And he actually has a majority approval rating too. I was getting a little worried before, but it looks like the Republican convention showcasing moderates was more popular than the Democrat convention showcasing Kennedys. I'm even more suprised since that idiot McCain criticized Miller as being too imflammatory, now I'm only 95% sure I would vote for him if he ran in '08.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Damn... stoopid Bush...
NOW they are trying to get me and the other gay folk here in Michigan. They just put the gay marriage ban on the ballot, for the state constitution. But it's not just marriage, it also will ban civil unions and partner benefits and a bunch of other things. This is a personal battle... Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I live in Michigan, and heard about this. The Election Board had been deadlocked about allowing the gay marriage ban to be placed on the ballot, which was really a partisan failure to do their job, since there were abundant signatures to put the measure on the ballot. The Court had to intervene and overrule the Election Board.
Since this proposal is strongly backed by conservatives, this will likely bring more conservatives out to vote, which will obviously benefit the Republicans in general.
The second thing the Court did was overrule the deadlocked Election Board again and allow Ralph Nader to be placed on the ballot. Democrats fought bitterly with every trick they could muster to prevent this, because Nader will probably draw 2% to 3% of voters away from Kerry. But ample signatures were collected to force placing Nader on the ballot, and the Election Board again was playing partisan politics.
Up to now, estimates of how battleground states were leaning had Michigan very slightly favoring Kerry. But with the gay marriage ban on the ballot to attract more conservative voters to the polls, and with Nader on the ballot to draw votes away from Kerry, that could be more than enough to tilt Michigan towards Bush.
Of course, this all may be moot, in view of the Newsweek poll after the Republican National Convention, that shows Bush has opened up an 11% lead. It is assumed that Bush got an excellent "bounce" coming out of the extended campaign ad that was the RNC, despite the fact that Kerry got virtually no bounce following the DNC. But whether the lead Bush has opened up is a result of bounce after the convention, or is just a continuation of the momentum that began for Bush a couple of weeks before the RNC, is hard to say. It may even be that the failure of Kerry to get a bounce after his convention was because it was swallowed up by the growing momentum for Bush.
If this trend continues, we may have a repeat of the Reagan-McGovern election, where the only state the democratic candidate carried was Massachusetts.
In view of the growing Bush lead, we can expect desperation and more direct, personal attacks by Kerry against Bush and Cheney. All Bush has to do is maintain an even keel, look and talk presidential, and continue as he has all along to make no personal attack against Kerry, insisting he does not question Kerry's patriotism or his military service. Bush has never made that an issue, only Kerry. Kerry's hysterical attempt to pin the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ads on Bush will continue to fall flat as Bush continues to repudiate them and call for an end to unrestrained funding for advertising by all such "527" groups.
There is something else very important to watch out for. Unless Kerry can pull out a miracle in the debates (and Bush now has nothing to lose by limiting them to as few as possible), at some point other democratic candidates across the country are going to see Kerry's declining poll numbers, and decide they need to try to distance themselves as much as possible from the Kerry campaign, and start encouraging voters to split their tickets. Otherwise democratic candidates for office on all levels--federal, state, and local--are going to be pulled down with Kerry.
When this happens, when other democrats begin abandoning ship--and it could happen after the first debate, and could conceivably happen even before the first debate if Bush's momentum in the polls continues and he opens up a wide enough lead--we will know the Kerry campaign is truly over.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Kerry's hysterical attempt to pin the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ads on Bush will continue to fall flat as Bush continues to repudiate them and call for an end to unrestrained funding for advertising by all such "527" groups.
Riiiight.
They had nothing to do with it..just ask McCain.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They just put the gay marriage ban on the ballot, for the state constitution. But it's not just marriage, it also will ban civil unions and partner benefits and a bunch of other things.
OK, I'm against such an amendment on general principle. But there's no way people who call themselves conservative should be supporting the bolded portion. They've got this law in Virginia as well, which bans private companies from giving benefits to whomever the private company wants to.
No matter what your take is on the place of marriage in society, there's no reason to tell someone else that they can't pay for someone else's health insurance.
Dagonee
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Right on Dag!
Aside from the Michigan Gay Marriage issue (which Telp has opened a new thread on), what do you guys think accounts for Bush's incredible push?
You know my theory. I thought Bush gave an amazing speech and in general, the Republicans ran a great convention.
Does anyone else have different theories on this?
Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
I'm glad to hear that some conservatives would oppose this, Dag, but I think you're really in the minority.
Most people I know would support this in a heartbeat. Most people I know supported the boycott of Disney when they started offering partner benefits.
I've never believed that most conservatives want less government. They really want more of their own type of government. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, it's what everyone really wants. It just bothers me when they claim otherwise.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Does anyone have a link to an audio or video stream (or file) of this speech? All this talk of how good it was and I'm feeling left out! We don't get cable or broadcast in my apartment (something to do with the TV) so I'm totally cut off from everything but NPR and internet news.
You can see all the big speaches there.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
People might be interested in the NYT opinion pages shortly after the speech. Some excellent points, particularly on the editorial staff opinion (the first link):
I'm conservative and I would see no harm in completely legalizing gay marriage. Isn't conservatism less government after all?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Not nowadays.
Now, if you're Republican, you're "neo-conservative" -- the "neo" tossed in there because it sounds cooler to types that would be impressed by it, and because "imperial fascism" takes longer to spell.
Essentially, if you're Republican, you're effectively against civil liberties, world unification, and government regulation and oversight of business. It's not all negatives, though -- you're also fanatically for Israel, the reasons for which include another "pro" of neoconservatism, the intermingling of church (read: fundamentalist Protestantism) and state. As the strongest country in the world, we have the right to do (read: invade) whomever we will, and shouldn't involve ourselves with the rest of the world we're not currently seizing control over.
Conservatives are for smaller government and a controlled budget. I see why neo-conservatives, while retaining traditional elements of conservatism like gay-hating, needed their own definition.
[/rant]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well you're just a bright little ray of sunshine there Lalo.
I'd call myself conservitive, certainly not Republican though, I'm not convinced those two were ever synamous, but I guess I wouldn't really know.
Thanks for the link.
Hobbes Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Lalo, you can't say that I'm not a conservative because in you're opinion Republicans are really these neo-cons who hate everyone. If you're trying to make me change parties you're not, you're just pushing me away, pushing me toward the Republican party, and that is why, more than anything else I am a Republican. Democrats pushed me so far away by calling me all these nasty things that I decided to effectively join a group that wanted to bring me in.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Ah. So if I name the Republican party's objectives and you don't like them, you'll go into furious denial.
I think I now understand your preferred party affiliation.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Essentially, if you're Republican, you're effectively against civil liberties, world unification, and government regulation and oversight of business. It's not all negatives, though -- you're also fanatically for Israel, the reasons for which include another "pro" of neoconservatism, the intermingling of church (read: fundamentalist Protestantism) and state. As the strongest country in the world, we have the right to do (read: invade) whomever we will, and shouldn't involve ourselves with the rest of the world we're not currently seizing control over.
Gee, I must have missed the part of the Republican National Convention where they proclaimed all these things. Furthermore, it is understood that you can be a Republican and not agree with all of its official platforms, this being officially addressed by the delegates.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Essentially, if you're Republican, you're effectively against civil liberties, world unification, and government regulation and oversight of business.
Hey, Lalo, is it OK if I say, "Essentially, if you're Democrat, you're in favor of killing babies, surrendering our sovereignty to foreign powers, and communism"?
Or would you maybe prefer if we all spoke rationally. 'Cause I got to tell you, there's a lot of BS being posted nowadays that makes me want to jump down in the mud and start slingin' it.
Dagonee
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Yep, I've pretty much always been a Democrat, but the party that was supposed to be all-inclusive does seem to be more and more exclusive every day. At this point, if Edwards wasn't on the ticket, the Dems wouldn't stand a chance of getting my vote for president.
But let's see, what has made me feel unwelcome by the party I've always supported before?
Simply having religious beliefs.
My belief in the Right to Life.
That I believe in giving gay folks the same rights straight ones do, but that I'd rather not have to deal with anyone else's sex life, straight or gay. I'd rather see each one as just another person.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Aaaaaaaaah!
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think what might account for Bush's jump is that recently he's been sounding a lot better in general. Maybe this is just me, and I've only begun reading the news on a regular basis a few weeks ago; but Bush sounds like he knows what he's doing: He seems to be backing off on foreign aggression, he seems to have a plan to counter terrorism that is much more convincing than killing every terrorist out there individually, and he has moderated his stance on the enviroment although he claims he hasn't in order to keep the anti-enviromentalist (I'm sure this has a nicer name I don't know) vote. It seems to me like all of these would be things that would appeal to swing voters who dislike Kerry, and just disagree with Bush on one or two issues.
These aren't my opinions, just some things that have stuck out at me recently.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Those were some good editorials that hit the nail right on the head!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Turns out that as political acceptance speeches go, it was pretty typical: heavy on vague promises, light on facts.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Interesting article Fugu. I hope people keep this in mind on election day:
quote: [Bush] took some license in telling Americans that Democratic opponent John Kerry "is running on a platform of increasing taxes."
Kerry would, in fact, raise taxes on the richest Americans but as part of a plan to keep the Bush tax cuts for everyone else and even cut some of them more.
That's not a tax-increase platform any more than Bush's plan for private retirement accounts is a platform to reduce Social Security benefits.
Kerry should also jump on this:
quote: Nowhere did Bush mention bin Laden, nor did he account for the replacement of killed and captured al al-Qaida leaders by others.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I still find it somewhat amusing that NFL thinks she can figure out the Republican party platform from watching their convention, when in fact they went to great lengths to NOT discuss their platform at that convention. Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
In my opinion, political conventions are just big pep-rallys designed to whip up the faithful and sway impressionable voters. I can't imagine deciding who to vote for based on a political convention. In the case of Bush, I (and everyone else in this country) have had four years to watch him as president. He's definitely a "known quantity" already. Living in N. Carolina, I already know quite a bit about Edwards as well (as in, he never makes roll call in the Senate).
The little I did watch of both conventions was a waste of my time and at times even a little tasteless--for example: the Black Eyed Peas (grabbing their crotches at the DNC) and the Bush sisters (attempting stand-up at the RNC).
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
so they poll 1500 hundred people to find out how 100,000,000 are going to vote?
hahahahahaha
that's funny!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Thor, I don't think you quite understand statistics . However, this does not mean said poll was accurate, just that its possible to make reasonably significant findings with a sample of that size, no matter the total population.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Thor, that's why they have a margin of error. In this case 4%. So the worst case scenario is that Bush is only up my 7 points.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
nfl's female? Dang... I thought I was better at telling if people are male or female >.<
Why is it I never get polled in any of these surveys?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Actually Lalo in much of the South, democrats are more conservative than Republicans.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Uhhh, no Syn, I'm not, I just don't feel like responding to Tom's bait.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Most people I know would support this in a heartbeat. Most people I know supported the boycott of Disney when they started offering partner benefits.
There's a big difference between exercising your right to not support a company that does something you don't like and supporting a law that says they cannot do what you don't like.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
NFL, the margin of error isn't on the difference, its on the totals, so they could be as close as 3% and be within the margin of error.
Note also that they are not necessarily within the margin of error, just that if the study is set up correctly, then there is a high probability they are within the margin of error (likely 95% or 98%, I'm not certain what confidence they like for political surveys).
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: NFL, the margin of error isn't on the difference, its on the totals, so they could be as close as 3% and be within the margin of error.
I had really thought that it was the other way around, but I admit I could be wrong. I'll have to check.
In theory they could randomly survey and happen to randomly get 1000 Bush supporters, but within reason...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sorry. For some reason, I've always thought you were female. But it wasn't bait, either; I DO think it's strange that you think what the Republican Convention put forward is their platform, when in fact the Republican platform is nothing like what you saw at the convention.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've predicted from the start that Kerry is doomed because he is a senator, and it takes a miracle for a senator to beat out a governor. Still, I feel bad for Edwards. He could have pulled off such a miracle if Kerry hadn't led the Dems down the garden path.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Oh, ok... then my senses are fairly accurate... cool. Now, how can I get included in these polls? I'll tell them a thing or two. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:I've predicted from the start that Kerry is doomed because he is a senator, and it takes a miracle for a senator to beat out a governor
Not only a senator, but a senator from the NORTH. The only Democrats to win the presidency in the past 40 years have been Southerners.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Vera wrote:
quote: I've never believed that most conservatives want less government. They really want more of their own type of government. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, it's what everyone really wants. It just bothers me when they claim otherwise.
