On to New Hampshire

[CarneVaca]

Iowa gave us an interesting turn of events. Some thoughts:

It's pretty clear people in Iowa didn't like Dean, and I believe a lot of people across the country feel the same way. He should have shown some humility in his speech last night, but instead seemed intent on giving his vocal chords a punishing stress test. Bad move.

John Kerry, who I think is a likable guy, is still hard to take seriously for me. I'm still puzzled by his doublespeak about the war. Furthermore, neither he nor Edwards had much to say about children living in poverty, health care and so forth until they decided to co-opt that from Dean. Edwards, "Mr. Positive," still strikes me as a lightweight.

Kerry, on the other hand, seems to have been studying the Gore campaign and came away with the wrong lessons. I saw him this morning on NBC saying one of the reasons he won was because he has run a positive campaign, yet he was sending mailers to Iowa voters attacking other candidates, Dean specifically. Already this morning his campaign sent an e-mail to voters in New Hampshire lambasting Clark for saying he is a Patriots fan. "In New England, he dons a Pats jersey, in Wisconsin it's the Packers," the e-mail read. "What will Wes wear in South Carolina today?" That's it, Senator, focus on the important themes.

As for Edwards having appeal in the South, some insiders are saying he is the one that worries Bush (or whoever is doing the thinking for him) the most. I think the Democrats should just write off the South. It's over, though they can still get Florida. The Democrats should concentrate on the growing non-Cuban Latino vote in Florida and in places like the Southwest and go after a couple big states with good ole traditional Democrat values to get the votes they need. The South always gets a lot of effort from Democrats, but lately it seems like wasted effort. Just being pragmatic here.

Lastly, Dean still has the most money and he still has a big following of rabid anti-war supporters. I don't see how Kerry or Edwards could get all those supporters.

Enter Clark. And hello New Hampshire.

[dissention]

Clark will not get the nomination and neither will Dean. It's a two-way race between Kerry and Edwards, IMO. Kerry is only one percentage point behind Clark and that's sure to change in no time.

And if Kerry gets the nomination, wait until the first one-on-one debate with Bush; he will blow you away. I've seen him a few times when he was up for re-election in MA and those are the moments when the man truly shines. Bush will be quaking if Kerry gets the nomination. Bush should be afraid.

In time, I'm sure you'll like Kerry, Carne! :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

I know what Kerry is capable of. I've voted for the guy and I've seen him speak several times. It just made it all the more frustrating to me that he couldn't seem to get his message straight. Now the media is saying he was wowing them in Iowa in the last several days. That may be. It's the same media that was predicting less than a week ago that Dean was going to run away with the caucus.

Be that as it may, Kerry has a distinguished record but his "I was in Vietnam and I am hero" fall-back message is wearing thin, at least with this voter. Still I would be able to forgive him that. He was in a hellish war and he truly distinguished himself. He then stood up in front of the Senate to speak out against the war. I'm just wondering why he couldn't do the same with the Iraq war. All we got was a confused message. He was hedging his bets. And this nonsense that he's been positive on the campaign trail is just that--nonsense. Sorry, I'm not inclined to vote for Al Gore. Didn't in 2000. Won't in 2004 in the form of Kerry. My vote is going to a third-party candidate if he gets the nomination. I feel betrayed by John Kerry.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I know what Kerry is capable of. I've voted for the guy and I've seen him speak several times. It just made it all the more frustrating to me that he couldn't seem to get his message straight. Now the media is saying he was wowing them in Iowa in the last several days. That may be. It's the same media that was predicting less than a week ago that Dean was going to run away with the caucus.

Be that as it may, Kerry has a distinguished record but his "I was in Vietnam and I am hero" fall-back message is wearing thin, at least with this voter. Still I would be able to forgive him that. He was in a hellish war and he truly distinguished himself. He then stood up in front of the Senate to speak out against the war. I'm just wondering why he couldn't do the same with the Iraq war. All we got was a confused message. He was hedging his bets. And this nonsense that he's been positive on the campaign trail is just that--nonsense. Sorry, I'm not inclined to vote for Al Gore. Didn't in 2000. Won't in 2004 in the form of Kerry. My vote is going to a third-party candidate if he gets the nomination. I feel betrayed by John Kerry.

Wow - I can make the distinction of Kerry's war stance. But, if you cannot then I'd bet alot of people cannot. That does not bode well for the D's.

Finally, I have often wanted to vote for a 3rd party candidate, but never did because I knew I'd just be in essence voting for the person I most did not want to win in a tight race where the third party person had no hope of winning. But, its your vote and it is pretty much a given that NY will go Democrat by a significant margin, etc. :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I Sorry, I'm not inclined to vote for Al Gore. Didn't in 2000. Won't in 2004 in the form of Kerry. My vote is going to a third-party candidate if he gets the nomination. I feel betrayed by John Kerry.

Well if you want four more years of the guy that has lied to you and is ruining this country, then yeah vote for the third party candidate. I like Kerry and can see why he voted for the war. I don't like it but I understand it. That is not the only issue we are facing here. Our economy is farked. We are running up a huge deficit. All of our jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries. I think Kerry gives a damn. Nothing will ever convince me that Bush does.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/sotu.advance/index.html

Bush set to make case for second term
Aides say he will defend war in Iraq, oppose gay marriage


:distress: :distress: :distress:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Well if you want four more years of the guy that has lied to you and is ruining this country, then yeah vote for the third party candidate. I like Kerry and can see why he voted for the war. I don't like it but I understand it. That is not the only issue we are facing here. Our economy is farked. We are running up a huge deficit. All of our jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries. I think Kerry gives a damn. Nothing will ever convince me that Bush does.

Sorry, that logic gets nowhere with me. I vote my conscience. I couldn't in good conscience vote for Gore or Bush in 2000. I don't believe I can in good conscience vote for Kerry. You can call it what you want, but I ain't voting for Bush. I'm voting for what I believe in. Do you realize we may be the only "democracy" (I know, I know, Jason, it's a republic) in which the greater number of voters cast their vote out of strategy rather than belief? It is a sad state of affairs, and one in which I refuse to participate.

