Well, it's all up to Kerry now

[LordShaithis]

I want Kerry to win, then lose to McCain in 2008.

[Durandal]

But you know what, I just can't bring myself to vote for Kerry. I don't see him at any point being better than Bush. Being among the most liberal members of the Senate on both social and financial issues just warns me that a Kerry, Edwards presidency would just piss me off to no end. I get pissed off at Bush's constant desire to embrace the liberal social ideology when we fucking elected him because he touted himself as a conservative. Grow a backbone dammit and stick a conservative agenda. Kerry would be like Bush but without that confusing conservative outer layer.

You must be on some incredible drugs. Bush has a "constant desire to embrace liberal social ideology"? Are you fucking nuts? "Social conservative" doesn't even adequately describe Bush. He's a social regressive.

[KrauserKrauser]

I get pissed off at Bush's constant desire to embrace the liberal social ideology when we fucking elected him because he touted himself as a conservative. Grow a backbone dammit and stick a conservative agenda. Kerry would be like Bush but without that confusing conservative outer layer.

You mean conservative fiscal agenda, right? Bush is the most socially conservative president in any of our lifetimes.

Hmmmmm guess that is the case. All the things I formerly considered socially liberal were in fact just his willingness to inact massive government spending programs such as his cooperation with Ted Kennedy on a massive education spending increase which has as of yet yielded ack shit for results.

[HemlockGrey]

Alyrium, with one exception, all of those "flip-flops" are based on statements he made 6-10 years ago. Color me unimpressed.

[Predator]

Regarding Kerry's "flip-flops" - it seems to me that Kerry could quite reasonably support a bill, then decry its poor implementation. No child left behind for example might appear at first to be well meaning - yet it hasnt delivered. It's not inconsistent to vote for it and now criticise it, based on its performance.

[jegs2]

What makes you think the board is far Left? Or are you assuming that anyone who doesn't support Bush is far Left?

Mike, we've seen a lot of folks espousing the virtues of Socialism and denegrating anything to do with Capitalism. It's not just an anti-Bush railing (which certainly permeates the board), but rather an "anti-anythingRepublican" atmosphere. When someone like Michael Moore is taken as anything but a sick joke and we see a majority slobering over the Democratic candidate, one can hardly deny a Leftist atmosphere.

[HemlockGrey]

The majority is slobbering over the Democratic candidate? What the fuck are you talking about? I haven't seen ANYONE here "slobber" over John Kerry- hell, it seems to me almost as many people don't like John Kerry as don't like George Bush.

[Howedar]

I would defy jegs to find five people on this whole fucking board who think Kerry is good. Of course he can't, cause they don't exist. But let's not let that stop his railing against the all-pervasive left.

[Guardsman Bass]

I get pissed off at Bush's constant desire to embrace the liberal social ideology when we fucking elected him because he touted himself as a conservative. Grow a backbone dammit and stick a conservative agenda. Kerry would be like Bush but without that confusing conservative outer layer.

You mean conservative fiscal agenda, right? Bush is the most socially conservative president in any of our lifetimes.

Really? I thought Reagan seemed a lot more socially conservative than Bush, both in actions and beliefs.

As for the whole "lame duck" issue about Kerry, remember that Clinton spent most of his Presidency after 1994 faced with a hostile Republican Congress- and he wasn't exactly a lame duck. Of course, Kerry isn't Clinton . . .

[Stormbringer]

I get pissed off at Bush's constant desire to embrace the liberal social ideology when we fucking elected him because he touted himself as a conservative. Grow a backbone dammit and stick a conservative agenda. Kerry would be like Bush but without that confusing conservative outer layer.

You mean conservative fiscal agenda, right? Bush is the most socially conservative president in any of our lifetimes.

Really? I thought Reagan seemed a lot more socially conservative than Bush, both in actions and beliefs.

In beliefs it's possible, however in actions Bush seems to be by far worse. Remember that whole Consitutional Amendment a couple weeks back? That's way beyond anything Reagan's done, way more than anyone really.

As for the whole "lame duck" issue about Kerry, remember that Clinton spent most of his Presidency after 1994 faced with a hostile Republican Congress- and he wasn't exactly a lame duck. Of course, Kerry isn't Clinton . . .

Well, despite the abuse the term lame duck, there's some truth to that.

Clinton was far more popular that Kerry is likely to be, and frankly he had a let better support. And even then once the Republican Congress got going he was having to compromise and/or deal with a Republican agenda as oft as not.

And the simple fact is that as soon as he's in office "Not Bush" isn't going to count for shit. Unless he can lead, and it doesn't seem he really can, then he's going to be hard up if it's a Republican Congress (which seems unlikely). With a Democratic or divided Congress then he's got a bit better shot.

[Darth Wong]

Really? I thought Reagan seemed a lot more socially conservative than Bush, both in actions and beliefs.

In beliefs it's possible, however in actions Bush seems to be by far worse. Remember that whole Consitutional Amendment a couple weeks back? That's way beyond anything Reagan's done, way more than anyone really.

Mind you, didn't Bush Sr. propose constitutional amendments to criminalize flag-burning, grant constitutional protections to fetuses starting at conception, and mandate a "moment of silence" (read: prayer) in public school?

What's amazing is that the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for men and women) failed. You'd think that a society so averse to revising its constitution that there's been no successful amendment proposed since the 18th century would not even consider such a stupid idea as a marriage amendment.

[Stormbringer]

Mind you, didn't Bush Sr. propose constitutional amendments to criminalize flag-burning, grant constitutional protections to fetuses starting at conception, and mandate a "moment of silence" (read: prayer) in public school?

Not seriously. Those were largely talked about but never proposed as far as I know. The flag burning one I believe got some debate time on the Hill but never any solid proposal as I recall.

What's amazing is that the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for men and women) failed.

Probably because it would also have entailed equal responsibilities. Something that made a lot of people on both sides sqeamish as hell.

You'd think that a society so averse to revising its constitution that there's been no successful amendment proposed since the 18th century would not even consider such a stupid idea as a marriage amendment.

You do realize that there are any number of amendmants in the last century right? And that far more (and some dumber) have been proposed and rejected?

[Wicked Pilot]

Don't remember this board being this far to the Left when first I joined two years ago. Perhaps most members were, and I just didn't see it.

The last large poll I remember is here. It indicates a very moderate board, and somewhat resembles breast.

Mike, we've seen a lot of folks espousing the virtues of Socialism and denegrating anything to do with Capitalism.

I've seen a few of those, but they got flamed like there's no tommorrow. In fact, I think this board has less tolerance for commies than it does rabid trekkies and creationist.

It's not just an anti-Bush railing (which certainly permeates the board), but rather an "anti-anythingRepublican" atmosphere.

The Republicans are the ones currently in power. I'm sure if Kerry gets elected we'll end up calling him names for his stupid policies too.

When someone like Michael Moore is taken as anything but a sick joke and we see a majority slobering over the Democratic candidate, one can hardly deny a Leftist atmosphere.

I have not seen anyone here who likes Kerry. I think I can speak for a great majority of the board when I say the Democrats could have fielded a much better candidate.

[Joe]

Apparently, John Kerry knows how to give CPR to a hamster:

We were standing on a dock waiting for a boat to take us on a summer trip. Vanessa, the scientist, had packed all her animals including her favorite hamster. Our over-zealous golden retriever got tangled in his leash and knocked the hamster cage off the dock. We watched as Licorice, the unlucky hamster bubbled down to a watery doom. That might have been the end of the story. But my dad jumped in, grabbed an oar, fished the cage from the water, hunched over the soggy hamster and began to administer CPR. There were some reports of mouth-to-mouth, but, I admit that’s probably a trick of memory. He was never quite right after that, but Licorice lived. Like I said, it may sound silly. We still laugh about it today. But, to us it was serious and that’s what mattered to my father.

[Perinquus]

What's amazing is that the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment, guaranteeing equal rights for men and women) failed. You'd think that a society so averse to revising its constitution that there's been no successful amendment proposed since the 18th century would not even consider such a stupid idea as a marriage amendment.

I know you consider Americans excessively sentimental about the Constitution Mike, and overly deferential to it; I've seen you remark on this any number of times. But if you really think it's been so long since the constitution was amended, allow me to suggest respectfully that you are not well informed on the matter, and you are allowing this to color your opinion of how Americans regard this document. The fact is that there are 26 amendments, and apart from the fist 11, they are all post-18th century. Here's a list of every one, what it was, and when it was ratified:

First Ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) Ratified on Dec. 15, 1791

1. Every citizen has the right to freedom of speech.

2. Every citizen has the right to bear arms.

3. No soldier in time of peace shall be quarted in a private citizens home without the homeowners consent.

4. Personal property cannot be searched without warrant.

5. No person must testify against themselves in court of law.

6. A defendant has the right to a fair and speedy trial.

7. Every trial has the right to a jury.

8. No excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment shall be used against a convicted criminal.

9. No one shall be denied their basic constitutional rights.

10. Power is to be retained by the states and people.

Ratified Feb. 7, 1795

11. A citizen from one state cannot sue another in court.

Ratified July 27, 1804

12. Electors will vote for president.

Ratified Dec. 6 1865

13. Slavery is hereby abolished.

Ratified July 9, 1868

14. Former slaves are now legal U.S. Citizens

Ratified Feb. 3, 1870

15. African Americans now have the right to vote.

Ratified Feb. 3, 1913

16. Congress shall have the power to lay taxes.

Ratified April 8, 1913

17. Power for electing Senators is taken from state to state.

Ratified Jan. 16, 1919

18. Prohibition - People cannot make, sell or transport liquor. (REPEALED)

Ratified Aug. 18 1920

19. Women can vote

Ratified Jan. 23 1933

20. Puts term limits on the president and congress.

Ratified Dec. 5, 1933

21. Repeal of Prohibition

Ratified Feb. 27, 1951

22. Limits President to two terms

Ratified Mar. 29, 1961

23. Women can vote in the District of Columbia

Ratified Jan 23, 1964

24. Give right to Americans to vote in Primaries for public officials.

Ratified Feb. 10, 1967

25. In case president cannot perform duties Vice-President takes over.

Ratified July 1, 1971

26. 18 year-olds have the right to vote.

[Grand Admiral Thrawn]

John Kerry, he looks out for ALL residents of America.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Oh geez, I just happened to see Kerry on the news this evening with his latest speech and the salute with the "at your service" quote or whatever made me want to projectile vomit over the TV.

Then there were the masses of people there, his supposed "supporters" who seemed to be crawling over themselves to get up his arse.

Has American politics always been this hideously shallow and contrived or has it recently taken on this form to make me wretch?

[Darth Wong]

I know you consider Americans excessively sentimental about the Constitution Mike, and overly deferential to it; I've seen you remark on this any number of times. But if you really think it's been so long since the constitution was amended, allow me to suggest respectfully that you are not well informed on the matter, and you are allowing this to color your opinion of how Americans regard this document. The fact is that there are 26 amendments, and apart from the fist 11, they are all post-18th century. Here's a list of every one, what it was, and when it was ratified:

<snip>

Go look up the dates those amendments were first proposed, not when they were finally ratified. Some of those amendments took a very long time to ratify

[Master of Ossus]

Oh geez, I just happened to see Kerry on the news this evening with his latest speech and the salute with the "at your service" quote or whatever made me want to projectile vomit over the TV.

Yeah, that was really stupid.

[Perinquus]

I know you consider Americans excessively sentimental about the Constitution Mike, and overly deferential to it; I've seen you remark on this any number of times. But if you really think it's been so long since the constitution was amended, allow me to suggest respectfully that you are not well informed on the matter, and you are allowing this to color your opinion of how Americans regard this document. The fact is that there are 26 amendments, and apart from the fist 11, they are all post-18th century. Here's a list of every one, what it was, and when it was ratified:

<snip>

Go look up the dates those amendments were first proposed, not when they were finally ratified. Some of those amendments took a very long time to ratify

How does that change the fact that it is flatly incorrect to state that no amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been successfully proposed since the 18th century? Or are you contending that every amendment, even the ones adopted in the 1960s and 1970s were originally proposed prior to 1800?

[Xenophobe3691]

How does that change the fact that it is flatly incorrect to state that no amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been successfully proposed since the 18th century? Or are you contending that every amendment, even the ones adopted in the 1960s and 1970s were originally proposed prior to 1800?

I know for sure that the Amendment adopted in 1992 was proposed over two hundred years ago, it barely missed being passed by one state, and was tabled until being passed in '92.

[Stormbringer]

How does that change the fact that it is flatly incorrect to state that no amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been successfully proposed since the 18th century? Or are you contending that every amendment, even the ones adopted in the 1960s and 1970s were originally proposed prior to 1800?

I know for sure that the Amendment adopted in 1992 was proposed over two hundred years ago, it barely missed being passed by one state, and was tabled until being passed in '92.

What the hell are you taking about?

[Ma Deuce]

Alyrium, with one exception, all of those "flip-flops" are based on statements he made 6-10 years ago. Color me unimpressed.

Two exceptions: Not only did he vote for the Patriot Act (and is now trashing it), he also voted for Gulf War II. Those are pretty huge exceptions if you're trying argue that Kerry isn't a waffler...

[Stormbringer]

Alyrium, with one exception, all of those "flip-flops" are based on statements he made 6-10 years ago. Color me unimpressed.

