreme Court will simply overturn it like it has in the past, so don't get too downhearted. That said, marriage has been a male-female thing in every era of history except this one. It's a foreign concept to homosexuality by its very nature. No offense to anyone, but I can't think of many worse ideas.

I didn't start this thread! I just responded! ;D

[Ryan - Loki]

Haha, well whatever your views on same sex marriages it doesn’t really matter, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just as everyone is entitled to fall in love, and be with, whomever they see fit! So I say let people get on with it, and just don’t worry about it.

I can’t really comment on the whole president election thing, didn’t really follow it (I know, I know, I should have) but I agree with Matt, I think you were pretty much screwed either way – though the papers over here love Obama for some reason. All the headlines are things like “Now America has a reason to be cool again” – I think because it’s got it’s first black president, or something.

I don’t know.

[Aion]

Prop 8 was defeated, now children may rest peacefully knowing that those terrible homosexual demons aren't going to kick in their doors and terrify them with stories of kissing a person of the same gender! I couldn't even imagine having to explain such evil to my child in the future!

You know, I'm still surprised that in 2008 we're still going on with "traditional values". Have faith, while it may not have passed this time, it will next time. Prop 8 just had too much working against it to pass.

As for Obama, I find myself a bit overjoyed to have a black president in this life; however, I'm not too much a fan of being sold a dream. Still, I couldn't bring myself to vote for McCain, at least not with the way he is now.

Nov 5, 2008 16:21:36 GMT Garoten Reklor said:

I voted third party (Chuck Baldwin), so in four years when we're less free, nobody cry to me. I'll be in Japan. I'm not just whistling Dixie either.

Considering your against Socialistic policies and less freedom...what would be the point in moving to Japan?

[Garoten Reklor]

I think there's some confusion...prop 8 passed, big time. Similar measures also passed in Florida and somewhere, else, although I can't remember where at the moment. The fact is the majority of the American people don't want same-sex marriage...but have no fear, the new Democratic Congress along with the Activist Court Obama is sure to appoint will brush aside the will of the people and force it on us anyway. I give it three years, maybe more. Democrats ironically have very little respect for the idea of democracy.

Meanwhile, I'm futilly pointing out that Obama isn't actually black - he's mixed. Call me a racist, but I'm already sick of people making a fuss over the first black president who actually isn't, especially since the crowd that is so excited about it is the same crowd who under any other circumstances would scream that color doesn't matter. Those of us who actually live with such a conviction (I treat people right no matter what they look like, one of those traditional values I was raised on) are getting sick of the double standard.

Beyond that, I'm still highly suspicious about whether he's even qualified. Several lawsuits regarding the possibility he was born in Kenya went unheard throughout the election, the only person who could confirm or deny the accusations for sure (his grandmother) mysteriously became ill and died the DAY BEFORE the election, and his birth records are inexplicably sealed by the Governor of Hawaii. There should have been outcries across the nation over that! The Constitution only gives three qualifications for a presidential Candidate: 1. He must be over thirty-five, 2. He must have been resident in the USA for the last fourteen years, and 3. He must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN! When one out of only three qualifications is in question, it's completely unacceptable for the question to go unanswered. How hard would it have been to unseal the record and let those of us who actually cared know? Instead, the lawsuit was dismissed because the Supreme Court claimed that an AMERICAN CITIZEN had NO RIGHT to sue a presidential candidate!!! TYRANNY!!! TYRANNY!!! TYRANNY!!! We fought a war with Britain over LESS!

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Europe loves Obama because he's socialist, period.

I've already been overpassionate, I'm sure, but I have to point out that it was those 'traditional values' that made America the greatest nation in the world in record time. No nation before her rose so far so fast, and it's because of the way of life the Colonists and Patriots laid down. Classic example would be Jamestown. The colony nearly died out completely running on the socialistic ideal of everyone working, then splitting the produce evenly. Only when Governor Bradford laid down the law that each family would have only what they grew for themselves to eat did the colony survive, then flourish. That's who we are - were. Now everyone just wants their way of life handed to them, and they like it better if it's taken from 'the rich' along the way. DANG STRAIGHT I'm going to hold on to those values, 2008 or 4016.

Yeah, Japan's kind of a seperate issue. I'm not moving because of the election. I'm going there as a missionary as soon as the financial and legal matters can be settled. Yeah, it's already socialist, but the Japanese work ethic has a wierd way of balancing it out. Besides, I won't be involved in their politics AT ALL...it's considered extremely rude for a foreigner to even comment on such things there. My heart will always be American, but I'm so sad to see the path my countrymen have chosen. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better - at least if history can be any guide on the matter.

[Aion]

Nov 6, 2008 15:28:14 GMT Garoten Reklor said:

Beyond that, I'm still highly suspicious about whether he's even qualified. Several lawsuits regarding the possibility he was born in Kenya went unheard throughout the election, the only person who could confirm or deny the accusations for sure (his grandmother) mysteriously became ill and died the DAY BEFORE the election, and his birth records are inexplicably sealed by the Governor of Hawaii. There should have been outcries across the nation over that! The Constitution only gives three qualifications for a presidential Candidate: 1. He must be over thirty-five, 2. He must have been resident in the USA for the last fourteen years, and 3. He must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN! When one out of only three qualifications is in question, it's completely unacceptable for the question to go unanswered. How hard would it have been to unseal the record and let those of us who actually cared know? Instead, the lawsuit was dismissed because the Supreme Court claimed that an AMERICAN CITIZEN had NO RIGHT to sue a presidential candidate!!! TYRANNY!!! TYRANNY!!! TYRANNY!!! We fought a war with Britain over LESS!

I think enough are aware of Philip Berg; and if I were Obama I would have done the same exact thing, he's not worth wasting any attention on. I mean, after an election where everything's been thrown at you, being called a terrorist, a muslim(which I still fail to see what's wrong with being), etc. he really thinks the republicans wouldn't have made an issue out of this if it were factual? It's actually one of the only legitimate and most damaging arguments they would have against this man. And, seriously, when his response to this is "I don't think they're aware of this issue....", something's wrong. They're too good at negative campaigning and were too desperate to not have looked into to such an issue.

Nov 6, 2008 15:28:14 GMT Garoten Reklor said:

I've already been overpassionate, I'm sure, but I have to point out that it was those 'traditional values' that made America the greatest nation in the world in record time. No nation before her rose so far so fast, and it's because of the way of life the Colonists and Patriots laid down. Classic example would be Jamestown. The colony nearly died out completely running on the socialistic ideal of everyone working, then splitting the produce evenly. Only when Governor Bradford laid down the law that each family would have only what they grew for themselves to eat did the colony survive, then flourish. That's who we are - were. Now everyone just wants their way of life handed to them, and they like it better if it's taken from 'the rich' along the way. DANG STRAIGHT I'm going to hold on to those values, 2008 or 4016.

And what about the negative side of those same traditional values? You know, that birthed genocide, slavery, segregation and so on? America's had a revolving door on it's values since it was born. And honestly, if those values are weak enough to be shaken by the thought of two men kissing, I'm worried.

[Garoten Reklor]

I mean, after an election where everything's been thrown at you, being called a terrorist, a muslim(which I still fail to see what's wrong with being), etc. he really thinks the republicans wouldn't have made an issue out of this if it were factual? It's actually one of the only legitimate and most damaging arguments they would have against this man. And, seriously, when his response to this is "I don't think they're aware of this issue....", something's wrong. They're too good at negative campaigning and were too desperate to not have looked into to such an issue.

That's symptomatic of the problem, right there. You're completely unconcerned about the Constitutionality of the matter because the result is what you wanted. If it were factual, the entire country, Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Polka-dot Sausage Party should have made an issue. THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT!!! Besides, if it were such a minor issue (which premise I find disturbing), then why not simply dispell it? The media here would have LOVED to run a story making a fool out of some 'right wing nut job'. I've learned a lot about human nature as a teacher and now a Security man, here's one: when an individual is innocent of a charge, especially one without merit, he will invariably waste no time in a straight up denial and is usually more than happy to provide proof of his innocence. The folks that run around complaining about the charge itself, calling it a waste of time, or attacking the accuser are 9 times out of 10 guilty. I see it every day. So I ask again, if this was such a little thing, why not disprove it? It would have done nothing but good for the Obama Campaign. Why the secrecy? Frankly, I don't think he should have even been allowed into the primaries with such a tremendous doubt.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, shall we? Let's say some 'average citizen' had information that he claimed proved undeniably that John McCain was disqualified to have run. Would you feel the same way? In point of fact, a similar question was raised about the fact that McCain was born in a US territory (the Panama Canal Zone) in 1936, not a state. He responded by pointing to the Constitution (imagine that) and the fact that one born in a US territory is still considered a natural born citizen. How hard was that? Why couldn't Barry have done the same thing? Has the whole country discarded logic in favor of pie-in-the-sky nonsense about change?

Don't set up the McCain Campaign's lack of interest as a straw man. First of all, there wasn't anything they could do with a pending case in the first place, especially since the court threw it out. Second, McCain ran the worst campaign since Walter Mondale. He wouldn't grow a set and attack Obama on anything -he had to let the woman on the ticket do it. The fact that he ignored it doesn't in any way invalidate the claim.

I'm also sad that people are completely undisturbed by the court's statement. Think it over: you, I, any 'average citizen', according to the Supreme Court, do not have the right to sue a presidential candidate. Let me say it again. You do not have the right to sue a presidential candidate! You do not have the right to sue a presidential candidate! What makes them immune? Are they not regular Americans just like you and I? We have one branch of government telling us that a citizen cannot sue another potential member of government... what protection do we have against tyranny then?

You know, that birthed genocide, slavery, segregation and so on? America's had a revolving door on it's values since it was born.

Oh please. America birthed genocide, slavery, and segregation? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

Genocide: you can find that all the way back to ancient Egypt and China. Europe was rampant with it for centuries before America was even discovered, and it's a freakin' way of life in Africa! When exactly has America set out to wipe out a particular ethnic group? Ever? I don't disagree, the Native Americans were treated horribly, and being part Cherokee myself I've often been angry at how overlooked that has been. Even so, they weren't purposely targeted for extermination. Don't scream about South America either, that was Spain, not us. Genocide? Here? What???

Slavery: The very term comes from the Eastern European Slavs whe were forced into labor in Western Europe, again for centuries before America even existed. The Hebrews were enslaved by Egypt for 430 years before anywhere but Mesopotamia was even known about. The Africans enslaved one another for as along as their history can be known, the Portuguese and the Arabs turned slavery into a worldwide industry, and England had only just abolished slavery a decade or so before the Civil War. Where is slavery still alive and well today? Africa and Asia. Those filthy Americans, eh?

Segregation: Yeah. Once again, take a look at Asian, European, and African history, all before America was ever known of. Heck, look at the American Indians if you aren't too afraid of losing delusions about the Noble Savage. And where was national-scale segregation most recently defeated? South Africa, of all places. Meanwhile, here in the USA it went down in the 1960's. Too late, I agree, but comparitevly segregation had almost no life span in America vs. other nations. By the way, take a look at the voting records if it doesn't scare you too much. Democrats overwhelmingly voted against Civil Rights, desegregation, and the repeal of Jim Crow laws, Republicans overwhelmingly voted for them. Some of the same Democrats who voted against desegregation (like former KKK chief Robert Byrd) are kissing Obama's butt today. Irony in action.

I realize it's most likely a result of the education you've had rammed down your throat, but do some research before repeating such ignorant statements. I never said America was perfect. We're a nation of human beings, and so long as man has a dark side to his nature there are going to be dark sides to nations as well. You can't judge America by it's weaknesses and everyone else by their strengths. That said, we did start on certain values, those values are what led us to confront evil, even when it was our own evil, and without them we will fall. Rome took a very similar course to America: humble beginnings, rapid rise, sudden destruction. Any honest historian will admit without delay that the number one reason for Rome's ultimate ruin was corruption and decay from the inside. Yet we here in America think we can abandon the things that made us great and still remain immune to the consequences?

Those who do not learn from history...

[Aion]

Nov 7, 2008 1:07:06 GMT Garoten Reklor said:

That's symptomatic of the problem, right there. You're completely unconcerned about the Constitutionality of the matter because the result is what you wanted. If it were factual, the entire country, Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Polka-dot Sausage Party should have made an issue. THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS IT!!! Besides, if it were such a minor issue (which premise I find disturbing), then why not simply dispell it? The media here would have LOVED to run a story making a fool out of some 'right wing nut job'.

I've learned a lot about human nature as a teacher and now a Security man, here's one: when an individual is innocent of a charge, especially one without merit, he will invariably waste no time in a straight up denial and is usually more than happy to provide proof of his innocence. The folks that run around complaining about the charge itself, calling it a waste of time, or attacking the accuser are 9 times out of 10 guilty. I see it every day. So I ask again, if this was such a little thing, why not disprove it? It would have done nothing but good for the Obama Campaign. Why the secrecy? Frankly, I don't think he should have even been allowed into the primaries with such a tremendous doubt.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot, shall we? Let's say some 'average citizen' had information that he claimed proved undeniably that John McCain was disqualified to have run. Would you feel the same way? In point of fact, a similar question was raised about the fact that McCain was born in a US territory (the Panama Canal Zone) in 1936, not a state. He responded by pointing to the Constitution (imagine that) and the fact that one born in a US territory is still considered a natural born citizen. How hard was that? Why couldn't Barry have done the same thing? Has the whole country discarded logic in favor of pie-in-the-sky nonsense about change?

Actually, it's not the result I wanted, Obama isn't exactly at the top of my list for president; however, I did vote for him. You can chalk it up to the "lesser of two evils" thing, I guess; but it goes deeper than that, and I don't feel like opening another can of worms.

Edit: Apparently, they released an unedited version(unblocked certificate no.) of his birth certificate on the 1st. Which is one of the issues surrounding this.

www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

I wouldn't have even bothered with Berg.

Secondly, Berg is a democrat and member of the NAACP, with a chip on his shoulder. If anything, conservative media would have loved him.

Nov 7, 2008 1:07:06 GMT Garoten Reklor said:

Don't set up the McCain Campaign's lack of interest as a straw man. First of all, there wasn't anything they could do with a pending case in the first place, especially since the court threw it out. Second, McCain ran the worst campaign since Walter Mondale. He wouldn't grow a set and attack Obama on anything -he had to let the woman on the ticket do it. The fact that he ignored it doesn't in any way invalidate the claim.

They bring up a bundle of baseless claims, scare tactics, and "maybes", yet they can't bring this issue up because of courts? Even though it has an argument that validates it? I agree, the campaign wasn't run well, but come on; they weren't given a gag order. It's hard to believe that they'd suddenly switch up that quickly when they have a possible campaign ending argument in their hands.

Nov 7, 2008 1:07:06 GMT Garoten Reklor said:

I'm also sad that people are completely undisturbed by the court's statement. Think it over: you, I, any 'average citizen', according to the Supreme Court, do not have the right to sue a presidential candidate. Let me say it again. You do not have the right to sue a presidential candidate! You do not have the right to sue a presidential candidate! What makes them immune? Are they not regular Americans just like you and I? We have one branch of government telling us that a citizen cannot sue another potential member of government... what protection do we have against tyranny then?

I agree, that should have been a bigger issue. The issue of his birthplace is just pushing it to me, though.

Nov 7, 2008 1:07:06 GMT Garoten Reklor said:

I realize it's most likely a result of the education you've had rammed down your throat, but do some research before repeating such ignorant statements. I never said America was perfect. We're a nation of human beings, and so long as man has a dark side to his nature there are going to be dark sides to nations as well. You can't judge America by it's weaknesses and everyone else by their strengths. That said, we did start on certain values, those values are what led us to confront evil, even when it was our own evil, and without them we will fall. Rome took a very similar course to America: humble beginnings, rapid rise, sudden destruction. Any honest historian will admit without delay that the number one reason for Rome's ultimate ruin was corruption and decay from the inside. Yet we here in America think we can abandon the things that made us great and still remain immune to the consequences?

Those who do not learn from history...

I don't need a history lecture. Trust me.

You took what I said out of context and turned it into some kind of pre-American history piss contest. We were talking about American "traditional values" a lifestyle with a minor history when compared, nothing more, nothing less. How you were able to pull out that I believed that slavery, genocide, etc. had it's roots in America confuses me.

That said, those traditional values were always used as a stepping stone to better values, true, but hardly ever in the positive sense that you seem to believe. It always took a rebel to appear, and kick down those "walls"; the rebel almost always meeting a undeserving end afterwards. I'm sorry, I can't speak positively on something that thousands of lives were lost for; because if we had true "values" to begin with shit like that wouldn't have taken place.

So how am I judging America on just it's weakness? It's the truth. If I were to place myself back in time as recent as 50 years ago, those "values" were no good to me. No matter how hard I worked, how well educated I was; none would have mattered.

This whole traditional values thing is nonsense, anyways. It's brought up when something like granting equal rights comes into play; and it's absolutely disgusting. Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't ruin my day, it doesn't shake my faith, or any other foundation of what I hold dear. I'm stumped on why it scares everyone else.

[Garoten Reklor]

((Listen, don't take my emphatic and passionate comments as angry or anything. I'm actually really enjoying this discussion, but these things are also vitally important to me. Thanks for the conversation!))

You can chalk it up to the "lesser of two evils" thing, I guess; but it goes deeper than that, and I don't feel like opening another can of worms.

Yeah, the lesser of two evils crap is what landed us in this mess of an election to begin with. Like I tell my republican friends who make the same argument, there weren't only two choices. Bob Barr ran as an Independent, the Libertarians ran a candidate (although I'm not sure whom), I voted for Chuck Baldwin with the Constitution Party, heck there's even Ralph Nader with the Green party if you like the enviro-nut movement. If even 20% of the vote went to a third party, it would scare the two major parties pantless and maybe bring about some real change. Better yet, we could get the career been-in-washington-for-40-years crowd out and bring in some men and women who actually care about the country.

Edit: Apparently, they released an unedited version(unblocked certificate no.) of his birth certificate on the 1st. Which is one of the issues surrounding this.

That's interesting. It bears looking into (I have a little suspicion about the Annenberg Foundation, but I'm not delusional.), and if it turns out to be correct, I'm somewhat comforted. Even so, why have the originals sealed, why wait until 5 days before the election when nothing could have been done anyway, why dismiss it so flippantly when the Constitution is involved, and the Supreme Court's outlandish claim?

On top of that, have you ever read the lawsuit? It's about more than a birth certificate, although that would have been the quick, easy way to silence the whole question...instead Obama's attorney's never responded to the allegation that I'm aware of. Check out the original suit here:

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2066207/posts

Read that, and tell me why it matters who Berg is? He had the guts and integrity to do something that doubtless has left him in the doghouse of his party and the NAACP. What is this conservative media of which you speak? Apart from a handful of radio talk show hosts, the whole of American Media was BLATANTLY in the tank for Obama, and even members of their own ranks admit it. I mean, we had reporters for NBC exclaming that Obama's speeches gave them 'boners' (pardon the crass expression). Pathetic.

Baseless claims, scare tactics, and maybes...like 'They're going to take away your Social Security!' Scare Tactic if ever there was one...but wait. That was the Obama camp, and every Democrat candidate for anything since SS was invented. Or Sarah Palin being a Satanist. Yeah, that wasn't any of those. John McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time...except Presidents don't vote at all, and even if they did, McCain withstood Bush on major, major issues, except for the war. Interrogation of terrorists, supreme court nominees, social security reform - yeah, they were joined at the hip on those, weren't they. Baseless claims indeed. Besides, the fact is John McCain DID hamper his campaign on a variety of MAJOR issues.

I agree, that should have been a bigger issue. The issue of his birthplace is just pushing it to me, though.

Once again it's no minor issue. It's the CONSTITUTION! The foundation of every last principle of government we as a nation have. If we're going to start ignoring that, where will we turn to make these decision?

You took what I said out of context and turned it into some kind of pre-American history piss contest. We were talking about American "traditional values" a lifestyle with a minor history when compared, nothing more, nothing less. How you were able to pull out that I believed that slavery, genocide, etc. had it's roots in America confuses me.

Actually, that's what you're doing. To illustrate the point:

And what about the negative side of those same traditional values? You know, that birthed genocide, slavery, segregation and so on?

You claimed that the "American 'traditional values'" we were discussing "birthed genocide, slavery, segregation and so on". Those are your exact words! I'm sorry, did you mean to say traditional American values birthed those things, but not in America? What?

That said, those traditional values were always used as a stepping stone to better values, true, but hardly ever in the positive sense that you seem to believe. It always took a rebel to appear, and kick down those "walls"; the rebel almost always meeting a undeserving end afterwards. I'm sorry, I can't speak positively on something that thousands of lives were lost for; because if we had true "values" to begin with shit like that wouldn't have taken place.

I'm sorry, I have no idea what you're getting at. How can the old values be stepping stones and walls all at the same time? Who are these rebels who kicked down the walls and then met unseemly ends? What are these thousands of lost lives? Clarify, and you might have a valid point. I just can't tell.

So how am I judging America on just it's weakness? It's the truth.

Yes, I agree it's true America has it's weaknesses. Chief among them is the overwhelming ignorance, stupidity, and shallowness of the populace. But that wasn't my statement. I said you can't judge America by her weaknesses and other nations by their strengths.

Furthermore, you can't judge ANY nation only by its weaknesses, which is what you insist on doing to mine. Screw that. America has had dark chapters, but what about the good things? What about throwing off the tyranny of the World's dominant power with handfuls of underequipped, undertained men - TWICE? What about ending the evil of slavery faster than any other nation in history? (America as a nation allowed slavery for just about a hundred years. I dare you to compare that with any other nation of her time and find one more favorable, even accounting for the relative lengths of national histories.) What about intervening in not one, but two World Wars and tipping the balance in the favor of freedom instead of establishing an Empire all our own? What about the hundreds of billions of dollars in aid every year sent to countries that HATE us and even send men to kill us? What about being the freest nation on the planet, even now? What about the fact that we elected a minority member for president - again, before most other nations in the world? (Who was the first black president of England? France? Italy? Germany? Russia? Switzerland? But we should be more like Europe...riiiiight, Mr. Obama. Okay.)

I've admitted our weaknesses, why don't you admit our strengths? I'll tell you why. Because those strengths have to come from somewhere, and I hold they come from the values on which we were founded.

This whole traditional values thing is nonsense, anyways. It's brought up when something like granting equal rights comes into play; and it's absolutely disgusting.

Bullcrap. YOU brought up traditional values, not me. You're awfully upset about something you consider nonsense, especially in light of your earlier statements that silly, nonsensical claims ought simply to be ignored. If my values are nonsense, why have you spent so much time and energy responding?

By the way, we're not talking about equal rights, either. We're talking about marriage, a privilege that already has restrictions. I hear the gasps already, but think it through. In order to be married, a couple must obtain a license. (like driving, which is also a privilege). They must then marry within 90 days of having obtained that license. In order to get the license, they must present proof of identity. They must both be divorced or unmarried. They must be over a certain age. (Try marrying a nine-year old and see where you get). They must both be human. (Try marrying your goldfish and see how that works). Marriage ceremonies must be performed by certain people. We're not talking about an inalienable right at all! This is NOT a civil rights issue, and the whole premise of your argument is invalid.

It's not a matter of fear. I'm sick of being called a homophobe or a coward or weak simply because I stand for something. It's a matter of believing in something and standing for it. Why do those of us who believe in right and wrong always have to be dumped on by the moral relativists of our day? Screw that. I'm not ashamed of what I believe, nor will I back down in fear of being called 'intolerant' by those who will not tolerate my positions. I call bullcrap on the whole thing.

One last point before I'm done. When is the change coming, exactly? Already Obama is setting up old time Washington veterans and partisan extremists for his cabinet. Rom Immanuel for Chief of Staff...Seriously? Rom, who voted with Democrats (not presidents, people who actually do vote on bills, I mean) 98% of the time??? I thought that was bad. Rom, who at a celebratory dinner for Clinton's second election shouted about the death of the president's republican enemies? Rom, who when a hot issue came up said F*** the republicans? THAT is a change? THAT is an example of the new era of bipartisan, hand-holding, aisle-crossing, kum-bay-ya politics? And Bobby Kennedy for the EPA? Yeah, there's a great compromiser for you. How about what's being done to Joe Lieberman for DARING to vote his conscience and support McCain?

I'm underwhelmed.

[kihaku]

... I just wanted to gloat that McCain lost. T-T

Matt, don't worry, change will come. Rome wasn't built in a day, and neither will national change. It's been all of four days, so calm down, if you please.

And guys, if you please, could you continue this discussion in ANOTHER thread, if you really must? I appreciate your fervor, but this is starting to get out of hand.

[Garoten Reklor]

Ah, you're missing the point again. I know change is coming, and that's what upsets me so much. All we've heard about is change, in a vague, ethereal promise. But change is not autmoatically good.

You can go to the doctor and find out you have cancer, and your life will change in the blink of an eye.

America voted for 'change' without stopping to think of what that change might bring. Having studied and taught American, World, and European History for the last several years, I can say without a shadow of a doubt that if Obama and the liberals now in power continue on the course they are laying out, America will be a weaker, less prosperous nation in a matter of years. It's happened every time Socialism has been tried, no exceptions.

The sad fact, many of my fellow Americans are not just okay with that, they think it's a good thing. Good luck then. Join the ranks of those before you who sewed the seeds of tryanny and found themselves later praying for a crop failure.

[Ryan - Loki]

Hahaha, I see we've got a bit of a friendly debate going on?

Guys, I know you're both old enough, mature enough, and respectful of each other enough to be able to continue this debate in a friendly, yet objective manor. Lets just keep it at least somewhat friendly, and leave no lasting damage