Fox calls Ohio for Bush!

It's over...

Published on November 3, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

FoxNews has just called Ohio to Bush.

That essentially means it's over. Bush has won.

Comments (Page 3)

GreenReaper

on Nov 03, 2004

He should be, there's certainly been enough sins in the last few years for someone to die for . . .

_Martin_

on Nov 03, 2004

I'd just be happy if you had a sensible voting system!

Island Dog

on Nov 03, 2004

This is the same President that drove away all of the allies that stood beside us in Afganistan, who brought us into a war that the UN has declared illegal, and that has every European country hating us again (even the UK, as Tony Blair is NEVER going to be reelected even by his own party.

The U.N. has no credibility to declare anything. Saddam had the French, Russians, and the U.N. in it's pockets. That's why they objected to the war.

Oh the poor european countries are going to hate us. How many people actually care?

Dr Guy

on Nov 03, 2004

I suppose people get the government they deserve and the land of free has become a land of bible and all the pastors must be feeeling that chrst has come again

Guess that makes you wrong and jealous. Wrong because our constitution works, and jealous, because your system is not worth worm spit.
ROFL

joe_black

on Nov 03, 2004

No mate I'm not jealous at all I feel sad for the country of USA and its people and wonder what Washington would have thought of all this.....If u claim to be a superpower u should elect someone able to lead not some texas cowboy who fails to learn from his mstakes and consults with priests before announcing his candidature.

Surj

on Nov 03, 2004

i hope they wait till all the votes are counted in Ohio (absentee and such), and yes I voted for Bush

Vecctor

on Nov 03, 2004

Reply By: joe_blackPosted: Wednesday, November 03, 2004

No mate I'm not jealous at all I feel sad for the country of USA and its people and wonder what Washington would have thought of all this.....If u claim to be a superpower u should elect someone able to lead not some texas cowboy who fails to learn from his mstakes and consults with priests before announcing his candidature.

You seem to forget something very important in your comments. First of all Washington would probably be fine with this election - the candidate with the most votes won - plain and simple. If you are referring to Bush's religious beliefs - I will remind you that all the founding fathers were devout christians - so I imagine they would be fine with that too. Why do you want them to be godless? Does that make them better? Looks like prejudice in the other direction.

Funy you should mention Washington specifically though. Here is a very famous painting of him: Link Notice anything?

God Bless Bush

on Nov 03, 2004

I'm lucky enough to be in the top 5% that will float up in the next four years. I feel sorry for the rest of you, but oh well

davad70

on Nov 03, 2004

I will remind you that all the founding fathers were devout christians - so I imagine they would be fine with that too.

George Washington's diaries indicate that he rarely attended church. There is quite a bit of evidence that indicates that he was a Deist. He even once appointed appointed a Universalist who denied the existence of hell, to be an army chaplain. That's definitely not something a "devout christian" would do.

Thomas Jefferson went to far as to produce a revised New Testament that omitted any references to Christ's miracles and portrayed Jesus Christ as just an extraordinary man who in the end, was just a man, not the son of God.

Benjamin Franklin clearly stated on several occasions that he was a Deist.

And last but not least....James Madison, who is often regarded as the father of the Constitution once wrote;

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

So Vecctor....which founding fathers are you referring to that were "devout christians"?

Vecctor

on Nov 04, 2004

Excuse me - "religious" - does that make you happy?

The point was that praying or any other religious act does not automatically make you "bad" (or whatever) as joe_black so eloquently put it in the quote I have there. Many liberals seem to think religion just shouldn't have much of a place in people's lives and, as you saw above, choose to make fun of Bush for it. I apologize if I mispoke in calling them "devout christians", but they have religious believes, it had a place in their lives, and it had an effect on them and their decisions. The same it true for GW, so my main point (that washington would be fine with it) stands up to reason. Thanks for the info though, I have friends of several different religions and this would be an interesting conversation peice to further research.

EDIT: I was just re-reading that Madison quote and I agree totally. Any religion as a government institution is a bad idea in my opinion. But it is still referring to the "legal establishment of Christianity" and not personal beliefs. I would never advocate any sort of government sanctioned religion (and the founding fathers clearly didn't), but denigrating individuals for having religious beliefs is another matter entirely.

Mitch21

on Nov 04, 2004

"that he was a Deist."

Correct me if I am wrong, but Deists are Christians too.

davad70

on Nov 04, 2004

There are major differences between Christianity and Deism. There is a really good site that contrasts the two and atheism. http://www.deism.com/deism_vs.htm
I'm not really into debating politics too much, but it bothers me a lot when people justify religious values being merged with policies such as abortion, stem cell research, etc by stating that the founding fathers built this country on christian ideals. Almost all of the founding fathers were Deists and the few that professed to being christans didn't lead the lives of christians.

Vecctor

on Nov 04, 2004

but it bothers me a lot when people justify religious values being merged with policies such as abortion, stem cell research, etc

I was not doing this

But strictly speaking abortion does not have to be a religious issue (same with those others). It can be simply a moral one or a belief in personal responsibility. I know an atheist that is not enthused about abortion. Relegion does not equal ultra-morality any more than lack of religion equals ultra-immorality.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!