As for the other issues, you are quite correct. But the reason Bush has had such an easy time of screwing things up is because the groundwork was lain by the Clinton administration. Much much that was not truly in the tradition of Democratic values went on in the Clinton years. I will mention the disregard for the environment and the dismantling of antitrust regulations. And I won't even go into the atrocious welfare bill. I literally shake when I think of it. Bush Sr. passed more liberal policies than Clinton. But, hey, the economy was good during the Clinton years, no thanks to him but to a little thing called the Internet, so no one was paying attention. The idiot Republicans (I'm referring specifically to idiot Republicans, not implying all are idiots) happily played along by distracting us with investigations into quaint sex scandals.

You wan't the same old bull****? Go ahead and vote for the guy who is going to maintain the status quo, be he a Republican or Democrat. I vote for change. I may not succeed, but I'm going with what I believe in.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/sotu.advance/index.html

Bush set to make case for second term
Aides say he will defend war in Iraq, oppose gay marriage


:distress: :distress: :distress:

Bless his heart - his defining marriage smacks of the old "science and the Bible demonstrate blacks/darkies are inferior and, therefore, deserve less rights" rhetoric of days of old. It is time for this a$$hole to go. Sadly, most of the country and/or politicians feel this way like they did when segregation and/or sep. but equal were around.

[gldstwmn]

Kudos to you my friend.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I'm voting for what I believe in. Do you realize we may be the only "democracy" (I know, I know, Jason, it's a republic) in which the greater number of voters cast their vote out of strategy rather than belief?

Finally - I am making headway!!! :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Well if you want four more years of the guy that has lied to you and is ruining this country, then yeah vote for the third party candidate. I like Kerry and can see why he voted for the war. I don't like it but I understand it. That is not the only issue we are facing here. Our economy is farked. We are running up a huge deficit. All of our jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries. I think Kerry gives a damn. Nothing will ever convince me that Bush does.

Exactly; he seems like the most genuine man in the race (along with Kucinich). I have a great deal of respect for him and the fact that he stands for everything I believe (except for the ****-up he made when he voted for the war; that was a mistake that has no excuse but I do see his point). He's a staunch environmentalist, he's fought for the working class, and he's a liberal down to his bones. I've supported him in the Senate, I've supported him when he decided to run for president, and I will continue to support him because I believe he's a man of great integrity and kindness. I think he could turn this country around and I think he could bring prosperity back to our country. I believe he could give us back our dignity, or at least put us on the road to reclaiming it. And I adore his wife. :laugh:

Just my opinions, though, and I'm glad that everyone here cares so deeply about our country and its politics. :)

[darklinensuit]

Originally posted by dissention
Exactly; he seems like the most genuine man in the race (along with Kucinich). I have a great deal of respect for him and the fact that he stands for everything I believe (except for the ****-up he made when he voted for the war; that was a mistake that has no excuse but I do see his point). He's a staunch environmentalist, he's fought for the working class, and he's a liberal down to his bones. I've supported him in the Senate, I've supported him when he decided to run for president, and I will continue to support him because I believe he's a man of great integrity and kindness. I think he could turn this country around and I think he could bring prosperity back to our country. I believe he could give us back our dignity, or at least put us on the road to reclaiming it. And I adore his wife. :laugh:

Just my opinions, though, and I'm glad that everyone here cares so deeply about our country and its politics. :)

I agree, but just out of curosity, why do you think it won't be Clark winning the nomination? Sorry if you've already explained this.

- Jake

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Exactly; he seems like the most genuine man in the race (along with Kucinich). I have a great deal of respect for him and the fact that he stands for everything I believe (except for the ****-up he made when he voted for the war; that was a mistake that has no excuse but I do see his point). He's a staunch environmentalist, he's fought for the working class, and he's a liberal down to his bones. I've supported him in the Senate, I've supported him when he decided to run for president, and I will continue to support him because I believe he's a man of great integrity and kindness. I think he could turn this country around and I think he could bring prosperity back to our country. I believe he could give us back our dignity, or at least put us on the road to reclaiming it. And I adore his wife. :laugh:

Just my opinions, though, and I'm glad that everyone here cares so deeply about our country and its politics. :)

I went to his site www.johnkerry.com . He seems like a stand up guy and I love the fact that he is the only elderstatesman in the race on both sides - the exception being Cheney - but I do not think he ever was a Senator, etc.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention


Just my opinions, though, and I'm glad that everyone here cares so deeply about our country and its politics. :)

Agreed. It gives me hope.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I went to his site www.johnkerry.com . He seems like a stand up guy and I love the fact that he is the only elderstatesman in the race on both sides - the exception being Cheney - but I do not think he ever was a Senator, etc.

I would love to see a Bush/Kerry debate too.:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I would love to see a Bush/Kerry debate too.:)

Interestingly. Al Gore was supposed to be known for his debating skills, yet he did not slam W in any way and I though Gore choked in the debates. So, hopefully, Kerry will do better.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by CarneVaca

As for the other issues, you are quite correct. But the reason Bush has had such an easy time of screwing things up is because the groundwork was lain by the Clinton administration. Much much that was not truly in the tradition of Democratic values went on in the Clinton years. I will mention the disregard for the environment and the dismantling of antitrust regulations. And I won't even go into the atrocious welfare bill. I literally shake when I think of it. Bush Sr. passed more liberal policies than Clinton. But, hey, the economy was good during the Clinton years, no thanks to him but to a little thing called the Internet, so no one was paying attention. The idiot Republicans (I'm referring specifically to idiot Republicans, not implying all are idiots) happily played along by distracting us with investigations into quaint sex scandals.



BRAVO!!!
:nod: :nod: :nod:
I agree with you 100%. I'm a registered Republican and I did not vote in 2000 -- I could not bring myself to vote for either Gore OR Bush. I nearly voted Browne, but I did not. Your post makes me regret I didn't.

