To Bush Supporters...

[LilyRose]

First of all, congratulations.

I'm a democrat and I just want to try and come to an understanding of how the other half of this country thinks.

I don't want to start a huge debate. I just simply have one sincere question:

Why do you believe that Bush is the better leader for our country?

Thank you,

Susie

[Moony]

hmmm

I have a feeling this is going to get ugly.

*sits back to watch the show*

[amber]

I think he's better because he's a strong man and he like values human life and stuff and he treats everyone equally and yeah. And he comes from a good family and he always goes to church and he's all funny and stuff like that. He has nice hats.
:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:

[Vianna]

I'd like to understand this too but I cannot. Sorry.

[Alison]

I don't think anyone here would dare tell why they voted for Bush.
The way this board has bashed anyone who even attenptes to support him, or show a different opinon. I have never seen such hate, venom, disregard for a leader or any one that supports Bush on any place ever.
Sure makes me Glad that I'm a Canadian. We don't do nasty politicing in Canada.
Now it is the time for your country to show the world you can unite and not be so arragant. Thats how it looks from this side.
Regardless who we have in power in my country. I will pray for our leaders instead of cursing and tearing them down.
I suppose I will be attacted for speaking my mind. After all this is how this board operates.

[sodascouts]

You're right Alison, but I will go ahead and TRY, although I'm not looking forward to the froth-mouthed replies I'll probably get.

I don’t have much time because I have to leave for class, but I’ll shoot off some quick ones. I don’t agree with everything Bush/the Republican party stands for, but here are some issues which make me a member of that party and a Bush supporter:

- He is pro-personal responsibility and therefore doesn’t support unfair quotas and expand wasteful big-government programs
- He’ll put conservative judges on the Supreme Court if need be
- He’ll stand fast against partial-birth abortion
- He’s better equipped to deal with the terrorists
- His tax policies are more fair to all income levels (and no, I’m not rich)
- He is pro-death penalty
- I don’t trust Kerry not to cave to the extremists of his party

And, finally, the overwhelming liberal contempt for people of faith is a huge turn-off. The hateful posts I see here totally confirm my worst fears about the attitude of the Democratic party towards people like me, and now the majority of Americans who dare to hold different political views. It’s scary and I don’t want anything to do with it. I truly believe this hateful attitude is what made the necessary undecideds turn to Bush (who are now lumped in with the psycho extremists, of course, because they don't think the "right" way).

[GateandGarden]

Well, I just felt like addressing all of this to further show how I personally think that Bush should not have been reelected.



- He is pro-personal responsibility and therefore doesn’t support unfair quotas and expand wasteful big-government programs

Well, I think this is one of the bad things about our country. This concept of rugged-individualism can be a bad thing in that sense. We are one of the richest countries in the world, yet we have more people below the poverty line, because we don't help them. But I know if I say we should have government-sponsored health care for all, I'll be called a Communist, right? Oh well. I used to be a social work major, and I was big on this issue. I do not believe there are enough government programs to help the poor and disadvantaged.

- He’ll put conservative judges on the Supreme Court if need be

I don't see why we need partisan judges on the Supreme Court at all. Even so, Bush said he wouldn't use a litmus test anyway, though I didn't believe it.

- He’ll stand fast against partial-birth abortion

As much as I hate any abortion, I don't believe we should be banning partial birth abortions because of extreme cases in which they are necesssary.

- He’s better equipped to deal with the terrorists

I don't feel like I've seen any evidence of this. We attacked a country that was not related to the terrorist attack of 9/11. Basically, I don't feel safer because so many people are pissed off at our country.

- His tax policies are more fair to all income levels (and no, I’m not rich)

I can't understand how tax cuts for the rich help anyone.

- He is pro-death penalty

This is one of the biggest reasons I didn't vote for Bush.

- I don’t trust Kerry not to cave to the extremists of his party

I don't think he would have done that at all, mainly because I don't think of him as a very liberal Democrat at all. He was much too conservative of a Democrat for me, so I couldn't imagine him caving in to the extremists of his party. However, I do think Bush would do that.

And, finally, the overwhelming liberal contempt for people of faith is a huge turn-off. The hateful posts I see here totally confirm my worst fears about the attitude of the Democratic party towards people like me, and now the majority of Americans who dare to hold different political views. It’s scary and I don’t want anything to do with it. I truly believe this hateful attitude is what made the necessary undecideds turn to Bush (who are now lumped in with the psycho extremists, of course, because they don't think the "right" way).

I'm speaking for myself (but probably many others as well) when I say this is a knee-jerk reaction to having the other side jam religion down my throat and try to infringe upon my rights because they think their opinions are the only right ones. Being treated in that manner tends to incite anger and hostility in people, understandably, I would say. But it is not people of faith in general. I have Christian friends who are very open-minded and I respect their beliefs, since they have been very good about not throwing them at me and generally being kind and understanding people, as the religion often suggests they would be.

Hillary

[Patti]

Nancy, I have nothing against people of faith, nor do I think most people do here. Where it becomes a problem is twofold. Number one, I don't believe faith/religion belongs in government policy. Number two, the faith Bush espouses is Christianity. There are millions of people in this country who practice other faiths, or no faith at all. And we deserve every right and protection to practice our faith (or no faith) as any Christian does. When Bush tries to set policy based on *his* god, the Christian god, then I think people who don't follow that same faith have a problem.

[GateandGarden]

I think I'm actually capable of debating in a mature and respectful way if gay rights are not brought into the debate. Some would say this is a good thing, but to me, it seems like an indicator that I don't care about the other issues as much as I should because I'm not arguing like mad and losing my mind. :shrug:

Hillary

[GateandGarden]

Nancy, I have nothing against people of faith, nor do I think most people do here. Where it becomes a problem is twofold. Number one, I don't believe faith/religion belongs in government policy. Number two, the faith Bush espouses is Christianity. There are millions of people in this country who practice other faiths, or no faith at all. And we deserve every right and protection to practice our faith (or no faith) as any Christian does. When Bush tries to set policy based on *his* god, the Christian god, then I think people who don't follow that same faith have a problem.:nod: Amen to that.

Hillary

[ontheEdgeof17]

Nancy, I have nothing against people of faith, nor do I think most people do here. Where it becomes a problem is twofold. Number one, I don't believe faith/religion belongs in government policy. Number two, the faith Bush espouses is Christianity. There are millions of people in this country who practice other faiths, or no faith at all. And we deserve every right and protection to practice our faith (or no faith) as any Christian does. When Bush tries to set policy based on *his* god, the Christian god, then I think people who don't follow that same faith have a problem.


It's really hard for me to be a Christian when I get bibles thrown in my face telling me God hates me and people trying to "convert" me back to heterosexuality. Well, I've never been a heterosexual so how can I change back?

I have no spiritual health now because of what I do in my bedroom. It's hard for me to believe that I will go to hell because I kiss guys....because I love someone back......because I care about a person's life. It's okay to kill someone because they did wrong, but it's damnation for me because I hold hands with a male? I don't see the logic in that. :shrug:

Someday these families will see when they have children of their own. 10% of them will be gay. How will they deal then?

[Sorceress]

Nancy, Nancy, Nancy,

I believe you know it's not fair to lump all of Kerry's supporters (or liberals, for that matter) into one mischaracterized group. It's true that I am saddened and disappointed by the result of the election, but I consider myself to be a liberal because of my views of tolerance, social justice, and peace. I think there are plenty of Democrats/Kerry supporters/liberals who share this way of thinking. It's offensive to me that the conservative right has portrayed itself as the only people of faith and morality in this country. It's unfair and dead wrong.

You know I would never say anything derogatory about you and I am not abusive toward others because of their views. I know there are people who are not crazy extremists who have supported Bush, and though I believe they are wrong, I accept their right to be wrong.

I don't know how people who voted for Bush in the South, Plains States, and Upper West got the idea that Democrats are immoral. Maybe what the Party needs is to better explain the moral basis of our positions on issues. There IS a reason liberals feel as they do...and it's not just because we want to send the country to hell in a handbasket, throwing out money to every undeserved on the way down. :rolleyes:

[GateandGarden]

Well, I've never been a heterosexual so how can I change back?Yeah, I'm always trying to tell people that, but some people just won't believe me. :distress:

Hillary

[Sorceress]

PS: I will never understand how supporting capital punishment is the Christian thing to do. :shrug: But I suppose that's another issue entirely.

btw, the point I was trying to make in my earlier post is that liberals/Democrats are indeed moral people. They espouse a different kind of morality that I believe is actually more in line with what most mainstream Americans believe. What we need to do is communicate that to people and appeal to their hearts, not just their pocket books and brains. I'm not saying that we need to change our views or positions in any way. Just reframe in a way that people will understand and adopt as their own.

[GateandGarden]

PS: I will never understand how supporting capital punishment is the Christian thing to do. :shrug: But I suppose that's another issue entirely.
Well, there is that "eye for an eye" thing in the Bible that many believe to be very valid. :shrug:

Hillary

[thepoetinmyhear]

I tend to agree with nearly everything Nancy said. Just so she has a little back up I will also respond to some responses to her post (hope you don't mind). First let me state that I actually favored neither candidate and chose to write in a certain ex Arizona Senator. I know it made no difference, but there you go.

I agree that there are not enough programs to support the poor and underprivaledged in this country. However, Kerry's principle solution to this problem is to raise taxes (and not just for the rich, granted a majority of the times he supported tax hikes were for cigarettes or other specific item taxes, his support to income tax hikes were universal). Given that record I would have to favor Bush for his "individualism" approach. We do need more support programs but it isn't the place of the goverment to take more money from us.

I know that bit rambles, I'll edit later.

I know little about partial birth abortions so if someone could tell me an example when they are absolutely necessary and would still be banned by the proposed bill I would very much like to hear it. This is not meant to be as much of a "I dare you to back your statement up." I am legitimately ignorant on this subject.

On the terrorist matter, this is where Kerry being portrayed as a flip flop hurt him the most. It seems many people feel it is important to have a strong stance against terrorist even to the extent of committing the wrong act to ensure safety. Not something I agree with 100% but it does seem better than someone who would spend months trying to decide what to do and ultimately letting the moment pass him by (letting a terrorist get away with it).

Death penalty I commented on in this forum before.

Additionally it is lucky for us that Bush does not SET POLICY. That is not his job. He can support bills and encourage support for certain bills, but he DOES NOT set policy.

Also as unfair as it is to group kerry supporters into one group it is also unfair to group anybody into one thing conservative right, christians, homosexuals, heterosexuals. Blanket statements ALWAYS have expceptions no matter which side is making the statement.

Michael

[GateandGarden]

I know little about partial birth abortions so if someone could tell me an example when they are absolutely necessary and would still be banned by the proposed bill I would very much like to hear it. This is not meant to be as much of a "I dare you to back your statement up." I am legitimately ignorant on this subject.I think they are necessary when the mother's life is in danger.

Hillary

[thepoetinmyhear]

I think they are necessary when the mother's life is in danger.

Hillary

That is what I thought you meant but I did not want to make an assumption. Is it still banned in those situations?

Michael

[cliffdweller]

Now it is the time for your country to show the world you can unite and not be so arragant.

Kinda hard to do with Bush in office--see, that's the whole point. :rolleyes:

[GateandGarden]

That is what I thought you meant but I did not want to make an assumption. Is it still banned in those situations?

MichaelMy understanding is that it is. But I'm not an expert on abortion issues, so can someone confirm or deny that?

Hillary

[cliffdweller]

And, finally, the overwhelming liberal contempt for people of faith is a huge turn-off. The hateful posts I see here totally confirm my worst fears about the attitude of the Democratic party towards people like me, and now the majority of Americans who dare to hold different political views. It’s scary and I don’t want anything to do with it.

Yeah, and Christians are so tolerant of the way non-believers feel. I do believe there are two sides to the coin here, let's not go calling the kettle black.

[strandinthewind]

With respect and in general I say:

He’ll put conservative judges on the Supreme Court if need be

Yes, and they will create an Unconstitutional theocracy, which is great if you are a Christian. But, it is not so great if you are not. Moreover, conservative judges will allow the govt. to come into our bedrooms, homes, etc. and tell us how to live our private lives. How anyone can be for that is beyond me. But, many are and many more want the national religion to be Christianity and none others really tolerated or at least respect as much as Christianity. That is not what America is about - yet the preachers scare the parishioners into believing it, e.g. Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, etc. Again, if you were a Muslim and you walked into a Court of Law and saw a 5 ton monument of the Christian Decalogue and had some conservative judge screaming "this is the law because the Christian God is the law" - how would you feel? I would feel terrified and like a second or third class citizen. But, most of Christian America refuses to see that. How can that not be wrong?

He’ll stand fast against partial-birth abortion

I believe in a woman's right to chose no matter what my personal feelings on abortion are. In fact, I think if we actually taught people in high schools how to have safe sex and gave them the tools necessary to do so, there would be far fewer abortions. But, the religious right cannot abide that idea. They think abstinence is the only policy even though they know it will never work because it has never worked historically. Yet, preaching against it fills the church coffers I guess :shrug: And the bill they past clearly is Unconstitutional because it does not allow a woman's physician to care for her. How would you like it if your doctor told you the only way to save your life was through this partial birth method but that he could not perform it so you both die. I think I'd be pissed (albeit briefly :laugh: ) that some religious zealot made the medical decision for me instead of me and my doctor :shrug: But, the debate on abortion will rage long after I am dust in the ground and we certainly are not going to solve it here :shrug:

He’s better equipped to deal with the terrorist

I do not agree. I think he is better equipped at saying a country is a direct and immediate threat and then ignoring the contrary facts and invading them anyway. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists and W has failed to capture OBL. Moreover, 9/11 occurred on his watch and there was some general warning of it. Granted that warning was mostly general, but W was too preoccupied with Iraq to even consider it. And then, did he learn from his mistake - no - instead he bootstraped Iraq onto 9/11 (which was a lie and he knew it was so) as if to complete his first errant and myopic thought. Finally, his cavalier attitude and brash actions in Iraq have caused us to be hated even more in the Arab community, which I never thought was possible.

His tax policies are more fair to all income levels (and no, I’m not rich)

I agree. I do, however, think the upper 1% should have gotten less of a break, but they still should have gotten a break. AND - according to Greenspan the initial spark created by the tax cuts could possibly have have been the needed catalyst to jump start the economy if W had had any amount of fiscal responsibility. But, he did not. He cut taxes and then spent the money we no longer had and then some. Now we are in debt up to our foreheads and he will probably double that in the next four years if he keeps the current pace. AND - if he had spent the borrowed money here that might have even remotely been a good thing for the economy. But, he did not. Instead, he invaded a country that was not the incorrectly alleged immediate threat to us, then promised us their oil would pay for their reconstruction. Well, their oil is not. Instead we are and it is breaking us. So, while I am all for tax cuts - they must come with fiscal responsibility, a trait W clearly lacks.

He is pro-death penalty

I will never understand how Christians can support this. The Decalogue says "Thou shall not kill." How do they get passed that. I mean it does not provide a caveat for murderers :shrug: AND murder and in fact war goes against everything Christ stood when He said "turn the other cheek" AND after all Christ was a victim of the death penalty. But, I get it is a vengeance thing and that is a palpable remedy for most. So, it is here to stay I think. As for me, I'd rather not have it but if someone killed my kid, I'd want them dead. Thus, I am a hypocrite and cannot apply in reality my lofty abstract ideals :shrug:

I don’t trust Kerry not to cave to the extremists of his party

True, Kerry probably would. But, W clearly has. He is so beholden to the far far religious right that he is a cipher for them. So, I guess if you are on the religious right this is a good thing. Anyone else is screwed and their rights will be and are being taken away. Here is a good example is this. How can sodomy (and we are not just talking homosexual anal sex here but heterosexual anal sex, fellatio, etc. - this is how most statutes defined the term "sodomy" ) possibly hurt any consenting party much less the state, who is the alleged victim? Yet, the far religious right wants to come into hetero and homo sexual bedrooms and dictate how, when, where, and on whom sex is performed. How can anyone be for that? But, W is.

And, finally, the overwhelming liberal contempt for people of faith is a huge turn-off. The hateful posts I see here totally confirm my worst fears about the attitude of the Democratic party towards people like me, and now the majority of Americans who dare to hold different political views. It’s scary and I don’t want anything to do with it. I truly believe this hateful attitude is what made the necessary undecided turn to Bush (who are now lumped in with the psycho extremists, of course, because they don't think the "right" way).

I have no contempt for faith in God, Allah, etc. What I do have contempt for is people asserting that the U.S. Fed. Govt. on down has the right to make me or anyone else believe in God and live by the Christian way. While I do believe in God and am a Christian - I fully realize it is possible to be a great American and believe on no god and/or be a Wiccan, a Muslin, a Jew, etc. So, whenever I go off on religion, I am not saying religion is a bad thing. I am solely saying religion through government, which is the objective of the current Republican party, is a horrible thing done by horrible people AND it is completely contrary to the U.S. Const. Yet, the press has made it so any attempt to keep religion and govt. separate is a direct attack on religion itself. Again, I am all for the Christian or any other Decalogue but I do not think the U.S. Govt. or any other govt. has the right to make me believe in it. I do not think they have the right to make me say I will have no god other than their God. Moreover, I say if any citizen wants to put the Christian or any other Decalogue in any private space, more power to them. What I object to is the govt. doing it and then saying this is the law, which is exactly what happened in Alabama. Yet, that exact argument is twisted into me saying private citizens do not have the right to display the Christian Decalogue and the secularlists are trying to take away the right to worship God. I mean how is me saying the govt. ought not sponsor a religion the same thing as me saying you cannot practice religion? Thus, the battle rages.

Tone - respect as always because Nancy (Sodascouts) is a good friend whose opinion I cherish and respect. We just respectfully differ on these points!!!

[thepoetinmyhear]

With respect and in general I say:

I am solely saying religion through government, which is the objective of the current Republican party, is a horrible thing done by horrible people...

Back the truck up! That is a prime example of an erroneous blanket statement. There are several republicans (granted not a majority, heck not even a noticeable minority) that are not even christian so saying the current republican party wants to have religion through goverment is ridiculous. There are several republicans in key positions within the party who do seem bent on this path (the majority leader for one), but the party as a whole can not be proclaimed to have the objective of religion as government. To also classify these people as horrible people is an ad hominem attack and unwarranted here.

Michael

[dissention]

And, finally, the overwhelming liberal contempt for people of faith is a huge turn-off. The hateful posts I see here totally confirm my worst fears about the attitude of the Democratic party towards people like me, and now the majority of Americans who dare to hold different political views. It’s scary and I don’t want anything to do with it. I truly believe this hateful attitude is what made the necessary undecideds turn to Bush (who are now lumped in with the psycho extremists, of course, because they don't think the "right" way).

Yeah, the liberal extremists on this board are indicative of the Democratic party as a whole. :rolleyes:

Forgive me while I puke. Nevermind, I haven't stopped since Tuesday night.

[gldstwmn]

I think he's better because he's a strong man and he like values human life and stuff and he treats everyone equally and yeah. And he comes from a good family and he always goes to church and he's all funny and stuff like that. He has nice hats.

LMFAO. Oh the basis of having nice hats, I say we could elect Stevie.

[gldstwmn]

- partial-birth abortion
-

What is that?

[cliffdweller]

Yeah, the liberal extremists on this board are indicative of the Democratic party as a whole. :rolleyes:

Forgive me while I puke. Nevermind, I haven't stopped since Tuesday night.

Ah-Ha! I was wondering when you'd show up. :wavey: Get ready for more puking....

[strandinthewind]

Back the truck up! That is a prime example of an erroneous blanket statement. There are several republicans (granted not a majority, heck not even a noticeable minority) that are not even christian so saying the current republican party wants to have religion through goverment is ridiculous. There are several republicans in key positions within the party who do seem bent on this path (the majority leader for one), but the party as a whole can not be proclaimed to have the objective of religion as government. To also classify these people as horrible people is an ad hominem attack and unwarranted here.

Michael

"ad hominem" BTW - is one of my fav.'s

Of course not all R's feel this way. But, I submit the vast majority do. So, I was just calling it like I see it. I know of no instance where any part of the R party has opposed any instance of govt. sponsored Ten Commandments in public buildings. They have all, or at least all I have seen, supported it. I think that is wanting to est. an theocracy and really see no valid argument against it. But, if your version differs, so be it and I certainly hope you are correct and I am in error :cool:

[dissention]

Ah-Ha! I was wondering when you'd show up. :wavey: Get ready for more puking....

Sorry I wasn't hear earlier, my head was still in the bowl.

To hell with every person who voted for this scum. You've signed your death warrant and I hope you suffer because of it.

[dissention]

Back the truck up! That is a prime example of an erroneous blanket statement. There are several republicans (granted not a majority, heck not even a noticeable minority) that are not even christian so saying the current republican party wants to have religion through goverment is ridiculous. There are several republicans in key positions within the party who do seem bent on this path (the majority leader for one), but the party as a whole can not be proclaimed to have the objective of religion as government. To also classify these people as horrible people is an ad hominem attack and unwarranted here.

Michael

Bull**** and you know it. The Republican party was hijacked by the religious wackos when Reagan was in office and they now run it. To say otherwise is delusional.

[cliffdweller]

Sorry I wasn't hear earlier, my head was still in the bowl.

To hell with every person who voted for this scum. You've signed your death warrant and I hope you suffer because of it.

The joke's on us, but the real bitch is, the joke's on all of us, even the Kerry supporters. :distress:

[gldstwmn]

On the terrorist matter, this is where Kerry being portrayed as a flip flop hurt him the most. It seems many people feel it is important to have a strong stance against terrorist even to the extent of committing the wrong act to ensure safety. Not something I agree with 100% but it does seem better than someone who would spend months trying to decide what to do and ultimately letting the moment pass him by (letting a terrorist get away with it).



You mean like George did on 9/11? :confused:

[dissention]

The joke's on us, but the real bitch is, the joke's on all of us, even the Kerry supporters. :distress:

Not really. We've lived through his imperialism and trickery for the last four years, we have nothing left to lose. But when he starts drafting the children of his supporters, I'll just sit back and remember the old story about the lady that swallowed a fly...and it killed her. You reap what you sow.

[hauntedsong16]

Can someone explain to me why the belief here is that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to kill her baby as it is being born? I mean, if that's the case, shouldn't it be my right to choose if I want to off somebody in the street? Killing is killing, no matter how you try to spin it. For the record, I'm against the death penalty, too, so I don't feel I'm being hypocritical here. And seriously, explain it to me, because I'm honestly curious how one can justify it.

[dissention]

On the terrorist matter, this is where Kerry being portrayed as a flip flop hurt him the most. It seems many people feel it is important to have a strong stance against terrorist even to the extent of committing the wrong act to ensure safety. Not something I agree with 100% but it does seem better than someone who would spend months trying to decide what to do and ultimately letting the moment pass him by (letting a terrorist get away with it).

You mean like Bush giving Bin Laden a two month running start before going into Afghanistan? Surely you jest.

[strandinthewind]

You mean like George did on 9/11? :confused:

Yep - AND I love how people think Kerry waiting for world support is a bad theing when that is EXACTLY what W did in Afganistan. He, through Powell, got a coalition together. Yet, when some of that coalition refused to go into Iraq because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, W's admisitration fostered ill will toward those countries. I just cannot see how people can support W when he is just creepy and he destroys anyone who gets in his way, no matter what good those people may have done for America in the past.

[dissention]

Can someone explain to me why the belief here is that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to kill her baby as it is being born? I mean, if that's the case, shouldn't it be my right to choose if I want to off somebody in the street? Killing is killing, no matter how you try to spin it. For the record, I'm against the death penalty, too, so I don't feel I'm being hypocritical here. And seriously, explain it to me, because I'm honestly curious how one can justify it.

Do you even know what partial-birth abortion is? It's not "killing a baby as it's being born." How absurd.

We had a whole thread about this throughout the week, read it please.

[ontheEdgeof17]

You mean like George did on 9/11? :confused:


go to georgewgirls.com Although it was meant to be humerous, it's true as well. Even has a paragraph and articles on how Bush has even flip-flopped throughout his presidency.

[cliffdweller]

Not really. We've lived through his imperialism and trickery for the last four years, we have nothing left to lose. But when he starts drafting the children of his supporters, I'll just sit back and remember the old story about the lady that swallowed a fly...and it killed her. You reap what you sow.

I hope you're right, because I fear that we won't be here in four years. The world hates us, and it's only going to get worse. Sorry for the doomsayer attitude but let's face facts, our fate is in his hands and that scares the piss out of me.

[GateandGarden]

LMFAO. Oh the basis of having nice hats, I say we could elect Stevie.I'm all for it! :D

Hillary

[gldstwmn]

Yeah, the liberal extremists on this board are indicative of the Democratic party as a whole. :rolleyes:

Forgive me while I puke. Nevermind, I haven't stopped since Tuesday night.

Whew. I was worried about you. :xoxo: :angel:

[skcin]

What is that?

It's a method of abortion which necessitates that the fetus being partially into the birth canal in order to terminate the pregnancy. Radical pro-lifers can go into it more graphically/horrifically if they want to, but I won't. I'm a nurse, so there's a very basic medical explanation.

The battle comes down to when is a fetus a human being, is it murder, etc. These types of procedures are done later in a pregnancy (usually 2nd trimester, occasionally 3rd.) So the fetus is quite developed, making it even more controversial. The pregnancy is too far along to perform a routine abortion procedure.

Nobody is PRO- abortion. Kerry was not like "Hey, I love abortions. They're great!" His point was that Bush wants them banned totally, whether there's a risk to the woman's life or not. Kerry supported a ban, but with exceptions in the case of rape or threat to woman's life.

One of my good friends found out late in her pregnancy (5 months or so) that her fetus was not developing properly & there was a serious genetic defect. The fetus would not survive on its own, and would probably die in the womb. I believe it was missing most of its brain. They were seriously concerned about her health & complications that could occur, so they terminated. I would never want to take that right away from her - it's not my life, my choice, my family. It's hers. It was not something she wanted to do, but being a 30 year old woman with a 6 year old at home, she felt it was the best choice for her & her family.

Paula

[skcin]

Can someone explain to me why the belief here is that it is a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to kill her baby as it is being born? I mean, if that's the case, shouldn't it be my right to choose if I want to off somebody in the street? Killing is killing, no matter how you try to spin it. For the record, I'm against the death penalty, too, so I don't feel I'm being hypocritical here. And seriously, explain it to me, because I'm honestly curious how one can justify it.

See my above post & tell me if my friend should go to jail for "killing her baby. "

Paula :distress:

[hauntedsong16]

See my above post & tell me if my friend should go to jail for "killing her baby. "

Paula :distress:

No, I don't think so. At all. It only concerns me in cases where there is not threat to the baby's life, mother's life, no health complications, etc. And honestly, I wasn't trying to attack anyone. I seriously just wanted someone to explain it to me, and you did. So thank you.

[strandinthewind]

No, I don't think so. At all. It only concerns me in cases where there is not threat to the baby's life, mother's life, no health complications, etc. And honestly, I wasn't trying to attack anyone. I seriously just wanted someone to explain it to me, and you did. So thank you.

I agree with you, but what standard is set to determine that. The current bill does not allow for it at all - thus, its Unconstitutionality :shrug:

[gldstwmn]

It's a method of abortion which necessitates that the fetus being partially into the birth canal in order to terminate the pregnancy. Radical pro-lifers can go into it more graphically/horrifically if they want to, but I won't. I'm a nurse, so there's a very basic medical explanation.

The battle comes down to when is a fetus a human being, is it murder, etc. These types of procedures are done later in a pregnancy (usually 2nd trimester, occasionally 3rd.) So the fetus is quite developed, making it even more controversial. The pregnancy is too far along to perform a routine abortion procedure.

Nobody is PRO- abortion. Kerry was not like "Hey, I love abortions. They're great!" His point was that Bush wants them banned totally, whether there's a risk to the woman's life or not. Kerry supported a ban, but with exceptions in the case of rape or threat to woman's life.

One of my good friends found out late in her pregnancy (5 months or so) that her fetus was not developing properly & there was a serious genetic defect. The fetus would not survive on its own, and would probably die in the womb. I believe it was missing most of its brain. They were seriously concerned about her health & complications that could occur, so they terminated. I would never want to take that right away from her - it's not my life, my choice, my family. It's hers. It was not something she wanted to do, but being a 30 year old woman with a 6 year old at home, she felt it was the best choice for her & her family.

Paula

Thank you Paula. I already knew the answer but what I wanted to illustrate was how outrageous it is for the term "partial birth abortion" to be used in a political campaign. It is a hot button term, does not mean what it implies and is an extreme rarity. Certain people though, would like you to think that the "libruls" are running around getting one of these for every woman.

[dissention]

Whew. I was worried about you. :xoxo: :angel:

Darling, I was going to slit my wrists but I was wearing new pants and I didn't want to dirty 'em. :wavey:

Much love to you, my dear, and every one of my fellow brothers and sisters on the board. :xoxo:

[Alison]

Yep this thread had once again got out of hand. I though this was a thread on why people voted for Bush. Not to bash them because they did.

To hell with every person who voted for this scum. You've signed your death warrant and I hope you suffer because of it.

This is the type of statement I was talking about. To curse over half of the country is not going to solve any problem.

Like I said earlier. I'm glad I'm a Canadian. If I judged Americans by what I read on this forum, I would think they were very hateful, ignorant, and spiteful.
Can't blame it all on Bush. This has been going on for years.
God have mercy on your country, becasue of the above statement that person said about going to hell, and the hate you spew, you are going to need it.

[gldstwmn]

No, I don't think so. At all. It only concerns me in cases where there is not threat to the baby's life, mother's life, no health complications, etc.

That argument is illegitimate because no physician in his right mind would perform such a procedure, I can assure you. It is just not done. This is just more right wing rhetoric on the subject of abortion.

[dissention]

If I judged Americans by what I read on this forum, I would think they were very hateful, ignorant, and spiteful.

I am. :wavey:

And I only said what others are too chicken**** to say. When you support a man like Bush, you will reap what you sow. And it won't be pretty. I hope they do suffer from his re-taking the throne, only then will their eyes open up. And that will only mean good things for this country.

[gldstwmn]

Darling, I was going to slit my wrists but I was wearing new pants and I didn't want to dirty 'em. :wavey:

Much love to you, my dear, and every one of my fellow brothers and sisters on the board. :xoxo:

We are united. :xoxo:

[Alison]

No wonder your country is in a mess. You are proud to be hateful.
Like I said, God have mercy on your country and you.

[ontheEdgeof17]

No wonder your country is in a mess. You are proud to be hateful.


A majority of my country practically doesn't want me here. What's there to be proud of?

[skcin]

No, I don't think so. At all. It only concerns me in cases where there is not threat to the baby's life, mother's life, no health complications, etc. And honestly, I wasn't trying to attack anyone. I seriously just wanted someone to explain it to me, and you did. So thank you.


You're welcome.

Paula

[gldstwmn]

No wonder your country is in a mess. You are proud to be hateful.
Like I said, God have mercy on your country and you.

Don't you need to go pray now? :rolleyes:

[dissention]

No wonder your country is in a mess. You are proud to be hateful.
Like I said, God have mercy on your country and you.

Did you even read what I said?

It must be nice to sit high atop your throne in Canada where you don't have right-wing religious nutjobs running your country and where most everyone has access to healthcare.

[cliffdweller]

Like I said earlier. I'm glad I'm a Canadian. If I judged Americans by what I read on this forum, I would think they were very hateful, ignorant, and spiteful.

And that would be your biggest problem: if you judged ALL Americans by what you read on a Fleetwood Mac message forum. I'm afraid that would be a tad (insert sarcasm here) short-sighted.

Also, with all due respect, I don't think you can understand the political climate of our country at this moment since you don't live here and are not American. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but this election cuts very deep for a lot of people, emotions are running high and many people are hurt. Those of us who you consider the most hate-filled on this board are that way for a very good reason. We love our country and want the best for it, George Bush is DESTROYING our country and demonizing us in the "eyes of the world." It's a travesty, an abomination, and I guess you can't understand that.

[Alison]

I'm not going totaly by all what I see on this board. This is the image that is brought forth from many sources. This is the image of America that Many in Canada see. If Canada see's it like this, so do other countrys.
By the way I'm half American, and I have a brother who lives in Boston. My brother is not a Bush supporter at all. He is going to be moving back to Canada becasue Bush got in.
I'm talking about the hate for others opinions and for those who do not beleive the same ways that you do. That is very dangerous, and narrow minded.
Bush is a man, and he has made mistakes. Do you think Kerry would not have made any? To hate Bush and others that supported him is what I'm complaining about. Hate is a very strong word. That is to wish someone dead and curse them to hell.
Why do you think Hitler did what he did. He hated a certain group of people and wanted them destroyed. And he almost did it. He wanted to have people think and belive what he did.
Yes I will "go and pray now". Is that suppose to be an attack on me?
By the way I do pray for your country, be thankful that some people do.

[estranged4life]

LMFAO. Oh the basis of having nice hats, I say we could elect Stevie.

needs a "personal" intern (ala Monica/Slick Willy) I volunteer!!!!

Brian j.

[LilyRose]

Thank you to Nancy and Michael and everyone else who responded appropriately...and Patti, I totally agree with you.

I can understand a little more why people support him.

I can also understand a little more why I just can't support him.

But I completely repsect your opinion and I just sincerely hope that he really does take in to account the opinion of the other half of the country that didn't vote for him.

God help us,

Susie

[Alison]

Lilly Rose.
Thank you for posting your last letter.
It was a breath of fresh air.
Thank you for understanding others opinions.

[strandinthewind]

Lilly Rose.
Thank you for posting your last letter.
It was a breath of fresh air.
Thank you for understanding others opinions.

Understanding a different opinion is one thing. But, I think when someone disagrees with that opinion and then cites examples of why it is incorrect and then concludes, that it okay and they should not be lambasted for it :shrug: You may not mean to, but your posts come off like "how date anyone disrespect an opposite opinion." If you did not mean it that way then sorry for the confusion.

[strandinthewind]

I thought this article interesting in that it was in the editorial section of the WSJ which has been so pro-Bush.
______________________________________________________________
November 4, 2004


POLITICS & PEOPLE
By ALBERT R. HUNT

An Impressive Victory; No Mandate
November 4, 2004; Page A15

George W. Bush loses few opportunities to claim Ronald Reagan as his model of presidential leadership; if he means it, he'll be a much less divisive leader in the second term.

Mr. Bush is appropriately exultant after winning an intense victory Tuesday; he's entitled to gloat over those of us who doubted he'd win or deserved to win.

But, unlike us, he faces the responsibility of governance. That should temper the euphoria. It was a GOP sweep, but it also was the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

Moreover, the history of second term presidents is sobering; many either overreach or become early lame ducks. Ronald Reagan was an exception of sorts as he focused more on legacy than ideology. Although with his landslide win 1984 he could have claimed a mandate for more of the same, he didn't. He moved to the center on both domestic issues -- the landmark 1986 tax bill was a genuinely bipartisan effort -- and on foreign affairs, particularly in his dealings with the Soviet Union and Mikhail Gorbachev. That second-term pragmatism is best detailed in Lou Cannon's superb biography of the Reagan presidency.

A re-election offers any president a new tableau. "Decision making no longer has to be made through the prism of re-election," notes Margaret Tutwiler, a top aide to Jim Baker in the Reagan administration. But she also warns: "In very short order, people start focusing on the next election. It's important to set your (legislative) priorities and move quickly."

Whatever President Bush's plans, the reality of Iraq will begin to loom large. Most experts are skeptical the scheduled January elections there can be pulled off successfully. Reports suggest that violence is on the uptick.

One decision that will have to be made soon is whether to escalate America's involvement in Iraq, by sending in more troops, with the hopes that a more massive display of force will quell most of the insurgency. Ironically, sources say, that's an option that Sen. Kerry, if elected, would have seriously considered. But it's full of peril, threatening to worsen a quagmire that could dominate the critical next year for George W. Bush.

Whatever he decides -- and some sources close to the administration expect the opposite, a steady pullout starting soon next year -- the president would be well-advised to reach out to critics on Capitol Hill, including Democrats like Sen. Joe Biden, but also Republicans like Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar.

Some semblance of bipartisan national security is important too, as other hot spots -- North Korea and Iran -- take front-burner. Confronting Iran, which is intent on developing a nuclear capacity, may be unavoidable, but any military action, on top of Iraq, would set the tone for an entire second term.

Personnel will affect these policies. Most Bush advisers won't be upset if Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld leaves soon. But there is no natural candidate to succeed him. One possibility: National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, who wouldn't be identified as much with post-Iraq invasion debacles.

And most of Colin Powell's friends doubt that he will stay as secretary of state, having been embarrassed and deprecated so often by the White House. The leading replacement candidates: United Nations Ambassador John Danforth or Ms. Rice.

The president also needs to find, or promote, a few more innovative and forceful top guns in economic and domestic policy.

In the campaign, President Bush talked about a second-term drive for Social Security reform (a partial privatization), tax reform (a sharp reduction in the role of the progressive income tax) and more tax cuts. It will be impossible to achieve all three -- politically or fiscally -- over the next two years. The White House will have to settle on its priority; if American history is any guide, no sweeping reform is possible without bipartisan support.

Tax cuts are politically easy, and Democrats, given today's political realities, have no chance of rescinding the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. But the fiscal outlook, with the baby-boomer retirements on the horizon, could haunt a second Bush term.

Mr. Bush owes a great deal to the cultural conservatives who turned out in huge numbers for him Tuesday. One sure payoff: the three or four Supreme Court justices he's likely to nominate in a second term. Most of those will produce unavoidably fractious fights. But on many of the other hot-button social issues, Mr. Bush could look to his presidential role model, Ronald Reagan, who always sided with the social right but rarely made their issues a priority.

The bottom line, as veteran Republican and Washington hand, Vin Weber, notes, is not to realistically expect more than "selective" cooperation. "There can be a bipartisan majority (on specific issues) but not a bipartisan consensus," he says.

Perhaps instead Mr. Bush will see Tuesday as a huge mandate and see the opposition as dejected and dwindling. Conversations yesterday suggested despondency among Democrats unequaled in contemporary times.

This seems true of much of the rank and file as well as political elites. At least judging by the e-mails in my inbox at 8:30 yesterday morning, even before Sen. Kerry had conceded. An articulate Seattle, Washington man wrote that he was "absolutely devastated" by this election as never before and genuinely feared the country "will explode."

As the president celebrates an impressive across-the-board victory, caveats notwithstanding, those fears shouldn't be ignored. George W. Bush has been a successful divider; can he now seriously move to be more of a uniter?

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB109953484618964519,00.html


Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) mailto:al.hunt@wsj.com

[GateandGarden]

A majority of my country practically doesn't want me here. What's there to be proud of?That was my thought too, Curtis. But you have my support and the support of many others. Don't feel alone. :xoxo:

Hillary

[DrummerDeanna]

Geez...now I'm a liberal - up until now i was a registered Democrat (I'm not an independent...)

I alwasy though being liberal came with an open mind - which I try to have.

Nancy, I respect your views and I respec the conviction of those who have it - the same way I don't like when people shove their views down my throat - I don't like it when it's done here.

Some here say the Republican Party is hateful and evil - you're showing a real hypocrisy here when YOU are not showing any open-mindedness....

Also - I haven't noticed any religious fanatics on this board and I've not noticed anyone trying to shove their religious beliefs down anyone's throat - so why all the hostility and snide remarks when it comes to anything religious?

You're stooping down to the level of the people you hate when you justify it by saying, "That's how they act..." "they hate me..." Rise above it - rather than complaining or trying to tear others down work for change - volunteer your time to a worthy cause...I don't know...

There IS a lot of hostility on this board and though I strongly dislike Bush some on here were making me want to vote for him just to spite them....I didn't because again - I try to rise above and just know that I live by my own convictions and they are right for me....

I have two good friends who voted for Bush - they had reasons which we discussed and I rescpect that they had reasons other than, "he's religious" There ARE people who like the man - and I really don't think the country is going to implode while he's in office - if it does then so help me I'll go down laughing at myself for being idealistic -

But hey we got him for another four years...I intend to work for change on a local level - rather than sulk and complain about the fact that he was re-elected...life goes on......life goes on

[estranged4life]

Geez...now I'm a liberal - up until now i was a registered Democrat (I'm not an independent...)

I alwasy though being liberal came with an open mind - which I try to have.


Guess I am a "Lib-er-al" now...Big whoopdy doo, It isnt like we all havent seen this coming :)

I once was a loyal right wing Republican in my late teens who supported everything the Reagan/Bush (1st) admins. stood for :(

But something happened during my early to late 20's which screwed my vision of what they stood for and who they stood against (Maybe marriage...maybe the hardships of life, Who knows but it did change me forever more)...I started to think for myself and no longer follow what the political party was shoving into my mind as being their ALMIGHTY GOD FEARING LAW. How is America supposed to become a country that offers freedoms for ALL CITIZENS then in the same breath do exactly the opposite of that and oppress some of the same citizens???

That BS pushed me to the center (An Independent) and made me more questioning of what the hell exactly those in Washington were trying to do to this country and why instead of bringing ALL OF US together why they CONTINUALLY divide US up into individual warring factions? Is this because they know that if we EVER join together nothing can stop us and they will lose our favortism towards them???

I remember watching the movie "And The Band Played On" and it f**cked me up so much that instead of being the homo-phobe I was (Like others in my family still are) it made me realize I am a hypocrite for denying others their civil rights in this country while I was allowed rights...Thus changing me forever more into a more open minded person instead of a close minded shallow sack of ****.

Sad but true, But I was once considered the enemy of many of the same people who post here because of the way I was raised (ie-Brainwashed into not forming my OWN opinions & beliefs)...But I FINALLY arose above their limited ways of thinking and see the world for what it truly is.


Brian j.

[sodascouts]

It's hard for me to believe that I will go to hell because I kiss guys....because I love someone back......because I care about a person's life.

Whoever told you that doesn't know the Bible. I've said this before. According to the Bible, which I realize not all of you buy into, there will be homosexuals in Heaven and heteros in hell. It all depends on their attitude towards Christ. Again, I realize that some of you couldn't care less what the Bible says, but I thought I would clarify that. I also understand that this is a common misconception perpetuated by those who haven't examined the Bible carefully and are just repeating what some other person told them (in MOST cases).

[DrummerDeanna]

Guess I am a "Lib-er-al" now...Big whoopdy doo, It isnt like we all havent seen this coming :)

I once was a loyal right wing Republican in my late teens who supported everything the Reagan/Bush (1st) admins. stood for :(

But something happened during my early to late 20's which screwed my vision of what they stood for and who they stood against (Maybe marriage...maybe the hardships of life, Who knows but it did change me forever more)...I started to think for myself and no longer follow what the political party was shoving into my mind as being their ALMIGHTY GOD FEARING LAW. How is America supposed to become a country that offers freedoms for ALL CITIZENS then in the same breath do exactly the opposite of that and oppress some of the same citizens???

That BS pushed me to the center (An Independent) and made me more questioning of what the hell exactly those in Washington were trying to do to this country and why instead of bringing ALL OF US together why they CONTINUALLY divide US up into individual warring factions? Is this because they know that if we EVER join together nothing can stop us and they will lose our favortism towards them???

I remember watching the movie "And The Band Played On" and it f**cked me up so much that instead of being the homo-phobe I was (Like others in my family still are) it made me realize I am a hypocrite for denying others their civil rights in this country while I was allowed rights...Thus changing me forever more into a more open minded person instead of a close minded shallow sack of ****.

Sad but true, But I was once considered the enemy of many of the same people who post here because of the way I was raised (ie-Brainwashed into not forming my OWN opinions & beliefs)...But I FINALLY arose above their limited ways of thinking and see the world for what it truly is.


Brian j.

Yeah - I was raised in a Hispanic houshold...but probably one of the most non-political housholds ever....not one person in my family ever mentioned politics or anything related to it - I was never taught anything about homosexuality - I took the initiative to learn about it on my own - and therefore formed my own opinions...

BUT then my uncle was "born-again" and man - he's wacked....it's hard to talk to him sometimes...as he's part of the dreaded religious right....( a group that does frighten me...)

It gives me hope to know that there are people in the world like yourself you can be um...for lack of a better term "enlightened" haha....I wish more people would open their minds and come to the realizations you did....

[GardenStateGirlie]

Deanna, thank you very much. I appreciate your words and respect you a lot for them. I feel like people on this board view me as an evil heartless bitch because I voted for Bush...same for all others on this board who have voted for him as well. Yes, we have been lambasted for our opinion but again, it's MY opinion. I'm not asking for someone elses acceptance of it. I'm voicing it the same way that the dominating voice of this board gets to voice theirs. If you want to view me as said evil heartless bitch, do it for a better reason please...like i've killed your cat or run over your prized-winning flowers in your garden with my Buick. This world would be a better place if we all accepted each other regardless of our difference in opinion on certain subjects. Like I said, everyone has varying circumstances in life and things that are important to them. We voted Tuesday and voiced our opinions. Had Kerry won, I would have to accept it and move on. Bush won and despite the sting a lot of you are feeling, we're all going to have to collectively do the same.

