Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics

Kerry Concedes Election To Bush 5687

Posted by timothy
from the now-clean-up-all-these-damn-peanuts dept.
WilliamGeorge points to this MSNBC story "that presidential candidate John Kerry has called George W Bush to concede the election. So it is over, and without a lot of extra fuss and recounts."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kerry Concedes Election To Bush

Comments Filter:
  • by the_2nd_coming (444906) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:41PM (#10711143) Homepage
    in Ohio if those districts were given enough voting machines to get people through the polling places. people waited 9 hours!!!!

    not to mention all the democrats that flipped!!! I hope they rot in hell!!!
  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:2, Informative)

    by camliner (685937) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:43PM (#10711228) Homepage
    Actually, it is a sad sad day for 48% of America.
  • Recounts (Score:3, Informative)

    by ViolentGreen (704134) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:44PM (#10711256)
    I didn't vote for him but I respect Kerry for not further dividing the country with all the recounts and mess of 2000 (yet at least.) It shows me that he truly does have the contries best intersts in mind as opposed to Gore who just wanted to be president.

    Didn't Gore concede and the "un-concede" back in 2000 too though?
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Zonk (12082) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:46PM (#10711336) Homepage Journal

    O Canada!
    Our home and native land!
    True patriot love in all thy sons command.

    With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
    The True North strong and free!

    From far and wide,
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

    God keep our land glorious and free!
    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.

    O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
  • I don't get it. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Bull999999 (652264) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:48PM (#10711410) Journal
    is the link to the Draft-Dodging HOWTO.

    The ones who brought up the first draft bill where Democrats, which was opposed by the Republicans and rest of the Democrats alike, so how does Bush winning make it more likely?
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Informative)

    by gamgee5273 (410326) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:54PM (#10711626) Homepage Journal
    Because Canada is part of the British Commonwealth. While they are an independant nation, they still recognize Queen Elizabeth as their monarch and she is the formal (though not in any way practical) head of the Church of England.

    Therefore there is not a completely true seperation of church and state when you are dealing with the UK or the Commonwealth.

  • Re:Sad sad day (Score:2, Informative)

    by bhhenry (83946) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:56PM (#10711702) Homepage
    50% of what? More than half of Americans did not even vote! Are they just lazy, apolitical, or do they simply realize there is little in the way of "choice" in the best Democracy in the world.

  • by say (191220) <sigve@@@wolfraidah...no> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @12:56PM (#10711703) Homepage

    But after counting more than 90% of the votes, there is no reason why the last 10% should be substantially different than the first 90%. They provisional votes are a different statistical group, but they aren't going to be 90% Kerry, which is about what he needs. Therefore, this is a matter of simple statistics. Kerry is not going to win.

    A long period of uncertainty is not good for any nation, and most certainly not the US. I'm all pro-Kerry, but there is no need to wait two weeks just to get confirmed what anyone with a statistics degree can tell you in a second.

  • Re:Congratulations (Score:3, Informative)

    by Otter (3800) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:00PM (#10711849) Journal
    Supposedly Ashcroft isn't going to be returning for a second term, because of health issues and because the Bush staff wants someone less divisive. If that's so, it's got to be a good step one to calming everyone down.

    Hopefully the spirit Kerry just showed will set an example...

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Informative)

    by RealAlaskan (576404) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:00PM (#10711852) Homepage Journal
    So: if you're a Slashdot reader who moved abroad because of the political situation, please post here, and tell us why, and how it's working out.

    We hear a lot of threats to move from silly starlets and disgruntled geeks, but I've never heard of anyone who actually did it.

    By the way, if anyone actually did move overseas, we miss you, and you can come back whenever you're ready. We won't wait up, but we'll leave the light on for you.

  • by truthsearch (249536) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:01PM (#10711897) Homepage Journal
    This is what annoys me. CONCEDING DOES NOT MAKE BUSH THE WINNER. He can concede and the election can still go the other way. It doesn't remove him from the race. Nothing's changed except they're announcing their predictions.
  • Re:All I need now (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#10711952)
    Simple, vote Republican.

    All the comments regarding draft that I've heard have come from Democrats, other than a limited call up of reservists to fill specialist jobs I've not heard the Govt talk about introducing a draft.

    I don't believe the military wants a draft, and I dont believe the Republican Govt wants a draft.

    Must be those democrats running FUD again, must be taking lessons from Microsoft.

    Talking about GOP dirty trick campaign, you think the democrats play clean ? Riiiiiight.
  • Now what? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Zarn (11601) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:03PM (#10711957) Homepage
    Paul Waldman of Gadflyer has a good (I hesitate to call it uplifting) article called Where Do We Go From Here? [gadflyer.com]. A telling quote of his:

    "We can now say with some assurance that there is virtually nothing in the world of politics - not organizing, not message development, not long-term planning, not discipline - at which Republicans are not more skillful than Democrats."

    Has the Democratic Party become obsolete? It sure looks like it from this end.
    Perhaps. William Saletan of Slate writes in Simple but Effective - Why you keep losing to this idiot. [msn.com]:

    "Sigh. I really didn't want to have to write this."

    and examines how Bush could possibly win.

    What kills me is the fact that I'll be almost 40 before I see another president in the White House.
    I'm not even American, but I felt (and still feel) sick to my stomach when I saw the election results.
    I can only imagine how some of you, who actually voted, are feeling.

  • Re:Well, (Score:3, Informative)

    by 3terrabyte (693824) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:04PM (#10712000) Journal
    Wrong, he's telling those 140,000 voters that their vote doesn't statistically count when the current vote tally is at a difference of 108,000 in favor of Bush.

    I'm surprised you didn't say 250,000 voters, since that's what one Democrat spouted. Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin. It's amazing that the democrats are saying 250,000, and the Republicans say 100,000. Who can you believe? No one.

    I'm a Democrat, and am VERY concerned about what this lazy president is going to do to this country over the next 4 years, especially since he doesn't need to worry about looking good for the next election.

    However, even I know the margin in Ohio is no where near Florida's margin. 2.5% difference. At least Iowa should be waiting at 1.0% difference. But with only 7 electorals....

    We're talking about waiting 30 days to get all the absentee ballots in. The provisional ballots are going to be about 80% allowed, and even counties that were heavily favored Kerry in Ohio are still only 70% Kerry. No way you'll get enough of those 140,000 (or even 200,000) to swing that high to Kerry. Sad, but true.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Informative)

    by sys$manager (25156) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:06PM (#10712053)
    Canada is a bilingual country:

    Ô Canada! Terre de nos aïeux,
    Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
    Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
    Il sait porter la croix;
    Ton histoire est une épopée
    Des plus brillants exploits.
    Et ta valeur de foi trempée
    Protégera nos foyers et nos droits;
    Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2, Informative)

    by AvitarX (172628) <<gro.derdnuheniwydnarb> <ta> <em>> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:07PM (#10712077) Journal
    We got Bush in a democratic election once actually (this time).

