I knew it! Kerry is a conservative

[CarneVaca]

From the horse's mouth:

"I'm a hunter. I'm a gun owner. A lot of people on the left don't like that, but that's who I am," he said.

The Massachusetts senator has already begun his effort to broaden his political reach. During a recent swing through the Midwest, where he tramped around farms and toted a shotgun on a trap-shooting range, Kerry said that he represented "conservative values," and emphasized his personal opposition to abortion.

Conservative values!? Yeah, well, stick 'em, pal.

So let's review. Kerry...

--Voted to attack Iraq.
--Opposes withdrawing from Iraq.
--Supports Sharon and the Bush roadmap for the Palestine conflict.
--Supports the Israel's "security fence" that is strangling the Palestinians even though he told Palestinians last year that it was not needed.
--Is "pro-life," saying he believes life begins at conception.
--Opposes gay marriage.
--Voted for the Patriot Act.
--Voted for No Child Left Behind.

Gotta love those Democrats for giving the voters a real alternative. ;)

[estranged4life]

From the horse's mouth:

"I'm a hunter. I'm a gun owner. A lot of people on the left don't like that, but that's who I am," he said.

The Massachusetts senator has already begun his effort to broaden his political reach. During a recent swing through the Midwest, where he tramped around farms and toted a shotgun on a trap-shooting range, Kerry said that he represented "conservative values," and emphasized his personal opposition to abortion.

Conservative values!? Yeah, well, stick 'em, pal.

So let's review. Kerry...

--Voted to attack Iraq.
--Opposes withdrawing from Iraq.
--Supports Sharon and the Bush roadmap for the Palestine conflict.
--Supports the Israel's "security fence" that is strangling the Palestinians even though he told Palestinians last year that it was not needed.
--Is "pro-life," saying he believes life begins at conception.
--Opposes gay marriage.
--Voted for the Patriot Act.
--Voted for No Child Left Behind.

Gotta love those Democrats for giving the voters a real alternative. ;)

He said that ("I'm a conservative, More conservative than the conservatives claim to be"-John Kerry) back during the Oklahoma primary and it buried him, He finished a distant third to the eventual winner Clark & runner-up Edwards.

Btw, ya left out that Kerry also voted against the Laci Peterson act which protects pregnant women.

[strandinthewind]

Bless your heart - owning a gun does not make you a conservative :rolleyes: I know many a D that has more than one. I know I know you hate them, but many like them and then there is that whole pesky Second Amendment issue :laugh:

Seriously, as I have said many times before, getting rid of all guns is nice notion, but it will NEVER happen EVER. So, I say the best path is to regulate them to the effect of making people regiter them every year and making them do a new balistics test every year. But, that is too onerous for the NRA and that is why IMO the NRA is as insane as the people who thinks ridding the America is a feasible plan.

AND - the is issue is pro-choice. When I personally think life begins does not really factor into the equation. My opinion on whether I think you (general) should have the choice to make up your own mind is the SOLE issue in abortion as long as the first trimester issue in Roe holds. Interestingly, Roe does not base its holding of life begining at conception. It is based solely on the viability of the fetus (which has always been alive or at least capable of life in some fashion) outside of the womb. For now, that is after the first trimester.

[dissention]

Yup, I don't know if I'll be voting Kerry in November, that's for damn sure. I'm in MA, so it really wouldn't make a difference if I did or didn't; he's going to take this state anyway. Unfortunately, I don't know if I'd be able to live with myself if I did vote Kerry. I've been very disatisfied with him lately and I think I'm going to curtail my support. :wavey:

[estranged4life]

Yup, I don't know if I'll be voting Kerry in November, that's for damn sure. I'm in MA, so it really wouldn't make a difference if I did or didn't; he's going to take this state anyway. Unfortunately, I don't know if I'd be able to live with myself if I did vote Kerry. I've been very disatisfied with him lately and I think I'm going to curtail my support. :wavey:

Hell just was hit by the largest iceberg outbreak & sub-zero temperatures in it's LONG history...Just kiddin' ya :lol: :laugh: :lol:

[dissention]

Hell just was hit by the largest iceberg outbreak & sub-zero temperatures in it's LONG history...Just kiddin' ya :lol: :laugh: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[CarneVaca]

Jason, I wasn't talking about just guns. Besides, it appears your interpretation of the Second Amendment differs from mine. I can read, and I know what it says, and what it says is not what the NRA says it says.

Dissention, can't say I'm surprised. I've picked up some vibes from you lately.

Also, my own revelation:

I'm not sure I'm voting for Nader now. I am looking at the Green Party candidate.

But I WILL NOT VOTE FOR KERRY.

[dissention]

Dissention, can't say I'm surprised. I've picked up some vibes from you lately.

Also, my own revelation:

I'm not sure I'm voting for Nader now. I am looking at the Green Party candidate.

But I WILL NOT VOTE FOR KERRY.

Yup, I've had it up to here with the bull****. He's a neocon in sheeps clothing, the only thing that distinguishes him is that he has a better track record on the environment. At this point, his campaign is in tatters because NO ONE knows where he stands on things. People are sick of the backtracking, myself included.

No Nader, no Kerry, so...David Cobb it is for me. :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

No Nader, no Kerry, so...David Cobb it is for me. :wavey:

I may soon join you.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

Yup, I've had it up to here with the bull****. He's a neocon in sheeps clothing, the only thing that distinguishes him is that he has a better track record on the environment. At this point, his campaign is in tatters because NO ONE knows where he stands on things. People are sick of the backtracking, myself included.

No Nader, no Kerry, so...David Cobb it is for me. :wavey:


Exactly dissention..Kerry should be presenting a clear cut message on where he stands on the issues...Bashing Bush on everything he does will not win him an election in the end IMO...He should also be focused on us undecided voters (like myself), who if he gave a reason to vote for him...would...but all he cares to do IMO is bash Bush...ok we get that point already Kerry, we know you dont like Bush and disagree with the Iraq war...give us something else! Will there be a NONE OF THE ABOVE box on the ballot this year???

Chris

[estranged4life]

Will there be a NONE OF THE ABOVE box on the ballot this year???


except instead of stating "None Of The Above" it will say "The Next American Idol" :lol:

[strandinthewind]

Jason, I wasn't talking about just guns. Besides, it appears your interpretation of the Second Amendment differs from mine. I can read, and I know what it says, and what it says is not what the NRA says it says.

I was talking of the USSC's interpretation of the Second Amendment because the U.S. Const has not been strictly inpterpreted for well over 100 years - see Roe and the expansion of the right to privacy, a right mentioned no where in the Const. Their opinion is the law and they see the Second Amendment not just within the confines of a "militia" :shrug: Plus, there is no way the Founding Fathers meant in any way to exclude personal ownership of guns, etc., since they all had guns and the thought at the time was almost nonexistent :shrug: But, that is a far cry from saying the right of ownership of guns without any regulation violates the Second Amendment; clearly there needs to be HEAVY regulation of them :cool: A good example is the right to free speech does not allow a person to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre. That part of free speech is curtailed to protect society. Again, if we could get rid of all of the guns, I am all for it. I just think that is impossible and not facing the situation with any reasonable or practicle solution.

Also, I was commenting on the statements "I'm a hunter. I'm a gun owner. A lot of people on the left don't like that, but that's who I am" and "During a recent swing through the Midwest, where he tramped around farms and toted a shotgun on a trap-shooting range, Kerry said that he represented "conservative values," and emphasized his personal opposition to abortion." I took that to mean toting a shotgun was inconsistent with being a liberal, which I commented on. Then, I commented on the abortion thing being about freedom of choice and just because someone thinks life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong, does not mean they are anti-prochoice. I know many people who think that way who are SCREAMING liberals - look at James Carville :laugh:

Anyway - food for thought and not meant in an antagonistic manner :cool:

[strandinthewind]

Yup, I've had it up to here with the bull****. He's a neocon in sheeps clothing, the only thing that distinguishes him is that he has a better track record on the environment. At this point, his campaign is in tatters because NO ONE knows where he stands on things. People are sick of the backtracking, myself included.

No Nader, no Kerry, so...David Cobb it is for me. :wavey:

I guess I am just more practicle. I want W out so bad and I know Kerry is the only other horse in the race. I hate that it is a two horse race, but that is the way it is. I know Carne has said that social upheaval is a good thing and may happen if W gets reelected, but I do not think that will ever happen and I think the damage W could do in his second term is not worth the risk, etc. So, while I agree Kerry is not my ideal by any means, I will vote for him in a minute to try and ensure the rejection of W.

BTW - I think Kerry is depending on a lot of people just like me.

As an aside, I think people expect too meuch from politicians. No one is ever going to fall within a simple set of labels :cool: :eek: :woohoo:

[cliffdweller]

From the horse's mouth:

"I'm a hunter. I'm a gun owner. A lot of people on the left don't like that, but that's who I am," he said.

The Massachusetts senator has already begun his effort to broaden his political reach. During a recent swing through the Midwest, where he tramped around farms and toted a shotgun on a trap-shooting range, Kerry said that he represented "conservative values," and emphasized his personal opposition to abortion.

Conservative values!? Yeah, well, stick 'em, pal.

So let's review. Kerry...

--Voted to attack Iraq.
--Opposes withdrawing from Iraq.
--Supports Sharon and the Bush roadmap for the Palestine conflict.
--Supports the Israel's "security fence" that is strangling the Palestinians even though he told Palestinians last year that it was not needed.
--Is "pro-life," saying he believes life begins at conception.
--Opposes gay marriage.
--Voted for the Patriot Act.
--Voted for No Child Left Behind.

Gotta love those Democrats for giving the voters a real alternative. ;)

This really depresses me :rolleyes:. So either way it looks like four more years of Bush. :distress:

[CarneVaca]

Then, I commented on the abortion thing being about freedom of choice and just because someone thinks life begins at conception and that abortion is wrong, does not mean they are anti-prochoice. I know many people who think that way who are SCREAMING liberals :laugh:

Interestingly, you made me recall a conversation I had with a liberal friend just before the 2000 election. At the time, it seemed the Democrats' major objection to voting for Nader (aside from the bull**** vote-stealing rationale) was the issue of abortion. Now, I believe in the right to choose, but that single issue does not determine my vote.

Anyway, during this conversation, I mentioned to my friend that I wished there were fewer abortions. You would think I had condemned any and all women who ever had, or thought about having, an abortion. Her reaction was almost violent. I had to very gingerly explain that I wasn't condemning anyone and that I fully support the right to choose as defined by Roe v. Wade, but that personally I would rather see the number of abortions decrease and that I probably would not opt for one if I ever were in a position to contribute to such a decision.

Now comes Kerry and he says he is personally opposed to abortion and that he believes life starts at conception. I'll have to ask my friend if this bothers her.

Aside from that, shouldn't John Kerry limit himself to declaring whether he supports Roe v. Wade? Saying he personally opposes abortion is such a scoundrel's defense to make himself look good to the conservatives.

[CarneVaca]

As an aside, I think people expect too meuch from politicians. No one is ever going to fall within a simple set of labels :cool: :eek: :woohoo:

True. But ought party affiliation not mean something? If Democrats are aligning with Republicans on most important issues of the day, do we not need a party that represents what we believe in?

[strandinthewind]

Aside from that, shouldn't John Kerry limit himself to declaring whether he supports Roe v. Wade? Saying he personally opposes abortion is such a scoundrel's defense to make himself look good to the conservatives.

Even though he may truly believe that and that may have been the question asked, etc., he is a politician and he is gonna give a politician's answer :laugh:

[CarneVaca]

This really depresses me :rolleyes:. So either way it looks like four more years of Bush. :distress:

Exactly. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[strandinthewind]

Exactly. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Now Now - its Bush lite :laugh:

Seriously, Kerry more lilely than not would not have prompted the Legislation Bush has. So there is that difference. But, the facts suggest Kerry is not the huge liberal the conservative press is painting him as.

[dissention]

Exactly dissention..Kerry should be presenting a clear cut message on where he stands on the issues...Bashing Bush on everything he does will not win him an election in the end IMO...He should also be focused on us undecided voters (like myself), who if he gave a reason to vote for him...would...but all he cares to do IMO is bash Bush...ok we get that point already Kerry, we know you dont like Bush and disagree with the Iraq war...give us something else! Will there be a NONE OF THE ABOVE box on the ballot this year???

Chris

Hold on one cotton pickin' minute ( :lol: ) -

You're in the South, you NEED to vote for Kerry. It doesn't matter whether or not I do because I live in MA, a guaranteed blue state. Even though I'm tired of the BS in the Kerry camp, he's still better than Bush on his worst day. If given the choice between Kerry and Bush, choose Kerry. :xoxo:

Now, even though I'm tired of Kerry's waffling, he still has some great platforms. I think he has given much more than 'I dislike Bush, he wasn't diplomatic.' He's given much more than that and some of his ideas are pretty good. What's turning me off if is his desperate attempts to appear as conservative as possible and his attempts to disassociate from the people who gave him his career: the far-left. Without us, he'd be just another rich guy living off his rich wife and it pisses me off to no end that he badmouths the very people who will vote for him. It's not cool.