Just because you believe you know what we want doesn't mean you do. But just in case you're right, would you be a dear and email me later with other things I believe? I thought I already knew, but I can see now that I need your wisdom to set me straight.
Lalo wrote:
quote: Essentially, if you're Republican, you're effectively against civil liberties,
Hmm.. Nope. I'm all for civil liberties--but perhaps that term is a little too vague. For instance, I'm not in favor of many of the actions of the ACLU.
quote:world unification,
Yes. I am against that. Sue me for taking pride in my country. I'm sure other people in other countries would never feel the same way about their home.
quote:and government regulation and oversight of business.
Hmmm... Are those two separate things? In any case, I'm against both of those things to an extent. More against federal government regulation in general. And yes, against oversite of business by federal government as well. However, I do believe in government guidelines, especially regarding fair treatment of workers.
quote:It's not all negatives, though
Interesting. I think they're all positive.
quote: -- you're also fanatically for Israel,
Hmm. I didn't realize this about myself. I do sympathize with the Israel cause and am against the other side. But I suppose bombings and killings just make me cranky. I think it would be much more accurate to say that all democrats are fanatically for Islam. But I realize that all/nothing always/never comments are ridiculous.
quote:the reasons for which include another "pro" of neoconservatism, the intermingling of church (read: fundamentalist Protestantism) and state.
This is where I am fanatical. I'm am fanatically AGAINST a mix of church and state--WHATEVER that church is. Take schools, anyone in a position of authority, such as teachers and principals, should show discretion in talking about their beliefs. Students, however, may talk about whatever they wish. They may have religious study groups after school or before school, they may pray together at lunch or during breaks, they may speak boldly and freely about what they believe.
My beliefs here apply to ALL religious beliefs. In fact, I even apply it to secular humanism. I don't believe that just because religion isn't supposed to be preached in school that it's okay to preach the absence or religion or God.
quote: As the strongest country in the world, we have the right to do (read: invade) whomever we will,
Well, I do believe we ought to have a legitimate cause, but I don't think we'll ever agree on WHAT that could be.
quote:and shouldn't involve ourselves with the rest of the world we're not currently seizing control over.
Oh... is there some country out there asking for our help? Do they want us around? What do you propose?
quote:Conservatives are for smaller government and a controlled budget.
I'm confused--are you saying these are bad things or good things? I'd make one change--smaller FEDERAL government.
quote:I see why neo-conservatives, while retaining traditional elements of conservatism like gay-hating, needed their own definition.
I'm confused again. Were you describing neo-conservatives or republicans? Oh wait... those are the same thing...so why would the neo's need their own definition if there is no difference?
Oh, and by the way, thinking that procreative marriage should be protected does not mean that one hates gay people. I don't. I suppose some people do.
So, in conclusion, thanks for trying to tell me what I believe. I appreciate the effort on your parts to try to enlighten me. You really don't have to waste your time trying to tell me how what I believe is wrong--unless you're really moved to do so. I just thought I'd clarify a few things for you. I think I'm a little better qualified to comment on what I believe.
It is a good lesson, though. Now I need to reverse the lesson and apply it to my assumptions that all democrats must, as Dagonee suggested, be "in favor of killing babies, surrendering our sovereignty to foreign powers, and communism."
There. Haven't we all learned something?
-Katarain
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
A correction to my earlier post: it was Nixon vs. McGovern in 1972 when the democratic candidate only carried Massachusetts.
It was almost as bad in the Reagan-Mondale contest in 1984. Mondale only carried Minnesota and the District of Columbia.
Oh, shtuf it, Lalo. I'm glad you know everything about me. I hate old people, for instance. I eat grandmothers for supper -- and during the day, I take out a rifle and shoot black people.
Yep, that's me. After all, that's how all republicans/right wingers are...
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Yeesh. If it weren't clear I was, to use Dag's words, mud-slinging, I'm well aware the neo-conservative currently controlling the Republican party does not, bizarrely enough, speak for every member of the Republican party.
That said, clever responses like this one to Vera:
quote: quote: ------------------------------------------------------- I've never believed that most conservatives want less government. They really want more of their own type of government. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, it's what everyone really wants. It just bothers me when they claim otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------
Just because you believe you know what we want doesn't mean you do. But just in case you're right, would you be a dear and email me later with other things I believe? I thought I already knew, but I can see now that I need your wisdom to set me straight.
aren't quite as witty as you'd think. Proper language would claim the ideology, not the members of that ideology, prefer smaller government -- but somehow I think you understand her meaning.
Though I'm intrigued as to how opposing world unification and intervention in genocides is "taking pride in my country." Much less how opposing homosexual equality is that laughably obnoxious euphemism "protecting procreative marriage." (Are you in danger of going sterile if my friends can marry?) But you're just so witty I'm afraid I'd lose any argument against such biting humor and keen insight -- I think I'll back out of this one and wonder how many more people will oh-so-cleverly leap on my improper attribution of Republican party goals to individual members of that party.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
But if Iraqis are slaughtering Kurds using chemical weapons we had best let them alone.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: But you're just so witty I'm afraid I'd lose any argument against such biting humor and keen insight -- I think I'll back out of this one and wonder how many more people will oh-so-cleverly leap on my improper attribution of Republican party goals to individual members of that party.
I'm glad you're finally seeing the light.
-Katarain
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
[ September 05, 2004, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So, let's repeat our mistakes right?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
If anyone wants to know why so many moderates that used to lean to the Democrats are now moving their support to the Republicans, they should pay great attention to Lalo's posts.
So much venom, so much disdain, so much neo-bigotry.
As the fringe gets louder and louder in the Democratic party, and looks more and more for new witches to burn, it's no doubt that they are driving away what used to be the strength of the Democratic party -- the common person.
Let's face it, the common person doesn't want religion taught in public schools, but they also don't want to be restricted in their own practice of the religion of their choosing.
The common person would like for the environment to be cleaner, so their children can grow up healthy, but they also know that they have to put gas in the tanks of their cars so they can get to work.
The common person would like for the US to be cautious in entering any foreign conflict, because it is their children whose lives will be on the line. They need a good reason to place our precious lives on the line for people in another country.
The common person probably could care less whether Michael and John down the street have been in a steady, strong relationship for the past 10 years, because they just see them as neighbors. They probably would feel very bad, and even provide help, if Michael got sick and John's medical insurance couldn't be used to help him. But on the same side, they probably feel pretty uncomfortable when their children see some of the wilder parts of the average Gay Pride parade.
The common person has no choice but to pay their taxes and generally has huge problems with the fact that most corporations get a free ride. They also have a problem when their tax money goes to social programs that just aren't working.
The common person really would like to see the economies improve in the poorer countries of the world, and they feel for the poor parents trying to raise children in those places. But they also fear that their own jobs could be shipped overseas at any time now.
The common person just wants to live their life, have some security, raise their children in a safe and supportive environment and live out their retirement with few worries.
Right now, the Republican are doing a much better job of portraying that possibility. And they aren't constantly calling the common folk sheep, bigots, or war-mongers.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
quote:If anyone wants to know why so many moderates that used to lean to the Democrats are now moving their support to the Republicans, they should pay great attention to Lalo's posts.
Lalo is not the poster child for our party. OK, we use his sexy picture, but we don't let him speak during the convention. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"As the fringe gets louder and louder in the Democratic party..."
Are you suggesting that the fringe is not getting louder and louder in the Republican Party? Because, y'know, from where I'm standing, I'd hate to think that the amount of loathing some Republicans radiate -- like, say, Ann Coulter -- is the mainstream. But she sells pretty well among you folks.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:If anyone wants to know why so many moderates that used to lean to the Democrats are now moving their support to the Republicans, they should pay great attention to Lalo's posts.
So much venom, so much disdain, so much neo-bigotry.
Beg pardon?
What venom and disdain and neo-bigotry are you talking about? Is there any way I can ask you to cite examples?
Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
Sopwith,
quote:The common person just wants to live their life, have some security, raise their children in a safe and supportive environment and live out their retirement with few worries.
Noble goals. But you see how that's a little centered on me, me, and me, especially when the government has authority over we, we and we. The extent to which this common person turns inwards, she becomes a threat to everyone else, especially when she engages in public action.
For this to be a little less scary, all you need to do is add four words, "The common person just wants everyone to be able to live their lives, have some security, raise their children in a safe productive environment with few worries."
The problem with public policy based on private interests is that it's contingent, as in, it could just as easily be the case that I'm not in your family, in which case, you won't have any compunction about rogering me with a pick-ax as long as someone can convince you that it'll further help you to an easy retirement. It's corruption in the public process.
And a little bit scary to some of us who've been given it but good. ____
Ron, the race was either Nixon and McGovern or Reagan and Carter or Reagan and Mondale.
[ September 08, 2004, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: Snowden ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:For this to be a little less scary, all you need to do is add four words, "The common person just wants everyone to be able to live their lives, have some security, raise their children in a safe productive environment with few worries."
The problem with public policy based on private interests is that it's contingent, as in, it could just as easily be the case that I'm not in your family, in which case, you won't have any compunction about rogering me with a pick-ax as long as someone can convince you that it'll further help you to an easy retirement. It's corruption in the public process.
Spot on.
Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
Thanks, Sara, there is just a sense of giving everything its due.
When you vote for the city-wide elections, concern yourself with the city affairs. When you vote for the state-wide elections, concern yourself with the state affairs. And when you vote for a national office, concern yourself with the national affairs, and the extent to which our national affairs involves blowing up people in other nations, you are obliged to consider foreign affairs, also. Same with the city and other cities and states with other states. (btw, that's why sloppiness with respect to international trade is going to leave a legacy as complex as slavery in the US did.)
That's the only way this works and preserves trust, and a world without trust is a world as degrading as it is dangerous, just look at wives who worry about their husband cheating on them. The husband can give them flowers or cars or houses or diamonds or anything, but if she is constantly worried about him whoring around, that narrows her soul, putting her into the hands of an opulent misery.
This is where Clinton lost a lot of America, even before he lied about Monica, but after we all knew he had trouble being faithful. Clinton understood the big trusts of government but he didn't understand the little ones, and if he didn't understand the little ones then maybe he didn't understand human dignity or political power. _______________________
If you are interested, this is inspired by a little Heidegger, a little Arendt, a little Montesquieu, and then what tied it all together was when I was thinking about Alcoholics Anonymous. When you sign up for AA, you get God and a Sponsor. If everything good and bad in the world is everything good and bad in us as individuals, we are redeemed by our ability to bind with the good parts of other people to defeat what is bad in us as an individual. That's why you need the Sponsor, so that you two can pool all of your angels together in order to trumph an individual's demons. Without trust, we are all on our own and impotent to boot. I imagine the same works with tax dollars.
[ September 08, 2004, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Snowden ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
"But if Iraqis are slaughtering Kurds using chemical weapons we had best let them alone."
- NFL
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Saddam gas the Kurds BEFORE the gulf war?????
So George Bush I, was at saddam's doorstep, after repelling his kuwait invasion, with the Kurd evidence and chose NOT to take out Saddam when no one would have batted an eye lash, right?
The Bush family decide 10 years later to correct the Bush family mistake right?????
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
You like to use a lot of question marks...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So George Bush I, was at saddam's doorstep, after repelling his kuwait invasion, with the Kurd evidence and chose NOT to take out Saddam when no one would have batted an eye lash, right?
Actually, a lot of people would have batted eyelashes, which is why GHWB didn't do it. So he doesn't bear sole repsonsibility for not pushing ahead - the members of the coalition whose wishes he bowed to share that responsibility equally.
Dagonee
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I have long faulted George Bush I (a.k.a. president 41) for not sending the tanks on to Baghdad, but more recently I learned his reason why: He had put together a coalition including most Islamic nations in the region, PROMISING THEM THAT HE WOULD NOT INVADE IRAQ. If he had sent the tanks on to Baghdad, he would have broken his word, the word on which he based much of his coalition-building.
Strategically, it was still dumb not to take out Saddam Hussein when he had the chance, but morally, it is important for America as led by the American president, to keep his word in such a matter. The long range consequences of breaking his word would have been bad strategically, too.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Personally, I would have sent the coalition home once Kuwait was liberated then taken the remaining members like the UK and Austrailia into Baghdad. Regardless we can't take the attitude that once the mistake is made we shouldn't correct it.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Strategically, it was still dumb not to take out Saddam Hussein when he had the chance, but morally, it is important for America as led by the American president, to keep his word in such a matter.
Which is why we didn't do much "coalition-building" this time.
Personally, the thought that the majority of voters in this country are so stupid that they would actually vote that moron back into office depresses me to no end. I don't know what I'll do with myself if it actually happens. Between Darfur, Chechnya/Russia, and the election polls, this weekend has just depressed the hell out of me and reaffirmed my disgust with humans. Y'all suck. God, I hate the fact that I'm one of you.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
That's pretty mean language, Kayla. It's what we call "not nice wording." The solution is a two week vacation to Hawaii -- you'd best start packing right now. Your condition could be serious and you probably want to solve it at the root.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Therein lies the dilemma, Phanto. Should I take out as many as possible, or just myself? That's where I always get stuck. Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I kind of feel the same, exact way, Kayla...
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Man, Kayla, I can't be a citizen of a country that would re-elect Bush Jr as its primary representative. I just can't. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, then, democracy is doomed.
Seriously, one of the responsibilities of living in a democracry is accepting the outcomes of elections. Another is working to change things (at least voters' minds) when you're not happy with those outcomes.
I've seen the general unwillingness of the common citizens to compromise, to accept the outcomes of the system knowing they can change next election.
"If my candidate loses I'm leaving" is just as unhelpful as "If you don't like it, move to Canada." Neither one acknowledges that even in landslides a huge number of people did not want the government in power to win.
Edit: This is especially disheartening from people I consider thoughtful, intelligent, and well-meaning.
Dagonee
[ September 06, 2004, 10:33 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Dag, were I younger and less prone to depression than I am in my crotchety old age, I'd be backing you with flags flying.
I'm just too tired and stretched too thin with what I have to do with my life. I'm serious, not grandstanding. Really. I don't think I can be happy and effective when every day I have to deal with the jerking winces of being reminded that this is, fundamentally, who I am.
I want to be happy. I don't want things to be easy -- I'm cool with working hard, making sacrifices, paying taxes, delaying gratification. But to be an American after that event would feel like being a missionary for a religion I didn't believe in. Look, I was cool with Reagan, even though I opposed him, and I was fine with giving Bush Jr a try at the reins. But re-electing a guy that is waging unfounded war on another country, under international opposition, for untrue reasons, and then allowing the Patriot Act through to muffle critique from within?
(I know, I know, my Republican and/or conservative friends may disagree with the points, but man, that is what it looks like to me, and people who would support that just can't be my people. Seriously. And it aches to come to that conclusion for myself, but there it is. It couldn't be home for me again, anymore than Germany could be home again for my ancestors who left. It was no longer their homeland in the heart, so they made a new life. )
quote:Seriously, one of the responsibilities of living in a democracry is accepting the outcomes of elections. Another is working to change things (at least voters' minds) when you're not happy with those outcomes.
Note, love, that this is no easy decision for me. But I'm pretty sure I can't be effective working in this system anymore, and just as sure that I could be effective working in some others.
[ September 06, 2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
See, I've often come close to thinking the same thing because of the abortion issue, so I can see where you're coming from. It's just depressing.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Dagonee, look: I was born here, but the culture doesn't make sense to me.
I don't get sports (a basic of American culture), despite having made a study of the history and fans of baseball as an institution.
I'm not religious.
I believe in healthcare as a basic component of community life, essential for the exercise of other rights -- so I am firmly (stupifyingly) pro-nationalization of healthcare provision.
I don't want to amass wealth. In fact, I actively avoid it.
I view capitalism with suspicion as much as approval.
Why, exactly, am I American? An accident of birth? It sure as heck isn't because this is the only country where freedom is valued and nurtured, or where there is a free press, or where community obligation is as important as personal liberty, or where there is equal opportunity. It is, really, an accident of birth -- which wouldn't matter so much except for the invading another country and squelching opposition from within part.
Thinking the way I do, believing the way I do, feeling the way I do ... do you really want me as a citizen of your country? Because I can pretty much guarantee that if I stay under this current administrationship, I'll be chewing my own hands off at the wrist and crying up at the ceiling every night. I can't stand it.
It offends my sense of decency and morality, and it is contrary to my nature. Shouldn't I be happy, shouldn't I feel like I belong, especially if I can't be effective in changing things to be better for myself?
[Edit: Yeah, very depressing. I hear you, too. For me it feels like a gazillion facets of daily life are also screaming "you don't belong," as well as the big one. Arrgh. ]
[ September 06, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I get all that. That doesn't make it any less depressing. I guess the divide in this country really has gotten insurmountable.
The irony is, except for the sports, many of those issues serve to make me feel like I don't belong, despite the fact that we likely have very different views on them.
Dagonee
[ September 06, 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I guess the divide in this country really has gotten insurmountable.
Maybe for some, maybe not for others. Time will tell as it always does.
Me, I'm sniffing around for pediatric work up North (the license has some transferability, and I can always barista my way around for awhile), and Dave has maintained his research connections. We'll see.
[ September 06, 2004, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
So, can you tutor me in Sports? I promise not to talk politics.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
College football: watch a young up-and-coming team called the Virginia Cavaliers. Whenever the fans cheer at a home game, yell "Go Hoos!" Whenever the fans boo at an away game, yell "Go Hoos!" Whenever the team in blue has the ball and the ref raises both arms over his head, sing "The Good Old Song" to the tune of Auld Lang Zyne. If anyone asks anything meaningful, say, "As long as we beat the Hokies the season will be a success." If you ever go to see a game, dress up in a nice floral dress (guys where kahkis and blue blazer with striped tie). Drink beer or wine.
There, you know as much as any self-respecting UVA fan.
Any other sport: Complain about how you can't wait for college football season.
Dagonee
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Okay, the overview really does help.
But here's the kicker: why?
Is it for the bewildering sense of going through motions and making sounds you have no intrinsic reason to do? 'Cause I already got that down pat. I can fake it like Sally at the diner, but it's the "wanting to" part I'm sticking on.
I did enjoy the holy trinity of baseball movies (Bull Durham, Field of Dreams, and For Love of the Game), but more for the quotes than the actual playtime. "Well, I believe in the soul, the [male anatomic reference], the [female anatomic reference], the small of a woman's back. The hanging curveball. High fiber, good scotch. That the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent, overrated crap ..."
And I liked Remember the Titans, but mostly for the Motown rhythm & booms.
I'm trying, Dag, I really am. It's sort of funny, but it sort of isn't, you know?
[ September 07, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I will admit that my first impulse was to say something nasty like "well fine! Leave!" when I has just skimmed your posts, Sara. Then I read all of them and I really felt for you. (I'm being sincere, here. It's so hard to tell in a text medium, so I'll just tell you.) It is NOT nice to feel so alienated from your own country.
Take heart, though. You are not alone. I'm over here on the other side of the fence (hopefully close to the center--maybe not), and I've felt the same alienation many times when I watch television. And I'm not talking about the news, here. I'm just talking about various programs where celebrities that I really liked start attacking my viewpoints. (Jeanene Garafalo (sp??), for example, called anybody who would support Bush stupid--not an exact quote, hers was much more volatile.) I'll admit, it puts me on edge, it gets under my skin, it makes me cranky--it makes me want to argue with democrats... (sorry! ) I felt personally insulted and silenced all at the same time, because I wasn't able to explain my side... *shrugs*
I guess my point here is that even though there might be a slight majority right now in favor of Bush, there are still a LOT of Kerry supporters, or at least Bush haters. And often, they have the louder voice. I read the numbers of the polls and know a lot of common people are Bush supporters, but it doesn't change the fact that I still FEEL alienated by my "link" to the rest of the nation. Does what I'm saying make sense??
I think what is so often lost in political debates is the belief that the other side is NOT populated by nothing but morons. We think it about your side, your side thinks it about our side---it's ridiculous! There are all sorts of people on both sides, and whatever their IQ, there are specific issues that really matter to them and their lives and that is probably what they base their votes on. Some issues are more important to you, while other issues are more important to me. It doesn't make you or me a BAD or STUPID person if we disagree. Maybe the environment is important to me, so that would make me want to vote democratic, but something else on the republican side may be way MORE important to me, so I make a sacrifice and vote republican, and, hopefully, try to do what I can to push an environmental change anyway.
I guess that's just a long way of saying we don't agree with EVERYTHING on either party side. There are good people on both sides. And as much as we may get upset by the other side just NOT seeing the light, we NEED each other. Because I'm not right about everything, and neither are you. That's the whole point of our system in America, isn't it? Hopefully in our republic, sometimes you'll win and sometimes I'll win--and sometimes someone else will win! And hopefully that will keep us somewhere in the middle... sometimes bad things will happen, but we've gotta hope that more good happens than bad.
So stay, okay? If only because this country needs your voice and the voices of others that you have taught.
-Katarain
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There's no reason to try to be interested in something you're not. I use sports as a reason to get together with friends. If I'm bored with them, I don't bother. But sometimes the stories surrounding a team are interesting.
And if you think we're bad, wait until the World Cup comes around in another country. Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
Sports work on two levels, distinction among equals and excellence in determination.
Distinction among equals is healthy, it's good natured, deep down, I think that's what drives the love of a good game, from tee-ball to the Olympics. You appreciate the hustle and the hard work. That's why all forms of cheating are looked down upon and ruin the game. Everyone is just a regular person and both teams are equal.
The second, and completely seperate, is excellence with respect to the field, any field, from Jon Stewart in fake news to Lance Armstrong in cycling.
When you put those together, a fair competition which displays the most excellent atheletes, therein is the acme of sport. _________
I went to a baptist church last weekend to speak about a proposition floating around California. I hadn't been to church in about 6 years, but my friend is a Union man and they are pushing for a Health Care initiative, and they needed people to go into churches and say a few words.
So I went to church, and I was struck. Not by the majesty of the service or the praise to Jesus as the savior, but by something else. The congregation seemed poor and it was definitely black and above and beyond praising Jesus Christ, I think they were there for each other. It was beautiful. It was like a talent show, and nobody was that talented. The service was 2 and a half hours long, and thoroughly uplifting if for no other reason than I got the feeling that these people were being seen.
They all so desperately needed to be seen, and church was where they could be seen. A woman went and spoke about her son in prison and another about her given herself too often to violence, and about the sadness of the youth killng each other in the streets-- most of the congregation was made up of women about my mother's age-- but what struck me was the desperate dignity that was attached to being seen at church. As if they appeared in life only one day a week.
It got me thinking. I'm the same way. There I was speaking at this church because if I don't get up in front of some sort of audience every six months or so, I get depressed and a little dehumanized. This Sunday I went to a Catholic mass and gave the same speech, but the energy was different. That first church was where the good work was done. It gave those good people purpose and pride.
There are a lot of people in a lot of ways of life who never get seen. And if that's all that sports and church do for communities, then bless them.
Sara, I cryed my eyes out during "For the Love of the Game." I still don't know why.
[ September 08, 2004, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Snowden ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Baseball looks boring to someone who doesn't know all the details, that's why it's a sport you're raised on by your father (or mother), because for a time it can be something you enjoy with you're Dad, and then you learn it when you're old enough and it becomes fun in it's own right.
When you know enough, you can get incredibly agitaited or excited by the fact that the center-fielder is playing 15 feet off of his center mark, or that short is playing deep when you think they should be trying to hit the double play. And almost nothing will ever reach the fervor you're emotions run to when the third baseman plays back with the bases loaded and two outs, trying to keep the ball in the infield, and the batter tries a squeeze. Baseball is a beautiful thing.
Hobbes Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Katarain, thanks. Especially for the reading it through part -- hard to do when you feel so differently, but your real concern does show through.
quote:I will admit that my first impulse was to say something nasty like "well fine! Leave!" when I has just skimmed your posts, Sara.
I know. I could hear the basic response before I wrote it. But for what it's worth, this wasn't a threat -- just an aching, lingering realization. More along leaving a forwarding address note than something shouted from a picket line.
Ouch. It really does hurt.
quote:I'll admit, it puts me on edge, it gets under my skin, it makes me cranky--it makes me want to argue with democrats... (sorry! )
No worries. *smile
quote:I read the numbers of the polls and know a lot of common people are Bush supporters, but it doesn't change the fact that I still FEEL alienated by my "link" to the rest of the nation. Does what I'm saying make sense??
Yep. I hear you.
quote:I think what is so often lost in political debates is the belief that the other side is NOT populated by nothing but morons.
Hatrack has done wonders for me in correcting this. Thank goodness.
quote:We think it about your side, your side thinks it about our side---it's ridiculous! ... There are good people on both sides. And as much as we may get upset by the other side just NOT seeing the light, we NEED each other. Because I'm not right about everything, and neither are you. That's the whole point of our system in America, isn't it? Hopefully in our republic, sometimes you'll win and sometimes I'll win--and sometimes someone else will win!
Katarain, I hope this comes out right, because it sure as heck might not. I promise I mean this sincerely, though. For me, it isn't about "sides" and about "winning," but about feeling at home, like I can make a difference. And (this will sound snarky, but I'm not feeling that way, I promise), that isn't what just "America" is about, but it's what "democracy" is about, and the US isn't the only democracy. If I work hard and strive to be a decent person in a culture that starts off with more in common with me than not, it just feels like I could maybe be a little more at peace. Not rest easy, not give up -- just not end up fighting an uphill battle just to get through the day.
quote:So stay, okay? If only because this country needs your voice and the voices of others that you have taught.
Sweetie, you'll still hear my voice, both here at Hatrack and professionally where I can. But I might lay my head down at night someplace that feels more like my place, that's all.
I don't know. It's no light decision. But I'm thinking about it, as I feel more drained out each day. I feel like very old cushion padding, the kind that is crumbly and broken-up rather than fresh and springy.
Maybe I just need a good night's sleep. Never make big decisions in the middle of the night!
Gah, I didn't mean to depress three people. Let's place a moratorium on this for now and discuss it again in October, okay?
[ September 07, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
It's not the highest good, it's not even close, but the spectacle of people trying to make something of themselves and trying to do better is uplifting, and if folks use church or a good game to get that from each other, then so be it.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Thanks Irami, Hobbes, Dag, and of course Katarain. Have a good night. I've read this all and I promise to reread it and think on it a lot more in the next few weeks. I'll do your words justice, I promise.
(Irami, I understand that after reading it. Thank you.)
Posted by Snowden (Member # 1660) on :
Does your husband know about us? I mean, I got to tell you we're in trouble. We're in a family way. Yep, I'm pregnant.
It's not a child, as I don't have a womb, but you've put so much clear-sighted kindness and warmth in my head and heart that you've gotten me knocked up with all sorts of ideas about health care and sass. You are a ripple maker of the highest order, and I don't know if there is much better than that in my estimation.
[ September 07, 2004, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Snowden ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Now you got me laughing, Snowden boy, and if it weren't for the icepick of pain through my left eye, I'd have ta give you some more lip just to make you happy.
I have to go sleep, though. Wranglin' out my life has given my a migraine, despite your delightfully infectious warmth. Have a good night's sleep, my friend.
Maybe baseball as church, huh? Sounds like Costner material to me. *still laughing, now with hiccups
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To be honest, Sara, I don't think you're going to find what you're looking for over the border, either. The grass is always greener, y'know?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Has the Patriot Act muffled critiscism from within?
If so, can you explain how Fahrenheit 911 got through?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I'm not interested in justifying my decisions, really, though the above might seem to counter that. It was musing, mainly for me, and it really makes little difference to anyone else here, given the nature of Hatrack.
Edit: now that sounds snarky, but it isn't meant to be. I am mostly interested in very small things, the little interactions of a day that add up over time.
This is not grass-greener stuff, Tom:
When I practice in Canada, I do not have to spend a literal 40% of office time in paperwork, phone calls, and patient conversations about justifying care decisions for insurance companies. Instead, the notes I make are for me and for other physicians, in order to enhanch care. Canadian physicians spend about 5-10% of office time on paperwork.
(Do I expect to be freed from pointless bureaucracy, to have every moment be happy and productive? No. Do I think there are no problems with the Canadian system? No, I know them well both from within and from without -- I practiced there for some time. Do I think the amount of difference this would make would be significant to me? Absolutely.)
I'm not religious, I don't attend church, and my Sundays are for me and mine. Here, most of the population is religious, and there is a general presumption that morality must be anchored in religious belief. I only confront this directly in my life maybe once or so a month, other than at Hatrack (that is, in reading, conversation, advertising), but I'm reminded of it on Rapture bumper stickers daily and on each Sunday market visit. I can choose not to open those threads at Hatrack, but I can't choose quite as freely in the larger world.
(Do I want my neighbors to feel bad about decorating their cars with their faith? No. Do I want others not to dress up for church? No. Do I want them not to attend church? No. I want them to be happy, too -- I just want to be elsewhere while they do it.)
I want to walk down city streets without seeing as great a division between rich and poor, ever-widening, and I am reminded of this at least every other day, as it underlies so much of the news in the papers I read. I really do hear a constant chiming of guilt in my head. I'm a physician, I see disease, and I'm angry that many of those I see can't access the services I hold most dear.
(Are there other problems than illness and lack of health care? Yes. Is it all my responsibility? Of course not. Does it still hammer away at my sense of obligation, over and over and over again? Of course.)
I want to see my governing administration held accountable, to see answers posed directly: to live in a world with a Question Period, rather than relying on a fake news anchorman to pose those questions (which is sort of satisfying, but in a hollow -- and ultimately unanswered and thereby fruitless -- way). This comes up at least every day. It gnaws away at my sense of security and comfort. It makes me feel like a child, not a citizen.
(Do I believe Canada to be free of political corruption? Heck, no. Do I think that there will still be frustration, anger, and outrage in being involved with the political process there? Yes, I do. Do I think there will be less? Yes, I do, and for specific reasons, not out of blind adoration.)
And I want the welcoming friendliness of the South, the grace and expression of politeness and care for others, but without the college football.
(Do I want my Southern friends to stop discussing football over Thanksgiving dinner, every dinner? No. Do I want them to stop driving around in football-team-colored vans, waving flags, wearing team-coordinated clothes and spilling out of sports bars? No. I want them to be happy! I just don't "get" it, I don't think I ever will, and I want to be elsewhere while they do it.)
But none of this would really matter if all my concerns were local, were intra-country. We here in the US all have a sense of what is going on, we all have options, we can all enter the debate. There is disenfranchisement, but that can be dealt with from within. How, though, do I hold my head up when I am a citizen of a country which goes outside our borders under military and economic force as we have been doing? Covert and overt, when this country acts as a country, it acts -- in part -- as me, and I am -- in part -- responsible for it. That is a daily thing to confront, and if one were to suggest that my concern and distress over this is overstated, feigned, or inauthentic, then one would do me a grave disservice.
(Do I think that many of my friends who support this administration are good, intelligent, reasonable, well-meaning people? Absolutely. Do I mind debating it, do I realize that wherever I go in the world I will have to deal with the actions and positions of the US? Certainly. If this continues, do I want to do it as a citizen? No, I want to be involved with it from another perspective, as it is hard for me to be effective when I swallow this as what I am on a daily basis -- regardless of how many of my friends feel. They aren't me, and we do have differences between us. (Thank goodness!) This is a matter of self-identity, not of judgement of friends, despite how difficult it may be to separate the two.)
There certainly are blind gropings against general human angst, undirected and fruitless -- and then, sometimes, there are clear and thoughtful decisions. Not all reasons for making changes are misguided ones. No place is going to be the best place (or even an acceptable place) for everyone. No place can do that. This is why we have separate states and provinces, separate countries. We pay lip service to the need for non-homogeneity, and this is why. Nowhere will be home for everyone.
I can say "this is not the place for me" without saying "this is the place for nobody," or even "there is something wrong with you because this is the place for you." We are different people, we have different needs. I want you to be happy. I want to be happy, too, and I hope you want that for me as well.
Yeah, the above are justifications, after all. But even if I were not to find perfect Zen-like peace elsewhere (which isn't what I seek, anyway), I have good reason to believe that my day-to-day life would be more settled and suited to me in many small, small ways. That would be enough. Not perfect, not even easy -- just easier. And that's about all I'm going to say on it.
[ September 07, 2004, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kayla, I have at times toyed with the idea of turning in my birth certificate and resigning from the human race. But then I thought that in so doing, it could be claimed that I was giving up my human rights, so I decided that probably would not be a prudent form of protest.
I have been encouraged lately to see that more people are coming to realize what a poor choice for president Senator John Kerry really would be. I still maintain he belongs in prison, not in the Senate, let alone in the White House.
Speaking of Kerry belonging in prison, I see that another veterans' group (not SBVFT) is running a TV ad denouncing Kerry, showing pictures of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War protest group that he co-founded, marching and carrying flags of America's enemies, the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese (at this time Kerry was still a member of the naval reserves). They also mention the fact that Kerry attended a meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Kansas City in 1971 where a plan was discussed and voted on to assassinate various pro-war U.S. senators. At first, Kerry tried to claim he was not at the meeting, but recently released FBI surveillance records show that he was there.
And then there was that illegal meeting he had with North Vietnamese leaders (again while still a member of the naval reserves), where he returned spouting their propaganda that America owed war reparations to Vietnam.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Ron,
Sara, exactly. If he's re-elected, I'll be ashamed to be an American. I mean, I'm already ashamed of the things we do and don't do, but if he's re-elected, it's as if we are endorsing the actions of the man that is, or is not, doing those things. At least, up to this point, I could always say that all this happened after the election and we just had to hold on till the next one, but if this country endorses what he has done in the last four years, I just don't know what I'll do. Can I move to Canada with you?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:Now, as a Democrat, what can I say to that except that, because my party has been taken over by an astonishingly self-destructive bunch of lunatics who are so dazzled by Hollywood that they think their ideas make sense, I have to agree that, right now, any president but Bush and any Congress but a Republican-dominated one would be disastrous.
I just don't get it. I mean, I get the fact that he thinks he's a democrat, but I don't understand the thinking behind the rest of it. And it seems like most of the country agrees with him. It just makes me want to cry.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
People like me are a danger to him.
I am a danger to anyone who believes in having the American government create an America that is a reflection of their religious ideals.
The question from me is, what would you do with me? Sit me in a cozy room and spend a lifetime to convert me to your ways? Call God to fill me with the Spirit so I go along as a willing participant? Lock me up? Ship me to another country? You certainly wouldn't let me live my life the way I live it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I believe that our government should reflect America's ideals, be they religious or otherwise.
What should we do with you? Allow you to speak and vote according to your ideals. I'll do the same according to mine.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
But the point is... what happens to me if you win? Majority casting judgement on the minority.
What in the world are American ideals? Just what the majority vote for?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Sure thing, Kayla.
Were I to make that change, I'd do a repatriation journal and chronicle this experience. And, of course, I'd help sponsor any Hatrackers to make similar steps if they chose to for their own reasons, though (also of course) I'd support any who made different decisions as well.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The same man who said this last week,
quote:Yes, that's right, Republicans pleading for moderation. We've come a long way since 1964 and Goldwater's acceptance speech at the Republican convention: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
Whose public rhetoric today sounds just like that? Nobody in Bush's camp.
says this this week,
quote: Now, as a Democrat, what can I say to that except that, because my party has been taken over by an astonishingly self-destructive bunch of lunatics who are so dazzled by Hollywood that they think their ideas make sense, I have to agree that, right now, any president but Bush and any Congress but a Republican-dominated one would be disastrous.
I've thought of OSC as a lot of things, but I've never considered him a lightweight until now. At one time, maybe he was a welter-weight, but now, not so much. And no, another four years of Bush and a republican dominated congress wouldn't be a disaster, it would be a shame, though.
[ September 07, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Hmm. Might just jump on the go to Canada bandwagon. I was seriously considering that for several reasons...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Irami, that statement is basically the same thing he's been saying for the last couple of years. Not sure why you're just now noticing.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
And the song is pretty easy to learn, right? Oh, Canada, dum, dum, dum, da, dum dum. Though, it's not really welcoming to noobs (immigrants.) Our home and native land. . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Me, I happen to love my country, and do not intend to abandon it -- out of sorrow or weariness or heartbreak -- to barbarians. I wouldn't leave Sophie, sixteen and pregnant, to huddle beneath a streetlamp in the pouring rain for warmth while she sought the comfort of strangers; nor would I abandon America, even if it were to temporarily lose its wits, to its enemies within.
[ September 07, 2004, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I would certainly hope you could have more effect on Sophie's situation than you or I could on the course of this nation. It seems a radical difference of both scale and responsibility, at least in my eyes.
This may well be a point of contention between me and some friends. I hope not. I do hope for all my friends to be strong and happy, and to do what is right for them as they best see fit.
If things change here as I expect, then I think my voice would be stronger outside than in. That isn't abandonment.
[So, if I have reflected long and hard on this, considered it thoroughly, and feel as sure as I can in my choices, why am I still reading this thread and posting replies? Good question. It certainly isn't to make friends. Well enough, then. Carry on. ]
[ September 07, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
We don't get cable or broadcast in my apartment (something to do with the TV) so I'm totally cut off from everything but NPR and internet news.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I'll have to check.![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
)![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)