Election Day in the US

[blurred]

Democrats seem to be doing well early doors - taken a couple of Senate seats off the Republicans. I love a good election. Nice to see Harris get absolutely battered in Florida, too

[americantrotter]

Going well so far. Cautiously optimistic. I got to vote for Ted Kennedy, that was a big thrill. Massachusetts will also elect the 2nd Black Governor in US history. (Oddly my former state elected the first. Doug Wilder-Virginia)

My least favorite politician may lose but it will be recount close. I refer to George Allen of Virginia as the Anti-Christ.

[communistworkethic]

actually you're assumptions about athiests are quite wrong. Those who take the matter seriously and actually think about the issue fully do not say religion is wrong just fundamentally flawed in it's premise and that it carries far too much weight in a society that is supposed to developed.

atheism is not a religion it is a disbelief in a supernatural supreme being at work in the universe.

and you're view agnosticism is incorrect as their lack of commitment to take a view, it is more that they will not or cannot decide, that does not mean apathy.

the a-theistic rejects all gods and takes the approach points to inconsistencies and flaws in the God Hypothesis and to the position that while it is almost impossible to prove God does not exist that the probability of his/her/its existence is so tremedously slight so as to make it not just improbable but albeit impossible. It's not saying it's a superior view at all, it's not the one claiming an eternal life if you obey it, it mere seeks to point out that the views espoused under religion carry a weight beyond logic purely on the premise of faith and several thousand years of tinkering to texts written by bronze age men.

I'll use this example - I believe there is a pink chocolate teapot containing golden pixies and hobbits orbiting the earth but it's too small to be picked up by the human eye, telescopes and other scanning equipment, so it's pretty much impossible to prove I'm wrong. Now if I go out publicly and declare this as my belief people would think I'm mad. But why is my suggestion any madder than saying a supreme and sensient being created the universe and when he feels like it interferes with it and made a woman give birth without losing her virginity?

yes i know about russells teapot , fsm , ipu and all those other "anti prove" theories that mirror the unfalsifiable (?) aspects of religion... but the "big bang" aspect of quantum theory is equaly on the same shakey ground, "what was before?" "we dont know, but we think nothing" .. WTF ?

the virginmary theory could be true because salamanders , some lizards , some fish , bees , etc can give 'birth' to offspring without 'sex' . Parthenogenesis its called .. if lizards evolve into birds that evolve into mammals (i dont think thats true but it could be, theoretically) then theoretically the ability to have virgin births could be retained (like how hens have teeth infrequently). the odds would be massive , but possible ..

I am not saying religion is right (its a big bag of cock , imo) but it cant and people who follow it cant be as worse at doing [something] as someone or something that doesnt believe it (religion, in this case) ..
Else thats saying a non religous person or non religous system ways of doing things are 'better' and its made even better just because religion isnt clouding their view , what if the non religious person believes in communism or fascism or something else 'worse' instead and that clouds their view , even though they too think theyre right?..

wars start over communisim and fascism.. possibly because of the way they go about implimenting the system into 'societity' (is comunisims have an uprising ? and fascisms kill all non-honkies?) and they were non relegious (i think comunism banned relegion proper , and facism was some form of quasi-christian only type one).. thats fecked too .. i dont want to 'be' anything..

i dont know where this is going.. you seem to not like (possibly hate) religion through various things ,
me, i dont care that much coz i know that something else *could* be worse ..

eg,

george bush might be a dick , but i'd rather it was him than some atolyah komanyi/adolf/stalin type

and if he's fecking off those types (sucide bombers , meally mouth do nowts , aytollahs, adolfs, other bastards that'd kill me ) then by deduction he must be doing sumert right..

see? like that..

sorry but because one or two species are capable of parthinogenesis one individual out of an entire species that uses sexual reproduction suddenly does it? No, not at chance the idea of "throw-back" just does not work like that in genetics the line is too long. And where there intervention to ovecome the imprinted genes then the offspring would be female - so no SON of God. Creationist nonsense science is what you're coming out with there; take a piece of science, fail to undertand it all and make a massive leap in logic to your conclusion.

And creation itself - so it's ok for religion to say "well God was just there, nobody created him". But for science to say, "we're theorising that all that existed mass a massively dense ball of energy, that's more probable from what we know of physics than a supernatural God" that's not ok? You see religion likes science if it thinks it can use it for it's own gains but dismisses it when it proves religious theory wrong.

You assertion on wars is wrong. The majority of wars ever fought on this planet have been on religious grounds, and a hell of a lot of them just to kill Jews. Politics is just the mask behind which religion hides - fascism in Italy - Catholic Church. Nobody is saying that being non-religious makes you a better person morally, what it does it mark you out as someone not swayed by superstition and brainwashing under the context of religion.

Bush is little better than any of the one you quoted, he is a Christian fundamentalist who sees his as a mission from God and uses that cynically to drag a nation along to further his own political and monetary gains. He was the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands. Aytollahs and Immams may be extremists but they generally do not bother with external poiltics until someone interferes with theirs.

[thebish]

The majority of wars ever fought on this planet have been on religious grounds,

you make a lot of sound points, Commie, as ever...

but this is the least well supported.. It is often said - it might even class as a cliche - but my study of history would suggests a more nuanced answer..

most (nearly all?) wars fought have been about land, not religion. Religion has often been a handy label to distinguish the antagonists.

but... this thread now has all the traditional don't-touch-it-with-a-bargepole warning signs that should flash on and off when such threads appear on Football Forums - so having dusted off the bargepole and poked, I think I'll put it away again!!

[thebish]

I already voted. I did my best. Hopefully the rest of the country will come through too.

if you look close enough - there's always a Bolton win!! Yay - we won!!!!

http://keyetv.com/topstories/local_story_312015422.html

[superjohnmcginlay]

Who won then?

[David Lee's Hair]

Who won then?

Not bush

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6127216.stm

[a1]

sorry but because one or two species are capable of parthinogenesis one individual out of an entire species that uses sexual reproduction suddenly does it? No, not at chance the idea of "throw-back" just does not work like that in genetics the line is too long. And where there intervention to ovecome the imprinted genes then the offspring would be female - so no SON of God. Creationist nonsense science is what you're coming out with there; take a piece of science, fail to undertand it all and make a massive leap in logic to your conclusion.

And creation itself - so it's ok for religion to say "well God was just there, nobody created him". But for science to say, "we're theorising that all that existed mass a massively dense ball of energy, that's more probable from what we know of physics than a supernatural God" that's not ok? You see religion likes science if it thinks it can use it for it's own gains but dismisses it when it proves religious theory wrong.

You assertion on wars is wrong. The majority of wars ever fought on this planet have been on religious grounds, and a hell of a lot of them just to kill Jews. Politics is just the mask behind which religion hides - fascism in Italy - Catholic Church. Nobody is saying that being non-religious makes you a better person morally, what it does it mark you out as someone not swayed by superstition and brainwashing under the context of religion.

Bush is little better than any of the one you quoted, he is a Christian fundamentalist who sees his as a mission from God and uses that cynically to drag a nation along to further his own political and monetary gains. He was the blood of thousands of innocent lives on his hands. Aytollahs and Immams may be extremists but they generally do not bother with external poiltics until someone interferes with theirs.

i dont believe in religon / creationism or owt wack like that , like i sed the odds of a virginmary would be massive (massive number here), possible maybe even if the current thinking is "nahh", because science always kicks you in the head with a "theres this gene.... " type thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go - takes a view of these warped athiest types

anyroad...

the thing about george bush i dont like (not he himself , he's a wierd , but other peoples "george bush = his fault everything happens") is that the anti-george bush message is that rabiedly big , makes me think "nah, he's alright, scapegoat forever now after 11/09/01 , but was the world that different 9 months before? i dont think so," .. going "george bush = knob" every 5 minutes gives these islamic fascist (and whoever else in foriegn lands that 'hate' him) types their excuses when they didnt even know bill clintons name ..

all makes me take the george bush = ok , view .. not that it matters..

its a good job them americans are about because since ww2 theres been a fair few attempted "wars" that didnt work that the yanks had to go and "sort" and become blamed for ..

maybe next time when their help is needed they'll go "dont care" and watch ...

they (the us) were gonna do that after 11sept (remember when everybody was shitting it going "what the feck? americas not sed nowt for 4 days") but certain people , maybe the same certain people that are now going "america is a bully, mind your own business", went into grief councilor mode with their "come on talk about it" type stuff , which mustve been false concern considering they 'hate' them now, so they had their chance of america becoming 'insular (?)' and not messing with others affairs , and they fecked that up...

worth it that 11september eh?



world of shit

[americantrotter]

The American People and the People of the World!

House is back in Democrats hands. With 2 close Senate races so too could be the Senate.

Happy Days. Wont know the true results from the disputed Senate races for days though.

What it means to you: No more legislative rubber stamp for Bush. In fact he is obviously the last person any pol wants to align with such is his unpopularity even among his own party. The war, will be investigated and hopefully we'll find out if it was a legitimate decision or purely a tail wagging the dog kind of job.

[blurred]

If the Democrats take one of those two remaining Senate races (most likely Montana) isn't the senate effectively in the Democrats' hands anyway, given the two independents are likely to align with the Democrats on just about everything?

[Le Snake]

In terms of undermining Bush, how much will it actually mean, though? The house was Republican under Clinton ...

[americantrotter]

Unfortunately the tie-breaker in the Senate is the Vice President. We need to win both.

As far as what they can do without the Presidency? They can chart the Legislative course, but basically they can stand up to the Republicans, and hopefully work with them for sensible non ideological action.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Unfortunately the tie-breaker in the Senate is the Vice President. We need to win both.

As far as what they can do without the Presidency? They can chart the Legislative course, but basically they can stand up to the Republicans, and hopefully work with them for sensible non ideological action.

What do you mean chart the legislative course? Can you actually do owt?

[americantrotter]

3 Branches. Executive (President) Cant make laws, just endorse them and enforce them. Legislative (Congress) They make the laws and provide oversight to the executive. Judicial (Courts) Kind of obvious, though they really arent checked by much.

A little simple, but yes the Legislative Branch is important, and now it isnt a W puppet.

[superjohnmcginlay]

3 Branches. Executive (President) Cant make laws, just endorse them and enforce them. Legislative (Congress) They make the laws and provide oversight to the executive. Judicial (Courts) Kind of obvious, though they really arent checked by much.

A little simple, but yes the Legislative Branch is important, and now it isnt a W puppet.

So what's the Senate for?

[americantrotter]

LOL Bi-Camaral Legislature.

The Senate and the House of Representatives make up "Congress" Unfortunately people often refer to the House as Congress.

The 2 bodies must agree to pass a law but both have different functions. The Senate has 100 members with 2 from each state. It was originally a weird house of lords with Senators being appointed rather than elected. It is meant to deal with the issues that face all states, and be a much slower place of debate and testimony. The House is a representative body of 435, with population determining the number of a states Represenattives. It dprovides oversight to the other 2 Branches, and is a faster more fiery place than the Senate. All Representatives are elected every 2 years, while Senators are every 6 years and never more than 34 in on election. (Stability being the order of the day)

[superjohnmcginlay]

LOL Bi-Camaral Legislature.

The Senate and the House of Representatives make up "Congress" Unfortunately people often refer to the House as Congress.

The 2 bodies must agree to pass a law but both have different functions. The Senate has 100 members with 2 from each state. It was originally a weird house of lords with Senators being appointed rather than elected. It is meant to deal with the issues that face all states, and be a much slower place of debate and testimony. The House is a representative body of 435, with population determining the number of a states Represenattives. It dprovides oversight to the other 2 Branches, and is a faster more fiery place than the Senate. All Representatives are elected every 2 years, while Senators are every 6 years and never more than 34 in on election. (Stability being the order of the day)

Bloody hell getting a simple answer outta you yanks is feckin difficult.
So bascially if the senate doesnt change hands the republicans can stop you doing anything and vice versa. Whats all the fuss about then?

[americantrotter]

The Senate could change hands. Even if it doesnt the big deal is that The Democrats are no longer just spectators, and alternate visions are forced to be heard. Plus the knowledge that they are in power due to the Political rebuke of the Republicans handling of the Country while they had exclusive power in the Executive and Legislative.

[blurred]

Update on some of the outstanding issues:


Montana Senate: Jon Tester (D) leads Conrad Burns (R) by about 3,000 votes. Looks like Tester will win the initial count; Burns will ask for a recount. The AP has just called the race for Tester.

Virginia Senate: Jim Webb (D) leads George Allen (R) by about 8,000 votes. Virginia will hold an automatic recount if the result is either under 10,000 votes or one half of one percent of the total vote.

Connecticut Congressional District 2: Joe Courtney (D) wins the initial count by 170 votes over Rob Simmons (R). In Connecticut, state law mandates an automatic recount when the margin is under 2,000 votes and less than one half of one percent of the total vote.

Ohio Congressional District 2: Jean Schmidt (R) leads in the initial count over Dr. Victoria Wulsin (D) by 2,323 votes, or 1.01%. Wulsin refuses to concede, citing that the outstanding provisional ballots will put her over the top. She may request a recount.

Pennsylvania Congressional District 6: Jim Gerlach (R) wins the initial count over Lois Murphy by 3,001 votes, and it looks like he will hold his seat. Murphy has not conceded, but her chances look really poor.

Pennsylvania Congressional District 8: Iraq war veteran Patrick Murphy (D) wins the initial count over Mike Fitzpatrick (R) by 1,521 votes. Murphy has declared victory; Fitzpatrick is undecided on asking for a recount or conceding.

Georgia Congressional District 8: Jim Marshall (D) leads Mac Collins (R) by 1,688 votes in the initial count and it looks like his lead will hold; 99% of precincts are counted.

Georgia Congressional District 12: John Barrow (D) leads Max Burns (R) by 3,387 votes with 96% of the tally in; the outstanding districts favor Burns, but Barrow looks like he'll win the initial count by about 750-1000 votes.

New Mexico Congressional District 1: Heather Wilson (R), a future Senate prospect, leads Patricia Madrid (D) by 1,303 votes; if the results hold after the recount Wilson will have done an outstanding job holding her seat.

Wyoming At-Large: Barbara Cubin (R) leads Gary Trauner by 970 votes out of almost 200,000 cast. According to Wyoming law, an automatic recount will take place because the margin is less than 1% of the total vote.

[thebish]

maybe that's why your ordinary Iraqi is having a hard time understanding this amazing democracy thing that Great Auntie America has knitted for him...