[dissention]

This really depresses me :rolleyes:. So either way it looks like four more years of Bush. :distress:

I don't think it's four more years of Bush, it's Bush-lite. :laugh: j/k

No, seriously, a lot of the **** Kerry says is being said in an attempt to get southern and midwest votes. I don't think half of it is true. But that's what pisses me off, like I said in my above post. He wants nothing to do with the people who made him.

[strandinthewind]

It's not cool.

. . . but it is smart. The middle of the road in about five or so states is what will win this election. Kerry and to a lesser extent W are myopic when it comes to this point. They know if things stay the same, these are really the only people who count in the election issue. I think they think their bases are not going anywhere due to the polarization in the country right now.

[dissention]

Now Now - its Bush lite :laugh:

Seriously, Kerry more lilely than not would not have prompted the Legislation Bush has. So there is that difference. But, the facts suggest Kerry is not the huge liberal the conservative press is painting him as.

Well, Kerry claimed that he would sign the Kyoto Protocol into effect, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he was just blowing smoke up our left ass cheeks. ;)

[dissention]

. . . but it is smart. The middle of the road in about five or so states is what will win this election. Kerry and to a lesser extent W are myopic when it comes to this point. They know if things stay the same, these are really the only people who count in the election issue. I think they think their bases are not going anywhere due to the polarization in the country right now.

No, it's not smart. He's going to lose a lot of votes to Nader and Cobb in those five states because of it and he doesn't want that.

[strandinthewind]

Well, Kerry claimed that he would sign the Kyoto Protocol into effect, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he was just blowing smoke up our left ass cheeks. ;)

I often think Clinton signed the KP ( :cool: ) as a political ploy. He knew it had no chance of ever going into effect. I think the signatory countries had no intention of implementing it and Clinton knew if we did not then they really would not. I mean they could do it on their own - yet how many have :shrug: But, Clinton looked good by signing it.

and that is a shame because we all know "they" can make cars that get over 100 MPG and still perform well, etc. But, King Oil will never have that happen - Sad, very true.

[dissention]

Even though he may truly believe that and that may have been the question asked, etc., he is a politician and he is gonna give a politician's answer :laugh:

He got some good digs in on Larry King last week:

King: "What did you make of Cheney's outburst on the Senate floor?"
Kerry: "I don't know what to make of Dick Cheney. Period."

King: "Did you see Fahrenheit 9/11?"
Kerry: "No, I lived it for four years."

:laugh:

[dissention]

Sad, very true.

"Ooh, the tar people are back again..." :lol:

[strandinthewind]

No, it's not smart. He's going to lose a lot of votes to Nader and Cobb in those five states because of it and he doesn't want that.

That has yet to be demonstrated in a proveable manner or at least that any base votes he loses outweigh the potential to be gained. The minute he loses more than he gains (based on polls I guess) - he will stop it. It is pure politics 101 IMO.

[Hawkeye]

Now, even though I'm tired of Kerry's waffling, he still has some great platforms.

Did he borrow them from Stevie :lol:

[dissention]

Did he borrow them from Stevie :lol:

:laugh:

He lifted her suede ones when she was in Boston taping the DVD. That must be why she only wore them for one night. :laugh:

[Johnny Stew]

Exactly. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

See, I still disagree with that.
I may not be 100% thrilled with Kerry as a candidate, but I thoroughly believe that he WILL be a better president than George W. Bush, despite his conservatism.

And while he may not be actively supporting gay marriages... much to my complete disappointment... at least John Kerry is not actively supporting the amendment to ban gay marriages, as W. is doing.

We have a very hateful, intolerant, hypocritical man in the White House right now, and he needs to be ousted, PRONTO.

End of rant. :o

[Gwillaker]

Kerry's a jackass. Of course, he couldnt be much worse than Dubya, so what the hell...

[estranged4life]

y'all just should just come flat out and admit y'all want a Lindsey/Stevie ticket in 2004 :lol:

A black dress, platform boots & a Turner 1 in each and every household :nod:

"Think About It... & Come" vote for the Linds'/Stevie ticket in 2004 :lol: :nod: :lol:

[CarneVaca]

See, I still disagree with that.
I may not be 100% thrilled with Kerry as a candidate, but I thoroughly believe that he WILL be a better president than George W. Bush, despite his conservatism.

What percentage would it take for you not to vote for Kerry? And how do you know he will be that much better than Kerry?

Why are middle-of-the-road Democrats so insistent on deluding themselves? Bush lied to get into Iraq. I knew it then. I know it now. Clinton lied to get into the Kosovo conflict. But he was lucky enough not to get any Americans killed. Clinton lied about a lot of things.

Clinton passed the disastrous Welfare bill. NAFTA. Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Etc. The Internet explosion was what buoyed the economy in the 1990s, so whoever was in the White House would have enjoyed the spoils, as Clinton did.

Why do I bring up Clinton? Because like to admit it or not, the country continued to veer to the right while he was in office. With Bush, this has accelerated. With Kerry, the rightward turn will slow, but it will not turn left by any stretch of the imagination. Kerry sucks for the reasons I posted earlier. I understand the pragmatism of those who want Bush out, but when Kerry loses and the Democrat voters get frustrated, are they going to take a look at themselves and ever realize why their candidate lost? Are they going to recognize that supporting a guy who is nothing but Republican Lite is a ****ty strategy? Not likely. They'll find some scapegoat or other: the media, Nader, the Republican lies, whatever.

The Democrats need good candidates who are a real alternative. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush, and that is unacceptable.

[Johnny Stew]

What percentage would it take for you not to vote for Kerry? And how do you know he will be that much better than Kerry?

Why are middle-of-the-road Democrats so insistent on deluding themselves? Bush lied to get into Iraq. I knew it then. I know it now. Clinton lied to get into the Kosovo conflict. But he was lucky enough not to get any Americans killed. Clinton lied about a lot of things.

Why do I bring up Clinton? Because like to admit it or not, the country continued to veer to the right while he was in office. With Bush, this has accelerated. With Kerry, the rightward turn will slow, but it will not turn left by any stretch of the imagination. Kerry sucks for the reasons I posted earlier. I understand the pragmatism of those who want Bush out, but when Kerry loses and the Democrat voters get frustrated, are they going to take a look at themselves and ever realize why their candidate lost? Are they going to recognize that supporting a guy who is nothing but Republican Lite is a ****ty strategy? Not likely. They'll find some scapegoat or other: the media, Nader, the Republican lies, whatever.

The Democrats need good candidates who are a real alternative. A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush, and that is unacceptable.

Let me put it this way... as long as W. is the opponent, there is no way that I will vote for anyone other than the Democratic candidate.
If there was a very real way for a candidate from another party to unseat Bush, then perhaps I'd change my mind... but there isn't. And I'm sorry but voting for Nader or anyone else, is a wasted vote right now. And this election is too important to waste your vote.

I realize that Kerry is not going to miraculously turn the tides towards the left, but if you had a gaping wound, you'd put a bandage over it, wouldn't you? The bandage isn't going to heal the wound, but it would at least stop the hemorrhaging, and give you enough time to do something about it... and that's what we need to do.

Surely you can see that this country is filled with extreme conservatives, and it surprises me that you think an extreme liberal is going to win the amount of votes it would take to beat an extreme conservative. Republicans vote in far larger numbers than Democrats do.
I can't imagine that's entirely because of a lack of decent Democratic candidates for the party to support, but rather a concerted effort by the Republican Party to ensure that they continue their stranglehold.

So in order to be more "palatable" to the faction of Republicans who find themselves leaning towards the liberal side, the Democratic candidate has to try to appeal to their sensibilities, as well as still trying to appeal to the sensibilities of the more liberal voters.
It's a tightrope that they have to walk very delicately, in order to reach the broadest amount of voters possible.

So what we need to do, is to stop squabbling about whether the Democratic candidate is too conservative, or if he's truly liberal, and just get out and vote to get W. out of the White House, plain and simple.

What percentage would it take for you not to vote for Kerry? And how do you know he will be that much better than Kerry?

Obviously you meant Bush. ;)
And I'll tell you one very good reason I know Kerry will be better than Bush... he and John Edwards plan to vote against the amendment to ban gay marriages, while Bush is actively supporting it.
So while Kerry may not be doing cartwheels in support of gay marriage, he's also not doing everything in his power to stop it... and that's all the proof I need that he's a better man for the job than George W. Bush.
I'll be damned if a man who's had a cocaine addiction and an alcohol addiction, and has had numerous shady business dealings, is going to tell ME what's good for "the moral fabric" of this country.

[amber]

y'all just should just come flat out and admit y'all want a Lindsey/Stevie ticket in 2004 :lol:

A black dress, platform boots & a Turner 1 in each and every household :nod:

"Think About It... & Come" vote for the Linds'/Stevie ticket in 2004 :lol: :nod: :lol:
mmmmmmm....sexiest white house ever......

[estranged4life]

I'll be damned if a man who's had a cocaine addiction and an alcohol addiction, and has had numerous shady business dealings, is going to tell ME what's good for "the moral fabric" of this country.

or our resident "librarian" may have to throw books at his happy ass.

Btw, Don't throw "See Tip Run" at "W.", Since that is TOO challenging a book for Shrub to read :lol:

[Johnny Stew]

Shrub better be careful... or our resident "librarian" may have to throw books at his happy ass.

Btw, Don't throw "See Tip Run" at "W.", Since that is TOO challenging a book for Shrub to read :lol:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Maybe I'll throw Clinton's book... that sucker's so huge, it'd knock him out cold!

[estranged4life]

Bible at Shrub, Make sure it lands on his face so he can see the verse "Judge not, least ye be judged"...But then again he would BS his way around that verse

Btw, I think someone should combine the "Teletubbies" (watch out for that purple one, He "looks" dangerous) with those pesky "WMD's" and make a animated series that "Super Chimp W" could easily understand, That the "WMD's" are similar to the "Teletubbies", That neither one exist :lol: :lol: :lol:

Brian "PBS proudly presents the WMDbuddies" j.

[strandinthewind]

It is so funny in an odd way to me. I totally agree with Carne. I think the lesser of two evils argument is bogus. But, as I said before, I think W is FAR more dangerous than anything Kerry could muster. So, while I think Kerry is FAR from perfect, I do agree with alot of things he has done. So, I can vote for him with a good conscious even though I am not real happy about the lack of choice, etc.

[Johnny Stew]

I totally agree with Carne. I think the lesser of two evils argument is bogus. But, as I said before, I think W is FAR more dangerous than anything Kerry could muster. So, while I think Kerry is FAR from perfect, I do agree with alot of things he has done. So, I can vote for him with a good conscious even though I am not real happy about the lack of choice, etc.

It's not that I think Kerry is just "the lesser of two evils"... I really do think he would make a good president.
Is he as liberal as I would like him to be? No, he isn't. But no candidate is perfect... so you have to go with the one who comes closest to your ideal.

And right now, the candidate who comes closest to my ideal, and has the best chance at beating W., is John Kerry... so my vote is his.

[CarneVaca]

And I'm sorry but voting for Nader or anyone else, is a wasted vote right now. And this election is too important to waste your vote.

Nonsense. When your candidate loses, haven't you wasted your vote? What defines a "wasted" vote?

I realize that Kerry is not going to miraculously turn the tides towards the left, but if you had a gaping wound, you'd put a bandage over it, wouldn't you? The bandage isn't going to heal the wound, but it would at least stop the hemorrhaging, and give you enough time to do something about it... and that's what we need to do.

Cut the damn leg out and get a prothesis. That's what we need -- a new system. And participating in the charade of voting for one of the two parties ain't going to change a thing. What we need is people in the streets raising hell.

Surely you can see that this country is filled with extreme conservatives, and it surprises me that you think an extreme liberal is going to win the amount of votes it would take to beat an extreme conservative. Republicans vote in far larger numbers than Democrats do.

Filled!? Absolutely not. Extreme conservatives are a minority, a vocal one at that, but a minority nonetheless. Unfortunately they have most of the money so they can buy more microphones. I'd like to see the numbers that show Republicans vote in "far larger numbers than Democrats." I suspect you're using hyperbole. For the most part, the number of Republican and Democrat voters are neck and neck. That's why there's so much talk about capturing "swing" votes. But if you can prove me wrong, I'd like to see the numbers.

And I've never said I expect an "extreme liberal" to win anything. I believe it is possible for a progressive Democrat to win the nomination, and even the presidency, if the party got its act together and climbed out from under this paralyzing fear of being labeled as "liberal." The party needs a candidate that has true conviction and can rile people up. It almost had that in Dean, but, see, the problem is the Democratic Party doesn't want someone with conviction. That would be too dangerous, because a person with conviction would have to stand against the party's apparatus.

So what we have is two parties playing a game that plays on the fears of the electorate. Voters are pawns. Voters haven't really made an electoral decision in a long time, if ever. The only way to fight that is to not vote for one of the parties, which have colluded to establish a kind of murky corporate fascism that takes more and more away from the people. Surely we've seen that with the current administration. But don't you think that NAFTA, the Welfare Act and all the pro-corporation FCC rulings of the Clinton administration paved the way?

So what we need to do, is to stop squabbling about whether the Democratic candidate is too conservative, or if he's truly liberal, and just get out and vote to get W. out of the White House, plain and simple.

What you don't realize is that with a statement like that you are advocating acquiescence. You may think you're taking a stand by trying to get Bush out of the White House, but your just playing the game. Do you think the corporations who are donating to Bush and Kerry ultimately will be terribly hurt if Kerry wins? All they'll do is brace themselves for a slowdown in the incredibly progress they've been making to take more and more away from us. By the way, did you know that legally a corporation has more rights than you? Did you know that under NAFTA certain environmental and other regulatory policies are null and void for multinational corporations? In other words, a multinational company has more power than even your government in some cases. How do you like that?

So while Kerry may not be doing cartwheels in support of gay marriage, he's also not doing everything in his power to stop it... and that's all the proof I need that he's a better man for the job than George W. Bush.

Johnny, I know why this issue is important to you. And if your vote comes down to this issue, I understand perfectly. But don't kid yourself: It's a vote based on fear. There's no way such an amendment would ever pass. The Republicrats know it. The Demopublicans know it. They're just hoping that you don't know it so they can continue to play on your fears.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[cliffdweller]

:laugh:

He lifted her suede ones when she was in Boston taping the DVD. That must be why she only wore them for one night. :laugh:

The thought of Kerry walking onto a stage in Stevie's suede platforms has me rolling!!

(...and make no mistake, that would be in instant vote clincher for me! ;) )

[strandinthewind]

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Rubbish and you know it :cool:

Kerry would not nominate judges that will eventually outlaw abortion? Kerry also does not want legislation that chips away at the ability to have an abortion? Bush certainly does and although he will never say it, he wants to outlaw abortion.

Kerry wants to limit the ability to get a fire arms? Bush certainly wants no or very little restrictions.

Kerry is not beholden to the far right. W is.

Kerry voted against the DOMA and supports civil unions. W supports the DMOA as well as a Const. Amendment written by a homophobic politician, all of which panders to the far right to which W is beholden. This Const. Amendment contains lang. that probably will invalidate even any legal benefit from civil unions.

These are key D issues.

In other words, the D party does not now and I do not think has ever supported getting rid of every gun in America. The D party also supported using force to get rid of SH, they just do not agree with the way W went about doing it. So, the far, far left is not and never was the D party :shrug: So, to say Kerry is not what the D's want does not compute at least to me.

Based on that, I have to conclude a vote for Kerry is most certainly not a vote for W. They differ to significantly to me on most issues. Kerry may not do every thing the way I would like it done, but he certainly will not do it as bad as W and at least Kerry will not undo most of the things I am happy have been done. I think W needs to go - period. Kerry is the only viable solution to that immediate problem.

Also, we know communism and socialisn do not work. While capitalism is not the best, it has worked as best it can given human nature. Certainly it is flawed, but what is the alternative. I cannot think of one. Thus, any riot in the streets IMO would lead to anarchy and perhaps a dictatorship with martial law, both of which IMO are not better than capitalism. So, I say knock capitalism all you want, but advocating its demise with no clear solution in place for the aftermath is a tad irresponsible :cool:

[CarneVaca]

Jason, you're going to have to make up your mind, buddy. You either "totally agree" with me or you think what I'm saying is "rubbish." I can see why you're voting for Kerry. You know, it never occurred to me he actually represents a large contingent of the population! ;)

Your gun talk is amusing. You seem to think I want to get rid of all guns. I've never said that. :shrug:

I'm a pacifist at heart, but I am not above resorting to violence if absolutely necessary. A pacifist is human after all. If someone strikes me, I will strike back and probably won't even stop to think about it.

You are still buying into the fiction that it was a good idea to go into Iraq. I am sorry you do.

And when you say the Democrats supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein, you seem to be ignoring the remarks from an increasing number of these rubber-spined lowlives who say they wouldn't have supported had they known then what they know now. I will repeat myself on this again: If I could find out enough information on my own that negated the claims of WMD and al Qaida links, the US Congress could not!? How am I supposed to believe that?

Also, we know communism and socialisn do not work. While capitalism is not the best, it has worked as best it can given human nature. Certainly it is flawed, but what is the alternative. I cannot think of one. Thus, any riot in the streets IMO would lead to anarchy and perhaps a dictatorship with martial law, both of which IMO are not better than capitalism. So, I say knock capitalism all you want, but advocating its demise with no clear solution in place for the aftermath is a tad irresponsible :cool:

Dude, you're taking a bunch of flying leaps there. I would argue that nothing has been proven about communism or socialism since we really haven't seen them in their pure form. But that's another story. It might have happened already if the US hadn't consistently undermined every single effort to defeat socialism that ever took place. Witness the upcoming referendum in Venezuela. The most powerful nation in the world is so threatened by "communism" that it won't even allow socialism to exist within the context of an elective democracy in South America. I could go into that at length, Jason, but why bore you with such anti-American talk?

Capitalism has not been proven to be better than anything. All it has proven is that when allowed to, greed will take over. I think we've seen enough evidence of that. Besides, I have not advocated capitalism's demise. I'm wondering what exactly is leading you to jump to these wild conclusions here.

I advocated people raising hell in the streets. I supposed by "raising hell," you thought I meant rioting and throwing rocks at bank windows? How silly, Jason. Don't you realize that when people have taken to the streets, violence almost invariably results from the reaction of those in power? Kent State is a perfect example. The 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago is another.

[GypsySorcerer]

Nonsense. When your candidate loses, haven't you wasted your vote? What defines a "wasted" vote?

Cut the damn leg out and get a prothesis. That's what we need -- a new system. And participating in the charade of voting for one of the two parties ain't going to change a thing. What we need is people in the streets raising hell.

Filled!? Absolutely not. Extreme conservatives are a minority, a vocal one at that, but a minority nonetheless. Unfortunately they have most of the money so they can buy more microphones. I'd like to see the numbers that show Republicans vote in "far larger numbers than Democrats." I suspect you're using hyperbole. For the most part, the number of Republican and Democrat voters are neck and neck. That's why there's so much talk about capturing "swing" votes. But if you can prove me wrong, I'd like to see the numbers.

And I've never said I expect an "extreme liberal" to win anything. I believe it is possible for a progressive Democrat to win the nomination, and even the presidency, if the party got its act together and climbed out from under this paralyzing fear of being labeled as "liberal." The party needs a candidate that has true conviction and can rile people up. It almost had that in Dean, but, see, the problem is the Democratic Party doesn't want someone with conviction. That would be too dangerous, because a person with conviction would have to stand against the party's apparatus.

So what we have is two parties playing a game that plays on the fears of the electorate. Voters are pawns. Voters haven't really made an electoral decision in a long time, if ever. The only way to fight that is to not vote for one of the parties, which have colluded to establish a kind of murky corporate fascism that takes more and more away from the people. Surely we've seen that with the current administration. But don't you think that NAFTA, the Welfare Act and all the pro-corporation FCC rulings of the Clinton administration paved the way?


What you don't realize is that with a statement like that you are advocating acquiescence. You may think you're taking a stand by trying to get Bush out of the White House, but your just playing the game. Do you think the corporations who are donating to Bush and Kerry ultimately will be terribly hurt if Kerry wins? All they'll do is brace themselves for a slowdown in the incredibly progress they've been making to take more and more away from us. By the way, did you know that legally a corporation has more rights than you? Did you know that under NAFTA certain environmental and other regulatory policies are null and void for multinational corporations? In other words, a multinational company has more power than even your government in some cases. How do you like that?


Johnny, I know why this issue is important to you. And if your vote comes down to this issue, I understand perfectly. But don't kid yourself: It's a vote based on fear. There's no way such an amendment would ever pass. The Republicrats know it. The Demopublicans know it. They're just hoping that you don't know it so they can continue to play on your fears.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Politically, we are opposites, but I agree with a lot of what you stated here, especially your remarks about Dean and the Federal Marriage Amendment. You're right -- that thing will never pass; it is just a Republican ploy to force Democrats to admit where they stand on the issue.

[CarneVaca]

One issue will decide this election: Terrorism.

And as of today, according to the Washington Post:

Despite growing fears that the United States is losing the war on terrorism, President Bush has reclaimed the advantage over his Democratic challenger John F. Kerry as the presidential candidate best able to deal with the international terrorist threat, according to the latest Washington Post poll.

The survey found that 55 percent of all Americans currently approve of the way Bush is handling the campaign against terrorism, up 5 points in the past three weeks. Slightly more than half -- 51 percent -- also said they trust Bush more than Kerry to deal with terrorism, while 42 percent prefer the Democrat. Three weeks ago, the two were tied on this crucial voting issue, which ranks with the economy and the situation in Iraq as top concerns this presidential election.

So we can debate taxes, marriage amendment proposals, Supreme Court justices, etc., until we're blue in the face. But terrorism will decide this election. It's really quite simple. And because John Kerry has been an ineffective candidate, he cannot win over enough of the public on the question of terrorism. Therefore he cannot win.

[cliffdweller]

Dude, you're taking a bunch of flying leaps there. I would argue that nothing has been proven about communism or socialism since we really haven't seen them in their pure form. But that's another story. It might have happened already if the US hadn't consistently undermined every single effort to defeat socialism that ever took place. Witness the upcoming referendum in Venezuela. The most powerful nation in the world is so threatened by "communism" that it won't even allow socialism to exist within the context of an elective democracy in South America. I could go into that at length, Jason, but why bore you with such anti-American talk?

Capitalism has not been proven to be better than anything. All it has proven is that when allowed to, greed will take over. I think we've seen enough evidence of that. Besides, I have not advocated capitalism's demise. I'm wondering what exactly is leading you to jump to these wild conclusions here.

I advocated people raising hell in the streets. I supposed by "raising hell," you thought I meant rioting and throwing rocks at bank windows? How silly, Jason. Don't you realize that when people have taken to the streets, violence almost invariably results from the reaction of those in power? Kent State is a perfect example. The 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago is another.

Well spoken.

And to add, I'd take the socialist leanings of a country like Sweden, hell, the whole region of Scandinavia any day over this country's capitalism. I'd love to have the kind of government that provides (as the socialist Scandinavian countries do): free, excellent health care for all citizens, excellent education, government assistance for the unemployed, an extremely low rate of poverty, governmental assistance and fostering of the arts, concern for the environment and city planning, a concern for the quality of life of its citizens over profit, the list goes on and on and on and on....

I think capitalism fails in these capacities. I mean, what's more important, quality of life or profit? If it means no longer having 20 different kinds of toilet paper to choose from, or 30 different kinds of plastic wrap., I think I can relenquish some of my freedom of choice. I mean give me a break...

[darklinensuit]

I think capitalism fails in these capacities. I mean, what's more important, quality of life or profit? If it means no longer having 20 different kinds of toilet paper to choose from, or 30 different kinds of plastic wrap., I think I can relenquish some of my freedom of choice. I mean give me a break...

Reminds me of that old Scottissue ad: "Is Your Washroom Breeding Bolsheviks?" :)

- Jake

[cliffdweller]

Reminds me of that old Scottissue ad: "Is Your Washroom Breeding Bolsheviks?" :)

- Jake

Capitalist propaganda from way back. I remember that too!

[dissention]

Well spoken.

And to add, I'd take the socialist leanings of a country like Sweden, hell, the whole region of Scandinavia any day over this country's capitalism. I'd love to have the kind of government that provides (as the socialist Scandinavian countries do): free, excellent health care for all citizens, excellent education, government assistance for the unemployed, an extremely low rate of poverty, governmental assistance and fostering of the arts, concern for the environment and city planning, a concern for the quality of life of its citizens over profit, the list goes on and on and on and on....

I think capitalism fails in these capacities. I mean, what's more important, quality of life or profit? If it means no longer having 20 different kinds of toilet paper to choose from, or 30 different kinds of plastic wrap., I think I can relenquish some of my freedom of choice. I mean give me a break...

You could also throw Canada in there, alebit to a lesser extent than Sweden is. I've been to Canada many times and the big difference between Canada and the US is that Canadians put people above anything else. In this country, is everything is about money 24/7. People take a backseat. For cripes sake, even Britain has universal health care and Tony Blair runs the place.

[strandinthewind]

I guess I just have less faith in the human race or at least the Americns in it :laugh: I think Socialized medicine would be a hard sell here and would in the beginning send the world's economy into havoc. Could you imagine if overnight there was no need for any heath ins. Those companies have mammoth investment capital both here and around the world. They also indirectly and directly employ well over a million people. Then, there are the doctors who have mortgages, car loans, etc. Imagine if they went from several hundred thousand a year to $60,000 overnight. While I know it is hard to feel sorry for them :laugh: but if 10 million doctors default on a combined total of billions of dollars, the effect would be horrible. I guess it would have to be a gradual phasing out kind of thing. I also think there are alternatives. For example, each doctor could be required to put time in (maybe two days a week) at a clinic or hospital that is free to everyone. The govt. could build them all over. I guess that is not really feasible for really rural areas, but it is better than nothing. There could also be an opt in socialized medicine system where doctors can do that instead of being in private practice. Interestingly private practice is not the money maker it used to be because of HMO's and malpractice ins. But, it still is lucrative.

I also think lawyers should be forced to take at least one pro bono case a month in their specialty or something like that. I have seen people faced with a $50,000 + legal defense bill because some prosecutor or cop made an error. The state says "I'm sorry" but does not pay the bill. AND - legal aid cannot be expected to defend a family making $100,000 a year with two kids. But, still imagine if that was you the state screwed up on. That is ALOT of money to pay for someone else's mistake. I also think the state should not pay some lawyer $250 an hour. So, lawyers should be required to donate their time. That way everyone gets representation.

Ah socialism!!!!!!!!!!!!

:cool:

[Johnny Stew]

Nonsense. When your candidate loses, haven't you wasted your vote? What defines a "wasted" vote?

Ok, perhaps "wasted" was too extreme of a word. Every vote is important, whether your candidate wins or loses.
But I can't begin to describe to you how important I feel it is that we get Bush out of the White House. And it just seems to me that, as Democrats, our support should belong to John Kerry, as he.... here and now... has the best potential to win the presidency.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that's the only reason I'm voting for him. I don't want to give that impression.
I'm just trying to explain why I feel it's important that the votes of those who don't support Bush, should not be split among different candidates. It dilutes the message.

But I realize that you're more interested in sending a message to the Democratic party, so that's where we differ.
I don't necessarily disagree with how you feel, and I'm not saying you're wrong... we just have very different approaches.


What you don't realize is that with a statement like that you are advocating acquiescence. You may think you're taking a stand by trying to get Bush out of the White House, but your just playing the game. Do you think the corporations who are donating to Bush and Kerry ultimately will be terribly hurt if Kerry wins? All they'll do is brace themselves for a slowdown in the incredibly progress they've been making to take more and more away from us. By the way, did you know that legally a corporation has more rights than you? Did you know that under NAFTA certain environmental and other regulatory policies are null and void for multinational corporations? In other words, a multinational company has more power than even your government in some cases. How do you like that?

Johnny, I know why this issue is important to you. And if your vote comes down to this issue, I understand perfectly. But don't kid yourself: It's a vote based on fear. There's no way such an amendment would ever pass. The Republicrats know it. The Demopublicans know it. They're just hoping that you don't know it so they can continue to play on your fears.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

I realize it's highly unlikely that the amendment would ever pass... latest reports state that it has nowhere near the two-thirds support it would need.
But I readily admit that I still take great offense with any politician who supports it. Bush is flat-out saying that allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy the moral fabric of society, and I am appalled by that stance.

So even if I supported Bush on everything else, his backing of this amendment would be enough to lose my vote.

Is that entirely rational given that it's highly unlikely it will pass anyway? Perhaps not. But I'm someone who can't help but think with his head and his heart.
My feelings are not born out of fear, but rather a moral objection to being told that who I am is somehow a detriment to all that is decent and holy in this world.

And Carne, trust me, I understand what you're saying... we DO need a major party shakeup in this country. Without a doubt.
But I don't see my views as mere acquiescence. I've just always believed you have to ingratiate yourself with people, before you can change their minds.
Sure, it's a slower road, but in my opinion it's usually more effective than hitting people over the head with something. It also seems more practical to me.

So if that requires getting Democratic candidates with conservative edges into the White House, until we can slowly turn the tides towards a prevailing liberalism, then so be it.

[CarneVaca]

Johnny, you probably noticed the amendment proposal was defeated in the Senate yesterday. And John McCain spoke passionately against it.

Now if the Democrats would only stand up and say they approve of gay marriages...

[gldstwmn]

From the horse's mouth:

"I'm a hunter. I'm a gun owner. A lot of people on the left don't like that, but that's who I am," he said.

The Massachusetts senator has already begun his effort to broaden his political reach. During a recent swing through the Midwest, where he tramped around farms and toted a shotgun on a trap-shooting range, Kerry said that he represented "conservative values," and emphasized his personal opposition to abortion.

Conservative values!? Yeah, well, stick 'em, pal.

So let's review. Kerry...

--Voted to attack Iraq.
--Opposes withdrawing from Iraq.
--Supports Sharon and the Bush roadmap for the Palestine conflict.
--Supports the Israel's "security fence" that is strangling the Palestinians even though he told Palestinians last year that it was not needed.
--Is "pro-life," saying he believes life begins at conception.
--Opposes gay marriage.
--Voted for the Patriot Act.
--Voted for No Child Left Behind.

Gotta love those Democrats for giving the voters a real alternative. ;)

I have another gift for you today. I give you GrannyD:

We are the selfish progressives when we think it is all about us. We require the perfect candidate who reflects our views precisely. If we cannot have such a candidate, we may not vote, or we may vote for someone who cannot win, just to show our support for our precious opinions. This grandstanding is more important to us than the lives of all the people who will die and be exploited if a fascist warmonger is elected because of our selfish narcissism.

The old joke is that the left forms its firing squad in a circle. The truth of that is in the selfish progressive's belief that politics is not for the practical advance of the common good, but is a showcase for personal sentiments. Progressive meetings take forever as all of us must fully expound our views on everything. It is such a bore when other people speak, and so wonderfully enlightening when we finally get a few hours to speak ourselves. It is, in other words, a monumentally selfish exercise much of the time.

I hope the Nader candidacy is not to become a meeting ground for such narcissism at the expense of other people's lives.

