I knew it! Kerry is a conservative

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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.

[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

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

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

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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.

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

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]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

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

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

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

mmmmmmm....sexiest white house ever......

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

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

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

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]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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

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]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

Rubbish and you know it

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 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

[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.

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

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.