収束ゾーンでのライフ: Life in the Convergence Zone

Don't give up the ship... It's not over til the fat lady sings... (yea, I've been watching it all evening as well)... right now, it all hinges on Ohio...

From:

And it's too late. Ohio's too much on the Bush side with not enough time left.

We're fucked.

From:

I'm not giving up hope yet... maybe not all the larger cities have reported in yet...

From:

snowwolf75.livejournal.com

97% precints reporting isn't encouraging.... however, he's holding at 269 votes according to Fox, so we might still be able to pull a Kerry out of the hat.

From:

Bush has picked up both Iowa and New Mexico, and may even pick up Nevada (way too close to call yet). He's well over 270.

From:

snowwolf75.livejournal.com

What's your source? CNN, FOX, and ABC all show him at a maximum of 269..

From:

Where do you get that Bush picked up Iowa? Iowa won't be known until later today, because of broken voting machines.

From:

Because with only 3 precincts left to count and over 99.9 percent of the vote in, he led with enough votes for those machines to not have any affect on the race. The only reason they didn't call Iowa for Bush was because of the bad exit polls.

From:

I don't think that Bush is going to come back to that amendment. I think that was more of a political move than anything else.

As for the state amendments, well I warned everyone that there would be a big backlash against the illegal gay marriages that a bunch of officials decided to do in violation of the law. The gay community should have come out very loudly against the Mayor of SF, and all the others who did what they did for their own political gain. If they had, these amendments probably wouldn't have even made the ballot. Also lets face it, that Supreme Court ruling was really well outside the jurisdiction of the case.

You have to realize that a large number of American's think of the radical fringe gay groups in places like San Franciso when they think of gays. Cause that's all they ever see on the news, and that is who is always out front. When they see judges making pro-gay laws from the bench (judicial fiat), and elected officials ignoring the law, they panic.

So gay marriage has been set back to square 1. If everyone keeps acting the way they have been, it's not going to get to square 2 in our lifetimes. Basically we need to jettison the radical gay fringe who makes us all look like a bunch of freaks!

You don't gain acceptance by freaking out the 'norms'.

From:

loopback.livejournal.com

you don't gain acceptance by pandering to the 'norms' either.

"they just aren't ready"

and they never will be ready until they are dragged, kicking and screaming, into the light.

see also the whole issue of mixed-race marriages which were illegal and opposed by a vast majority of americans until the courts 'legislated from the bench'.

but you're right! jettison that radical gay fringe! those freaky sideshow fuckers are the only reason you can't get your rights.

From:

A year ago before elected officials started performing illegal marriages the idea of Gay Marriage supposedly was okay with the majority. Now something like 70 percent oppose it.

What happened?

You can't drag people kicking and screaming when they can VOTE. And don't compare this to Blacks marrying Whites. It's not even on the same page.

From:

A year ago before elected officials started performing illegal marriages the idea of Gay Marriage supposedly was okay with the majority.

According to what? To whom?

You really think the illegally done marriages is all that "changed" people's minds? There are so many ignorant people out there that their minds were already closed enough for it to only solidify their irrational fears and prejudices.

No, the flamboyance of many people in the gay community doesn't help, but how many ignorant idiots out there only think of gays as being people who are only interested in trying to fuck them?

From:

Show me one well-done national poll that shows that a majority of Americans *ever* supported gay marriage (not civil union)

From:

That's what all the gay activists were claiming. Same for the news media. You telling me that they *gasp* lied to me?

From:

You have a habit of making very broad claims and then refusing to provide evidence. Specificallly *which* gay activists claimed that a majority of Americans supported gay marriage?

From:

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2003/07/25/2

Okay the numbers were smaller than I thought, but it was around 55 percent who were oppsed to it, versus the 70 percent I think it is we have now.

Still, the numbers have gotten a lot worse. Here is a Jersey poll
http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20030808/opinion/70899.shtml

This tracks the changing results: http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=39

But the facts are, Bush is going to be re-elected. If Gay marriage is going to happen, then someone needs to start a campaign to make it happen, and one that does it by addressing fears, not raising them.

From:

Whatever the case, there was never a majority in the country in favor of gay marriage.

Nice try.

From:

Let's look at the Pew Forum source you provided. It shows that the percentage supporting gay marriage went from 38% to 32%.

That's certainly a drop, but there's a HUGE difference between a 6 point drop and claiming that a majority supported gay marriage and now 70% oppose it.

From:

Uh-huh. Like gay activists really knew what the majority of the country was thinking.

If you have proof of it, show it. Otherwise, stop.

From:

I love the way that Banner uses a supposed factoid (gay marriage had popular support at one point) to support his point and when it's challenged he immediately starts assigning this factoid to "gay activists" and "the news media."

So does he really believe this supposed factoid? And if not, then why use it as a support for his position?

From:

http://www.allianceforsamesexmarriage.org/polls.htm

From:

Still not a majority in support of gay marriage there, either.

From:

According to that website 49% supported gay marriage at one point. They're a little light on information, they don't have any specifics on the wording so it's hard to understand the context or how valid it is.

But to prove your point you'd have to show the same survey, with the same sampling and wording, gay marriage support dropped from 49% to 30%. You can't pick one survey for the before and a different one for the after.

So just be clear, do *you* believe that a majority of Americans once supported gay marriage?

From:

solarbird

A year ago before elected officials started performing illegal marriages the idea of Gay Marriage supposedly was okay with the majority. Now something like 70 percent oppose it.
I don't know where the hell you got that number, but it's not close to any number I ever saw.

There has never been a majority - or close to it - in this country. Certainly not in the modern era.

From:

ysabel.livejournal.com

And don't compare this to Blacks marrying Whites. It's not even on the same page.

Why not?

Seems damn near identical to me, and the arguments being used against gay marriage are word-for-word the same as the ones used during the interracial marriage furor.

From:

This sounds surprisingly similar to what conservatives said during the struggles for integration and voting rights for African-Americans during the 1950/60s.

"Don't rock the boat, don't ask for too much, don't associate with those radicals and if you're good and quiet eventually the masses will decide to give you your rights."

From:

Funny, it was the conservatives who passed the voting rights acts.

From:

Really? Conservatives like LBJ? Specifically which conservatives are you talking about?

From:

avram

As I recall, Banner has the bad habit of using the word “conservative” as a rough synonym for “libertarian”.

From:

wrog

For those "libertarians" I know who seem more than happy to let slide the social side of things (which appears to be most of them), the "conservative" adjective is wholly appropriate as far as I could tell.

That is, if you've got someone who is

is willing to overlook anti-abortion/anti-gay-rights/pro-drugwar zealotry in order to vote for someone who fights for corporate property rights or gun rights,
is far more bothered by high taxes and social programs than s/he is about civil-rights violations and government sponsorship of religion

what do you call this person other than "conservative"?

From:

What really irks me is the number of people I talked to last night that DIDN'T bother to vote, and said "I would have voted for Kerry, but what would it matter? One vote doesnt matter much." UH hello? Wake up people! One vote may not make much difference, but how many millions (esp. in states like Ohio or Florida) have said the same thing, and didn't bother to vote? People piss me off. Ah well, if Shrub wins this one, which seems likely, maybe we'll be lucky and he'll die in office. At least he won't be able to run again in '08, unless he finds some way of amending that law.

From:

bloolark.livejournal.com

Do you really want Cheney as President? I think I'd prefer Bush living out this term.

From: