<font color = lightgreen>Just after 1100 EST (1600 GMT), John Kerry called President Bush to concede the election; this has been verified by two news services.
I give a [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] to Kerry for taking the high road. I knew he would because now he can focus on 2008.

Sorry to our detractors, but the American people have spoken and the word they spoke was "Bush". [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Still nothing on CNN, strangely enough... Not that Kerry gains anything from postposting his concession, though.

I thought the word they spoke was "war."

Or maybe "death."

Or maybe "death to homosexuals."

Or, something like that.

Sorry, there's a mention of it right now on CNN. [img]smile.gif[/img]
No footage of Kerry conceding yet, though.

Yeah, those referendum results on gay marriage were rather embarrassing. It only emphasises the major differences between Western Europe's progressive elements and the US's more traditional ones...

*A little piece of Sigmar dies upon reading the news*

Well...it's over.

I have now given up on my fellow man, good day people [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Does Kerry conceding mean that the remaining votes do not need be counted? Or shall they be counted? And if they are counted and it turns out that Kerry has won will he still be able to claim presidency, disregarding that he had abandoned?

[ 11-03-2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: dplax ]

<font color = lightgreen>No, even if every vote is recounted and Kerry winds up with a majority a concession is legally binding, akin to waiving your right to do something. Of course, that doesn't mean that a lawsuit can't reverse it, but it wouldn't play well in the press and would make you look like a sore loser.

Sorry, Timber. I wish our choices had been better, but it was either Tweedledum or Tweedledumber. :rolleyes: When are we ever going to have a major candidate who is actually worth anything?

Homosexual marriage should never have been on any ballot anywhere. It is a personal issue, not a political one.

Like I said earlier, conceding now makes it easier for Kerry to run in 2008. At least, if I were a Kerry advisor that would be my advice at this point.

Quatro anos mas of Novus Ordo Seclorum! [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

Kerry running in 2008? Doubt it's gonna happen... I personally expect Jeb Bush running against Hillary Clinton in '08 (how that for a nightmare scenario? :eek: ;) ).

*sigh*

I forgot there was another one...here's hoping the Bush legacy will live on in 2008! [img]smile.gif[/img]

*turns off sarcasm*

Ah well. Back to the asylum for me and congratuations to Bush.

By the time November 2008 rolls around, we will have forgotten who Kerry is, and he'll be too busy ice fishing with Gore.

LOL @ Timber's post :D

-----------------------------

Hmm, Ohio results are in.

http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults

Bush won, whatever.

I feel betrayed... There were so many votes that they weren't going to count for weeks. Now we'll never know.

And yet... on some level. I suspected this would happen. If Kerry won, Hillary wouldn't be able to run in '08.

It still depresses me. So does the gay marrriage/civil union debacle. I feel more than a little resentful and scornful towards those states that not only banned marriages, but civil unions as well.

In fact, why is it that they can amend state constitutions to BAN gay marriage but not ALLOW it? Can someone help me out? Am I missing something?

<font color=plum>The demands of the Gay Rights Movement that states officially sanction their partnerships made it a political issue, <font color=palegreen>Azred</font>. And putting the issue on the ballot for the general population to vote on is much fairer than the State Gov't's making the decision on their own.</font>

<font color=plum>Nice backhanded insult, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. As you are fond of saying, "I thought you were better than that." [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font>

<font face="Verdana" size="3" color="#00FF00">Not sure Kerry would have been best for Canada as we would have likely had more trade wars with Kerry than we had with Bush.

Our dollar is now up to 80 something cents US, I guess with another term of bush it will be a dollar something. If this is the case I will probaly pay an affordable visit in the near future. :D

I guess a negative thing for Canada with Bush elected, is Bush knows that Canada has 20% of the worlds fresh water supply, as well as hydroelectricity and more oil and natural gas than Saudi Arabia... Real tanks will be coming for Canada soon!!! :D

That is democracy for you, you have to take what you get. My condolences!!! :D
What is that Winston Churchill quote on democracy???

"Democracy is the best form of the worst type of government"

Other Quotes
</font>

[ 11-03-2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

What's done is done, on to the next scrap. ;)

Kerry is done for President he won't do good at all in 2008, we eat the loser here in the US ;) or at least say you had your shot now move over and let somebodyelse have their shot.

I'm glad (the US citizen in me) to see he conceded, if he or the Dems would have tried a protracted legal fight there would have been "Hale" to pay, that was the right and smart move to make. About the only thing the US can't stand is a sore loser, if somebody loses and is Honorable about their loss the American people can still have pride in them. Somebody that is a spoiled sport about losing the American people will show little if any mercy in their condemnation. The Conservative Republican in me wanted him to draw this out, so I could sit back and watch the colapse of the Dems, but hey even You can't always get what you want, but if your try sometimes you'll find you get what you need. The US needed the loser to concede, so I'll enjoy my US citizen having the overriding need taken care of, as oppossed to the Conservative Republican.

"When will this country learn...Democracy doesn't work!-Homer.J.Simpson

He ain't no Churchill though :D

<font color = lightgreen>I know, Cerek. The Gay Rights Movement overplayed their hand over the last year. They will have twice as much trouble now trying to become fully and officially recognized, but I suppose waiting for a Democrat victory was too long to wait.

The Republicans also gained control of both houses of Congress, which means the
next couple of Supreme Court justice nominations will be conservative ones. Perhaps Bush will focus on shaping his legacy, which means the possibility of more even-handed legislation and policy changes. Or perhaps we will complete our conquest of the world, after all. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

Anybody got a link to watch the concession speech?

NEVER MIND. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5936718/

[ 11-03-2004, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Yes, Illum you are missing something ;)

They can amend the State Constitutions to alow it, BUT that was not what was happening. What was happening was the Courts and rouge elected officals were saying we are going to do it anyways, or we don't care that the duely elected legislators passed a law one way or another. The only way to stop the courts from doing that kind of thing was to admend the State Constitutions. We people of the US don't like our Courts legislating from the bench.

[ 11-03-2004, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

So I expect to see Vermont and Massachusetts amending their constitutions in the near future. I'm not sure why they haven't done it already.

[ 11-04-2004, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

I'm disapointed, but half expected it. Then again, I think I'd prefer Hillary Clinton in the White House ;) .

<font color=plum>Nice backhanded insult, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. As you are fond of saying, "I thought you were better than that." [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font> </font>[/QUOTE]No offense, but Grojlach has a point, Cerek. Just what kind of country is the United States if they discriminate against gay people?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
A country that has room for many different beliefs? Not all of which are compatible? Just a guess....we have seen how wonderfully peaceful and integrated Euorpe has been in the last decade....</font>

<font color=plum>Nice backhanded insult, <font color=orange>Grojlach</font>. As you are fond of saying, "I thought you were better than that." [img]graemlins/dontknowaboutyou.gif[/img] </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Which part was insulting to you? The embarrassment remark? As that one has a lot to do with the high percentages of "no" votes - I don't expect the US to adapt to the concept of gay marriage overnight (and we all know it's only a matter of time before they are institutionalised anyway), but I'd expected slightly closer calls. And if it's the second sentence that troubles you, I could bring up my home country again for comparison... ;)

[ 11-03-2004, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Nope, I disagree. It was the seeking to deny equal civil rights via banning by referendum that made it political.

Seeking equality as gauranteed by the law of the land is a civil rights issue, not a political issue.

Yeah, those referendum results on gay marriage were rather embarrassing. It only emphasises the major differences between Western Europe's progressive elements and the US's more traditional ones... </font>[/QUOTE]Not embarrassing, but sadly expected when the Republicans can rally so many moral mammys?


BTW I disagree that traditional elements are at work here, the trend in America since it is founding has been a steady movement forward to provide equal rights and benefits of citizenship to all. If anything, regressive ( and maybe repressive) elements won today and the traditional elements, which are truly progressive, lost.

<font color=plum>The insulting part is that you describe your country as more "progressive" since homosexuality is more widely accepted there. I do give credit for being more tactful in your assessment of American values as "traditional" rather than calling them "backwards" - but the implication was still there...which is why I called it a "backhanded insult".

As for the different value systems, the results on these amendments just shows how much the majority of Americans disagree with homosexuality. Despite the very vocal and focused efforts of the Gay/Lesbian Rights Movement to force people to be more "accepting" or "tolerant" of their sexual orientation, the results show that most Americans do NOT agree with that lifestyle.

And despite <font color=orange>Chewbacca's</font> claims of Republican involvment, it has nothing to do with political affiliation. Look at how completely the amendments were supported (or defeated). That shows that the support came from BOTH sides of the political spectrum. And while the votes only occurred in 11 states, I think that provides a large enough sample to state that this IS the view of the overall general population in America.

The problem with the Gay Rights Movement is that most Americans view homosexuality as a choice! Whether correctly or incorrectly, that is how it is percieved here. Therefore, the Gay Rights Movement is viewed as an effort to force Americans to grant certain rights or privileges to a minority group based solely on their sexual orientation. If that is the case, then we might as well have an Adulterer's Rights Movement next. Please note this is not necessarily how I feel personally, but it is how the homosexuality and Gay Rights are viewed by the general population.

While I view homosexuality as a sin (equal to - but certainly not greater than - adultery), I do NOT support the proposed Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a woman and a man. I believe gay marriage or civil unions should be handled at the state level and I do NOT believe we should make an Amendment to the Constitution regarding the "official" definition of marriage. That is a social issue, not a legal one and has no business even being proposed as a Constitutional Amendment, IMHO.</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Cerek, you forget, that the only life style that it is ok to denigrate is the American Conservative value life style...everyone else is supposed to get equal weight.
</font>

They are free to do so, There seems to be a big misconception about the way our gov't is set up(not saying you personnaly have that misconception Illum, but others seem to have it based on other posts here). the State gov't are not just smaller versions of the federal gov't created for easy of governing, they are seperate intities(sp?) from each other. In a free society if the People of the State of Alabama wish to ban 3 legged dogs we can do so, if the people of Texas want to have 3 legged dogs they can do so. If you live in Alabama and have a 3 legged dog you can move, get rid of your dog, or go to jail for violation of the laws of Alabama. The choice is yours to make and the result of your actions is yours to live with. We are a group of people that have banned together, but still remain seperate. If Vermont and Massachusetts want to legalize Gay unions they are free to do so, if any of the other States don't want Gay unions legalized they are free to do so. If a citizen of any of the States doesn't like what the State laws are they can try and change the laws of the State they are in, or they can move to another State that has laws they are more confortable with. If there is a State that has laws you don't like don't visit there, Lordy there are lots of places in the country I won't go to, but I'm a big boy and make my own choices and I am happy that others are free to make their own choices.

Yeah right Mr. Harris! As if you guys would ban your official state animal :D

And we'll keep ours thanks lol

You have a point, but of course there are interventions from the federal government from time to time in whatever form they take. Like with desegregation, when it was 1970 and some local towns were STILL not in compliance with Brown v. Board of Education. While each state eventually complied in their own ways according to their own state legislatures, they did eventually comply to the secondary and tertiary Supreme Court rulings that basically said "No, really. Desegregate."

And of course, there are some Texans who believe that Texas has the right to cecede based on a clause in our little founding documents [img]smile.gif[/img] There are limitations on what a state can feasibly do.

But complience with the will of the Feds comes at the pork-barrel bargaining table than any other kind of coersion.

<font color=plum>The insulting part is that you describe your country as more "progressive" since homosexuality is more widely accepted there. I do give credit for being more tactful in your assessment of American values as "traditional" rather than calling them "backwards" - but the implication was still there...which is why I called it a "backhanded insult".

As for the different value systems, the results on these amendments just shows how much the majority of Americans disagree with homosexuality. Despite the very vocal and focused efforts of the Gay/Lesbian Rights Movement to force people to be more "accepting" or "tolerant" of their sexual orientation, the results show that most Americans do NOT agree with that lifestyle.

And despite <font color=orange>Chewbacca's</font> claims of Republican involvment, it has nothing to do with political affiliation. Look at how completely the amendments were supported (or defeated). That shows that the support came from BOTH sides of the political spectrum. And while the votes only occurred in 11 states, I think that provides a large enough sample to state that this IS the view of the overall general population in America.

The problem with the Gay Rights Movement is that most Americans view homosexuality as a choice! Whether correctly or incorrectly, that is how it is percieved here. Therefore, the Gay Rights Movement is viewed as an effort to force Americans to grant certain rights or privileges to a minority group based solely on their sexual orientation. If that is the case, then we might as well have an Adulterer's Rights Movement next. Please note this is not necessarily how I feel personally, but it is how the homosexuality and Gay Rights are viewed by the general population.

While I view homosexuality as a sin (equal to - but certainly not greater than - adultery), I do NOT support the proposed Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as being between a woman and a man. I believe gay marriage or civil unions should be handled at the state level and I do NOT believe we should make an Amendment to the Constitution regarding the "official" definition of marriage. That is a social issue, not a legal one and has no business even being proposed as a Constitutional Amendment, IMHO.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Just what type of society do we live in if we can't except homosexuality? Being more tolerant and understanding towards gays seems quite progressive to me. I'm not trying to be offensive in anyway, but America seems quite ignorant when it comes to homosexuals. Just because they don't understand it, many people seem to think that it's sick/immoral or evil. I'm not gay and acually feel a bite uncomfortable with them. However I don't enjoy (maybe even hate) people bashing something they don't even understand.

I beleive that being gay is not a choice and there's been research done that shows brain of homosexual is wired diffrently. In fact, ask any gay person and they will tell you that are who they were born as and that it's not a choice.

Since you're apperently a strong Christian, I can understand you're attitudes towards homosexuality but I tottaly disagree. I just don't see how two consenting adults sucking each others dicks is evil. However, I'm glad that you don't support this gay bashing amendment.

The whole point that I'm trying to make is that you don't have to support gay marriage, but you should at least try to be more tolerant and understanding towards homosexuals.

[ 11-04-2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
A country that has room for many different beliefs? Not all of which are compatible? Just a guess....we have seen how wonderfully peaceful and integrated Euorpe has been in the last decade....</font> </font>[/QUOTE]It really scares at the power religous fundamentalists have in your country...

Actually, Mr. Harris does NOT have a point. A 3-legged dog ban in Texas shows that the State is free from the intrusion of the federal government, but the society's freedom in Texas is lessened by the rule. The State government is not being oppressed, but it in turn is oppressing the people with its rule. A free society is free from government intrusion, whatever level they may be on. In Cook County, I am less free than others in Illinois, because the City of Chicago and the County of Cook place additional rules on me: how I must ride my bike, where I can walk my dog, a handgun ban, requirement to have a parking sticker, etc. etc. The society here is less free than in, say, Peoria.

<font color=plum>Actually, I consider myself to be very tolerant of homosexuals. I have a number of friends and coworkers that are homosexual and I don't treat them any differently than I do my heterosexual friends - other than to avoid voicing my opinion on homosexuality around them. I've even had a long-time family friend reveal to me that he was gay and had always wanted to go on a date with me. I told him I couldn't go on a date, but when he asked if we could just get together for lunch one day, I said that would be fine. And I still greet him with a full embrace whenever I see him because that is how I've always greeted him.

{more later}</font>

<font color = lightgreen>This is the bottom line: in some states the ballots asked "do you want to disallow marriage between two people of the same gender?" and a majority of the people said "yes, we want marriage to be a legal union of one male and one female". These referenda were legally placed on the ballots, a proper election was held, and the referenda were defeated.
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and is not--must not--be defined as a "civil right". If it is, then every lifestyle choice would then, by extension, be defined as a "civil right", even if that lifestyle normally breaks the law. I don't think the Gay Rights Activists would want that, because one of those lifestyle choices might be "I choose to actively discriminate against homosexuals".</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
A country that has room for many different beliefs? Not all of which are compatible? Just a guess....we have seen how wonderfully peaceful and integrated Euorpe has been in the last decade....</font> </font>[/QUOTE]It really scares at the power religous fundamentalists have in your country... </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Not really, most of the American populace is willing to live and let live untill you start to get pushy and trying to make them accept things as normal that they don't like. If you keep it to yourself and don't go getting all "in your face" about things most people will let you live your life in peace.....most people anywhere you go are sheeple that way. The huge swath of RED states you see when looking at the election maps is just chock full of people who really don't care if a man wants to sleep with another man...UNTILL those to men have to get all "uppity" about it. When you start to try and threaten their sensibilities and force things on them...thats when you run into problems.</font>