[strandinthewind]

Whoever told you that doesn't know the Bible. I've said this before. According to the Bible, which I realize not all of you buy into, there will be homosexuals in Heaven and heteros in hell. It all depends on their attitude towards Christ. Again, I realize that some of you couldn't care less what the Bible says, but I thought I would clarify that. I also understand that this is a common misconception perpetuated by those who haven't examined the Bible carefully and are just repeating what some other person told them (in MOST cases).


Amen Nancy - as usual, I could not have said it better myself :cool:

To paraphrase a friend of mine "I never heard Jesus say the word gay" :cool:

[sodascouts]

I believe you know it's not fair to lump all of Kerry's supporters (or liberals, for that matter) into one mischaracterized group. It's true that I am saddened and disappointed by the result of the election, but I consider myself to be a liberal because of my views of tolerance, social justice, and peace. I think there are plenty of Democrats/Kerry supporters/liberals who share this way of thinking. It's offensive to me that the conservative right has portrayed itself as the only people of faith and morality in this country. It's unfair and dead wrong.

I'm sorry. I realize I came off as grouping all Democrats into one box. Certainly there are people of faith who are Democrats and people who aren't that are Republicans. But the conception is there that the Democratic leadership and the majority of those in control of it do feel that way.

[DrummerDeanna]

Deanna, thank you very much. I appreciate your words and respect you a lot for them. I feel like people on this board view me as an evil heartless bitch because I voted for Bush...same for all others on this board who have voted for him as well. Yes, we have been lambasted for our opinion but again, it's MY opinion. I'm not asking for someone elses acceptance of it. I'm voicing it the same way that the dominating voice of this board gets to voice theirs. If you want to view me as said evil heartless bitch, do it for a better reason please...like i've killed your cat or run over your prized-winning flowers in your garden with my Buick. This world would be a better place if we all accepted each other regardless of our difference in opinion on certain subjects. Like I said, everyone has varying circumstances in life and things that are important to them. We voted Tuesday and voiced our opinions. Had Kerry won, I would have to accept it and move on. Bush won and despite the sting a lot of you are feeling, we're all going to have to collectively do the same.


:eek: wow - I never knew you were a Bush supporter...interesting :)

But yeah - I said what I meant - I may not agree with the man - but hey some do - and I don't feel as though your of anyone elses opinions are any less valid than my own....

In fact, I strive to always listen to and understand both sides of things - probably because of my job - :)

[DrummerDeanna]

I'm sorry. I realize I came off as grouping all Democrats into one box. Certainly there are people of faith who are Democrats
:wavey:

hahaha - at least I was...now when I register in New York I'll be an independent - but that's mostly because of my job :)

[sodascouts]

Yeah, and Christians are so tolerant of the way non-believers feel. I do believe there are two sides to the coin here, let's not go calling the kettle black.

There are definitely intolerant Christians AND Republicans (despite the stereotype being perpetuated by some, the two are not equivalent). We can apply this to both parties. In fact that was part of what I was trying to illlustrate: the Democratic party is just as capable of intolerance.

[strandinthewind]

. . . If you want to view me as said evil heartless bitch, do it for a better reason please...like i've killed your cat or run over your prized-winning flowers in your garden with my Buick.

or cut me off from the bar :laugh: :wavey: :wavey:

Seriously, I cannot see how anyone could vote for W because every reason anyone has ever given me is not supported by the facts. But, gut instinct is something and I think alot of people went with that. plus, although I voted for him and wish he would have won, Kerry was no bed of roses and apparently about half of the country felt that way :shrug: But, fact are facts and W is here for four more years. So, I have to "take on the situation but not the torment" - although venting here has helped!!!!!!

[estranged4life]

Yeah - I was raised in a Hispanic houshold...but probably one of the most non-political housholds ever....not one person in my family ever mentioned politics or anything related to it - I was never taught anything about homosexuality - I took the initiative to learn about it on my own - and therefore formed my own opinions...

BUT then my uncle was "born-again" and man - he's wacked....it's hard to talk to him sometimes...as he's part of the dreaded religious right....( a group that does frighten me...)

It gives me hope to know that there are people in the world like yourself you can be um...for lack of a better term "enlightened" haha....I wish more people would open their minds and come to the realizations you did....

I like that...Brian, The Enlightened (Dont ask, Started reading Anne Rice's "The Blood Canticle" and I saw that Lestat wanted to be known as "Lestat the Magnificent" so...Best line so far is "Lestat, is my gay son going to Hell? (Absolutely not.)")

There's always hope others also become "Enlightened"...Look at me, Nuff proof to say" Need I say more" :nod:

Brian j.

[dissention]

Seriously, I cannot see how anyone could vote for W because every reason anyone has ever given me is not supported by the facts. But, gut instinct is something and I think alot of people went with that. plus, although I voted for him and wish he would have won, Kerry was no bed of roses and apparently about half of the country felt that way :shrug: But, fact are facts and W is here for four more years. So, I have to "take on the situation but not the torment" - although venting here has helped!!!!!!

I love the excuse from Middle America that they're so worried about terrorism and that only Bush can protect them. But, when you look at the election results, the three places hit by terrorism (New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania) overwhelmingly went to Kerry. :laugh: And if we were to be attacked again, I highly doubt they'd strike Indiana or Oklahoma; it's just absurd.

[GardenStateGirlie]

:eek: wow - I never knew you were a Bush supporter...interesting :)

But yeah - I said what I meant - I may not agree with the man - but hey some do - and I don't feel as though your of anyone elses opinions are any less valid than my own....

In fact, I strive to always listen to and understand both sides of things - probably because of my job - :)

Yep, I am. Not on all accounts--but I am. Despite popular belief, I'm not a registered Republican so I would vote either way given the right candidate.

I will listen to both sides ALWAYS because I think it's what you have to do. But, there are some that are too far to the right and too far to the left to see that there's another side or to even listen to what anyone has to say (my father included). However, I will say this...no one is right (meaning, correct). Each party is seriously flawed.

[estranged4life]

I love the excuse from Middle America that they're so worried about terrorism and that only Bush can protect them. But, when you look at the election results, the three places hit by terrorism (New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania) overwhelmingly went to Kerry. :laugh: And if we were to be attacked again, I highly doubt they'd strike Indiana or Oklahoma; it's just absurd.

Oklahoma was attacked back on April 19,1995...But that was not in the same catergory as the type of attack NYC had on 911 (OKC was a brainwashed individuals "Holy War" on the US government that was to trigger a large scaled "Race War", But it sadly FAILED!!!!)

I do not worry about another attack in Oklahoma...I look West-ward towards California with worry.

Brian j.

[dissention]

Oklahoma was attacked back on April 19,1995...But that was not in the same catergory as the type of attack NYC had on 911 (OKC was a brainwashed individuals "Holy War" on the US government that was to trigger a large scaled "Race War", But it sadly FAILED!!!!)

I do not worry about another attack in Oklahoma...I look West-ward towards California with worry.

Brian j.

If they were to attack again, they'd go for a major city. Chicago, Boston (conservatives pray that I perish :laugh: ), Philadelphia, Los Angeles, something like that. They'd most definitely attack a coastal state, nothing in the middle of the country.

[GardenStateGirlie]

or cut me off from the bar :laugh: :wavey: :wavey:

Seriously, I cannot see how anyone could vote for W because every reason anyone has ever given me is not supported by the facts. But, gut instinct is something and I think alot of people went with that. plus, although I voted for him and wish he would have won, Kerry was no bed of roses and apparently about half of the country felt that way :shrug: But, fact are facts and W is here for four more years. So, I have to "take on the situation but not the torment" - although venting here has helped!!!!!!

Oh hell no...lol :laugh:

There was no one for the democratic party to choose from. They needed to choose someone they thought had more promise to get elected. Kerry was that man and now they have to do some serious reforming and thinking.

[estranged4life]

If they were to attack again, they'd go for a major city. Chicago, Boston (conservatives pray that I perish :laugh: ), Philadelphia, Los Angeles, something like that. They'd most definitely attack a coastal state, nothing in the middle of the country.

but an attack on the West Coast would cause the most fear for the rest of America...Example: A nuclear attack-The fallout would travel East-ward leading this country into the type of hysterics that can only be found in the Stephen King book "The Stand"...

Not a pretty site.

Brian j.

[Lisa1769]

I try to rise above and just know that I live by my own convictions and they are right for me....


Nicely said.


But when he starts drafting the children of his supporters, I'll just sit back and remember the old story about the lady that swallowed a fly...and it killed her. You reap what you sow.


I was undecided for quite some time, but I voted for Bush. I have a 12 year old son and the thought of a draft scares the living hell outta me. Our military today is serving and fighting for our country because they chose to enlist. I applaud them for their bravery. I am saddened for the families that have lost loved ones serving our country. There's a difference in being drafted and voluntary. The statement I quoted above is totally uncalled for in my opinion. It's like your wishing anybody who voted for Bush deserves that their children be put into a war, or god forbid even be killed. But like Deanna said, I live by my own convictions and they are right for me.

[strandinthewind]

. . . The statement I quoted above is totally uncalled for in my opinion. It's like your wishing anybody who voted for Bush deserves that their children be put into a war, or god forbid even be killed. But like Deanna said, I live by my own convictions and they are right for me.

I think Diss. was saying that is what will happen and people should not act like they were not warned but voted, stupidly IMO, for W anyway.

But, to be fair, because of the MESS W has gotten us into in Iraq (all based on lies mind you :mad: ) anyone who is President in the next four years will most likely have to institute the draft. Thanks alot W :mad:

[dissention]

There was no one for the democratic party to choose from. They needed to choose someone they thought had more promise to get elected. Kerry was that man and now they have to do some serious reforming and thinking.

Not at all. We could have brought him back to life and nominated JFK, but when you have the incumbent and his cronies yelling and screaming that if you elect a Democrat you will be attacked and they wouldn't protect you, fear comes into play and you vote accordingly. The fact is that the Democratic party is not a well-organized hate and spin machine like the Republican party. Try as we might, we just cannot rival that party when it comes to dirty tricks and nastiness; it's only gotten more oiled since Clinton was elected. They successfully impeached Clinton, had people believing he was a rapist, yet we can't even inform people of the fact that Bush lied about Iraq and that his failing to capture Bin Laden has made us just as safe as we were in 2001. It doesn't come down to who is nominated and who isn't, it comes down to who has the nastiest and most twisted guns. We, unfortunately, do not have them. It doesn't matter at this point whether or not we nominate a presidential candidate from the deep south, they will not vote for Democrats because this administration has successfully poisoned them against us.

[sodascouts]

Yes, and they will create an Unconstitutional theocracy, which is great if you are a Christian. But, it is not so great if you are not. Moreover, conservative judges will allow the govt. to come into our bedrooms, homes, etc. and tell us how to live our private lives. How anyone can be for that is beyond me. But, many are and many more want the national religion to be Christianity and none others really tolerated or at least respect as much as Christianity.

These are all misconceptions. I don't see Bush trying to create a theocracy, and I certainly don't want one!


I believe in a woman's right to chose no matter what my personal feelings on abortion are. In fact, I think if we actually taught people in high schools how to have safe sex and gave them the tools necessary to do so, there would be far fewer abortions. But, the religious right cannot abide that idea. They think abstinence is the only policy even though they know it will never work because it has never worked historically. Yet, preaching against it fills the church coffers I guess :shrug:

I'm not quite sure how you jumped to that insulting conclusion.



And the bill they past clearly is Unconstitutional because it does not allow a woman's physician to care for her. How would you like it if your doctor told you the only way to save your life was through this partial birth method but that he could not perform it so you both die. I think I'd be pissed (albeit briefly :laugh: ) that some religious zealot made the medical decision for me instead of me and my doctor :shrug:

This extremely rare situation is offered up again and again. How do you know such exceptions won't also be exceptions on a ban? And not all people against this are religious zealots, a mischaracterization you keep coming back to.

I think he is better equipped at saying a country is a direct and immediate threat and then ignoring the contrary facts and invading them anyway. In fact, the invasion of Iraq has created more terrorists and W has failed to capture OBL. Moreover, 9/11 occurred on his watch and there was some general warning of it. Granted that warning was mostly general, but W was too preoccupied with Iraq to even consider it. And then, did he learn from his mistake - no - instead he bootstraped Iraq onto 9/11 (which was a lie and he knew it was so) as if to complete his first errant and myopic thought. Finally, his cavalier attitude and brash actions in Iraq have caused us to be hated even more in the Arab community, which I never thought was possible.

I don't blame Bush for terrorists. They make their own choices. The 9/11 argument is completely fallacious - it would have happened regardless of who was President. Remember that Clinton also didn't recognize warning signs. It's unfair to lay that on Bush. And to my knowledge Bush never actually said that Sadaam Hussein had foreknowledge of 911. Correct me if I'm wrong.


[Bush] promised us their oil would pay for their reconstruction. Well, their oil is not. Instead we are and it is breaking us. So, while I am all for tax cuts - they must come with fiscal responsibility, a trait W clearly lacks.

Bush promised that? When? Also, I do think Bush should be more fiscally responsible. I disagree with some things he has done. But overall I believe his policies in this regard are better than Kerry's.


I will never understand how Christians can support this. The Decalogue says "Thou shall not kill."

Actually, the literal translation is "Thou shalt not murder . I know some people consider executions murder, but I believe they are two very separate entities, just as killing in warfare is not "murder." That mistranslation of the King James has caused such problems!


True, Kerry probably would. But, W clearly has. He is so beholden to the far far religious right that he is a cipher for them. So, I guess if you are on the religious right this is a good thing.

I admit I prefer Republican extremists to Democratic ones! However, if Bush cowtowing to them so much, why is he being criticized by the very people you name as the worst offenders for being too centrist in his policies?

Anyone else is screwed and their rights will be and are being taken away. Here is a good example is this. How can sodomy (and we are not just talking homosexual anal sex here but heterosexual anal sex, fellatio, etc. - this is how most statutes defined the term "sodomy" ) possibly hurt any consenting party much less the state, who is the alleged victim?

Has Bush made any laws concerning sodomy? Or are you referring to him being against gay marriage? Isn't Kerry also against that?

I have no contempt for faith in God, Allah, etc. What I do have contempt for is people asserting that the U.S. Fed. Govt. on down has the right to make me or anyone else believe in God and live by the Christian way.
I don't believe Bush has suggested any laws requiring people to be Christians or believe in God.

Thank you for your nice ending comment, Jason. I'm glad if you saw me driving by you wouldn't want to beat up on me because I support Bush.

[LilyRose]

Okay. I feel that I've gotten my answer. I had said that I didn't want to start a huge debate. I simply wanted the "other" opinion.

Thank you all,

Susie