This country desperately needs a major 3rd party to shake up this ridiculous deadlock that both parties are contributing to.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly. Al Gore was supposed to be known for his debating skills, yet he did not slam W in any way and I though Gore choked in the debates. So, hopefully, Kerry will do better.

Weren't the debates part of Al's perception problem though?

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
[BThis country desperately needs a major 3rd party to shake up this ridiculous deadlock that both parties are contributing to. [/B]

I agree with you. Who's a contender?

[dissention]

Originally posted by darklinensuit
I agree, but just out of curosity, why do you think it won't be Clark winning the nomination? Sorry if you've already explained this.

- Jake

Clark has no domestic experience and I don't think his status as a general will be enough to sustain much momentum. The new polls are in and Clark is at 19%, while Kerry is at 20%; they've flip-flopped. While this doesn't say a whole lot, history has shown that the winner of the Iowa caucuses usually wins NH. I just don't think the entire party will rally behind Clark; he is not the man who can beat Bush. He's got diaharrea of the mouth and just says the first thing to pop into his mind, whether or not it contradicts anything he said previously or if it doesn't make any sense. Also, he isn't a real Democrat, just like Dean isn't; they're both Republicans. Clark has been a Democrat for only three months.

[strandinthewind]

Clinton did not win Iowa and it was either Carter or W that also did not.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I agree with you. Who's a contender?

Sadly no one. But, with the way the electoral system works, it is possible for a third party to build up support in non key states that no one pays attantion to, e.g. the Dakotas, and then they could spring forth from there. Jesse V. was a good example of this, but he chose to retire.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Clinton did not win Iowa and it was either Carter or W that also did not.

Carter won Iowa. Senator McCain won Iowa in'00 I think.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Sadly no one. But, with the way the electoral system works, it is possible for a third party to build up support in non key states that no one pays attantion to, e.g. the Dakotas, and then they could spring forth from there. Jesse V. was a good example of this, but he chose to retire.

Agreed. Isn't that what Nader was trying to do last time until the whole thing got so convoluted? BTW I think former governor Ventura has some kind of Parkinson's. He shakes.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Carter won Iowa. Senator McCain won Iowa in'00 I think.

I think the reason McCain didn't win NH was because he wasn't well known to them. Kerry and Dean are, so I think one of them will win, but my money's on Kerry. Clark doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
BTW I think former governor Ventura has some kind of Parkinson's. He shakes.

I think Charlie Gibson has it, too.

[gldstwmn]

Part of the thrid party problem is the money. Until they take the money out of our electoral system, I don't think any third party candidate can raise enough money to be viable.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
I think Charlie Gibson has it, too.

Really? I stopped watching morning television after September 11.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Really? I stopped watching morning television after September 11.

I only watch GMA. Today makes me vomit and the Early Show should be earlier...so I can't see it.

Yeah, Gibson shakes like a madman. It drives me bonkers.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
I think he could turn this country around and I think he could bring prosperity back to our country.

Do you honestly believe that presidents are responsible for the country's prosperity or lack thereof?

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
I just don't think the entire party will rally behind Clark; he is not the man who can beat Bush. He's got diaharrea of the mouth and just says the first thing to pop into his mind, whether or not it contradicts anything he said previously or if it doesn't make any sense. Also, he isn't a real Democrat, just like Dean isn't; they're both Republicans. Clark has been a Democrat for only three months.

:laugh: :laugh:

Dean is a Republican now? Dude, you're losing the thread a little bit. But enough about Dean. Clark can't beat Bush!!?? I submit to you he is the only one who can beat Bush if Dean self-destructs, which looks entirely possible.

Who was the last senator to get elected to the White House? Quick.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Do you honestly believe that presidents are responsible for the country's prosperity or lack thereof?

I agree with you to an extent in that the economy is the sum of many parts. I actually think the Fed. via Greenspan has the most control/power in one person because it controls two very important things the money supply (all of the definitions of that) and the Fed Fund rate, which is an effective tool in controling inflation and deflation. But, I do think W's policies have stimulated growth via the tax cuts (not meaning to start an argument over them :cool: ) because they put spending money in every taxpayers' pocket (albeit in different amounts), although I certainly agree the tax cuts certainly were not the only thing.

Interestingly, I read an article awhile back perhaps in The Economist that suggested the tools govt's use are helpful only to a limited extent and the economy traditionally just goes in cycles. So who knows.

Finally, I think the last boom economy fell so hard because it was built on stock prices which in no way even closely resembled the value of the company as traditionally calculated (future earning in present day value divided by number of shares). The nasty deeds of Enron, MCI, and others, which cost the taxpayers about a trillion dollars overall and brought many related and unrealted companies and people to financial ruin, certainly did not help once the recession was started.

Food For Thought :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
:laugh: :laugh:

Dean is a Republican now? Dude, you're losing the thread a little bit. But enough about Dean. Clark can't beat Bush!!?? I submit to you he is the only one who can beat Bush if Dean self-destructs, which looks entirely possible.

Who was the last senator to get elected to the White House? Quick.

Yes, but who were the last gov.'s - Carter, Regean, Clinton, W. Hmm - I see a trend :laugh: I, too, think Dean is a little out there and has the chance of self destructing. Only time will tell and the next two weeks will be very interesting.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
:laugh: :laugh:

Dean is a Republican now? Dude, you're losing the thread a little bit. But enough about Dean. Clark can't beat Bush!!?? I submit to you he is the only one who can beat Bush if Dean self-destructs, which looks entirely possible.

Who was the last senator to get elected to the White House? Quick.

Richard Milhous Nixon.:)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Do you honestly believe that presidents are responsible for the country's prosperity or lack thereof?

To a certain extent, yes they are. Case in point: the Carter administration.:)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Richard Milhous Nixon.:) Wasn't Bush I a senator. I know he was an ambassador.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Wasn't Bush I a senator. I know he was an ambassador.