    Ans once in a representitive election (sort of, if you ignore the "Florida bull", but Gore beat Bush if you were to measure the vote democratically.

  • Immigration, eh? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:08PM (#10712108)
    Here is Canadian immigration and citizenship information [cic.gc.ca] for those who need it.

    ALL HAIL CANADA! [ptbcanadian.com]

  • by nero4wolfe (671100) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:17PM (#10712299)
    To be technical, a atatement by one presidential candidate to another candidate that the other candidate has probably won, and offering congratulations, has no legal meaning.

    If the extremely improbably happened (Kerry getting a margin of >90% in all valid provisional & overseas absentee ballots), Kerry would still win Ohio and the election.

  • by artemis67 (93453) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:20PM (#10712380)
    Here's the HOWTO:

    Just vote Republican.

    Remember, it wasn't the Republicans who brought up the draft, it was the Democrats.

    It was Democratic congressmen Charley Rangel and Fritz Hollings who introduced the bill to reinstate the draft. Fortunately, the Republican-controlled House killed it and it was DOA.

    Republicans know that an all-volunteer military is far, FAR preferable to conscription. It's the Democrats who are obsessed with draft-talk.
  • by boodaman (791877) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:25PM (#10712462)
    "so called stolen elections"?

    You don't pay attention, do you?

    Salon.com, the BBC, The Nation, and more proved 4 years ago, with real evidence, that the chaos in Florida was deliberately caused by the Governor's office (President Bush's brother is the Governor) in cahoots with Katherine Harris.

    They did this by eliminating tens of thousands of names of legitimate voters, people who were legally allowed to vote, from the voter registration lists. These people were refused their legal right to vote by state and county election workers on direct instruction from Katherine Harris' office.

    The margin of Bush's "victory" in Florida was a few hundred votes...the number of people prevented from voting was TENS of thousands...it is a virtual certainty that percentage of those people would have voted for Gore, especially since the vast majority of the people on those lists were African-American (traditionally Democrats) and Hispanic.

    Incidentally, the company that handled the voter registration "scrub" lists for Florida is a subsidiary of a company backed by powerful Republicans, including billionaire Ken Langone.

    http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=74&ro w= 2

    So yeah, the election actually was stolen. No "so called" about it.

    Do yourself a favor and do some research.
  • by Myxx (21264) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:32PM (#10712589)
    If we worked it by popular vote, only fewer than 10 states would be needed to win the election. That is not very representative either.

    The electoral college assures that each candidate will visit every state, not just the ones needed to win. If we did it by popular vote, a Democrat would win nearly every time because CA, NY, and a couple of other states have the most population.

    Fair would actually be like the Senate. Each state gets (1) electoral vote. Those votes can be determined by however the state wishes to give them.
  • Re:Immigration, eh? (Score:3, Informative)

    by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:34PM (#10712613) Homepage
    And for those who aren't quite prepared to actually emigrate to Canada, another option [virtualcanadian.org] has just been registered and is being set up as I type.
  • by bheer (633842) <rbheer@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:35PM (#10712618)
    I am glad the Popular Vote reflects the Electorial Vote. But the Popular Vote should be all that counts in ANY election. We have no need for the Electorial college any more. It is a deprecated system that is not needed in this day of information technology.

    Yes, so that a candidate can campaign in California and NY (and maybe the Lake states) and be done with the election.

    There was a _reason_ the electoral college came into being: so that populous states would not "drown" out the less populous ones. It had nothing to do with "information technology".

    Pure popular votes are *always* skewed towards urban interests. (Incidentally the majority of /.-ers being urban no wonder this proposal is always very popular with the /. crowd. Also folk living in Europe find it handy because for the life of them they can't imagine a state larger than their frigging toy-size country).

    I hope never to see this proposal of yours accepted in my lifetime. I credit the founding fathers with more wisdom than you.
  • by CSG_SurferDude (96615) <wedaa @ w edaa.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:37PM (#10712660) Homepage Journal

    Can someone tell me where I can sign-up for the upcoming Civil War?

    Certainly, here you go... Free the Bear [tripod.com]

    Or.... Southern Independence Party Of Texas Platform [sipoftexas.org]

    Or, from A whole BIG list of Separatist movements [constitution.org]

    Alaskan Independence Party -- Seeks referendum with choice of statehood, independence, commonwealth, or self-governing territory.

    Alaskans for Independence

    Free the Bear - California Secession and Independence

    California Secessionist Party

    The Republic of Cascadia -- Advocates independence for the Pacific Northwest from both America and Canada, with a libertarian and pro-business perspective.

    Cascadian National Party -- Advocate secession of the present states of Washington and Oregon from the United States.

    Cascadia Confederacy -- Advocates independence of the Pacific Northwest region from the U.S. and Canada, with an anti-nationalist and anti-capitalist perspective.

    State of Jefferson -- The rich history surrounding the events leading to the State of Jefferson secession movement of 1941. The State of Jefferson lives on in the hearts and minds of many residents of northern California and southern Oregon today.

    Hawai`i -- Independent & Sovereign -- Separatist movement of Hawaiian aboriginal people.

    La Voz de Aztlan -- Separatist movement that seeks a reconquista (reconquest) by chicanos (ethnic hispanics of Aztec descent) of the Southwestern United States and creation of a new nation of Aztlan (legendary ancient homeland).

    New England Confederation Movement -- Seek independence for New England states. Also see New Hampshire Chapter.

    South Carolina League of the South -- Seek independence through secession, perhaps for all of the Southern states of the 1861-65 Confederate States of America.

    Republic of Texas -- This is one of several pages for the somewhat fractured Texas Independence Movement which has recently received a great deal of attention. We do not support the movement. Constitutional compliance throughout the United States is attainable. Independence is not necessary, and distracts from the cause of constitutional compliance. But they do raise a number of interesting issues.

    Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas -- Another Republic of Texas site.

    United People's Party (Partido Nacional La Raza Unida) -- Many of them seek to separate the part of the U.S. taken from Mexico from the U.S. and make it an independent Hispanic nation called Aztlan.