Two exceptions: Not only did he vote for the Patriot Act (and is now trashing it), he also voted for Gulf War II. Those are pretty huge exceptions if you're trying argue that Kerry isn't a waffler...

To be fair, the Patriot Act was slid under using some fairly dubious tricks. For one thing there was a massive time pressure and second off all the bill wasn't honestly explained. And of course it's been (ab)used far beyond the scope of what it was intended to do.

The current Iraq War, there's no real defense of that. But he wouldn't be the only one out there that supported the war but are horrified at the way the whole thing was botched by the Bush Administration and Rumsfeld & Cheney in particular. To my regret I count muself as one of those people.

[RedImperator]

I know you consider Americans excessively sentimental about the Constitution Mike, and overly deferential to it; I've seen you remark on this any number of times. But if you really think it's been so long since the constitution was amended, allow me to suggest respectfully that you are not well informed on the matter, and you are allowing this to color your opinion of how Americans regard this document. The fact is that there are 26 amendments, and apart from the fist 11, they are all post-18th century. Here's a list of every one, what it was, and when it was ratified:

<snip>

Go look up the dates those amendments were first proposed, not when they were finally ratified. Some of those amendments took a very long time to ratify

The one that springs to mind that took a long time was the 27th Amendment, not listed there, which prevents Congressional pay incrases from taking effect until after the following election, which was proposed at the same time the Bill of Rights was; it was only ratified by six states and eventually forgotten. However, unless Congress specifically sets an expiration date on a proposed amendment, it remains pending business before the states basically forever, so in the 1980's, there was a push to ratify it. This is probably what you're thinking about.

There was a twelfth amendment that also went to the states in 1789 that's still floating around out there, but since it wouldn't have any real-world effect (it pertains to Congressional apportionment and is mostly obsolete), it's probably going to sit gathering dust forever. There's also an amendment from 1810 that would strip the citizenship of any American accepting a title of nobility from a foreign power, one from 1861 proposed as a last-minute compromise to prevent the Civil War to protect slavery, and an amendment giving Congress the power to outlaw child labor from 1924 (forgotten after SCOTUS interpreted the Commerce Clause to give Congress that power). Any of those four are still active and could be ratified, though other than the child labor amendment, I can't imagine anyone trying (the first two would hardly matter and nobody, obviously, is going to vote to legalize slavery).

Then there is the ERA, which you mentioned, and an amendment from the 60s that would have granted D.C. voting representation in Congress. These carried clauses that gave the states seven years to ratify them. Both have expired and would have to pass Congress again.

Anyway, Mike, you've been misinformed about there being no successful amendments proposed since the 18th century. A list:

The 12th was proposed in response to a specific political crisis that took place in 1800.

Some version of the 13th may well have popped up in Congressional committees from time to time in the 18th century, but there was no credible abolition movement in this country until the second quarter of the 19th century.

The 14th and 15th were passed specifically to combat abuses committed by southern state legislatures against newly freed blacks.

The 16th was proposed after SCOTUS overturned a Federal income tax law in 1895.

There were versions of the 17th popping up and dying starting in the 1890s.

I'm not sure about the 18th, but I imagine it was showing up in Congress by the 1870s or so; obviously, the 22nd, which repealed it, was entirely a product of the 20th century.

Again I'm not sure about the 19th, but the earliest it would have been proposed was the 1840's (I know the Suffrage movement was bitterly dissapointed they weren't able to get women the vote along with blacks when the 15th was passed).

The 20th was passed as modern transportation made the six month wait between the presidential election and innaugeration unnecessary (and left Herbert Hoover sitting around the White House as a lame duck for half a year while the Depression raged and FDR could do nothing).

The 22nd was passed to make sure nobody ever won four terms like FDR did (in a parallel universe where this amendment failed, the Democrats nominated Bill Clinton for his fourth term the other night, and Ronald Reagan's third term was cut short by acute Alzheimers in 1990).

There wasn't even a Washington, D.C. in the 17th century, so nobody would consider giving it three electoral votes with the 23rd Amendment then (it wasn't until the late 19th century that Washington had a permanant population worth mentioning).

The 24th was passed as part of the Civil Rights movement to abolish a Reconstruction era practice on the part of southern states to keep poor blacks from voting (poll taxes).

The 25th plugged several holes left by the framers; it's possible someone proposed the measures it took back in the 18th century, but the real impetus was the assasination of JFK.

I'm not sure how long people were agitating for lowering the voting age to 18 from 21, but I doubt the 26th amendment was proposed in the 19th century.

And there you have it.