I am concerned about the future of the Green Party. My friends in the Greens tell me that they are building a party and that they must look to the long view. If they are right, here is the long view: ten to twenty years of party growth, during which the left vote will be split and the right wing will have the institutions of government all to themselves. Another ten to twenty years of equality between the Greens and the Dems, during which the right wing will have another era of unchallenged power. Then ten to twenty years when the Greens outpace the Dems, but the Dems are still a factor and the progressive vote is still split. So, say, thirty to sixty years before they can see some victories. Will there be anything like justice and liberty and nature left to work with by that time?

Do the Greens have a better scenario to meet the real and present danger to the planet? I do: let the progressives take over the Democratic party, whose doors are unlocked and whose halls are unguarded. That can be done in two to four years. If the energies of the Green Party were transferred to a Green Caucus within the Democratic Party, real progress would be possible quickly

It is time for the factions of the left to understand that, unless they have a practical strategy for early victory, they stand in the way of justice, of environmental protection, and of peace if they continue to split the progressive vote. If they can actually win elections in some areas, that is a different matter, of course.

If any fellow progressives are in the game only to hear themselves pontificate and wax eloquent about their wonderful values and their brilliant grasp of the issues--while others starve and die, I ask them to join Toastmasters where they can learn to make shorter, less boring speeches and also do no harm in the world. Politics is not about posturing, but about winning and losing and representing the interests of millions of people. When you take up the sword of politics, you play to win on behalf of your people, not to look pretty in your uniform.

That same narcissism that we of the left are particularly prone to, by the way, may be on display in the convention cities this summer. Millions of television viewers trying to decide whether or not to jump ship from the incumbent will look at the mess on the streets in Boston and New York and say, well, if I have to choose sides, I know I'm not on theirs. The conventions are a time for massive action, but it had better be well organized and designed to convey real information respectfully to the American people, or it will be a selfish and damaging exercise in adult play at the expense of thousands of lives and the environment. I urge those non-delegates going to the conventions to carry thoughtful signs designed not to show only their anger, but the truth. I urge young people to consider the conventions not as an opportunity for mayhem and fun, but for service to their country and their world by using their creativity to open, not close, the hearts of the millions of Americans who will be watching. Let's look good out there. It is not in protesting alone that we find our power, but in creating change in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. We have the power to do this, because the facts are on our side and because most Americans do care about the air, water, forests and mountains of their world, and most Americans do not side with corruption and exploitation and greed. We can only enlarge our tent by attracting people into it through our earnestness and our ability to admirably represent truth and love.


http://grannyd.com/speech20040529.htm

[Johnny Stew]

Johnny, you probably noticed the amendment proposal was defeated in the Senate yesterday. And John McCain spoke passionately against it.

Now if the Democrats would only stand up and say they approve of gay marriages...

Sorry I didn't reply to this sooner. Yes, I'm VERY pleased the proposal was defeated. Granted, it had nowhere near the approval it needed, but you know how passionately I feel about it, so I can't help but be pleased.

I was pleased with most of what John McCain said, although he has also often said, "it's a lifestyle I don't approve of." (I'd like for anyone who dissapproves of the "gay lifestyle," to actually spend TIME with gay people, and then let me know how they still feel about our so-called "lifestyle.")
And he said that if the Supreme Court strikes down the Defense Of Marriage act, then an amendment might be appropriate.

So he hasn't won me over, but I'm thankful for his negative vote in regards to this amendment proposal.

[BrokenWing]

I was pleased with most of what John McCain said, although he has also often said, "it's a lifestyle I don't approve of." (I'd like for anyone who dissapproves of the "gay lifestyle," to actually spend TIME with gay people, and then let me know how they still feel about our so-called "lifestyle.")

I see you're as fed up as I am with hearing it referred to as a "lifestyle." When I hear people talk about the "gay lifestyle" or "alternative lifestyles," I want to slap them upside the head. A "lifestyle" has to do with what setting you choose to live in, what kind of job you have, what you enjoy doing in your spare time, and your general approach to life. It has to do with whether you prefer the constantly-on-the-go pace of a big city, a more idyllic suburban setting, a rural no-neighbors-for-a-mile-in-any-direction environment or a rustic cabin in the wilderness. Whether you're a high-powered executive or professional, a tradesman, an artistic type, a techie or someone barely getting by in a minimum-wage McJob. Whether you're athletic or artsy or a computer geek or a bookworm or a mishmash of all of the above that defies labeling. Whether you're a free-spender who enjoys pampering yourself, a frugal type who buys what's necessary and banks the rest, a philanthropist who donates all the money and time you can to worthy causes, a little of each, or someone who has no time to think about any of it because you're just trying to make ends meet. These are the sorts of distinctions the word "lifestyle connotes. It does not refer to whether your life partner has a penis or a vagina.

I know gay people who are very athletic and others who are more sedentary. I know some who are quite well off in a profession they enjoy, and others who just have a job that pays the bills more or less adequately. I've know some who prefer small-town life, and others who wouldn't dream of being anywhere but New York or San Francisco. And even when it comes to expressing our sexual orientation, I know some who proudly wear their rainbow clothes and jewelry, some who don't even like being labeled "gay" or "lesbian," and many who fall somewhere in the middle. Some men are as flaming as the Queer Eye guys, some you'd never pick up on with the strongest gaydar, and most fall somewhere in between. Ditto with some lesbians who are as butch as butch can be, some who are very feminine and indistinguishable from straight women, and most who fall somewhere in the middle. As far as I'm concerned, there is no more a "gay lifestyle" than there is a "straight lifestyle."

And he said that if the Supreme Court strikes down the Defense Of Marriage act, then an amendment might be appropriate.

If this country ever gets over its fear of the word "liberal" and elects someone who truly stands for Democratic ideals, and that person manages to appoint a couple of like-minded justices to the Supreme Court, the DOMA will inevitably be revealed as the blatantly unconstitutional travesty that it is.

But is it just me, or is this push for an amendment, under whatever circumstances, the ultimate example of abuse of power? Essentially, what McCain is saying is that we don't need an amendment now, but if the Supreme Court should make a move he doesn't like in regard to the issue, he'd then be in favor of taking away its power to interpret the Constitution on this matter. The legislative and executive branches doesn't like the fact that our checks and balances system gives the judicial branch the power to overrule them, so they try to circumvent the judicial branch and cut off the power afforded to it by the constitution, lest the judicial branch reach a conclusion they don't like. Why not abolish the Supreme Court entirely and just interpret the Constitution by amending it to suit the President and Congress' whims?

And I'd better shut up right now because my blood pressure is rising to dangerous levels. :mad:

Eileen

[dissention]

We are the selfish progressives when we think it is all about us.

Ayn Rand is turning over in her grave right now. :lol: