Who are you going to vote for?

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by jwd

Ummmmmm, because he's NOT John Kerry!

What a ringing endorsement! But then, I understand how hard it is to come up with some truly valid reason to vote for Bush.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

What a ringing endorsement! But then, I understand how hard it is to come up with some truly valid reason to vote for Bush.

Well, you can't ignore the fact that so many are voting for Kerry solely because he's not Bush. It definitely goes both ways. Sometimes, when I'm feeling particularly cynical, I think they're both just evil. Kerry's just less evil. And sometimes I kind of like Kerry, but I don't know why. It seems that he has yet to promise to do something that satisfies me. I don't know; I've switched to rambling mode so I'll just stop.

Hillary

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

I feel compelled to make generalizations sometimes. Okay, lots of times.

I think the reason people make sweeping generalizations about the Republican party is because of the people they elect and choose to represent them, plus the people they embrace like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. When one of them is challenged, they turn to Jesus or 9/11. Pretty sad.

Look at the track record of the Republicans: Dubya, Bush #1, Nixon, Reagan, the list goes on. The only decent Republican president was Gerald Ford and they chose not to re-elect him. Let's not even get into senators and congressmen. Any party that would endorse the likes of Alan Keyes, Rick Santorum, Bill Frist, and The Gropefueher of California is bound to be a ****ty party. BUT - say any of that to a Republican and what do they do? They bring up Clinton. Rather pathetic. We could always bring up their daliances with little boys and other assorted "deviant" activities, but we don't.

Then you have the moderate Republicans who exclaim "The extremists don't speak for all of us," but what they don't realize is that they do. Moderate Republicans who vote Bush are complicit and putting an extremist in the White House. Moderates who vote Santorum or Keyes are allowing extremists to shape this country to suit their views. Most Republicans I've met will NEVER cross party lines and vote for a candidate who is not a Republican. Even I've crossed Democratic party lines and voted for other candidates and I'm about as extreme as one can get.

My problem is that a lot of Republicans don't look at everything that their precious leaders are doing in their name. They love to espouse Bush love without knowing his record, then the minute you bring his record up, you're a "Bush hater." It's ludicrous. It's as if they feel you cannot question the man and his policies (even though they would be merciless in their attacks if it was a Democrat in the White House) or else you're a hater. I'm not the best exampple of an average Democrat or liberal who doesn't hate the man, just his policies. I truly despise him and make no bones about it. However, what the right-wingers do, and I've seen it on this board, is they take people like me or Carne or Gldstwmn and try to make it as if we are representative of the Democratic party. They know it's utter ****, but they do it anyways. They take extreme views and pass off the lie that thsoe extreme views are represntative of the Democratic party, therefore it's an evil thing to vote for the Democratic candidate. But, and this is a fact, to make those same generalizations about the Republican party is blasphemy in their eyes. Only they can be the truly vicious ones and get away with it.

Look at the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (Lies, more like) controversy. There is not a single truth to any of the things they've said, yet Republicans are embracing them as if they are speaking the word of god. They cried foul over legitimate questions about Bush's military record, but now they're leading the attack on Kerry's exemplary war record. It's not only blasphemous, it's treasonous and unpatriotic. But it's okay with them because they have no shame. You can say what you want about the Democrats, but they NEVER do anything even remotely vicious like that.

My problem with Republicans lies not only in their lying ways, but their contempt for anyone who isn't a conservative. We're all sinners and are going to hell, in their eyes. They condemn gay people and say they're sinning or violating gods law, then turn around with a ludicrous statement like "I don't hate you, just your actions." Gimme a break. If they were people of god, theyd know that the bible clearly states that they have NO RIGHT to judge another person. Yet they do it anyways and say it's because they're god-fearing people.

They condemn liberals and call us communists, socialists, and other assorted whack labels. They say we're trying to corrupt the country and take it over. Why should I have respect for anyone who associates themselves with the kind of party that says these things? They've even gone so far as to say that gays were the cause of Nazi-ism! This isn't a party that desreves respect, it's a party that deserves extermination, starting with Shrub.

[jwd]

GateandGarden:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew
What a ringing endorsement! But then, I understand how hard it is to come up with some truly valid reason to vote for Bush.

Well, you can't ignore the fact that so many are voting for Kerry solely because he's not Bush. It definitely goes both ways.

Exactly. That was my whole point for making that comment. TYVM Hillary!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

This isn't a party that desreves respect, it's a party that deserves extermination, starting with Shrub.

NOT TO MENTION ( ) they for many years now have hijacked the true meaning of the word conservative (smaller govt., less taxes, etc.) and instead do just the opposite. For example, the govt. is now the largest it has ever been and it is spending more than it ever has. The govt. also wants to control what two consenting adults do with their personal lives and they want everyone that is a fundamentalist Christian to have the controlling say and more rights swayed their way. If you are not a fundamentalist Christian, which mind you no law says you have to be, then they think it is okay for you to live here, just do not expect any representation, respect, or rights.


That is why I am not coting for W. He is the antithesis of what was traditionally called a conservative. Instead, he and the people who put him in power want a theocracy.

[Jason T.]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

NOT TO MENTION ( ) they for many years now have hijacked the true meaning of the word conservative (smaller govt., less taxes, etc.) and instead do just the opposite. For example, the govt. is now the largest it has ever been and it is spending more than it ever has. The govt. also wants to control what two consenting adults do with their personal lives and they want everyone that is a fundamentalist Christian to have the controlling say and more rights swayed their way. If you are not a fundamentalist Christian, which mind you no law says you have to be, then they think it is okay for you to live here, just do not expect any representation, respect, or rights.


That is why I am not voting for W. He is the antithesis of what was traditionally called a conservative. Instead, he and the people who put him in power want a theocracy.

Yeah, people I know to be 'true' conservatives, would never agree with half the stuff that Dubya does or says -- but for some reason they're not standing up for a change. Is part of being conservative letting people screw you over?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

NOT TO MENTION ( )

Honestly, Jason, how can someone add to that rant I posted above?

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

they for many years now have hijacked the true meaning of the word conservative (smaller govt., less taxes, etc.) and instead do just the opposite. For example, the govt. is now the largest it has ever been and it is spending more than it ever has. The govt. also wants to control what two consenting adults do with their personal lives and they want everyone that is a fundamentalist Christian to have the controlling say and more rights swayed their way. If you are not a fundamentalist Christian, which mind you no law says you have to be, then they think it is okay for you to live here, just do not expect any representation, respect, or rights.

Exactly. This administration is NOT fiscally conservative. And it was always my understanding that true conservatives are for state rights, not federal intrusion.

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

That is why I am not coting for W. He is the antithesis of what was traditionally called a conservative. Instead, he and the people who put him in power want a theocracy.

I'm not voting for Dubya because he's a murderer, a thief, a religious extremist, and a right-wing whack job. I'm still waiting for him to do something about Sudan...

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Jason T.

. . . Is part of being conservative letting people screw you over?

Here I go again - as Dissention noted, the D party accepts (mostly by default) the liberal title, yet it hardly represents the true and traditional def. of that word. So, the same could be said for true liberals

Now - Back to the regularly scheduled programming

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I'm still waiting for him to do something about Sudan...

Do they have oil

Can Tricky Dickie make money there

Can we appease the Saudis by going there

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Do they have oil

Can Tricky Dickie make money there

Can we appease the Saudis by going there

No, no, and no. I find it ironic that the reasoning Bush is using for going to war was to save the Iraqi people...yet he is doing nothing to stop the genocide in Sudan.

You can bet your ass that when I go to NYC to protest at the end of this month, I'll be screaming about Sudan.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

You can bet your ass that when I go to NYC to protest at the end of this month, I'll be screaming about Sudan.

Good Lord - I may have to fly in just to see this!!!!! Actually, I will be flying over on my way to Europe!!!!!!! I'll wave from 20,000 feet

Here is some info:

http://www.gopconvention.com/

[dissention]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Good Lord - I may have to fly in just to see this!!!!! Actually, I will be flying over on my way to Europe!!!!!!! I'll wave from 20,000 feet

Here is some info:

http://www.gopconvention.com/

I'm planning on taking a Peter Pan bus to New York, hopefully there won't be a bomb on it. If I die, it was all Rove.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by dissention

Honestly, Jason, how can someone add to that rant I posted above?

I'm gonna have to agree, since I can think of little to add to that rant. And I'd like to be able to understand the other person's point of view (the average Bush supporter) but I truly can't.
Especially when I ask people why Bush is better than Kerry and they say "Because Kerry flip-flops and Bush stands firms in what he believes in." How is that okay if what he believes in is evil?

Actually, I do want to bring something else up. The Log Cabin Republicans. I've been interested in this group, since they prove (or did at one point, perhaps) that one can be something of a moderate. I found it interesting that they didn't consider "gay Repulican" to be an oxymoron. But then they were turned away at the GOP convention. The Republicans want nothing to do with their ideals. The Democrats invited them over, and they declined. I think this supports what dissention was saying--that one cannot be a moderate Republican these days.

And geez, did ya have to mention Santorum, Frist, Falwell, Robertson, and others in the same sentence. I'm trying to hold down my breakfast here.

Hillary

[strandinthewind]

I think the Log Cabin Republicans provide a good service. I think their thought of working for change within the Republican party is noble and their seemingly endless up hill battle to promote change to promote the traditional definition of conservative values (less govt. less taxes, individual liberty, etc.)is admirable especially considering they are almost always defeated. And, they have, certainly with the help of others, effectuated change, albeit slight (hey - Rome was not built in a day ) within the Republican party. Here is their statement of what they believe http://www.logcabin.org/logcabin/about.html

I think it is great that there are those in the Republican party that are constantly working for change in a party that does not really want them there

But, others will disagree, etc.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

Actually, I do want to bring something else up. The Log Cabin Republicans. I've been interested in this group, since they prove (or did at one point, perhaps) that one can be something of a moderate. I found it interesting that they didn't consider "gay Repulican" to be an oxymoron. But then they were turned away at the GOP convention. The Republicans want nothing to do with their ideals. The Democrats invited them over, and they declined. I think this supports what dissention was saying--that one cannot be a moderate Republican these days. Hillary

I'm currently on hiatus from the Republicans right now, but I stay informed on the LCR's doings and activitis, as well as the Republican Majority for Choice (a pro-choice Republican group.) I have even donated to the LCR's campaign. I think what they're doing is good. It was incredibly *****ty of the GOP to not allow the LCRs at their convention. It is my understanding that the Log Cabin Republicans are not endorsing Kerry, but they are not campaigning for Bush. They appear to be putting their efforts into defeating the Federal Marriage Amendment, which I think is great.

I would say that the Republican Party is evenly divided between moderates and conservatives. (Though I readily admit that they are moving more and more to the right.) I think that the conservaties just make more noise. Extremes on both sides always are the most passionate about their beliefs.