  • by Thundersnatch (671481) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:41PM (#10712721) Journal
    do it like Maine & Nebraska where it's by congressional district, so winner doesn't take all in a particular state

    THis is an extraordinarily bad idea. Congressional districts are routinely the victim of politically-inspired redrawing, a process known as Gerrymandering [wikipedia.org]. If the election were decided by congressional district, the party in power in each state legislature would simply draw the districts to favor their own party. Both parties engage in Gerrymandering after every U.S. census to swing congressional elections; many congressional seats changed hands this year in Texas and other states because of the redrawing done after the 2000 census.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2, Informative)

    by grammar fascist (239789) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:41PM (#10712725) Homepage
    Tell that to the marines.

    ...who overwhelmingly support Bush [usatoday.com].

    (I can't remember where I saw it (and if anyone can find it, that would be great) - but one of these military voting surveys had 75% of the military who had been to Iraq approving of Bush's handling of it.)

    But don't let the facts stand in the way of a good argument. By all means, trot out the dead marines if it makes you feel good about your position.

    They believe in what they're doing over there. Why don't you?

  • by Entrope (68843) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:42PM (#10712741) Homepage
    The US has a slightly outdated system, but there are analogous situations in any fair system. If you have counted 90% of the ballots and 66% of those (60% of the total) are for one person, it is almost impossible for the other person to win a simple majority. If you factor in statistical analysis of voting patterns in the unreported votes, you can get a pretty good estimate of results before counting every vote.

    That is all that has happened here: There are lots of votes left to count, and where they can make a difference, they will be counted. The results are not yet final, and the results will not be final until January 6 when Congress counts the electoral college ballots.
  • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)

    by swiftstream (782211) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:44PM (#10712764)
    Well...

    When one guy leads by 136k votes and there are ~175k left to count...

    I'd call that pretty well decided.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:46PM (#10712792)
    You really should study what the Electoral College is and why we have it. The states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida do not have just a "few" people living there. The number of electoral college votes is reflected by the number of US Senators and Representatives from each state. Population determines those numbers. That is why centers of population hold such a large number of electoral college votes.

    If you get rid of the electoral college, then Presidential candidates will no longer even try to listen to issues facing voters in less populous states, such as Montanna, Wyoming, North and South Dakota. The electoral college ensures that Presidential candidates must address issues facing the entire country and not just those living in San Francisco, Dallas, New York City, etc.

    The electoral college is an important fixture in our political process and should not be dismantled.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:5, Informative)

    by demachina (71715) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:52PM (#10712890)
    I'm American and lived in Canada about half my adult life and am one of the disgruntled geeks getting ready to leave again. I loved Canada. I'm sorry I didn't stay there and get on a citizenship track. I'll probably go someplace even cheaper and warmer this time and try to retire early.

    The people in Canada are consistently a lot easier to live with than Americans. They aren't nearly as arrogant, stuck on themselves, and aren't socialized to think its their prerogative to shit on the rest of the world. Canadians can spot Americans a mile away since they are routinely assholes when they visit Canada. Canadians, at least all the ones I know, are consistently nice level headed people, hard workers, great partiers, its no accident they churn out great comedians, and THEY HAVE GREAT BEER. American beer sucks by comaprison. They have pretty strong socialist leanings but there are right wingers there just like here, they just aren't rabid like the American right wing.

    If you are going to be an expat you need to be ready to deal with the immigration system which is the biggest hassle. It depends on where you are going but you usually need a job waiting, with a visa, though many countries like Costa Rica have pensionero visas where you just have to have a clean record and a proven investment income. Its designed to draw wealthy gringos who are looking for a cheap place to retire and spend their money. I think its a couple thousand dollars a year in interest, social security or investment income so its pretty easy to do. It is only a visa though.

    The big challenge to being an expat is if you are really going to do it you have to ditch your U.S. passport and citizenship and get citizenship where you are going. It takes a lot of time and work to get citizenship most places and you need to make sure you pick a country where you are going to be happy, fit in for the duration, and a place that isn't like to explode in a revolution for example. Americans are too fat dumb and happy to revolt but there are places where radical changes do happen, often with the help of the CIA.

    If you dont renounce your citizenship you get to file income tax returns with Uncle Sam in perpetuity and that means you are still supporting the mad dogs that now rule Washington. If you make more than than the exemption limit on foreign income you get double taxed, where you live and by Uncle Sam. I think the annual exemption was around $70K but I dont know what it is now. I'd heard the Republicans were moving it and maybe even lowering it to tax expats more though I don't recall what actually happened.

    All in all carrying a U.S. passport and flaunting your American'ness has always been a bit of a negative around the world, people tend to envy you some and resent you some more. After the last 4 years I imagine flaunting American, and especially bragging about, in most of the world is going to invite nothing but negativity and grief. Canadains treat most Americans reasonably well because they are generally nice people but they aren't likely to really accept you and frequently will do their best screw you given the chance, just because you live in a country that tries to screw the rest of the world at every opportunity in every way.
  • Re:Well, (Score:2, Informative)

    by CajunElder (787443) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:57PM (#10712977)
    Actually, I don't fault Gore for wanting a recount in FL. I do fault him for the way he went about it. He should have asked for a recount in the entire state, instead of just the heavily Dem. counties. That being said, as soon as Gore asked for a partial recount, Bush should have asked for a total recount. I also blame Gore for the way the votes were recounted, and recounted again in the Dem. counties. It really left a bad taste in my mouth when the first recount was stopped after it was obvious that Gore couldn't get enough votes and a different method for counting "pregnant chads" was used. If you don't punch any type of hole in the ballot, there is NO WAY your vote should be counted. At the time there was even talk about using an intent to vote rule, which meant that if you voted for all Dem's on the rest of the ballot, then you obviously wanted to vote for Gore too. While I don't live in FL, I know some Dems who REALLY didn't like Gore. They voted for all Dems on the rest of their ballot, and then just didn't vote for Pres. Trying to guess what a voter wanted to do after the ballot has been cast is a subversion of the system, and that is turned a lot of people off to Gore after the 2000 election. If Kerry had a chance of winning OH, I would support his waiting for the provisional ballots to be counted, and even asking for a recount. My support for him would stop as soon as he started pulling the stuff that Gore did in 2000. I give Kerry credit for realizing that he couldn't win, and not going down the same road Gore did. If the situations had been reversed in 2000, I would be preaching about how whoever was running against Gore this time shouldn't do what Bush did. I'm not saying that I think the Reps are better or more honorable than the Dems. I'm saying I don't like what Gore did, and I'm glad Kerry didn't follow that path.
  • by Bob Uhl (30977) <[eadmund42] [at] [gmail.com]> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @01:57PM (#10712980) Homepage
    No, the electoral college helps ensure that whoever wins the election is able to govern. Remember the county-by-county map of the '00 election? Gore won almost none of the US, but won a slight majority of the popular vote. It would have been very difficult for him to govern well without a widespread base (remember 1993?). The college gives the presidency to the candidate who is popular across the nation, not just in two small parts of the nation.

    I'm not necessarily opposed to two electors from each state voting for the state's overall winner, and each other voting for the winner in his district. I would prefer that electors be selected by state legislatures (and that senators be selected the same way: popular election of senators was a foolish change to the Constitution).

  • by fitten (521191) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:17PM (#10713254)
    I was a swing vote.

    Why I didn't vote for Kerry:

    Issues: I honestly had no clue where he stood on issues. One of the commercials I heard summed it up exactly. Basically, it said that no matter who you were or what you believed, Kerry agreed with you. I had seen plenty of places where Kerry did indeed change his mind on where he stood... many times.

    This dropped me down to evaluating past behavior. Kerry has a well documented past of doing one thing, then coming back and saying that what he previously did/believed was wrong (seemingly in response to what he thought voters might like to hear). With this record, how does this reassure me that when he passes or vetos some bit of legislation that two weeks later he won't recant on it? It will be too late then and more legislation would have to be introduced to change what was law.

    So, what assurances do I have for what was coming ahead? Well... Kerry and Edwards let us know that they had "plans". Well... they had "plans" for everything, but the problem was that they didn't elaborate much more than that on any of them. What was Kerry's plan for Iraq? I don't know. He said that his plan would get us out quicker but also would also require more troops to be there for a slow withdrawal.... (huh?)

    What it came down to, for me, was that I didn't know anything about what Kerry would do or stand for. His track record shows that he is quite comfortable with doing one thing then recanting it the next week. He has plans but the plans are either nebulous or contradictory in places. He definitely told me that he would go about the "Tax and Waste" policy, which I definitely do not like. At the same time he talks about outsourcing out-of-country, his wife's company is a major out-of-country outsourcer. To me, he was full of contradictions and vagueness, seeming to be more than willing to go whichever way he thought the public opinion goes (or in all ways). You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. And this is what it seemed to me that he was trying to do... please all of the people all of the time.

    Kerry's campaign seemed to have the core stance of "I'm not Bush" and he seemed to think that this was enough to get him into office. There just didn't seem to be much solid substance (other than male bovine fecal matter possibly ;) to him at all.

    The *only* things in which Kerry had a solid stance to me were detrimental to my person... more taxation for me and little/no benefit for me and, from what I could tell, no benefit for the USA either. Simply saying that "I won't do things the way Bush did" isn't enough to inspire confidence in me that he will do a better job at anything than Bush did.

    This is why I didn't vote for Kerry.

    I didn't vote for Bush either, so don't go down that path with me.
  • by BCW2 (168187) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:35PM (#10713537) Journal
    The speech is not binding in any way.

    The election will not be over for several weeks. Each state has to finish counting all absentee ballots and provisionals(if used in that state) and certify a total. That will end it for all the state races. The electors will then meet and elect the President, nothing different, happens the same way every four years.

    Every news source I can find says the total number of provisionals in Ohio is less than the current margin, if they are all valid, even if every one was for Kerry he would still loose.

    Let the people do their jobs and we shall see what happens.
  • Moved abroad (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:37PM (#10713565)
    I moved from the United States to Finland a month and a half ago due to the political situation in the USA. I was born in the USA and so were my parents, I'm not a returning former citizen to Finland or any such thing.

    I'm posting in response to RealAlaskan's request for information about someone who had actually done the move. If people want to be angry at the content of my post, or troll, or whatever, that's on them. I imagine there are people who will read this who actually want to know.

    Question part #1: why?

    # It was depressing to wake up every morning knowing that my tax money and support of the American economy was being used to effect morally unconscionable things such as killing people for no good reason. Furthermore, from the moment I realized this was happening, it was my responsibility to stop letting others use my money and resources this way.

    # I've learned that I've been lied to both about America itself, and America's role in the world, for my entire life through the television, school, and the work-sleep-die culture that persists there, and I'm angry about it.

    # It was frustrating to be forced to see, every day, so many of the people around me (and a few of them otherwise very intelligent) living in a quasi-reality that is based upon these lies, their indoctrination being so complete that it was impossible to communicate what I'd learned to them.

    # There are better places to live, and I believe I am now in one of them.

    # Most importantly, I became convinced that I and the other people in America who came to understand the problems and recognize the lies were powerless to fix the situation, in spite of the fairy tale image that is put forth in our culture about the nature of American democracy allowing individual heroes to rise up and save the day.

    Question part #2: how is it working out?

    So far it is working out fine. Part of that is in the details of how I was able to move. I'm a self-employed internet consultant and I have three years worth of business licenses to prove it, and Finland appears to like self employed people. In order to live here legally, I had to get a residence permit from the Finnish government, and in order to do that, I had to first get what is known as a "favorable" work permit opinion from them, which meant basically that I had to show that I could support myself here, either through having found a job that I was legally qualified for, or being self employed. Thorough documentation of my self-employment got me the 'favorable' decision on my work permit opinion, and everything else fell into place. Total money sent to Finland to get both things out of the way: $164 and couple passport-type photographs, and the application process took 6 months from beginning to end. The stuff is valid for 1 year, and I have to reapply each year until I can get citizenship.

    To get citizenship here, you have to live here legally for 5 years, and be able to speak one of the primary languages (Swedish or Finnish) when you apply. We'll see how that goes, as that is my plan for the future. Finnish is a very hard language to learn, btw, but within 5 years I hope to be able to get good enough.

    So I now live in the Helsinki area and continue to work for my American customers. So far it is working out fine. My rent for this 2 bedroom apartment is around 480 euro/month and it is a decent sized apartment. One does not need a car to do most things around here. Each road of any size has a huge sidewalk the size of a lane of road, and this is for both bicycle riders and pedestrians. City-maintained bike+pedestrian paths also cut through every imagineable area one could presume one might fit, and the ones that cut through the woods are used as ski trails when it snows. The area is an interesting combination of urban + suburb, there are woods everywhere but at the same time, it is a real city. This place is a jogger's dream come true, and people of all ages ride bicycles all over the place. Even old people ride bikes.

    P
  • by ksheff (2406) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:41PM (#10713633) Homepage

    Rich? It's hard to get richer than Bush.

    Not really. Cheney, Edwards, and Kerry are all richer than Bush. Much richer. [wsjclassroomedition.com]

  • by andrew_0812 (592089) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @02:46PM (#10713709)
    Fair in what way? Is it "fair" that I actually research the candidates' positions, watch the debates, and make informed decisions, but then my vote is countered by some idiot who votes the party line because his Dad did the same? Or some idiot who just thinks one candidate is better looking than the other? What's fair about that?

    Yes. That is fair. Each citizen of this country deserves a vote. How or whether they want to use it it their choice. Is it "fair" to try to counter this by poll exams like we used to have? No. What we need to do is try to get more people interested in politics. Regarding the party lines, I hate party politics and think that it does more harm to this country than many other things. I never vote party lines, I vote for the person that I think could do the job better and has ideas more in line with my own. Democrat, Republican, Whig, or Hullavoo. It doesn't matter.

    I think more people would be interested in voting and politics if we had a strict popular vote election. I know that I would feel that my vote counts more. It doesn't matter if I vote in Alabama right now, because Alabama is voting Republican regardless of my vote. My vote for bush is irrelavent, and my vote for Kerry does him no good whatsoever. This is not true democracy. The electoral college had its purpose when determining an exact popular vote would have taken too much time, and would have been extreemly difficult/impossible to ensure that the numbers received in Washington were exact. That time has passed. We already give exact figures for the popular vote. Spend time and effort into ensuring its exactness, drop the electoral college. Do everything else just as we already do it. Except concentrate on making it more robust, error-free, and verifiable.

    1 person, 1 vote. Democracy.
  • by mks113 (208282) <mksNO@SPAMkijabe.org> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:15PM (#10714191) Homepage Journal
    And South America, and Africa, and Europe, and Australia, and don't forget the rest of North America.

    Bush would get the vote of 15% of Canadians (McLean's poll), and we think most of them are in Alberta.

    Soudi Arabia is firmly in the Bush camp. Funny thing is, so is Israel. Apart from that, it is pretty much an anti-bush world.
  • by demachina (71715) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:17PM (#10714219)
    "Good lord. You can demonize conservatives as much as you want, but when Clinton won, nobody talked about civil war."

    Actually they did. The right wing and the House spent eight solid years trying to overthrow him and damn near succeeded. Only difference they were using Ken Starr and like a hundred of millions of our tax dollars as the weapon instead of guns. If they'd just been a little luckier, or had the power they have in congress now, they would have impeached him and thrown him in jail. It was for all intents and purposes a semi constitutional coup attempt, versus the actual coup the right wing used to dispose of JFK.

    Its easier to engage in a non violent civil war when you have power. Unfortunately at this point the left is real close to being completely powerless and following your guide probably will be in perpetuity.
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Informative)

    by tenaciousj (769989) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:17PM (#10714224)
    Hmm, let's take a look:

    Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon

    Yep, all deep south. Man you were right.
  • by egriebel (177065) * <edgriebel AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:22PM (#10714315) Journal
    today as a resident from another country I can tell you you "whiny left wingers" are the only americans for which we keep some respect.

    Well, let me be the first to commend you on your willingness to speak for the entire rest of the world. Hip-Hip-Hurrah!!

    It's nice to know that Americans don't have a corner on being pompous.

  • Unfortunately.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by drew (2081) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:31PM (#10714442) Homepage
    While this will at least save us from hordes of lawyers swarming around constant recounts, it won't save us from any Michael Moore crapumentaries.

    The part I find interesting is that the networks were ready to call Colorado for bush already fairly early last night. Bush is currently up by about 120,000 votes in Colorado (as of 12:00pm Nov 3rd) but Boulder county, one of the states largest heavily Democratic counties (over 300,000 people, not sure how many registered voters) has only reported 5% of its precincts vote so far. At the earliest they won't be done counting the regular ballots until this evening, after which there will still be early voting, provisional ballots, absentee ballots, etc. So while I'm not expecting Colorado to switch sides, (120,000 votes is a decent margin to overcome for a 300,000 person county- the Boulder precincts that have reported so far are about 2-1 for Kerry) if it does happen, Bush drops back below 270, even with Ohio, and we would be waiting on Iowa and New Mexico....
  • by swillden (191260) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @03:45PM (#10714655) Homepage Journal

    The only president to win the majority of the votes since 1988.

    This is true, but misleading. It implies that Bush got some sort of a strong mandate, when, in fact, he only got 6% more votes than Kerry. Clinton got 20% more than Dole in 1996, 15% more than Bush Sr. in 1992 and Bush Sr. got 17% more than Dukakis. The reason that this apparently significant statement is true is because Perot was a spoiler for the 1992 and 1996 elections, meaning that neither of the major party candidates was able to achieve a majority. In 2000 we had a race that was both insanely close (Gore got 1% more votes than Bush) and included a minor spoiler (Nader got almost 3 million votes)

    Since there were no significant spoilers this year (Nader only got around 400K), it's no surprise that the winner got a majority. A very, very thin majority, though. 51%.

    Bush won, and I'd probably rather have him than Kerry (I voted for a third party candidate, in protest), but no one should be claiming any kind of a decisive mandate.

  • by prell (584580) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:20PM (#10715179) Homepage

    I don't think a candidate for re-election would've stood a chance in committing what are, I'm starting to think, necessary atrocities. I'm thinking the war we've seen in iraq (thus far) has been nothing more than groundwork for a larger and startlingly brilliant campaign.

    They are atrocities, but they aren't necessary. The assault on Iraq has caused the federal government to fail its chief job: protecting the rights and security of the citizens of the United States. On 2001-09-11, we were counter-attacked for the actions we have taken in the middle east over at least the last 50 years. Among the most egregious of these actions are the overthrow of the democratically-elected leader of Iran in 1953; and the continued support of Israel in their fight against Palestine. In my view it is wrong to interfere in the affairs of these other countries. The goal of establishing democracy in Iraq stands vis-a-vis to the basic desire for self-determination that led the founders of the U.S. to establish a democracy in the first place. That is, it's not a question of whether we value democracy; it is a question of whether we value self determination. Even though we helped Saddam, this cycle must be stopped, and the pleas to emotional response stand as circumvention of reason rather than emphasis applied to it.

    Terrorists are born of the desperation and total disenfranchisement of a societal vacuum created by, for instance, a tyrannical government. When scorn metastasizes, it colors every interaction you make with your environment until it turns into violent predilections and eventually action. These actions are not misaligned; they always point at those they have directly experienced as being responsible. If your democratically-elected leader has been removed and replaced with a dictator, and you can identify the interloper, feelings of hatred and disenfranchisement cannot be denied. To this day the government of Iran bears a hatred for us, even going as far as joining in shouting "death to America" upon approval of laws that would further their nuclear weapons programs. That is the result of one action we took over half a century ago; the resentment burns even today, and if anything will calm it, it's certainly not the deja vu experienced when a geographically adjacent country is having its government altered by the same powers, especially when the instantiation of that power is an entirely different generation of people.

    The humbling and terrible power that can be exerted by the United States also causes tremendous aggravation to existing resentment in the region. When that power is utilized in a very efficient manner, the fear and desperation only increase. There is no reason to believe that we will not be attacked again. These possible attacks will definitely be executed in an environment of increased desperation, and symbolic targets may be eschewed in favor of something more relatable and frankly deadly to the general population and government of the target country. For example, these hypothesized attacks may take the form of an explosion of mustard or sarin gas or the explosion of a nuclear weapon. The attacks on 2001-09-11 were, from the viewpoint of the attackers, collectively a counter-attack on those who would not only interfere in their affairs, but do so in a chronic, increasingly invasive and virulent manner that does not -- and indeed cannot -- respond or even listen to the pleas of the actual indigenous peoples (rather than just the reviled and farcical leaders of the nations in this region).

    George Bush and John Kerry both extolled the virtues of the principal axioms, motives and reasons for the war in Iraq and the "war on terror." One major difference between them is their attitudes: while Bush initiated this war, probably as a result of the long-held desires of not only himself but also his administration and possibly his political party, Kerry supports it because he feels he must, or he won't win elected office. If either of these ma

  • by pavera (320634) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:37PM (#10715393) Homepage Journal
    I think this has alot more to do with Kerry not being able to get people excited than anything else. I'm a republican, and voted as such, however I seriously wanted someone else to vote for.

    I was ready a year ago to replace Bush, but the offering from the Democrats was so uninspiring to me that I couldn't do it. I don't want a guy who changes with the wind, votes for 30 years consistently saying one thing, and then the next day tries to pretend he never said that.

    If Kerry had come out and said "Yes I voted against all of those weapons systems because I think there are better ways to spend money (examples follow)", I would have respected that. As it is though he's just an empty cup that fills up with whatever rain water happens to be falling that day... and I can't get excited about that.

    It is something I like about Bush, politicians need to stop being afraid to piss people off, like the saying goes "If you're not on someone's shit list you're not doing anything important.."

    Kerry's constant pandering to whichever group of people he happened to be talking to at the moment was so fake and off-putting to me I couldn't bear the idea of him in office for 4 years.

    My wife who is a Democrat voted against Kerry, because like me she couldn't get excited about anything he said or did. We watched speeches from Bush, Edwards, and Kerry.. we would always be engaged and interested while Bush and Edwards were speaking, but as soon as Kerry would come on, we'd suddenly find that the lint between our toes was more interesting and find something else to do/watch/talk about.

    In short democrats, give us a decent, engaging, exciting and dynamic person who knows what he's talking about and can express it in a way that doesn't make me think I'm in history 101 and the professor is in a wheelchair explaining manifest destiny for the 18th time to the blonde morons in the front row.
  • Third. Kerry got 53,692,218 votes. In 1984, Ronald Reagan got 54,455,472.
  • by Kaseijin (766041) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:43PM (#10715500)
    Michigan: "The union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as marriage or similar union for any purpose." (emphasis mine)

    Ohio: "This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

    I'll let you fill in the other nine.
  • by evilviper (135110) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:50PM (#10715608) Journal
    Concession means nothing. Al Gore conceeded, then took it back minutes later.
  • by fritz1968 (569074) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @04:59PM (#10715758)
    I think it was George Washington who expressed his fear that the country should be divided not only along party lines, but also along geographical lines.

    Right you are. Take a look at this link for more information:
    http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac /49.htm [state.gov]

    I fund this paragraph most interesting:
    Two-thirds of the Address is devoted to domestic matters and the rise of political parties, and Washington set out his vision of what would make the United States a truly great nation. He called for men to put aside party and unite for the common good, an "American character" wholly free of foreign attachments. The United States must concentrate only on American interests, and while the country ought to be friendly and open its commerce to all nations, it should avoid becoming involved in foreign wars. Contrary to some opinion, Washington did not call for isolation, only the avoidance of entangling alliances. While he called for maintenance of the treaty with France signed during the American Revolution, the problems created by that treaty ought to be clear. The United States must "act for ourselves and not for others."
  • by Epi-man (59145) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @05:24PM (#10716096) Journal
    but I can fault 'Pubs for not knowing Bush was the wrong one. Why go with Bush again? Oh yeah, he hates fags.

    You obviously didn't have as good a Government teacher in school as I did. He covered this, it was called Garland's Law #3 (I think it was #3):

    The incumbant president shall receive his (her) party's nomination if he (she) asks for it.

    Think about this for 30 seconds. If they ask for it and the party selects someone else, then the party has to go to the American public and say something along the lines of, "yeah, ummm, thanks for electing our guy four years ago, but ummm, you messed up. This time we got it right, yeah, we really did, elect this guy." Think they would then win???
  • by neoseity (745599) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @05:40PM (#10716283)
    Truly informed about the world around you?

    First, last time I checked, there is currently a "backdoor draft" with regards to the military's "stop-loss" program to involuntarily extend enlistments. I believe there is cause for concern for American's being enlisted in the military involuntarily.

    Second, it's the "liberal media" showing sex and violence on satellite TV that is the motivating factor of terrorist acts?!? Where'd ya get that info? Did you ever think that it may have to do with the U.S. foreign policy and how the U.S. government and U.S. corporations conduct themselves throughout the world?
    Oh wait, I forgot, they hate us because we love freedom.
    Those silly Muslim masochists...

    Third, that liberal media is trying to say that the economy is bad, huh? Of course a $7.4 trillion debt and $500 billion deficit aren't anything to worry about down the road. We'll be able to pay that off from the new founded tourism from people in other nations with outsourced American jobs!

    Fourth, it's one thing to be liked or not liked. I don't always like other people I work with, but I still work with them. Unlike the Bush administration who, as with the Kyoto Protocol, just walks away instead of at least trying to work with the other nations toward something positive. Nope, their way or the highway, period. It's not a matter of world appeasement, but of cooperation. The Bush administration was going to war in Iraq no matter what the world had to say about it. It would seem their main issue was appeasement to the American public, not the UN. Their method of appeasement was deception and blatant lies. We impeached Clinton over lies under oath. Of course, that is much worse than lies to the American public and the world.

    Fifth, Bush's tax cut's didn't contribute to the deficit? What about the war in Iraq that we are footing the majority of the bill for?

    Finally, I guess some of us do listen to what "they" tell us, which is better than listening to what one single administration says and propagates.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @05:40PM (#10716287)
    It never ends as you still know state secrets that should not fall into the wrong hands.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @05:42PM (#10716303)
    The US is number 8 on the list ahead of most of Eupope aside from Scandinavia. What point are you trying to make?
  • by hendrix69 (683997) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @05:47PM (#10716367)
    That's an amazing fact, which I think says it all.
  • by Johnny Mnemonic (176043) <mdinsmore.gmail@com> on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @05:56PM (#10716480) Homepage Journal

    That was it, last night. Every election is a bloodless civil war.

    You're quite correct. It's truly the strength of a democracy.

    In all seriousness, continued attempts to start a bloddy one one are going to be met with overwhelming hostility. The solution to losing an election is not to start a war...And I agree with this too. We have differences, everyone had a chance to voice them, and more folks agreed with you than with me.

    However, the issue will come when the conduct of a free and fair election is tampered with. For instance: there was some talk a few months ago that Bush might "suspend" elections in the face of a terrorist attack. Then it's guns time--I celebrate our right to have elections, and since we could air our grievances and have them answered, what's fair is fair. But if that system is ever short-circuited, then there'll be hell to pay.

    Why this works is obvious: any frustrated Dem only has to look at the poll results to see clearly that the sides are evenly matched. 1/2 of the country is against the Dem war maker, which is a losing proposition. However, when elections are stopped ("suspended", whatever) then you run the risk of frustrating significantly more than 1/2 of the electorate--you might be frustrating 90% of the electorate. Then you could start a war and win. But as long as we can continue to verify that at least 1/2 of the country is against the position of the civil war-makers, I think we'll be ok :)
  • by ash (98519) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @06:26PM (#10716824)
    The US currently has military presence in almost 130 countries, deploying approximately a quarter of a million servicemen in support roles for combat, peacekeeping or deterrence. That doesn't include roughly 100,000 non-combat personnel in Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK.

    Your sarcasm blindly simplifies our current military operations to 2 countries. It also takes the common liberal spin on Afghanistan and Iraq. While Iraq continues to be the focus of terrorist attacks, they are also enjoying refurbished schools, utilities, road systems, and a host of other benefits lacking under Hussein. Most notably, an operating democratic government with scheduled elections and a leader who is not practicing genocide. Afghanistan has already had its elections--something you don't see heavily publicized.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @06:42PM (#10717043)
    The USA is rated 37th for the efficiency of its healthcare (quality of outcome per dollar spent). France is rated 1st.
  • by kindbud (90044) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @06:48PM (#10717128) Homepage
    George W. Bush, certainly is not the best president that we have ever had but he is OUR GOD DAMN MOTHER FUCKING LEADER, SO LISTEN WITH A LITTLE BIT OF DIGNITY TO WHAT HE SAYS.

    You forgot to stick your fingers in your ears and sing LA-LA-LA-LA-LA real loud.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @06:53PM (#10717185)
    Well lets see:

    1) Her anti-semetic "Jew Bastard" remark (look it up)
    2) Her support in 1998 in creating a Palestinian state (since revised)
    3) Her sudden allegiance to NY state for political purposes (she knew the liberals in NY would elect any liberal hungry for power)
    4) Her attempted creation of a "national healthcare" program during the Clinton years which was poorly thought out

    Basically she is a political opportunist carpetbagger, a fake, and comes across as a smarmy northeast snob to the rest of the country. Is that enough?
  • by Alsee (515537) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @07:15PM (#10717447) Homepage
    Yet another Bush vote based a lack of information or on false information deliberately spread by the administration. The majority of Bush supporters get the facts wrong. [pipa.org] They have been deceived by the administration.

    In fact the populations of the UK, Canada, and Mexico have had some of the most severe shift of oppinion AGINST the US. How the hell are we supposed to hunt down and catch or kill terrists now that Bush has alienated the entire world and lost virtally all international support? General public support and police support and intelligence agency support and military support.

    How the hell are we supposted to keep out terrorists when even Canada and Mexico have turned against us?

    BUSH IS BAD ON FIGHTING TERRORISTS because he has RUINED our international capacity to get at them and shut them down.

    Note that most people in the world don't know much about Kerry, they simply want Bush gone because he's a lying jackass, and because under Bush it's US acting like a rogue nation:
    Argentina 43% Kerry 6% Bush
    Bolivia 25% Kerry 16% Bush
    Brazil 57% Kerry 14% Bush
    Canada 61% Kerry 16% Bush
    China 52% Kerry 12% Bush
    Colombia 47% Kerry 26% Bush
    Czech Republic 42% Kerry 18% Bush
    Dominican Republic 51% Kerry 38% Bush
    England 47% Kerry 16% Bush
    France 64% Kerry 5% Bush
    Germany 74% Kerry 10% Bush
    Ghana 48% Kerry 24% Bush
    Indonesia 57% Kerry 34% Bush
    Italy 58% Kerry 14% Bush
    Japan 43% Kerry 23% Bush
    Kahzakhastan 40% Kerry Bush 12%
    Kenya 58% Kerry 25% Bush
    Mexico 38% Kerry 18% Bush
    Netherlands 63% Kerry 6% Bush
    Norway 74% Kerry 7% Bush
    Peru 37% Kerry 26% Bush
    Russia Kerry 20% Bush 10%
    South Africa 43% Kerry 29% Bush
    Spain 45% Kerry 7% Bush
    Sweden 58% Kerry 10% Bush
    Tanzania 44% Kerry 30% Bush
    Turkey 40% Kerry 25% Bush
    Uraguay 37% Kerry 5% Bush
    Venezuela 48% Kerry 22% Bush
    Zimbabwe 28% Kerry 6% Bush

    The administration is trying to use the "Oil for Food" to cover up world how WORLD oppinion has turned against us. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with oil for food. The fact is that the administraion lied in justifying the invasion of Iraq. The President KNEW the forged "yellowcake" uranium documents were bogus when he presented them. Our own intelligence KNEW the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for uranium enrichment. We KNEW there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam and Al Qaeda hate each other.

    The problem is that ever since the 9/11 attacks and our time of "unity and support", the Amercian media has been unable to effectively criticize the administration, to expose the lies deceptions and coverups. Immediately after 9/11 it was unthinkable to publish anythign that reflected badly on the US or the administration or the president. It was "unpatriotic" and "unamerican" and "divisive". That effect has certainly diminished since 9/11, but it is not gone. In fact that effect was reinvigorated when our troops were fighting in Afghanistan, and when our troops were fighting in Iraq.

    The Whitehouse has been deceiving the American public, and the US media has been failing in their job to adaquately inform the public about the facts.

    The international media has accurately covered the lies and deceptions of the administration, and accurately covered our appalling behaviour under Bush.

    -
  • Read this ... and shut the fuck up
    Very elegant indeed, but if you're going to make claims it's your responsibility to back them up. Now you have quite a nice map there, but lets look at the top 20 "needy" states: (http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm)

    (removed because of lameness filter SEE URL)

    Of these, I think that Oklahoma and Missouri qualify as "Midwest" states. Looking at the other end of the spectrum, the 20 most "generous" states:(http://www.nemw.org/fundsrank.htm)

    (removed because of lameness filter SEE URL)

    Of these I'd say Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsoin, Colodado, Minnesota, and my own state of Illinois would be considered midwest.

    Sure NY and CA give more than they get overall. There are many more people there and no matter how efficient a state is, there is a certain amount of overhead wether you have 200,000 people of 20 million. Let's look at the federal money spent per capita in the midwest versus your beloved NY and CA. (http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm)
    NY $6,733
    CA $5,878
    Midwest Avg. $5,614

    But, since you seem intent on claiming that you're dragging our good for nothing ass along for the ride, let's see what you're getting for that. If we look at the top trade surplus products in the US you'll see (http://www.ita.doc.gov/td/industry/otea/usfth/agg regate/H03T25.html) that in the top 5, only 2 have significantly increased their surplus in the last 4 years. Those would be Cereals and Cereal Perparation and Oil Seeds and Oleaginnous. Translated to "city speak" that would be cotton, wheat, corn, and soybeans.

    I think that you've made a very common mistake of "coast dwellers". You've confused the midwest with the south. Oh, and just in case your superior mind didn't catch them those things I placed in parens next to my claims, those are URIs and you'll find them very handy for backing up your point without making people search for them.

  • by Dr. Transparent (77005) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @08:11PM (#10718056) Homepage Journal
    Just a small clarification. There is not, nor has there ever been, a ban on stem cell research in the USA.

    The only "ban" (if you can call it that; it's just a refusal to pay) is a "ban" on federally funded stem cell research done by using new embryos.

    This has been a minor clarification. Thank you for your patience.

  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:2, Informative)

    by TonyGreene (6523) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @09:16PM (#10718651) Homepage
    Having one of the dumbest men to ever lead a country be _re-elected_ should scare the rest of the world. Sleep tight, don't let the WMD bite!

    Are you aware that Bush had a higher [grade point average | SAT score] than Kerry?

    --Tony
  • Re:Oh Canada! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gribflex (177733) on Wednesday November 03, 2004 @10:29PM (#10719178) Homepage
    Victoria. It's warmer than Toronto, and rains less than Vancouver.

    I wear sandals 300 days a year, and haven't worn a coat since I moved here. It's smaller than both Vancouver and Toronto, but it's big enough for most.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2004 @12:26AM (#10720032)
    Alas, your infinite wisdom supercedes mine.

    Apparently so.

    I didn't know that New York didn't have more electoral votes than Alaska.

    Population of Alaska, 2003 estimate: 648,818
    Population of New York, 2003 estimate: 19,190,115

    Electoral votes for Alaska: 3
    Electoral votes for New York: 31

    1 person's vote in Alaska is worth 1/216272 of an electoral vote.
    1 person's vote in New York is worth 1/619035 of an electoral vote.

    So if you move to Alaska from New York, your vote is worth about 3 times as much.
  • Re:Congratulations (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2004 @02:18AM (#10720708)
    As of this moment, http://www.drudgereport.com/ [drudgereport.com] has this on the top of the left-most column: Attorney General John Ashcroft 'plans to submit his resignation to Bush in the next several days'...

    Whether or not we can trust Drudge is another issue altogether, but there's a link for now ;) Also, I heard the same rumor on Fox News earlier in the evening suggesting that Mr. Ashcroft would be handing in his resignation this week.
  • by shadowspar (59136) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @02:42AM (#10720816) Homepage

    You might want to head over to Common Dreams [commondreams.org] and read Sarah Anderson's Ten Reasons Not to Move to Canada [commondreams.org], as well as Bryant Urstadt's Readers Guide to Expatriating on November 3rd [commondreams.org].

    Lefty Canadians like myself would love to have you, but it's important to think about whether jumping ship is a better alternative than staying on board and continuing to fight for what you believe in. And, for what it's worth, not all of us outside the US believe that everyone within supports the policies of the Administration. We might think little of your Government, but we still love you, even if a lot of your countrymen don't.

  • by n54 (807502) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:19AM (#10721211) Homepage Journal
    AC raises an important point in:
    "The US is number 8 on the list ahead of most of Eupope aside from Scandinavia. What point are you trying to make?"

    Some more info from a norwegian (me) in support of AC's scepticism against such lists:
    - Norway is high on the list largely because our enormous oil income have made us able to spend a lot on a "welfare state", as it is it is not sustainable
    - Denmark is high because they pay about 50% income tax (and that's not all forms of taxation)
    - all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have small populations, size does matter within system complexity
    - all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have generally high direct and indirect taxation, mostly on common individuals
    - all scandinavian (and nordic) countries have fairly serious problems sustaining their notion of a "welfare state" (and many in each country would say that the notion has in practice already died)

    I'm sure there are lot's of other things that could be listed as well. So the question becomes to what degree the UN has managed to compensate for such differences in each country throughout the world. It is obvious to me at least (as a norwegian) that they haven't taken all of the aforementioned into account and even if they did they suffer from all the problems of measuring intangibles as well which makes any such list more or less worthless for anything but political manipulation.
  • by N3WBI3 (595976) on Thursday November 04, 2004 @04:24PM (#10727587) Homepage
    Hmm lets see sates 'with access to the world'

    Sea ports in: VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, AK, OH (Via the St Lawerence Seaway),

    AirPorts in: Every other damn state in the Union I am willing to bet more come by air than come by sea.

    The Geography Thing breaks teh way is does because of the major urban Areas (look at a county break down instead of the state). Urban areas go Blue and Rural Areas go Red..

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2004 @05:04PM (#10728067)
    Dutch government admitted the mistake.
    In spite of this the prime minister and his cabinet resigned and left the office (even though they were very popular among citizens).

    Would Bush and his aides do that?

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo. - Andy Finkel, computer guy

Working...