No that was his father. Bush lost to Yarborough in '64 & 70 but did serve in the House.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
No that was his father. Bush lost to Yarborough in '64 & 70 but did serve in the House. Thanks - I knew one of the Bushes was a Senator somewhere!!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Dean is a Republican now?

When it comes to the war, he shares the sentiment most liberals do. But on most other issues? He's quite conservative.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Who was the last senator to get elected to the White House? Quick.

Who was the last general?

[strandinthewind]

Eisenhower?

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Eisenhower?

If so, that's even longer than the last Senator. :)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Thanks - I knew one of the Bushes was a Senator somewhere!!!!

Prescott was the Senator from Connecticut, I believe.

[CarneVaca]

Nixon wasn't a senator when he ran, though. I was thinking of JFK. And true, Eisenhower was the last general elected president--on the heels of WWII. I can totally see a general getting elected on the heels of Sept. 11, especially one who distinguished himself during a military operation that was deemed quite successful at a time when a current military operation is an shambles.

As for who is a Republican or Democrat, I maintain that most times it doesn't matter all that much. Dubya is an aberration, albeit a dangerous one. His father and even Nixon were more liberal than Clinton in some ways.

John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, the War on Iraq, No Child Left Behind. When has he actually voted against Dubya?

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, the War on Iraq, No Child Left Behind. When has he actually voted against Dubya?

You've got me. :nod: :laugh: When you put in those terms, he's f*cked up quite a bit, actually.

However, unlike Clark, he never bombed a Chinese embassy and he never bombed a civilian convoy and lied about it. When he was caught lying about the convoy bombing, he blamed it on a US pilot, as confirmed by his staff. Then Clinton fired him. And Clark should be the last person complaining about Iraq when he led the invasion of Yugoslavia. Talk about hypocrites.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
You've got me. :nod: :laugh: When you put in those terms, he's f*cked up quite a bit, actually.

However, unlike Clark, he never bombed a Chinese embassy and he never bombed a civilian convoy and lied about it. When he was caught lying about the convoy bombing, he blamed it on a US pilot, as confirmed by his staff. Then Clinton fired him. And Clark should be the last person complaining about Iraq when he led the invasion of Yugoslavia. Talk about hypocrites.

Hmm... good points. I'd forgotten about the Chinese embassy. And now I'm remembering suspecting it may have been deliberate. I was in London when this all happened and it was quite an experience weaving through the crowds of angry protestors to do some sightseeing.

Believe me, I'm not enamored of Clark. Boy, I'd sure hate to be a general, though. At times of war, no matter what, you're going to make decisions that will stick in your conscience the rest of your life. I would think. I was against bombing Yugoslavia, but as I recall that decision was made by a president who also decided to circumvent the UN. Interestingly, Clark is picking up members of the Clinton team to help him with his election bid.

If Kerry is your man, that's great. I'm glad you've made a decision. I'm still not sure whom to pick. But I know I won't vote for him. Too many questionable votes on his record and too much waffling on Iraq.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Hmm... good points. I'd forgotten about the Chinese embassy. And now I'm remembering suspecting it may have been deliberate. I was in London when this all happened and it was quite an experience weaving through the crowds of angry protestors to do some sightseeing.

Believe me, I'm not enamored of Clark. Boy, I'd sure hate to be a general, though. At times of war, no matter what, you're going to make decisions that will stick in your conscience the rest of your life. I would think. I was against bombing Yugoslavia, but as I recall that decision was made by a president who also decided to circumvent the UN. Interestingly, Clark is picking up members of the Clinton team to help him with his election bid.

If Kerry is your man, that's great. I'm glad you've made a decision. I'm still not sure whom to pick. But I know I won't vote for him. Too many questionable votes on his record and too much waffling on Iraq.

I, too, would hate to be a general during a war. I mean it is very easy to judge in hindsight, but when you are in a battle, I think you kind of have to go with what you know or die. So, I guess they are just learned in the ways of "that was my decision and that is it." Then, you have every journalist second guessing your decision in that moment. I would just hate it.

Also, it is widely rumored that Clinton is 100% behind Clark.

:cool:

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind

Also, it is widely rumored that Clinton is 100% behind Clark.

:cool:

If that's true, it puts Clinton slightly at odds with his wife. No?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
If that's true, it puts Clinton slightly at odds with his wife. No?

Are they still married? :eek: :laugh:

Actually, I do not think either of them has endorsed anyone yet. Personally, I think ole Hillary is kicking herself because W appears beatable (granted not highly beatable) and she stood a very good chance at getting the nomination.

[CarneVaca]

I don't think she's endorsed anyone, but it Clark wins, it will put a damper on her 2008 prospects.

[strandinthewind]

:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod:

This is all playing out in such an interesting manner. Politics is just fascinating to me!!!!

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Hmm... good points. I'd forgotten about the Chinese embassy. And now I'm remembering suspecting it may have been deliberate. I was in London when this all happened and it was quite an experience weaving through the crowds of angry protestors to do some sightseeing.

Believe me, I'm not enamored of Clark. Boy, I'd sure hate to be a general, though. At times of war, no matter what, you're going to make decisions that will stick in your conscience the rest of your life. I would think. I was against bombing Yugoslavia, but as I recall that decision was made by a president who also decided to circumvent the UN. Interestingly, Clark is picking up members of the Clinton team to help him with his election bid.

If Kerry is your man, that's great. I'm glad you've made a decision. I'm still not sure whom to pick. But I know I won't vote for him. Too many questionable votes on his record and too much waffling on Iraq.

I always believed it was deliberate; it was too big of a mistake to be a mistake. I supported many things Clinton did, but there were a LOT of things he did that I was appalled at, Yugoslavia being one of them.

Kerry is my man for the moment. :laugh: Who knows if it will change in the next week, month, or year. Like I said, I agree with you on the points you've made about Kerry (his voting record and his f*ck ups with Iraq). But, IMO, I'll take him over Clark any day of the week. Clark doesn't know **** about **** and it's painfully obvious; I can't wait until he's out of the running.

Also, a week ago, a Clinton spokesperson came out and said that the Clintons do not support Clark one way or the other. :laugh: Yeah, right.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Are they still married? :eek: :laugh:

Actually, I do not think either of them has endorsed anyone yet. Personally, I think ole Hillary is kicking herself because W appears beatable (granted not highly beatable) and she stood a very good chance at getting the nomination.

She could take Bush in a heartbeat. Next to bush, she's the most "admired" person in the country and she'd get so many endorsements that we'd all be agape.

The Republican party would be forever decimated because they'd all have heart attacks when the winner is announced.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
She could take Bush in a heartbeat. Next to bush, she's the most "admired" person in the country and she'd get so many endorsements that we'd all be agape.

The Republican party would be forever decimated because they'd all have heart attacks when the winner is announced.

Rush would head straight back to the pain pills!!! :laugh:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Rush would head straight back to the pain pills!!! :laugh:

Screw that, he'd slit his wrists and call it quits!

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
If that's true, it puts Clinton slightly at odds with his wife. No?

What's new?:laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Rush would head straight back to the pain pills!!! :laugh:

I don't think he's off of them.:)

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by dissention
Kerry is my man for the moment. :laugh: Who knows if it will change in the next week, month, or year

Ah, so there is hope for salvaging this beautiful relationship.

By the way, I like to say "don't know **** from crap." :p

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Ah, so there is hope for salvaging this beautiful relationship.

By the way, I like to say "don't know **** from crap." :p

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Either way, Clark is without a clue. :nod: :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

You know, I've developed an appreciation for brie recently. But traditionally I have preferred sharper cheeses.

You know, like Vermont cheddar. ;)

[strandinthewind]

From cnn.com

Donations pour into Kerry campaign after Iowa win
More Democratic advisers join team

Wednesday, January 21, 2004 Posted: 11:20 AM EST (1620 GMT)

Sen. John Kerry savors his victory Monday night in Iowa.

______________________________________________

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) -- Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign is "taking off" with a dramatic increase in donations, a campaign aide said Tuesday, following the Massachusetts Democrat's come-from-behind victory in the Iowa caucuses.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/21/elec04.prez.kerry.donations/index.html

[dissention]

Oh please, Theresa can pay that mortgage off anytime. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Oh please, Theresa can pay that mortgage off anytime. :laugh:

She sure can. But, I think she cannot until the campaign is over. I think she is limited to donation amounts. He cannot freely use her money. Interestingly, I think almost all of her money is in a trust.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
She sure can. But, I think she cannot until the campaign is over. I think she is limited to donation amounts. He cannot freely use her money. Interestingly, I think almost all of her money is in a trust.

That woman could demand anything, anywhere, anytime. :nod: She inherited $500 million in hard cash and control of the Heinz endowment (worth billions!!).

I'll never forget when she said Santorum was "Forrest Gump with an attitude." :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
That woman could demand anything, anywhere, anytime. :nod: She inherited $500 million in hard cash and control of the Heinz endowment (worth billions!!).

I'll never forget when she said Santorum was "Forrest Gump with an attitude." :laugh:

:laugh:

Actually, I am pretty sure that according to campaign finance law, Kerry can only use use half of the assets they "share" towards his campaign.

Theresa Kerry got $500 million of the Heinz fortune. However, she would have had to put his name on that and other holdings before Kerry announced his candidacy. She did not do that (smart girl :laugh: ) They do, however, each own 1/2 of the Louisburg Square townhouse, which I think he recently mortgaged his 1/2 of for $850,000.

So, Theresa Kerry legally can contribute a whopping $2000 to his campaign.

I think that after the campaign is over she can get rid of his debt. But, I am unsure of that.

:cool:

[dissention]

Some more reasons I love Teresa Heinz:

-That off-the-cuff speech she gave about her husbands prostate surgery. She gave plenty details and told every man to "check themselves." :laugh: It must've lasted 20 minutes!

-She gave a lecture on the health benefits of green tea at a fundraiser.

-She rambled about her favorite sunscreen at another.

-She told Elle Magazine that she uses Botox and that she'll have plastic surgery sometime soon. ;)

-She claimed she would "maim" John if he ever cheated on her!

-She said everyone she knows has a pre-nup.

-She bitched about a fire hydrant in front of her house and wanted it removed so she could have a place to park.

-And the best of all: when asked about adding Kerry to her name, she replied:

"Now, politically, it's going to be Teresa Heinz Kerry, but I don't give a ****, you know? There are other things to worry about."

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[dissention]

I think the Kerry campaing is making a HUGE mistake by not utilizing her more. She'd be a star. :nod:

[strandinthewind]

Here is an interesting comment on the TH money. The article is not very nice to her, but I think the stuff about the campaign contributions is true.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091886

[CarneVaca]

Is it just me, or does green tea taste like grass?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Is it just me, or does green tea taste like grass?



:nod: :nod: :nod: :nod: I hate it

[dissention]

I think it's just you. :laugh:

Strandie--

That was a good article. Not really an article as much as a commentary, though. But I enjoyed it.

[CarneVaca]

Although with mint and ginseng or echinacea, it ain't bad.

But give me some herbal lemon tea. That's the ticket.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Although with mint and ginseng or echinacea, it ain't bad.

But give me some herbal lemon tea. That's the ticket.

I like just regular Lipton with Sweet and Low and lots of lemons :cool: I do like, however, the herbal passionfruit teas.

I also LOVE Diet Coke!!!!!!!!

Basically, with that and booze (hey - I'm from New Orleans originally :laugh: :shrug: ) and occasional cigarette, I am one big walking toxin!!! :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I like just regular Lipton with Sweet and Low and lots of lemons :cool: I do like, however, the herbal passionfruit teas.

I also LOVE Diet Coke!!!!!!!!

Basically, with that and booze (hey - I'm from New Orleans originally :laugh: :shrug: ) and occasional cigarette, I am one big walking toxin!!! :cool:

Boy, you's gonna die! :laugh:

I only drink plain green tea or no tea at all. I don't add any sugar to anything I eat or drink, either. :eek:

The only soda I drink is the all natural soda that sells at Bread & Circus; none of that carbonated piss water (commonly known as Coke). :laugh:

I don't suck on cancer sticks, I won't go near alcohol, and I should live to be 156. :nod:

:wavey:

[CarneVaca]

I rarely drink Coke anymore. Usually I drink water or Seltzer now. I've also cut back on Coke. Trying very hard to get into green tea. But no am I drinking it without sugar. I'll vote for Kerry before I do that!

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
I rarely drink Coke anymore. Usually I drink water or Seltzer now. I've also cut back on Coke. Trying very hard to get into green tea. But no am I drinking it without sugar. I'll vote for Kerry before I do that!

:laugh:

I don't like soda, for some reason. I hate that feeling of the carbonation in your nose. And it's loaded with carbs. :nod:

[CarneVaca]

Oops, I meant I cut back on coffee.

By the way, Dissention, somebody else has center-channel mixes on her site. What's up with that? What is your site again?

[dissention]

My server shut down. :( I'm too broke right now to pay anymore money for anything. :laugh:

[sparky]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
My vote is going to a third-party candidate if he gets the nomination. I feel betrayed by John Kerry.

I have few feelings about Kerry - except that I call him Frankenkerry. The resemblance is remarkable. Regardless, if I feel anyone has a chance to get the evil empire out of the White House, I will vote for them. I have never seen the country in such a hodge podge mess as it is now.
I am trying to be optimistic, but I think Bush will win - and that may be just fine, as his presidency will almost certainly implode with a second term. People will wake up as his policies do further damage to our wallets, our private lives, and every living thing on earth.
I better get back to being a gay guy now, and focus on singlehandedly destroying the institution of marriage just by existing.

[dissention]

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/theologian.shtml

Here are a ton of Bush's Lord-lectures. Enjoy! :rolleyes:

[sparky]

Originally posted by dissention
She could take Bush in a heartbeat. Next to bush, she's the most "admired" person in the country and she'd get so many endorsements that we'd all be agape.

I have to disagree. I like her, and a lot of other people like her. However, she inspires in certain people (mostly women) a brand of hatred and vitriol I have rarely seen. For whatever reason. I don't think much of it is based on facts so much as personal issues. Her tough demeanor intimidates weak men ( I won't even go into that one) and infuriates traditional, conservative women.
I'd vote for her, but I don't think she could win.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
http://www.dubyaspeak.com/theologian.shtml

Here are a ton of Bush's Lord-lectures. Enjoy! :rolleyes:

See - I read those and recognize that W is very religious and there is nothing wrong with that. Moreover, in those W repeatedly refers to other religions (Jews, Muslims, etc.) and respsects them except when people kill in their name. Although he speaks of hearing a call from God, he does not say God speaks to him and the "call" is just a general reference used by many to thank God for the path in their lives. In sum, I do not think it is a good thing for W to refer constantly and exclusively to the Christian God because I think it alienates other religions; after all you do not have to be a Christian to be an American, etc. But, I do not think W is a religious fanatic like OBL, who killed more than once in the name of his religion (which most Muslims denounce as a false religion) or Robertson and his ilk (who hate everyone but heterosexual, male WASPS).

Having said that, W and the far religious right (which is not all Christians by any means) are trying to force Christian values downthe throats of Americans through the marriage stuff currently going on. I think that is horrible, but it is far from fanatic. In fact, most polls indicate it is mainstream. :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by sparky
I have to disagree. I like her, and a lot of other people like her. However, she inspires in certain people (mostly women) a brand of hatred and vitriol I have rarely seen. For whatever reason. I don't think much of it is based on facts so much as personal issues. Her tough demeanor intimidates weak men ( I won't even go into that one) and infuriates traditional, conservative women.
I'd vote for her, but I don't think she could win.

I think she'd get almost every Democratic vote, actually. The far-left liberals would vote for her just to get even with ChimpCo and his cohorts. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by sparky
I have to disagree. I like her, and a lot of other people like her. However, she inspires in certain people (mostly women) a brand of hatred and vitriol I have rarely seen. For whatever reason. I don't think much of it is based on facts so much as personal issues. Her tough demeanor intimidates weak men ( I won't even go into that one) and infuriates traditional, conservative women.
I'd vote for her, but I don't think she could win.

I agree. I mean it is as if some women hate her just because she is successful. Granted, she and her husband are not the most honest people in the world, but what politician is. I even saw something last week where callers were calling in and saying how refreshing it was to have a housewife first lady again. I was like Steppford Wife anyone :laugh: Note: I do not think LB is a Steppford Wife.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
See - I read those and recognize that W is very religious and there is nothing wrong with that. Moreover, in those W repeatedly refers to other religions (Jews, Muslims, etc.) and respsects them except when people kill in their name. Although he speaks of hearing a call from God, he does not say God speaks to him and the "call" is just a general reference used by many to thank God for the path in their lives. In sum, I do not think it is a good thing for W to refer constantly and exclusively to the Christian God because I think it alienates other religions; after all you do not have to be a Christian to be an American, etc. But, I do not think W is a religious fanatic like OBL, who killed more than once in the name of his religion (which most Muslims denounce as a false religion) or Robertson and his ilk (who hate everyone but heterosexual, male WASPS).

Having said that, W and the far religious right (which is not all Christians by any means) are trying to force Christian values downthe throats of Americans through the marriage stuff currently going on. I think that is horrible, but it is far from fanatic. In fact, most polls indicate it is mainstream. :cool:

Sorry, but I have no patience or tolerance for Chimp going over to foreign countries and climing our country is blessed by God, the Almighty, the lord, the divinity. Here are some of the most offensive:

"It's also important for people to know we never seek to impose our culture or our form of government. We just want to live under those universal values, God-given values."

"Well, first of all, you got to understand some of my view on freedom, it's not American's gift to the world. See, freedom is God -- is God given."

"It's so inspirational to see your courage, as well as to see the great works of our Lord in your heart. "

"If I may, I'd like to remind you what I said at the State of the Union. Liberty is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to each and every person. And that's what I believe. I believe that when we see totalitarianism, that we must deal with it."

"One of the great things about this country is a lot of people pray."

"And we base it, our history, and our decision making, our future, on solid values. The first value is, we're all God's children."

He can have his personal beliefs, but spouting them like gospel is too much. It's offensive. He should not be expressing his beliefs with American tax dollars.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Sorry, but I have no patience or tolerance for Chimp going over to foreign countries and climing our country is blessed by God, the Almighty, the lord, the divinity. Here are some of the most offensive:

"It's also important for people to know we never seek to impose our culture or our form of government. We just want to live under those universal values, God-given values."

"Well, first of all, you got to understand some of my view on freedom, it's not American's gift to the world. See, freedom is God -- is God given."

"It's so inspirational to see your courage, as well as to see the great works of our Lord in your heart. "

"If I may, I'd like to remind you what I said at the State of the Union. Liberty is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to each and every person. And that's what I believe. I believe that when we see totalitarianism, that we must deal with it."

"One of the great things about this country is a lot of people pray."

"And we base it, our history, and our decision making, our future, on solid values. The first value is, we're all God's children."

He can have his personal beliefs, but spouting them like gospel is too much. It's offensive.

Agreed - but it is not fanatic to me or at least how OBL set the bar for fanaticism. Also, as you know, we really agree in the end because I think govt. has no place at all ever in religion and I am a religious guy. :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Is it just me, or does green tea taste like grass?

I like it but then again, I drink wheatgrass. :)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
I like it but then again, I drink wheatgrass. :)

lawn mower clippings :laugh: - EEEEWWWWWW - but considering the toxins I put in my body, that is a great anti-toxin :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh:

I don't like soda, for some reason. I hate that feeling of the carbonation in your nose. And it's loaded with carbs. :nod:

I gave it up about 7 years ago. I can't stand the taste of it now.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Agreed - but it is not fanatic to me or at least how OBL set the bar for fanaticism. Also, as you know, we really agree in the end because I think govt. has no place at all ever in religion. :cool:

Yes, we agree. However, Bush is a fanatic. There are varying degrees of fanaticism, OSB being the most extreme. but Bush is still a fanatic who's trying to push his Lord-agenda on everyone.

He has a higher calling like I have buns of steel.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Yes, we agree. However, Bush is a fanatic. There are varying degrees of fanaticism, OSB being the most extreme. but Bush is still a fanatic who's trying to push his Lord-agenda on everyone.

He has a higher calling like I have buns of steel.

:laugh: You better do those squats!!! :laugh:

Also, W could have been higher than most when he heard the call!!!! :cool:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by sparky
I have few feelings about Kerry - except that I call him Frankenkerry. The resemblance is remarkable. Regardless, if I feel anyone has a chance to get the evil empire out of the White House, I will vote for them. I have never seen the country in such a hodge podge mess as it is now.
I am trying to be optimistic, but I think Bush will win - and that may be just fine, as his presidency will almost certainly implode with a second term. People will wake up as his policies do further damage to our wallets, our private lives, and every living thing on earth.
I better get back to being a gay guy now, and focus on singlehandedly destroying the institution of marriage just by existing.

Buck up! People are hip to what Shrub is up to. The race is going to be very close. He's got a 45% disapproval rating, the worst of any sitting president since they've been doing the ratings system.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
:laugh: You better do those squats!!! :laugh:

Also, W could have been higher than most when he heard the call!!!! :cool:

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
See - I read those and recognize that W is very religious and there is nothing wrong with that. Moreover, in those W repeatedly refers to other religions (Jews, Muslims, etc.) and respsects them except when people kill in their name. :cool:

Then how does he justify all of the executions he allowed in Texas?

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Buck up! People are hip to what Shrub is up to. The race is going to be very close. He's got a 45% disapproval rating, the worst of any sitting president since they've been doing the ratings system.

Yeah, but he'll get his approval back when Osama Bin Laden is found in October.

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Then how does he justify all of the executions he allowed in Texas?

And his public mocking of those he put to death?

[dissention]

So, is there anything left for us to cover?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by dissention
So, is there anything left for us to cover?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

We'll find something.:)

[dissention]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
We'll find something.:)

I should change it to:

So, is there anything else for us to uncover?

:laugh: :D ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Then how does he justify all of the executions he allowed in Texas?

Not that I agree with this, but the thinking is the people are being executed because they have taken a life, etc. Personally, I a flip flop on the death penalty. Sometimes I think enough of this crap and just kill them. Then, I am like, well maybe they should spend their lives behind bars, etc. :confused:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
And his public mocking of those he put to death?

Oh Come on :laugh: "mocking" is a little strong to me. it is not as if he is sticking his tongue out at them while they are pulling the switch.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Oh Come on :laugh: "mocking" is a little strong to me. it is not as if he is sticking his tongue out at them while they are pulling the switch.

Three words:

Karla Faye Tucker.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Not that I agree with this, but the thinking is the people are being executed because they have taken a life, etc. Personally, I a flip flop on the death penalty. Sometimes I think enough of this crap and just kill them. Then, I am like, well maybe they should spend their lives behind bars, etc. :confused:

How about all of the people who have been executed and were later found to be innocent via DNA or other circumstamces? There are a lot of them.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How about all of the people who have been executed and were later found to be innocent via DNA or other circumstamces? There are a lot of them.

I know I know - Currently, I think in the end, a labor positiion and existence behind bars is the best way.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Three words:

Karla Faye Tucker.

I know the facts of the case, but what exactly did W say - if you remember - I am too busy right now to look :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know the facts of the case, but what exactly did W say - if you remember - I am too busy right now to look :cool:

After she was executed, he crudley pursed his lips and said to a reporter "Please don't kill me!"

:mad:

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know I know - Currently, I think in the end, a labor positiion and existence behind bars is the best way.

Are you familiar with the MacDonald case?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
After she was executed, he crudley pursed his lips and said to a reporter "Please don't kill me!"

:mad:

Touche' :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Are you familiar with the MacDonald case?

No

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Touche' :laugh:

Please tell me you don't think that's funny. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Please tell me you don't think that's funny. ;)

No No - I was laughing at myself (as I often do :cool: ) for not knowing the facts before replying. I would like to see a video of it so I can determine his facial gestures myself, but could not find one that worked. But it sounds horrible.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
How about all of the people who have been executed and were later found to be innocent via DNA or other circumstamces? There are a lot of them.


What about the Timothy McVeighs of the world? Not one shred of remorse from him, ever. -- a complete waste of a human being. I can go on and on -- John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy -- I just can't muster any sympathy for them.

Ex-governor George Ryan of IL reduced EVERY inmante on death row's sentence to life, and in some cases, they were released. And for this the crook gets nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. What a crock of *****. As Blagojevich says, you review them by a case-by-case basis.

This is just one of my hot-buttons, so I apologize for the fiery response.


~Krista~

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
What about the Timothy McVeighs of the world? Not one shred of remorse from him, ever. -- a complete waste of a human being. I can go on and on -- John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy -- I just can't muster any sympathy for them.

Ex-governor George Ryan of IL reduced EVERY inmante on death row's sentence to life, and in some cases, they were released. And for this the crook gets nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. What a crock of *****. As Blagojevich says, you review them by a case-by-case basis.

This is just one of my hot-buttons, so I apologize for the fiery response.


~Krista~

That is usually where I filp flop. I think Tm should have been executed after the trial. Nothing will change my mind about that. Same for OBL. But, then I think if we kill them we are no better than them. As opinionated as I am on everything else, I truly struggle with this one.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
No No - I was laughing at myself (as I often do :cool: ) for not knowing the facts before replying. I would like to see a video of it so I can determine his facial gestures myself, but could not find one that worked. But it sounds horrible.

There are some pictures floating around. :)

[dissention]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
What about the Timothy McVeighs of the world? Not one shred of remorse from him, ever. -- a complete waste of a human being. I can go on and on -- John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy -- I just can't muster any sympathy for them.

Ex-governor George Ryan of IL reduced EVERY inmante on death row's sentence to life, and in some cases, they were released. And for this the crook gets nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. What a crock of *****. As Blagojevich says, you review them by a case-by-case basis.

This is just one of my hot-buttons, so I apologize for the fiery response.


~Krista~

They don't deserve sympathy, but that isn't the issue.

We condemn them and call them monsters (which they are) for murder, yet we turn around and do the same thing. They should rot in jail for the rest of their lives, not be murdered. It serves no purpose.

The thing is, is it ever okay to take another human beings life?

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
There are some pictures floating around. :)

They are fabrication - That was not me laughing while looking the mirror while naked :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
They are fabrication - That was not me laughing while looking the mirror while naked :cool:

:laugh:

I couldn't find my magnifying glass anyways!

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
:laugh:

I couldn't find my magnifying glass anyways!

Well, I AM holding tweezers!!!! :cool:

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Well, I AM holding tweezers!!!! :cool:

:laugh:

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by dissention

The thing is, is it ever okay to take another human beings life?


In some cases, I believe yes, it is. I cannot justify letting pigs like McVeigh and Bundy live when they took so many lives themselves.

It is a sticky issue, for sure. Out of curiousity, where do the Democratic candidates stand on the issue? It seemed as though that many Dems used to be anti capital punishment, but the lines have been blurred recently and I can't assume either way.

~Krista~

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
In some cases, I believe yes, it is. I cannot justify letting pigs like McVeigh and Bundy live when they took so many lives themselves.

It is a sticky issue, for sure. Out of curiousity, where do the Democratic candidates stand on the issue? It seemed as though that many Dems used to be anti capital punishment, but the lines have been blurred recently and I can't assume either way.

~Krista~

I think the majority of D's in general are against capitl punishment. Where each candidate stand, however, I am unsure. I think if they can avoid it they will. For example, Kerry does not do into it on his website www.johnkerry.com that I could find.

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
In sum, I do not think it is a good thing for W to refer constantly and exclusively to the Christian God because I think it alienates other religions; after all you do not have to be a Christian to be an American, etc. But, I do not think W is a religious fanatic like OBL:cool:

You're right. Dubya is not a religiuos fanatic. It's calculated and fake. It's code language to get the vote of the Christian fundamentalists. This and the veiled racism that is also delivered in code is a common tool of the Republican party. A lot of Republicans have turned their backs on this kind of thing, and rightly, but unfortunately some politicians are still making hay out of it. And now they are adding the marriage issue, which if it weren't so despicably intolerant, would be nothing but laughable.

[CarneVaca]

One more thing: We'll never be a truly enlightened nation as long as we continue to systematically kill people under the guise of "justice." No form of justice should ever involve killing.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You're right. Dubya is not a religiuos fanatic. It's calculated and fake. It's code language to get the vote of the Christian fundamentalists. This and the veiled racism that is also delivered in code is a common tool of the Republican party. A lot of Republicans have turned their backs on this kind of thing, and rightly, but unfortunately some politicians are still making hay out of it. And now they are adding the marriage issue, which if it weren't so despicably intolerant, would be nothing but laughable.

We agree We agree :] :] :] -

I totally believe that while W is a devout Chritian, W does use this Godspeak to stimulate the far far religious right that put him in office.

[dissention]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
You're right. Dubya is not a religiuos fanatic. It's calculated and fake. It's code language to get the vote of the Christian fundamentalists. This and the veiled racism that is also delivered in code is a common tool of the Republican party. A lot of Republicans have turned their backs on this kind of thing, and rightly, but unfortunately some politicians are still making hay out of it. And now they are adding the marriage issue, which if it weren't so despicably intolerant, would be nothing but laughable.

Oh, he's a racist alright. He's even denounced interracial dating. :rolleyes: