On this day, let us all be proud of America

what of the bigotry against us atheists perpetrated by the religious zealots? You seem to ignore that.Quite frankly, any claim of atheistic secular fundamentalist bigotry and intolerance toward the religious is ridiculous, because it largely does not exist. We don't care what you believe, but we do care if you try to shove religion down our throats. By the way, being intolerant of intolerance is not a bad thing.And if you're referring to efforts to keep state and church separate, well, perhaps you would like to have the state point cannons at your cathedral? Or perhaps you would prefer to have the Iranian theocracy in charge?

from the text of the speech: And I did hear him say "-and non-believers". Can always re-watch the speech if you want. Give it a few hours and it will show up on youtube, and places like the nytimes or other news orgs will have it.Certainly nice to hear not just someone, but the President, recognize that we exist, and that we are a part of this country.

Interesting point. What do you consider a landslide?In the 109th Congress (last with GOP majority in both chambers) there were:
Senate: 55 GOP, 44 DEM, 1 IND
House: 232 GOP, 201 DEM, 1 IND (this is the initial count, not the end count, which would be 229 GOP, 202 DEM).In the 110th Congress:
Senate: 49 GOP, 49 DEM, 1 IND (at end, it was 49 GOP, 48 DEM, 2 IND)
House: 202 GOP, 233 DEM (end count, 198 GOP, 235 DEM)In the 111th Congress (currently sitting):
Senate: 41 GOP, 57 DEM*, 2 IND
House: 178 GOP, 256 DEM.*Assuming it's Franken who has won, and it certainly seems as if Coleman's options are very limited, so chances are that Franken is the winner.In order to retake the majority in the senate, the GOP needs to gain 9 seats. There are very few elections in which that many seats change hands. Although this past one was close, with the dems gaining 7. And as of now (per 538.com), the 2010 senate elections do not look good for the GOP. You might gain some seats, but not enough to change the balance of power.The situation is worse in the House. The dems over two elections have added 55 seats. A majority in the House is 218 seats, so the GOP would have to win 40 seats in order to get their majority back.In other words, the GOP has to pull of electoral victories greater than what the dems did over the past two elections (singularly and combined) to regain their majorities.Will some ground be made? Most likely--the rule of thumb is that midterm elections are not kind to the president's party. But rarely are they massive landslides. I'm not even sure that the country going down the shitter would help the GOP. After all, in the mind of the electorate, all the problems inherited by Obama are the result of 1)Bush, so Obama's not at fault and 2)the GOP in general. Two years of rule by the dems is not going to make them forget, and unless the GOP can come up with new solutions, and that the dems have made it worse, it's going to be a relatively bland year. I'm not sure if the GOP can come up with new solutions yet, because so far not a single one has presented anything different. Further, it seems that a good portion of people are willing to give Obama time to fix the problems. They know it's not going to be quick and easy.So, where do you see the landslide coming from?

Oh Buz, how wonderful of you. First, to your dismay perhaps, Alan Keyes was never really a serious candidate for the GOP nomination in 1996. Seems like 2000 was a better year for him. He got all of 3% of the vote in the primaries and all of 1 delegates to the 1996 GOP convention. Which means he did better than half the pack, but not even close to Steve Forbes (11%, 2d).How does Keyes compare to the democratic party? Well, you have the Rev. Jesse Jackson in 1988. He was the second place nominee in the democratic convention (Dukakis winning 2,876 delegates and Jackson 1,218). Further, during the primary campaign he managed to win 11 elections (7 primaries, 4 caucuses) and almost 7 million votes. Apparently, he was for a brief while the frontrunner in the democratic primary campaign.But neither Keyes nor Jackson were presidential candidates. They were campaigning to be the nominees of their respective parties for that position. So unless you wrote in his name, you never voted for Keyes as a presidential candidate.The rest of your post is perfectly parodied by Taz up thread.

I'm sorry, what I said is not a strawman. You claimed to have voted for a black presidential candidate well before any of us, and touted Alan Keyes as your example.What I showed, is that while you may certainly have voted for Alan Keyes in 1996, he was never a presidential candidate. He was a candidate for the nomination of the GOP to become president. The GOP never nominated him to be thei presidential candidate. He never ran as an independent either. So your claim of voting for a black presidential candidate before anyone else is false, because Barack Obama was the first black presidential candidate.And if it has nothing to do with race, why do you bring up this up?

Unfortunately for you, I don't think the situation in 2010 will be similar to 1994.For starters, Clinton was elected with a plurality of the vote (true, he had a greater EV count than Obama, but his popular vote was 43%, compared to Obama's 53%. Much easier to swing the country against Clinton when he did not get a majority of the popular vote.But aside from that, let's look at the Senate election specifically. The GOP won 8 seats, right? 6 of those seats were open, with no incumbents running. Incumbents are generally very hard to beat. As of now, the GOP has 4 open seats (Kansas, Missouri, Florida, and Ohio). The democrats have no open seats to defend. Another consideration is the number of seats to defend. In 1994, the dems had to defend 22 seats to the GOP's 13. Much easier to defend, and gain, when you have fewer seats to defend than the opposing party. In 2010, the dems will have to defend 17, the GOP 19 (assuming nothing changes in the interim and Salazar and Clinton are confirmed). So it's pretty even across the board. In order to take back the senate, the GOP would have to win 28 elections (hold all 19 of their seats, plus the 9 to bring them to 50). And unlike the 1994 election, the GOP has to defend more seats than the dems do.The current dem hold on the senate is stronger than it was after 1992, so you're going to need a more phenomenal performance than in 1994.The House elections are a touch trickier, but the current dem control is equivalent to what it was leading into 1994. Here's the thing, though. In 1994, the republicans took control over a 40 year majority rule by the dems in the House. Return to dem control occurred a mere 12 years later, and by 2010, will have been in dem hands for 4 years. The GOP also had this thing called the Contract with America that spelled out what their plans were for the country, which may have been partly responsible for their commanding victory. Perhaps more responsible was the national cohesion--the GOP ran a national election instead of the typical district by district case. Last time that happened was in 1918. Further, the House landslide was predicated partly by perceptions of democratic corruption, which, funnily enough, is what helped do the GOP in in 2006. Sure, the dems still have corrupt members (I know you're going to call out Rangel), but the question is overall perception of corruption. And right now, I think its the GOP who has that taint (a la Stevens).And with the economic malaise still being the fault of the republican leadership, unless the GOP can convince us that they have policies that will work better than the dem policies, I don't see how there will be a landslide, never mind a loss of majority status in either chamber.

Well, by your reasoning, I would be Swedish. I should not be considered an American (my mother is Swedish). Or I would be half-Swedish, half-American.But how do I identify myself? Quite frankly, as an American.So why would you call me Swedish?Obama identifies himself as black. The black community, it would seem, accepts him as black. That's what he is.And really, this whole argument is ridiculous. To misquote you, Why are you making such a big deal out of his biracialness?

Being in Sweden does not make one Swedish. Commenting on what Swedes do does not make one Swedish. By blood I am half swedish, by citizenship, I am dual. But that does not make me culturally a swede. Having been born and raised in the US, I identify as an American first. I'm not claiming any special benefits because I'm swedish, but then, the US hasn't exactly persecuted swedes like it has native americans (nothing more than a sanctioned policy of genocide for a long time) or african americans (hello, slavery?). The US hasn't persecuted swedes at all, to my knowledge. But if you want to insult the swedish accent when spoken in english, I will simply point out that the swedes know english better than we do. Oh, and actually know a foreign language or two. Now we're getting somewhere. You're pissed because you think Obama was elected because he's black. Because we all felt guilty over having enslaved black people. That because he's black, we looked past his shortcomings. Or perhaps, Obama earned his inauguration. Like every other president. By convincing the public that he would be the better candidate. And so far, it seems like he's doing a pretty good job (I'm counting transition here).The only qualifications to become president are those laid out in the constitution. 35 years old, resident of the country for 14, born in the country. That's it. Every president has met those qualifications. Beyond that, the people of this country decide who they think will do a better job. Or, the least worse job. You may think he's the most unqualified person. But quite frankly, you would have probably thought the same of Lincoln (4 years state-house rep, 2 years US rep) or many other presidents who were elected. I tend to think that Bush was one of the most unqualified elected, so I may well ask you: how did a frat-boy with a president for a father get elected?

Um, okay, you are glad that everybody* is ignorant? Because that's what you said. I don't have an issue with normal, as normality is completely relative and it's not all it's cracked up to be, but if you meant it derogatorily, well. But you're happy people are ignorant? That's just sad.*just about, as it seems the only group you left out are whites who have been here for more than a generation, but it depends on what you meant by european-american

Ah yes, let's trust the military.Here's an idea. If they know better over who is innocent and who is guilty, why not just let them be in charge of the entire US court system. Better yet, since they know who is guilty, why not just toss out the court system? What would be the motive of a southern justice system convicting an innocent black for the crime of a white man? How do you know the black man is innocent? Do the NAACP or the ACLU have documentation proving this?You know, there's this concept that you may have heard of. Innocent until proven guilty. You do not have to show proof of innocence (unless, of course, the evidence of guilt is quite good). You have to show proof of guilt. Why do you presume the detainees held at Gitmo and the other secret and not-so secret prisons as guilty? Hardly any of them have been brought to trial to have the evidence heard, so how do you know they are guilty? How many prisoners each year in the states are wrongly convicted? How many have been?So the question is, how do you know they are guilty?You remind me of Bill O'Reilly, who just recently said that he disagreed with Obama. In Obama's inaugural address he said that{paraphrased} "we reject as false the choice between our safety and our liberty" and that we should not compromise our values to safeguard our freedoms. Good 'ole Bill said that yes, we do have to compromise our values to safeguard our freedoms at times. Um, you do realize that those freedoms are our values, right? You are so convinced that the terrorists want to destroy our very way of life, which includes this little thing known as rule of law, civil and human liberties, general freedom, our very constitution, that you are willing to destroy the constitution, our freedoms and liberties, the rule of law, to protect us. Well, gee, I guess the terrorist won then, as you managed to destroy the very thing they sought to destroy.These people may not care about the value of life. They may want to destroy everything associated with the US. They may wish for the entire world to follow their Islamic sect. Whatever their goals, their method is fear. And once you have given into that fear, you have lost, you have surrendered, given up the fight. I, for one, plan on living my life as I have, not giving them satisfaction of surrendering to my fear.As one last parting shot:Al-Qeada, for the most part, back John McCain. Seems they really don't like the idea of an Obama administration. Why is that? You're so convinced Obama's going to lose this "war" against terrorism. If he is, why is Al-Qeada acting as it is? This is largely rhetorical here, as I don't feel like finding the appropriate thread right now, and if one doesn't exist, I'll start it later.

Tiny point I want to make. There's this amendment, known as the 14th. It says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."In other words, if you are on american soil, you have american rights. It is not just citizens who are protected by the constitution and our laws.Subbie should probably clarify this, but Gitmo is leased by the US (indefinitely), and according to treaties, it falls under US jurisdiction. Which means that persons there (not just American citizens) have their rights protected and guaranteed.I suppose now you'll argue for the repeal of the 14th? Although, you could be like Artemis Entreri and argue that the 14th is invalid, but as proved in an older thread, that's a bullshit argument.

He's been using AI for Amnesty International (I mention this for your use of army intelligence in an earlier post). So when he accuses you of drinking their kool-aid (a powdered drink mix in the states that is really quite crappy), he is simply using a derogatory phrase. It means you've bought into positions, even if those positions happen to be right, and the phrase is used in conjunction with orgs or persons the user disagrees with. It also generally means the user thinks you are crazy.I had never heard the phrase used until this presidential election, specifically the Barack Obama kool-aid.

Good. So I guess we can get rid of the 3rd amendment? Thank you for overturning one of the most cherished basis of american law; the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven.Go fuck yourself, Buz. I don't see how anyone could hate american freedoms as much as you do, since you seem hellbent on destroying them all in the name of temporary physical security. I don't see how anyone could hate america as much as you do, since those freedoms are what make this country what it is. Go join your buddy bin Laden at the gates of hell.

No, I meant the 3rd. The 2nd guarantees the right to bear arms. The 3rd is an odd amendment--no soldiers may be quartered in private residences. I'm not aware of any other country having such a prohibition in their constitution, but then, I'm only familiar with the US constitution.If buz is so fond of the military providing for our safety, why not have them in your very home? Let's station a soldier or two in every home across the country to protect us, eh?Granted, eliminating the 2nd so that only the military had weapons would be a help toward this end.

He wouldn't, because you're British (or at least, currently living in the UK).Now if you were a frenchie, that would be a different matter all together. Those ungrateful bastards never thanked us for saving their skins from Hitler.It's clear that Buz completely misunderstands the "war on terror" when he mentiond one of the things we should be protecting is american institutions and yet he's okay violating those same institutions to protect the rest.Of course, if he gave a damn about the welfare of the american people he might support universal health care, but hey, poor people should die because they're too lazy to become wealthy.