Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
Let's begin.

Anthony Lewis | November 2, 2004
I voted. Woke up a little after 7am. Heard on TV that there were already lines at polling places here in NYC. That was all I needed to hear. Got my ass up, and walked to my polling place. Good thing it's on the next block from my house.

Lori Lancaster | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Lori Lancaster | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
I voted. The weird thing is that the polling place was my former elementary school. I remember that place so much smaller... hehehe. Not much of a line. My sister in FL heard there were 2 hour waits already.

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
One thing is that they don't check identification. I think they should... it would make it at least a little more secure.

I also strongly believe in Internet voting, but alas, no one listens to me.

Scott Hardie | November 2, 2004
I agree, Scott. It's no more corruptible than traditional voting. But we're years away from adopting it as a society.

Lori Lancaster | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
Hey, if people feel secure enough to bank online then they can vote online. You can eliminate slashdoting the sites by breaking them down. Have people go to sites for their county or congressional district. You enter your SSN, and once it is entered, no one can log on using that SSN. The vote is made, and done. Secure. What do you say, Hardie? You can build it.

Scott Hardie | November 2, 2004
Links have been disallowed for all TC5 comments, along with most other HTML. Just paste a URL into your comment and it will turn into "(link)". It's simpler for the people who don't know how to make links, and less work anyway for those of us who do.

Scott Hardie | November 2, 2004
Fine, but in my system, the first candidate to complete three towers of 50 electoral votes each wins.

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
I voted this morning. There was a small line, not too bad. According to the machine that I put my ballot into, I was the 133rd person to vote since they opened up at 6. I voted a little after 7. So, it should be a big turnout.

I'll give you 3 guesses who I voted for, and the 1st two don't count... :)

Lori Lancaster | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
Well Lori, you'd be correct.... Now that wasn't too hard.... :)

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
Mike, my guess would have been Nader... damn!

Lori Lancaster | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Lori Lancaster | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
Anyone who doesn't vote pisses me off. Specifically women and African-Americans. These people didn't have the right to vote 100 years ago. And now, they ahve been given one of the most sacred privileges in America and they don't do anything about it. People are like "Oh, I don't care." Well, if you pay taxes you care. Or, I don't like the candidates. Well, then vote for the issues. ARGH. My rant of the day.

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
"Fine, but in my system, the first candidate to complete three towers of 50 electoral votes each wins."

I smiled big when I saw that. =)

I prodded Jesse awake and we walked to the polling place, where there was already a long line at 7:30. I almost had to go home and get a phone bill or something because I forgot that my driver's license doesn't have my current address on it (I'm lazy, it's been three years I've been living here, but I don't drive and it expires next year so I figure I'll do it soon), but then they matched the signature I did in front of them with my voter registration photocopy (weird that they have that) and they let me vote. The guy was not happy with me though - I'm sure they deal with problems all day long, and panicky people who think they can't vote.

I was very excited to vote, this is my first vote at a vote place - I voted absentee in the 2000 election, not that my vote counted.

I'm going to be walking on eggshells today. I feel like the nation is holding its breath.

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
(link)

I thought this was a fun read, and surprisingly confident.

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
A good read. I like what he's doing with the African American voters, it's a good move. I just want to know why he would put his AOL address out there... a little odd.

Jackie Mason | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Erik Bates | November 2, 2004
I don't understand why he says that Republicans should realize that the man is a total failure and that the best thing we can do is vote for the #1 liberal in the senate. I mean, isn't that a big part of why I WOULDN'T want to vote for him?

Here's my deal. I will either vote for Bush, or Badnarik. I won't vote for Kerry.

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
Erik, you still haven't decided?

John E Gunter | November 2, 2004
What Erik, you're not a decent conservative or recovering Republican? Sorry, but the more I read from Michael, the more he chaffs at me. And no, that more part is not supposed to be a pun.

John

Jackie Mason | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Jackie Mason | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Kris Weberg | November 2, 2004
On another note, is anyone, in part at least relieved that it's over? I believe very much in the power of the vote and in our democratic republican form of government -- that is, that we're a representative (republican) democracy -- but this campaign has been deeply divisve, nerve-wrakcing for both sides (I would imagine), and often painful no matter where you stand politically.

America requires an intensity of interest, but that intensity is hard to maintain.

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
I already feel like a nicer person, honestly. I feel awesome.

Amy Austin | November 2, 2004
Well, sorry to piss you off, Scott (Horowitz), but I am happily exercising my right not to vote today. And it doesn't make me feel any less entitled to bitch, either -- thank you very much. But damn, if I had only known that Barbie was running... I'd definitely have voted for her -- I am a lifelong fan!!!

Besides... needing a FL absentee ballot, it sounds like it wouldn't have mattered much anyway!!! ;D

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
I'm not pissed off, but I think it's sad you wouldn't want to vote - especially since it sounds like you would have voted in a swing state.

Erik Bates | November 2, 2004
I know who I'm voting for. I really just made the decision in the past couple days, though. I don't play party politics very well.

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
Well, at least you made a decision Erik. I know plenty of people who won't. I just find it appalling that people won't vote. Hell, if you don't like the 2 running, vote 3rd party. And there is more than just the presidential election. 1/3 of the senate is up, and the entire house is seeking reelection. I think people who put more effort into this. It's sad... so sad.

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
Yeah, I'm with you, Erik. I just don't get how people couldn't care. But to each their own, I guess.

Amy Austin | November 2, 2004
It'll be okay, guys... really. Don't be so "sad" -- I'm not.

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
It's not that we're sad for you. ... it's voter apathy in general. More people vote for American Idol than for president. Which is more important?

Amy Austin | November 2, 2004
I don't vote for that, either.

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
Well... at least you have some redeeming qualities... hehehe jk

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
I just want to see some poll results start to come in. This wating is killing me.... :)

Even though I have a feeling that this will turn out to be like 2000 again. I hope not, but I'm not holding my breath about it.

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
Of course you're not - you don't care.

I, however, am still sad for you and for all the people who don't deem voting important enough to go do it.

I am, however, happy and proud of myself for taking part in the democratic process - that no matter which way it all turns, my little vote is in the sea of votes. It's awesome.

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
I agree with you Scott on the voting issue. You should go out and vote for someone. If no one on the ballot is any good for you, then at least mark the write-in line and write someone in. At least then your not wasting your vote. There are other things on the ballot worth voting for than the President block. I'm sure there's some local issues that you could vote on.

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
yeah, I don't think the networks will update any swing states until they have some concrete numbers, as opposed to 4 years ago. I'm pretty confident we won't know tonight. And there will be disputes for the next month, but we can hope for a speedy process. As I was saying earlier, it is sad in this day of technology that there are still punch card ballots out there. To count them is ridiculous. My suggestion (if they don't do internet voting) is touch screen without external access. The vote is record to a "server" at the location and the HD is removed after polling is done or exported or something. Each vote also prints out a hard copy on a printer somewhere, jsut to have another record. Who's with me on this?

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
I sure am. It's ridiculous in this day and age the way we vote - we have so much technology available there should be some other way.

Kris Weberg | November 2, 2004
I'm with you Scott H., since you have quite reasonably insisted on a paper trail as well.

I'm not a conspiracy buff when it comes to e-voting, but let's face it; computers sometimes have problems. It's nice to have a bit of backup.

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
That sounds like a feasible solution scott. They could have every polling place setup on an isolated network. Then just have someone there who does nothing but monitor the server until after the poll closes. It shouldn't be that difficult.

As for my voting today, we had a ballot that you used a felt tip marker to fill in the ovals with. It wasn't a bad way of doing it. I was a pretty easy ballot to read. After you were done, you just stuck your ballot into a machine that sucked it in and counted it. That was about it. They definately need to develop a standard for the whole country though.

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
If anyone's interested, here's a sample of what our ballot here looked like.


(link)

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
It looks simple enough, there's a guy named "Jerry Kohn" rearrange the letters, hehehe.

Our's were machines. You go in, close the curtain, and then you click a lever for the candidate youchoose. Open the curtain with the giant lever,a nd your vote is tallied.

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
Yeah, I just saw that too. That wouldn't bother me at all, then Obama might lose... :)

Amy Austin | November 2, 2004
Well -- personally -- I think sadder still is the "election day snobbery" that seems to persist well before and long after the votes are cast. Even in the elections that I did cast my vote, I certainly didn't look down or thumb my nose at those who chose not to... for whatever their reasons. It's a very personal thing, and I understand that. And I think that pressing someone to find out who they are voting for is kind of like asking someone about their salary -- sure, it's always interesting to know, but it's still kind of a tacky question, even if the subject doesn't mind it.

Furthermore, even if your comments today were somehow enough to guilt me into wanting to vote, it simply isn't possible at this point -- I haven't registered since '92, and I am not officially a CA resident... and since I won't even live here in a couple more weeks, the local issues aren't really mine to vote on, either. I am totally okay with allowing the current voters to decide this one for me... especially since I probably wouldn't vote for either major party -- as I wish everyone else would be. You have your vote to do with as you please, and that should be enough to make any citizen happy. And besides that, it's one less vote against your man... I would think that could make you happy as well.

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
Amy, I'm not trying to be a snob towards you. If you don't want to vote, fine with me. I just thought that there might be some local issue that you could have a say in. I wouldn't try to guilt you into anything. I'm not going to say that it makes me sad that you didn't vote. Yes, I think you should have, but it's your choice.

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
Also, I was snooping around on CNN's website and found their policy on calling the election for different states. Looks like they are trying to cover their ass this year so nothing happens like last time. Here's the link:

(link)

Kind of a long read, but there were a few amusing lines in there, but maybe it's just me. I really liked this line... "CNN will broadcast a projected winner only after an extensive review of data from a number of sources. "

At least they are going to review it this time before jumping the gun...

Amy Austin | November 2, 2004
Thank you, Mike -- it was a cumulative response... not directed at any single person, so no offense (and none taken). Just wanted to say that I don't think it's any nobler to vote than to have your reasons for not.

Erik Bates | November 2, 2004
The local and state-level elections worry me here because I have no idea who any of these people are.

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
Yeah, that would be a problem if you're new to the area. The only thing I would do then is vote for the party you support, and hope they do what they are supposed to. Then hopefully by the next election you'll have a better understanding of the candidates... Other than that, you're pretty much screwed... :)

Amy Austin | November 2, 2004
Or... you could just cast your vote where you know what you're doing...

Thanks, Erik, for offering a highlight to what I'm saying (although, I'm sure it's not what you were trying to do, and I do sympathize with you -- it sucks to vote blindly... but people do it all the time) -- why is it somehow better in some people's minds to vote for someone/something you don't even know anything about than to not vote at all?

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see your reasons for not voting. If they're personal, well then they're personal.

And I haven't asked anyone who they voted for if they didn't volunteer the information.

I don't want anyone to vote blindly - but as far as the Presidential Election goes - it's so far-reaching, affecting everyone, even people in other countries - and everyone knows SOMETHING about each candidate's views. I don't see any reason not to vote. And I think it's a shame that anyone would want to sit it out - and "happily" I might add. Voting doesn't have to mean you're part of the hooplah.

Lori Lancaster | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Mike Eberhart | November 2, 2004
Scott, sorry I missed your post about your guess on who I voted for. I couldn't have voted for Nader anyway, he wasn't on my ballot. Badnarik was though....

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
Badnarik was on my ballot too, but I doubt that's surprising for Chicago.

Amy Austin | November 2, 2004
"And I haven't asked anyone who they voted for if they didn't volunteer the information."

I didn't say that you did, Anna... just trying to illustrate that I think your choice is as much anyone else's business as how much money you make (for instance). If you want to go around announcing/discussing it, then fine... but you shouldn't be offended when others have a difference.

And I was talking about leaving *the rest* of the ticket blank, as opposed to voting blindly. How many voters actually know something more than a tidbit or something they heard in a TV advertisement about the state/local level, unless they're really actively involved in their communities? C'mon.

Just because you think "it's a shame" that anyone wouldn't want to vote, Anna, doesn't make it shameful. "Part of the hooplah"? Please recall that I voted for President twice already -- along with FL state/local candidates & issues. I don't need to justify my decisions.

Scott Horowitz | November 2, 2004
I was kidding around. You know, I think this is the most civil conversation on this board when Mike, Anna and I have posted in the same forum. hehe
I'm glad to see your still posting though Mike. It's always good to read different opinions.

Anna Gregoline | November 2, 2004
"but you shouldn't be offended when others have a difference. "

When did I ever say I was offended?

And now I'm super confused. Did you vote for anyone, or no one at all?

A choice not to vote I can assume is as valid as one to vote - I'm just curious as to what the reason for not voting would be. I didn't see you offer one, unless I missed it. (Not that you have to answer those questions - just curious, as I said, since you're ok with letting people know you didn't vote).

And yep - I think it's a shame. Did I say it was shameful? Just stating my opinion.

And Scott, I think you're right.

Lori Lancaster | November 2, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Amy Austin | November 2, 2004
"And yep - I think it's a shame. Did I say it was shameful? Just stating my opinion."

Oops -- sorry. Kind of annoying when someone takes your opinion and turns it into an attack/accusation, huh?

Todd Brotsch | November 2, 2004
All this annimosity and conflict....and I haven't even spoke yet. Feels good for once.

Some have brought up issues of 'not knowing where a candidate is on certain points' and that being a reason for not voting. I find that to be an excellent point. Question then comes up, with all the debates, and all of the stump speaches...both candidates have said very little about what they think about serious issues. It just seems impossible to get a straight answer.

I feel that way about both candidates.

That being said, I managed to vote in Florida witout conflict or incident today.

Denise Sawicki | November 2, 2004
I got up around 5 AM and was poll-watching for the Democrats until 4 PM, then went to vote myself. Not the most relazing vacation from work :)

Denise Sawicki | November 2, 2004
I mean "relaxing" of course...

Scott Hardie | November 3, 2004
Had to take a three-hour lunch break to vote today (long story), but it was worth it. No problems at the polling place. After all the rumors about 2000 and speculation about this time, it was good to see that nearly all of the voters around me were black people. There's no disenfranchisement in my neighborhood.

Earlier today I observed some voters bullying an apathetic non-voter about his choice, and that soured me on the notion that everybody should vote. They should, but there's no reason to treat them like fools and put down their choice.

Scott, there's no confusion over the meaning of your statement at 9:52, but I want to say something about one of the words: I have never cared for the belief some people have that we are "given" the right to vote by the government. America was founded on the notion of "certain inalienable rights" that we already have and that government can only acknowledge, not grant. I don't think you believe otherwise, but there are people who do (John Gunter and I were discussing one last weekend), and it's a belief contrary to democracy. I'm scared of it.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
I hate waiting for this. We won't until midnight (maybe) to know who won.


Back to what I was saying. It wasn't until the 15th amendment where blacks and women got the right to vote. (link)

Yes, we were granted inalienable rights, but not to everyone. Sadly to say, not even today. Women have come so far, and for them not to vote is a travesty to me. I vote every year. It could be for only Waste Management Superviser, but I still vote. Though, I am happy that voter turnout this year has been spectacular.

Amy Austin | November 3, 2004
Scott (Ho), I think that Scott knows about the suffrage movement and that women/blacks weren't always "allowed" the vote -- it's a very basic history lesson. What I hear him saying is that the rights were vested in everyone to begin with -- not by our government, but by God (or the nature of being human -- however you choose to look at it)... it was only the patriarchal interpretation of the times that was responsible for holding women back, not an innate difference in men & women (and blacks/others) that was somehow corrected for by the 15th amendment.

I agree with you that although "women have come so far", there is much taken for granted. But granted, my right to vote is... and if that's in danger of changing, then we've got far bigger problems than my decision not to vote, my friend!

I am a freedom of choice person, all the way. And I choose not to vote in this election. It doesn't mean that I won't ever vote again -- it just means that I don't want to this time... isn't that what "freedom" and "choice" are about??? This reminds me of people who get their panties all in a wad about flag-burners... they scowl and wag their fingers at those who want to, saying how "men died to give you that privilege!" -- which is all well and true -- but those people are scary, man! Certainly not that I want to go around burning flags (I don't) -- but that reaction is exactly the sort that a flag-burner wants and is looking for! And if those crazy people really want to satisfy them, they could go ahead and take it a step further... acting like the crazies that punish for it in other countries -- by death, perhaps!!! Then, where would we be... utter chaos and madness.

I served in this country's military -- I may even decide to serve again, if another wave of madness comes over me. But you certainly don't hear me telling all you people who haven't served that you haven't earned any of these rights/privileges! That *I* earned them for you, or that you're ingrates, or any other such nonsense! You have those rights, with or without *me* -- far be it for me to tell you otherwise. But I *do* feel that I have earned the rights I have for myself... including the choice not to vote if I feel that it's appropriate -- or hell, even if I'm just fucking lazy!!! And please... don't even lecture me about women's progress when I just came from the very paradigm of "a man's world" -- I know all too well how far we have to go.

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
"Oops -- sorry. Kind of annoying when someone takes your opinion and turns it into an attack/accusation, huh?"

I'm trying not to read that as snarky, but I'm not succeeding.

Amy - so you don't want to tell us why you didn't vote? I'm not pressing you, just that you didn't answer. I guess I'll assume you don't want to.

Todd - I think that Kerry has been more clear on his proposed policies than I expected of him - I feel confident after the debates that he'll do what he's said he will do. But of course, we should all be wary of politicians of any stripe!

Amy Austin | November 3, 2004
Anna -- While "Because I didn't want to" should suffice, I will say that I honestly don't have a preference and therefore don't feel right about "just picking one". I only shared the information that I wasn't voting -- probably for the same reason that *anybody* volunteers their choices -- because I had grown tired of hearing everyone else's babble about who's better, more evil, crazier, whatever. In retrospect, I probably should have just refrained from any political discussion, much like those who have made themselves scarce on the topic -- they were smarter than I about it and probably spared themselves some grief. It also may very well be that I am not the only non-voter here, since it seems-- as so aptly illustrated by Scott's election day story -- that the attitude towards non-voters is notably widespread. I find it remarkable that the average voter seems to have greater kindness/tolerance for a voter for the opposition than to a non-voter. But at least, it seems that we can unite the Democrats & Republicans against "voter apathy".

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
It does suffice, I just wanted to hear you give a reason. Thank you.

it's reached a fever pitch this season, that's for sure. I guess we just want everyone to care and make the effort. Even if it's for the opposition. Democracy only works when everyone wants to participate. And barely even then. It feels good to know that people around you are wanting to participate as well. It's disheartening to hear that people don't even want to make their voice heard.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
What's everyone think about what's going on tonight?

and I have to say that the daily show is the funniest thing I have watched in ages.

Todd Brotsch | November 3, 2004
Why can't you just let her be? You're one of the people that dog everyone in the voting lines aren't you? Just has to be your way until you're satisfied.

Scott, you should get out more.

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
I hope you're not talking to me. I wasn't dogging anyone, I was honestly interested in her reasoning. And I don't make it a point to harass anyone.

The Daily Show is ROCKING! I wish it had been on all night.

Erik Bates | November 3, 2004
I lied.

Go Kerry.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
what????

Kris Weberg | November 3, 2004
I'm with Mr. Horowitz -- what????

Lori Lancaster | November 3, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
Yeah Eric. I don't get it. You show all these pictures that you took at republican events and then you say Go Kerry????? What's that about.????

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
I'd like to commend all the Illini (is that the proper term? or is it Illinoisians?) for voting in Barack Obama, and giving Kerry his largest margin win. Unfortunately, my bad feelings are looking to come to fruition, and we'll be stuck with this madman for another 4 years.

John E Gunter | November 3, 2004
It's possible Erik made the decision to vote for Senator Kerry just as Amy made the decision to not vote. Those decisions are their rights, and they are correct in either direction that they take.

Personally, I'd rather Amy not vote if she can't decide whom she wants to choose than have her just blindly vote! Or even worst, vote party, just because I don't like the other party!

If Erik voted for Senator Kerry because he liked what Senator Kerry stands for, good for him. I'm not sure that was the best decision, but that's my opinion on that subject. It appears to me that both of them made a decision based on clear thinking, which is what I want everyone to do.

The hard part is sifting through all of the garbage that both the major parties have been throwing out during this election. Making that intelligent decision is extremely hard because you can't really tell who's telling the truth. But I'm glad both of you made the decisions you did.

And yes Amy, I'm trying my best not to get heavily into this conversation because I can see how easily I could get my blood in a boil. Scott H, you are right that this has been one of the more civil conversations on TC.

Course, Erik could also just be pulling everyone’s chain!

John

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
And now for something completely unrelated, calling me 'Scott H' and Hardie 'Scott' can be a little confusing... if you guys want, you can refer to me by official nickname. ScottieHo.

Now, the story behind the nickname, for all you interested parties.

In the summer of 1994, I went on a cross country bus tour with a teen group (great trip by the way). There were 2 Scott's. The 2 of us were good friends, so we constantly hung out together. They were trying to come up with a way to distinguish us. One of the guys started calling me ScottieHo. Ho from my last name, and they got the idea from Woody Harrelson's character in White Men Can't Jump, Billy Hoyle (which sounded like Billy Ho whenever spoken).

John E Gunter | November 3, 2004
Not a problem ScottieHo. By the way, at one point we had 4 Johns in the group of friends here, so I know exactly what you are talking about. Course the good thing about that for everyone else, you say John and all of us would stop and focus our attention on you thinking you were talking to us, so it was pretty easy to tell one of us something.

Bad news was, all of us would be listening, so if you only wanted the attention of one of us, well, just saying John wasn't a good idea. :-)

When I lived in Miami, the group I hung out with had 3 Johns, but we took on the nicknames of Prime, Squared and Cubed. Only bad thing was, the nicknames could shift depending on how often we were with the group, so each one of us had to remember which nickname we had at the time.

In explaination, the one who hung around the most was Prime, 2nd was Squared and last was Cubed. Consequently, I held Prime for the longest time. If you notice my website url, it's johnprime.com, that's where that name came from.

John

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
Well, I did not vote for Barack, and I did not vote for Kerry. So, I guess I would not be included in your Illini thanks. At least one of the two that I did vote for won. Of course you know who that was. As for Obama, I voted for Keyes, but I knew he didn't have a chance at winning. He was just brought in so Obama didn't have a free ticket to win.

Plus, the only reason Kerry won Illinois is because of Chicago. Whoever Chicago wants, they are going to get it. Bush won the vote in my county and the surronding counties where I live. I'm also sure he won a majority of them in Southern Illinois, it's just not enough to counteract against the pull of the Chicago voter's.

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
Chicago almost always goes Democratic doesn't it? So that's not much of a surprise.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
Major cities tend to swing more democratic while more rural areas tend to swing more republican

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
Why do you think that is?

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
More minorities in major cities. Also the typical blue collar/white collar ethic. I find it interesting that New York City, the city that was devastated the most on 9/11 voted for a new leader. Just a peace of mind.

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
Well, It's OVER. Kerry has conceded the election. Hooray.....!!!!

Sorry, had to get my celebration out of the way. Now back to normal discussion.

Anthony Lewis | November 3, 2004
Kerry....YOU'RE A PUSSY!!!

I voted for a fuckin' pussy!

OMG: The Republicans were right about you. 100% on the money about you. No fuckin' heart! No fuckin' balls!

YOU PUSSY!!!

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
Let the 4 more years of Hell commence! to paraphrase spaceballs.

Ape #1: Dear me, what is that thing coming out of her nose?
Ape #2: [looking in binoculars] BUSH?
Ape #1: Oh shit! There goes the planet.

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
I'd like to thank everyone for being civil during this discussion and others regarding the election.

I'm of course sad, but I'm relieved that it's all over.

AND it means we can start talking about fluffy topics again.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
Well put Anna, so where is your fluffy topic list? I expect at least 15 non-politics related discussions within the next hour. Get on it! hehehehe

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
Damn. 15 I cannot do. Maybe 5?

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
Anthony, as what you said is True about Kerry, the numbers just weren't there. They just awarded another state to Bush which put him over the required 270 anyway.

As for what the next four years will bring? I think that the war on the terrorists will get turned up now. Especially since he doesn't have to worry about re-election any longer. Fallujah, what's that? That city is about to get turned upside down. This is a very bad day if you are a terrorist or an insurgent. This is just my opinion, but I really think the heat is going to get turned up now.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
I also expect the economy to get much worse in the next 4 years. Health care will become a joke. More limits on freedom of speech and religion....

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
How will Fallujah work? How will things go any better in Iraq because Bush won? I don't see any improvements, necessarily.

I just mean, that correlation-wise, Bush winning doesn't really change the situations over there. But it does give him more license to do what he wants since he's no longer worried about re-election.

Me, I wish I could blitz out the media for the next four years so I don't have to look at it.

Anthony Lewis | November 3, 2004
I am ashamed to be a Democrat right now. I am embarassed to say I am a Democrat.

Kerry...what a joke!

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
Why do you say that? Because he didn't do a long, drawn-out court battle?

The numbers are far against him. This wasn't as close an election as 2000. Fighting wouldn't have made any difference in the end.

Anthony Lewis | November 3, 2004
You're supposed to fight every step of the way. You're supposed to exhaust every possibility. You're supposed to fight until there is no more fight left.

We need some nasty, dirtballs in the Democratic Party. It's time to stop being nice. We need sharp elbows. They just rolled over and died!

I can't change who I am, but I think I'm going back to being a registered Independent. I don't think I want that (D) by my name anymore.

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
I really don't see that happening Scott. I think it will improve. As for Fallujah, what I mean by that is, instead of just sending little attacks to put down hot spots like they've been doing, they will now be able to use the full force of the miltary to take out all the hot spots at once. No more limited targeting. But like I said, this was my opinion, I don't really know if this will happen or not.

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
Why wouldn't they have wanted to do a full attack in the first place though? You'd think they'd want it over with.

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
Because a full attack will be messy and the fallout from that would have probably not gotten him re-elected. I know, that doesn't sound good, but it's what has to happen. If civilians are hiding insurgents in their houses, then they are just as bad as the insurgents and thus become targets like everyone else. The public doesn't want to hear things about that. They want a nice clean war, where it's quick and easy. That's just not how it works. Bush was probably being held back on some things because they knew it would affect the election. Now, they will be able to put orders in place without the problem an election hanging over their heads. Once again, this is just speculation. I have no knowledge of what really did or did not happen with these decisions.

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
Great. I look forward to the coming slaughter.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
I see that happening. He has not done anything domestically as president. 90% of this country is worried about terrorism, when they are least likely to be attacked. There are 5 major targets in this country. NY, DC, LA, SF, and Chicago (dunno the abbreviation for it). There's not a threat of terrorism in Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska, etc. The economy is shit right now. It took me nearly 2 years to find a job after I graduated college, and now that I have, I'm making less money than I should be for where I live and what I do. Healthcare is shit right now also. The elderly cannot get the care they need. And if you are not working, to pay for private health care is exhuberant.

The ONLY thing Bush has done in office has been to take a personal vendetta against Iraq because, and I quote, "Saddam tried to kill my daddy."

Jackie Mason | November 3, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
Just out of curiousity, but where did that quote come from? I'm really asking. I haven't seen the text that it came from. If anyone can supply it, I'd appreciate it.

As for the economy, it has been improving. My 401k tells me that. I have steadily been climbing out of the negative hole it was in for the last few years. Right now I'm finally in the black with my return and it's improving. As for healthcare. I love my health insurance. I have a health savings account with a company called Lumenos. Whatever money I don't use in my account, it rolls over to the next year. As for you not finding a job for two years, I'm sorry about that. I don't know what field you work in so I can't comment about it.

Dave Mitzman | November 3, 2004
If the economy has been improving (and please don't count people resorting to flipping burgers in the employed status), why is it proving to be almost damn near impossible for people in the technology market to find a job?

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
Jackie, the way I read it, Kerry would have needed 75% of the provisional votes to win - numbers that just aren't possible.

(link)

One of about six million sites verifying it.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
so my quote was a little off, but I got my point across. Thanks for the backup, Anna. I swear with the way this country is looking, I'm getting scared to tell people I'm a liberal.

The good thing about Bush winning is that we get 4 more years of Bushisms. Comedians won't have to look to hard for source material.

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
Scott, so the quote was false? All I wanted was to see the context of it. So I don't see how your point was proven then. Dave, regarding the technology industry, my feeling is that it has been flooded with people trying to get into it. When I first got into the IT field, there was something like 600,000 jobs for every one person. With the advent of all these low expense training centers advertising that they can get their Microsoft certifications and get a job starting at 50k/year, people are jumping all over that. I can't tell you how many paper MCSE's I've seen. I don't blame that on Bush, I blame that on the industry trying to fill the jobs to quickly. You can disagree with me, but that's what I think happened with the technology field.

Oh, and I don't count flipping burgers as an improvement. It is a job, but it's not what people want.

Jackie Mason | November 3, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Erik Bates | November 3, 2004
I posted the whole rant on my website. (link)

I still identify as a Republican, but I think that I made the correct choice in voting for Kerry.

I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. Some might call that a Libertarian.

Now that Bush has won, I accept that, and I'm happy for him, and I will support him. I told a friend of mine earlier, "I voted for Kerry, but I'm glad Bush won." Sounds contradictory, I know. I would also be glad if Kerry won. I agree with much of what both men stand for, so I can't say that I fully support of fully oppose either.

Amy Austin | November 3, 2004
So, Anna...

"Gay Marriage" -- is that your idea of a "fluffy topic"??? ;DDD

I am curious, though -- why did you resurrect the same thread, instead of just making a "Gay Marriage II" thread... or something? Now, I hardly stand a frickin' chance of catching up on that one -- you know how long it took me to read that cotton-pickin' Yankees thread??? ... Ohhhhh... now I get it -- I'll be so busy reading over there that you won't hear much from me for a while, huh? ;DDDDDDDDDD

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
Jackie, I was just about to say the same thing. GMTA

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
That's a fair statement Eric. No need to explain anything else to me. Just a question though, if you think you kind of fall in that Libertarian category, why didn't you vote for Badnarik? I don't really know anything about Badnarik, so I can't comment about what's good about him or not.

Amy Austin | November 3, 2004
"The good thing about Bush winning is that we get 4 more years of Bushisms. Comedians won't have to look to hard for source material."

Hahahaha -- that's the way to look at the bright side, Ho!

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
Jackie, I'm not as up on job outsourcing as you probably want me to be. I'm not going to sit here and make up some answer to try and debate over. The only thing I know about outsourcing is that most of the jobs that I hear about are jobs that they can't get normal Americans to do anyway. Besides, I would think that it would be the goal of every American to try to get a better job than some job the could be outsourced anyway. I'm sure if they had that job to begin with it wouldn't pay that well. As for the tax breaks, I'm not an accountant so I don't know the tax law. It's something like 35,000 pages long. I'll have to research it a bit and get back to you.

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
I resurrected the Gay Marriage thread because

A. It's affectionately known as the Thread That Won't Die

B. It's still relevant to the discussion

and

C. I believe that Scott (and myself) would rather that threads be resurrected than have a bunch of threads on the same thing.

Jackie Mason | November 3, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Erik Bates | November 3, 2004
Thanks for understanding Mike. My Texas buddies aren't nearly as fair.

I know we're trying to get rid of the "wasted vote" mindset, but I just can't get past the idea that a vote for Badnarik is going to be wasted. I guess I just like to pick a winner... or at least someone with a chance of winning.

I DO, however, vote for Libertarians on the local level. We don't have a shot at the national level unless we get a strong base. You can't build a party from the top down.

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
Well, as I said Jackie, I do not have a knowledge base on the outsourcing issue. I would need to read up on it more before I can fully debate this topic.

Anna, I do agree that it's better to bring up old topics instead of creating new ones. That way you don't have to go all over the place to get a little history.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
Well... maybe this country isn't as fucked up as we feared, Anna and Jackie.

California voters, who faced 16 statewide ballot measures, are projected to pass a measure to establish a constitutional right to conduct research using stem cells and to authorize $3 billion for such research.


(link)

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
Thank goodness for small favors. That's a step in the right direction.

Todd Brotsch | November 3, 2004
Agreed, I wish The President would take the same view as the Governor of California on this issue. I hope there is little room for federal litigation in this matter to overturn Proposition 71.

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
I have no problem with stem cell research. I'm for anything that betters people's chances of survival from different afflictions. As long as it doesn't get out of control and wierd shit doesn't start stemming from the research, then go ahead and work on it. Once they start talking about cloning though, then I'm done with it. Cloning, as in people.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
I agree with you on the cloning of people. That is wrong. But, what if they were able to take cells from your liver, and clone you a new one, to replace the damanged one? Just a thought.

Amy Austin | November 3, 2004
Reminds me of all the hub-bub over "test tube babies" -- not many people have the same perception of that as they did in the beginning... it's just that sci-fi sound that makes it seem all bizarro. Fear of the unfamiliar/unknown.

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
It's kind of weird to think of organs growing all by themselves in dishes, but I hope that's where we're headed.

John E Gunter | November 3, 2004
Well, I know as far as things being put into law stems from the government, but alot of the health care issues continue from administration to administration with each one doing what they feel is best. But I have news for you, I've been having problems with my health care provider since after the first year of the Clinton administration, so health care never really got better during that administration.

For the most part, I see the health care industry being governed by the HMOs first, then the government trying to do what it can to help the people, after helping the HMO corporation. I see the big problem with America being big business having to much sway in Congress more than with the President.

But believe what you will, I know it from first hand experience.

Now as far as future research, as long as they are working to help people fight illness and they aren't violating peoples right while they do it, I'm for most things as long as it is done in a moderate form. To far to either side and I begin to have problems.

John

Lori Lancaster | November 3, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Mike Eberhart | November 3, 2004
I don't have any problem with growing new organs. Especially if it's going to help you out and give you a better life. I'm all for that. The wait list for organ transplants would drop significantly.

Scott Horowitz | November 3, 2004
Just thinking for a moment. Last night you heard about what Kerry, Edwards and Bush were doing. Wasn't it awfully quiet about Cheney? Goes to prove my theory that the asshole is a robot.

Anna Gregoline | November 3, 2004
He was busy in his underground, secret undisclosed lair?

Todd Brotsch | November 3, 2004
He was in his home state of Wyoming voting. There were pictures on tv of it, after that he went back to his ranch.

Jackie Mason | November 3, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Dave Mitzman | November 4, 2004
Jackie: I am only 2 years older than you and that qualifies me to make comments on Reagans policies as much as you are. We were between 0 - 9 years old during his administration and we can study all we want about what he did, but it's all hindsight. I severely doubt that your political acuities (pardon my spelling) were as fine tuned as they are now. All the information we get about Uncle Ronnie and his administration is from adults living during that era and the media (and the information is bound to be biased). It's the nature of life. It'd be the same as a 12 year old now commenting on the policies of Bill Clinton or George H.W. Bush (Sr).

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
Your spelling is fine, Dave... but I have to wonder if the modern 12-yr-old isn't a bit more savvy than the one from the 80s...

Dave Mitzman | November 4, 2004
You're probably right. Those kids today, smarter than us 80's kids. When I was growing up, I wanted whomever my parents voted for to win. Now I vote along my own lines (even though my family and I generally vote along the same lines).

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
Yeah, I hear you... do you remember the Jimmy Carter bologna chant (sung to the tune of Oscar Meyer jingle) -- I don't even know why I ever sung it... only that Jimmy Carter was (is) a great man, but only a so-so (or "so 'n' so"? ;>) President. And Ronald Reagan had movie star presence -- even now, I wonder what was so awesome about him as Pres that the newest carrier in the fleet was named after him, and everybody flew flags at half-mast for *over a month* when he died -- I don't ever recall that period of mourning for anybody! Was it just because it happened so close to the 4th of July??? I mean, don't get me wrong -- I have respect -- but what was THAT great about him???

My best guess is that he made people feel really good about things -- that the economy and all was good, and so... to an extent... it was.

Lori Lancaster | November 4, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
Yeah, I guess that's true -- good point, Lori.

Well, who the hell likes him (Fidel) anyway?!

Kris Weberg | November 4, 2004
Democrats controlled the Congress during the 80s. The Republicans hadn't had Congress since 1952, and then, in 1994, they took the House back.

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
Yeah, it seems like Congress and the Presidency hardly ever match up... a form of checks & balances by fluke?

Dave Mitzman | November 4, 2004
Yeah, it seems like it's a natural balance to have Congress one way and the Presidency another. It'll be interesting for the next 2 years until the next batch of Senators has to run. Oh, just out of curiosity, I don't follow Illinois politics closely, but what was the deal with Keys? Was he a nut because he was totally plowed over in the election.

Scott Horowitz | November 4, 2004
Keyes was a dumb fuck. He was one of the most outspoken people against Hilary Clinton carpetbagging in NY, and then he does the same fucking thing in Ohio.

Mike Eberhart | November 4, 2004
Keyes was brought in to be a sacrificial lamb. He didn't have any shot at winning. The republicans just didn't want to hand the seat over to Barack Osama for free. Mispelled his name on purporse, meant as a joke. Anyway, Keyes is about as far right as you can go. I think I'm pretty right-winged, but I'm no where near his status.

Dave Mitzman | November 4, 2004
Is Barack whatever that bad or will he be that bad?

Scott Horowitz | November 4, 2004
Actually, he could possibly be the first black US President. He's extremely popular.

Scott Hardie | November 4, 2004
Flag etiquette (link) has the flag flying at half-mast only on Memorial Day and by presidential decree. To my knowledge, Bush decreed one month of half-mast mourning for Reagan.

Scott Horowitz | November 4, 2004
I think the fact that this man is now a US Senator (link) scares me more than Bush as president.

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
Yes, Scott, I think I remember us looking that one up, too... but a month ended before the 4th, and I know I saw many not being raised until then... probably just seemed to be appropriate timing to most.

Lori Lancaster | November 4, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
Why on earth would you call Barack Obama - Barack Osama? He doesn't deserve that.

Scott Horowitz | November 4, 2004
I thought it was Barak... using the ck also makes it sound like Iraq.

Erik Bates | November 4, 2004
I figure Barack will spend a term or two in the Senate before making the next big step.

Or maybe Hillary's running-mate?

Mike Eberhart | November 4, 2004
It was a joke. My very next sentence after that said exactly the same thing.

Todd Brotsch | November 4, 2004
Oy I laughed, I cried, I had a moment.

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
Dude, I was just wondering why you would make that joke - I mean, it's not really the nicest thing to call anyone, despite how you feel about their politics.

I'm not trying to start shit, just saying that I don't think Barack Obama in any way deserves a joke of that nature.

John E Gunter | November 4, 2004
Kind of like Bush not deserving some of the comments he's getting whether they are jokes or not?

Or maybe Carter for what he got?

Or maybe Nixon, or Ford or ...?

John

Mike Eberhart | November 4, 2004
Yes, excellent point John. I didn't make that joke for any reason. I just did.

Scott Horowitz | November 4, 2004
When are people going to lighten up? geeze. It was an amusing play on words. We obviously know that Obama isn't a terrorist. People are just too fucking serious. I think this is the biggest problem with the world today.

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
God damnit.

As I said, I wasn't trying to start shit. Just saying that hardly anyone, and certainly not Barack Obama, an awesome man, deserve to be related in any way to Osama bin Laden. I fear that this unfair comparison play/poor joke with his name will continue to be a reference with him, and he does. not. deserve it. How would you feel if your last name was similar and people kept cracking that joke about an evil man like Osama bin Laden?

John E Gunter | November 4, 2004
I'm not getting on Mike's case about the joke. I got it, didn't find it that funny, and went on.

I'm just trying to point out that if you are in the public eye, someone somewhere is going to make a joke about you.

Heck, even if you aren't in the public eye, you get jokes made about you. It's the lovely human condition that does it, and being human...

John

Kris Weberg | November 4, 2004
I usually draw a line at jokes that compare people to psychotic mass murderers. Just me, I guess.

Jackie Mason | November 4, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
I agree with you, Kris. You're not alone.

I'm terrified at the idea that JEB Bush will run in 2008.

Scott Horowitz | November 4, 2004
How about a black lesbian Jewish handicapped single mother female president?

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
Hahaha. Never.

Kris Weberg | November 4, 2004
Ticket wouldn't be diverse enough.

Jackie Mason | November 4, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
I think you're funny, too, Mike. But I agreed with John's statement -- got it, not that funny, moving on... ;>)

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
I guess I'm just not one to let something go if I feel it's mean-spirited for no reason.

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
You're just so SERIOUS and sensitive, Anna... I mean, it's okay -- even admirable -- to be passionate and care about the state of the country/world, but you are just so crazy about it sometimes! I'm sure that Mike cares about the country just as much as you do (and don't get me wrong -- I definitely do *not* share in all of his political positions! Gay marriage, for instance...), but in totally different ways.

I'm sure that he will also agree with me that being thin-skinned in the service does not serve one well... humor is naturally crude and/or crass at times, and you have to learn how to brush things off and just try to co-exist with people who aren't totally like you (*especially* on a ship or submarine!), or you stay miserable for long periods of time. One of the hopes I had when I joined was that I wouldn't cry as much... there was a slight improvement, but not marked.

I can see, in what I've read of the Gay Marriage thread thus far, that you care a lot about a lot of things and want to make a difference, and I can certainly respect that. Do you really think, though, that any of those people (Obama, Hilary, etc.) don't know what the opposition says about them or that it affects them so deeply? I think that what Mike & John were both saying -- and very gently, I might add -- is that EVERYONE in the limelight has heard or knows that people make jokes about them... anyone who has ever been in charge of ANYBODY -- even just one person! -- was probably the butt of an ugly comment or joke in their absence... it's the nature of leadership and a fact of life, and very doubtfully one that you can change.

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
I voiced an objection to something that was mean-spirited for no reason - Obama hasn't even DONE anything yet for his policies to be questioned on, much less his character. I thought the words were an unfair generalization.

It didn't UPSET me, if that's what you mean. I simply voiced a displeasure at a rather poor and bizarre joke.

You both commented that you didn't think it was funny, and I'm thinking that thought probably includes a little bit of a "uh, ok?" to it. I simply voiced that. I don't like to stay quiet when those things happen.

As for the discussion, you all are making a much huger deal about it then I ever did.

Todd Brotsch | November 4, 2004
Seconding Amy's Comments

Here Here

Buck up and join the rest of society.

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
And I'm not really a serious person at all - it's the nature of this board and many of the comments made where I feel the need to respond to that paints me as such. I'm never trying to nitpick over everything, and I know it must appear that way sometimes, but since this is a discussion board, I don't see what's wrong with voicing an opinion or disagreeing with something or speaking up when something strikes me as strange or offensive. Silence when something bothers me never sits right.

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
Todd, I am a part of society, thanks.

Todd Brotsch | November 4, 2004
Then don't over litigate every single thing.

I propose tort reform.

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
Then I ask you to stop picking on me ever single time for speaking my mind.

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
Well, you don't have to "suffer in silence", if that's what you think I'm suggesting. Sometimes a subtle "uh, ok" -- as you put it -- can go a much longer way to say what you want, as opposed to what *sounds like* (reads like) "freaking out" about being called "Osama". I don't think anybody would have replied in any manner at all to that, but it probably would have been well understood that you didn't think it was funny.

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
Here is my second comment:

"Dude, I was just wondering why you would make that joke - I mean, it's not really the nicest thing to call anyone, despite how you feel about their politics.

I'm not trying to start shit, just saying that I don't think Barack Obama in any way deserves a joke of that nature."

Why is that considered freaking out? I thought I was respectful in stating my opinion.

Once again, more is being made out of this from you guys than from me. And from Todd's perspective, it seems I'm supposed to "suffer in silence" as this is at least the second comment where he basically told me to keep quiet.

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
Anna! I don't get it... you seem to always think that you're being singled out or "randomly picked on" whenever others are doing the same things that you do -- defending their positions or taking a stance that sits a little differently from yours!

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
Except in these instances, I'm being directly commented on for making bad comments....not for taking a different stance. You called me thin skinned and sensitive, Todd told me to stop making comments, bascially, etc.

I don't see how I did anything wrong in this discussion. I certainly wasn't rude about stating my opinion.

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
"Yes, excellent point John. I didn't make that joke for any reason. I just did."

His response. Not attacking or starting shit... But Scott Horowitz must have seen something coming, since he felt the need to jump in and de-fuse... and then the very next thing from you:

"God damnit..." Starts to sound a little like freaking out -- but I understand... it was just frustration. I'm just saying that you could have left it at that, and nothing more would probably have come of it! I think people were just responding to a pattern is all!

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
BTW, I seem to recall the phrase "lighten up" from someone other than myself...

Todd Brotsch | November 4, 2004
Let's see, of the umpteenth twenty people who post on this board you are the only person who apparently didn't understand it as a joke.

Scott called Keyes a "Dumb Fuck" no one had a conniption.

Anna Gregoline | November 4, 2004
Scott didn't really diffuse the situation, which is why I started with "Goddamit!"

Perhaps "Osama" didn't need to be commented on, but it bothered me. I feel bad for Barack Obama that his name so closely approximates "Osama" and if he ever runs for the Presidency, as I hope he will, we will hear that a lot, and not only from joking people, but from truely racist turds who want him to lose at all costs. I feel it's unfair to call someone a name synounymous with terrorism when he's done nothing whatsoever to bring about that comparison except have a similar name. I think it's mean-spirited and unwarranted, as I already commented on.

What I objected to here was that this thought process makes me "sensitive" or nitpicky simply because I voiced what I thought was an unfair comparison.

It's a more dangerous world where people are silent about things. This is obviously not something that will make a large impact, but even the small things that get under the skin are worthy of being mentioned as having wiggled their way in there, if for the only reason of letting people know that it bothered you.

I didn't attack Mike, I don't think. I asked him why he said that, and said that Barack didn't deserve that. He passed it off later as a random joke. I'll accept that.

What I won't accept ever is people attacking anyone for speaking their mind, especially if it's about something that bothered them.

That's all, I've said my peace. I never intended this to be shit-storm - you guys did that one on your own.

Lori Lancaster | November 4, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Amy Austin | November 4, 2004
Scott didn't really diffuse the situation, which is why I started with "Goddamit!"

I know he didn't, Anna... I said that he felt the need to, not that he succeeded -- I felt the same way when he made his Redskins comment yesterday, and although I really hate when a third party tries to hurry an end to an uncomfortable moment in conversation (it's cool, Lori), I thoroughly understand it, because it does get old. And I got your point, Anna... about half a dozen times here, I got it. I don't think you got mine, though, but I keep hoping you will.

Lori Lancaster | November 4, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Mike Eberhart | November 5, 2004
Wow, I didn't think my stupid little play on words would cause such a problem. How about everyone agree to disagree.... :)

John E Gunter | November 5, 2004
Well as argumentative as this thread has been, it's nothing compared to one that is on a game forum that I frequent. Partly due to the fact that we're not supposed to be discussing politics on the forum, it is for discussing the game by the way. Also partly because no one has really started any flaming on this thread.

Though they haven't actually starting flaming each other directly, they have been flaming the different political parties and people in certain geographic areas, which includes most of the U.S., so even though there has been a disagreement here and some hurt feelings, we are being fairly civil about it.

Surprising considering some of what's been said, but I'm happy we've haven't gone to far.

John

Scott Horowitz | November 5, 2004
Thought, with the way this thread is going... It may overtake either Gay Marriage or The Yankees relatively soon. :)

Mike Eberhart | November 5, 2004
I don't know, I think it's still got aways to go before it overtakes those threads. As for the arguement, usually this is happening between me and Anna. For once, we made our quick normal comments to each other and dropped it. So, I say, call a truce and get back to normal conversation. What was the topic of this thread again? :)

Scott Horowitz | November 5, 2004
I think it had to do with deforestation, no that's not right, maybe nuclear armament of smaller third world countries? no, that's not quite it either. Who the fuck knows?

Mike Eberhart | November 5, 2004
Wasn't it about the war of 1812? No.... Ah,well we'll get it straight..... :)

Anna Gregoline | November 5, 2004
I got your point, Amy, but I don't accept that position, as I made clear.

Thank you, Mike, for being the only one not to make a big deal over something so small and inconsequential. I would have been perfectly happy to voice my objection and move on as well.

Todd Brotsch | November 5, 2004
You're the one who made the big deal over it, let's be clear on that.

Denise Sawicki | November 5, 2004
Aw who cares who started it, let's just end it :P

Kris Weberg | November 5, 2004
Jeez. This Coburn guy is terrifying.

Scott Horowitz | November 5, 2004
He seems to make Hitler look like a gentleman.

Mike Eberhart | November 5, 2004
I don't know, I just went to his website and he seems ok. Did I miss something that he said somewhere? Don't really know much about this guy.

John E Gunter | November 5, 2004
I'm sure we'll see a load of reasons soon that allow him to be called worst than Hitler, which does not look like a joke.

John

Scott Horowitz | November 5, 2004
Well, they don't advertise that he's a sexist, racist, homophobic bigot on his website, now do they?

John E Gunter | November 5, 2004
And the left chimes in as if on cue!

John

Scott Horowitz | November 5, 2004
I try. This guy is scary. It's also scary that people voted for him. Hopefully, being a junior senator from OK will limit his power in Senate.

Mike Eberhart | November 5, 2004
Well, that's why I asked. I didn't figure his website would say anything like that. I'd rather have some valid reasons instead of the typical bashing of a person. So, if someone can provide that, I'd appreciate it. I really don't know much about this guy to form an opinion of him. And I would have to agree, calling someone Hitler or worse than Hitler is WAY worse than calling somone Osama. Yes, both guys are bad, but Hitler beats them all.

Kris Weberg | November 5, 2004
He advocates the death penalty for abortion providers after having been one (would he shoot himself in if such a law were passed?), sterilized a female patient against her will back when he was a doctor, and gave capaign speeches claiming that "rampatn lesbianism had literally takn over Oklahoma schools to the point that girls had to go to the bathrooms alone to avoid them having crazy sex all the time.

He is a nut.

But he's not Hitler, and it cheapens the tragedies and atrocities of the Second World War everytime someone shouts 'Hitler" or "Nazi" even in jest, just as it cheapens the tragedy of September 11th to jokingly all someone "Osama." A whole lot of innocent people died. Jokes and anmecallign based on that are not my idea of funny, and not my idea of civil discourse.

John E Gunter | November 5, 2004
[quote]But he's not Hitler, and it cheapens the tragedies and atrocities of the Second World War everytime someone shouts 'Hitler" or "Nazi" even in jest, just as it cheapens the tragedy of September 11th to jokingly all someone "Osama." A whole lot of innocent people died. Jokes and anmecallign based on that are not my idea of funny, and not my idea of civil discourse.[/quote]

Very good point Kris.

I went looking for information on him and I found a site called U.S. Politics Today, which is supposedly a non-partisan news service, but you have to sign up with a credit card to view their site. You get a 1 free week, trial and the site interests me, but I'm not ready to spend the $19.99 a month on that site yet.

I'm going to do some more research on the site, but if they are non-partisan as they claim, and they do track what all politicians are doing, or I should say main politicians, then I'll have to look into that as a resource. At the very least, anytime I need to make a political decision.

John

Mike Eberhart | November 5, 2004
Thanks Kris. That's all I wanted. I had not heard any of that before. I would agree that everything you say he's done is way over the top. I'll definately have to start listening for things about this guy. Even though he says he's a Republican, he sounds like a radical. Which if that word is ever in front of your name, it's not a good thing.

Erik Bates | November 5, 2004
Unless you're Tony Hawk! He's radical.

Scott Horowitz | November 10, 2004
I just found this too hysterical to ignore.

(link)

Lori Lancaster | November 10, 2004
[hidden by author request]

Amy Austin | November 10, 2004
Well said.

Scott Hardie | November 11, 2004
Damn, Scott; beat me to it! :-)

Scott Horowitz | January 20, 2005
(link)


Want to participate? Please create an account a new account or log in.


Other Discussions Started by Anna Gregoline

Medical Marijuana

Have we ever discussed this issue? I searched but couldn't find anything. Go »

No More Cars

If private ownership of automobiles were impossible, how would your life change? Go »

More Negative Views of Role-Playing

Uh, I don't really believe this statement about sex offenders in the L.A. area: "On one wall is a "Star Trek" poster with investigators' faces substituted for the Starship Enterprise crew. Go »

Gay Princes

I don't mean to make this into "Gay Tragic Comedy," but....Parents angered by book about gay princes in the school library. Go »

Using Animals as Art

(Warning: might make some people feel oogy.) Take a look at this: Nathalia Edenmont, an artist who kills animals for her artwork. Go »

Savant for a Day

Would you undergo transcranial magnetic stimulation, as this guy did, if it could make you temporarily smart/different/whatever, as a way to see things differently? What if we could enact this change permanently? Go »