To Bush Supporters...

[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]

Originally Posted by thepoetinmyhear

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]

Originally Posted by GateandGarden

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]

Originally Posted by Alison

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.

[GateandGarden]

Originally Posted by thepoetinmyhear

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

Michael

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

Hillary

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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:

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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?

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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 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 ) that some religious zealot made the medical decision for me instead of me and my doctor 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

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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.

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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.

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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 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

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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.

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

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.

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

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by Lux

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]

Originally Posted by sodascouts

- partial-birth abortion
-

What is that?

[cliffdweller]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

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

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

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by thepoetinmyhear

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

[dissention]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

Ah-Ha! I was wondering when you'd show up. 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]

Originally Posted by thepoetinmyhear

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.