Libs should be in daycare with the rest of the 6-year-olds
San Franciscans are waving "United States of Canada" maps, redrawn to show Canada extending down to include California, New England and the other so-called "blue states" that voted decisively for Massachusetts Democratic Senator John Kerry in the U.S. presidential race.
Some are canceling plans to travel to neighboring "red states," where Bush drew most of his support. They are asking serious questions about the future of American democracy. And the usual post-election bravado about moving out of the country when a favored candidate loses is sounding different this year. It sounds a lot more serious.
"Why should we believe we will ever have another fair election in this country?" asked one woman.
I know what you're thinking. But wait, there's more.......
"I have family in Idaho, but I told my wife we're not going to visit them now. It's all Republicans there," said Ron Schmidt, a public relations executive. "We have family in Indiana and I don't want to go there either."
Schmidt's friend, magazine editor Joseph Connelly, said one of his columnists who had moved temporarily to Paris six months ago decided Wednesday she would settle there permanently.
People are boycotting red states and the entire country? This is the ultimate in immaturity and idiocy. I want to bust a gut in laughter--but these people are actually serious......And they called Bush the stupid one?
Isn't it interesting that the very people who have so much faith in government's necessity and ability to intrude into our lives go absolutely nuts when someone they disagree with is in power. It reveals that they don't trust gov't to limit the power of their political opponent. To liberals, gov't is capable of making dependents out of citizens, but incapable of checking its own power (by the way, it IS capable--it's called three branches of government. And so are the people--it's called periodical elections).
"Peace and tolerance have long been the words to live by in San Francisco."
[choke gag cough] Are you kidding me? The only tolerance liberals have is for people who share their views.
Oh yeah, and a note to all those libs who are avoiding my state (and my country): fine. Stay out. I'll enjoy some peace and quiet while I savor this nation's victory against you.
posted by Seth at 1:38 PM
6 Comments:
Seth -
Insightful post, but I don't think you understand the degree of loathing we "on the other side" have of President Bush. Opposing politics is a necessary force in American Democracy - but Bush not only has an opposing policital viewpoint, he carries with it religious fanaticism that, frankly, scares the wits out of me. And that's really the drive to emigrate, or boycott. I doubt anyone will actually move away, and my guess is that the commenter you quoted will probably actually visit his family in Idaho and Indiana, but it's Post-Election Stress Disorder affecting people's short-term judgment, only this time, it's combined with great fear.
I agree with you that most of these threats to leave or boycott states, etc., is just rhetoric, an emotional response to losing the election. But it's still fun to laugh at them! :) If Bush has a religious fanaticism that scares you, then John Kerry has a secular fanaticism that scares ME. Kerry has no moral core other than deferring to the U.N. for every foreign policy decision (and some of his liberal cohorts would have the U.N. involved in a domestic issue--monitoring our elections!). What exactly about Bush's religious beliefs scares you? What potential policy decisions informed by his faith worry you?
It's the President's interest in amending the US Constitution to push his religious beliefs that scare me. During the final debate he claimed, "I believe that God wants everybody to be free. And that's been part of my foreign policy," hence admitting that his religious beliefs affect policy. Then, during his interview on Fox with Sean Hannity, he "flip-flopped" and stated that he would not use policy to push his religious beliefs (I don't have the exact quote). If the President truly intended to uphold the US Constitution, he would respect that, "Congress shall make no law establishing religion." And isn't that what would happen if he attempted to legislate morality?
How can your religious beliefs NOT influence your policy? They inform your views of right and wrong, good and evil, the nature of man. A man who says his religious beliefs don't influence his policy is just plain lying; even if he claims no religion--non-religion is still a religion. Everyone believes in something. The choice comes to what worldview you want discerning the governmental direction of this country. There are countless laws that legislate morality: laws related to murder, rape, incest, child abuse, theft, lying, and cheating, to name a few. These laws are based in a Christian worldview of morality. I'm not advocating a state religion of Christianity by any means (like your friend), but we must recognize the source of this nation's legal code. There are other arguments for laws as well, such as practicality. One argument for recognizing marriage as only between a man and a woman is because the traditional family, being the basic foundation of our society, needs to be protected for the good of our society. The ban on gay marriage is not a ban on homosexual behavior--our civil liberties allow that, and should continue to allow it. But giving people special rights because they are in a situation that will hurt the basic building block of our society should not occur. As far as the state is concerned, marriage (homosexual or otherwise) is not about love. It is about cultivating the best-proven way to maintain society.
The so-called "establishment clause" only means that the gov't shall not create a formal state religion. This has been blown way of proportion and taken to the extreme. Did you know that a few states actually had state religions (legally) when this country was founded?
Excellent post, Seth! I'm linking to it!
Of course, every experience in our lives contributes to our overall life decisions, whether it be our experience with religion, academia, or society.
The problem is when someone wants to force their belief systems on others. The hot topic nowadays is gay marriage. What is it tomorrow? What personal morality issue will tread on another's belief system?
The problem with outlawing gay marriage is because of the perceived improvement of morality. Most of the opponents of the gay marriage support "civil unions." In reality, there is no difference.
A wedding may be before God, but the state approves it. Without the state "blessing," one is not legally married. Therefore, the state weds a couple. A state-endorsed "marriage" and a state-endorsed "civil union" only differ in semantics. You stated, "the ban on gay marriage is not a ban on homosexual behavior--our civil liberties allow that, and should continue to allow it." Therefore, you approve of homosexuality. And doesn't the Bible purportedly dissaprove of homosexuality?
So provide one reasonable example as to how gay marriage will, "hurt the basic building block of our society," if we allow "civil unions," which provide the same protections as "marriage."
So how does outlawing gay marriage improve morality if we allow civil unions? The fact is, it doesn't. It's only a "feel good" law for the moralists clinging to some sense of decency. Again, it's only semantics.
Post a Comment
<< Home