Should "I'm So Afraid" be Kerry's campaign song?

[shackin'up]

Originally Posted by stefan

Yeah. Or what about "On the wrong side" for the supporters of the caricature?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by shackin'up

No. That's Poor, Poor, Pityful Me.

I thought it was Pour Me (Another One).

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by stefan

I'd like to add something to this topic. Every voice not going to Kerry goes to Bush.

Sorry, Stefan, you got that wrong. Every vote not going to a third party goes to Bush. Plain and simple.

--Kerry wants to perpetuate the conflict in Iraq, a conflict your country was deadset against if I remember correctly.
--Kerry wants to perpetuate the Bush roadmap for Palestine, a plan your country also opposes if I'm not mistaken.
--Kerry now claims he is a conservative and he is personally against abortion.

Would you vote for him?

No third one except of Bush and Kerry will get enough votes- every other vote is like thrown in the toilet- no matter how good the intentions may be.

You got it wrong again. Every vote going to Bush and Kerry is going down the toilet in the sense that both men want to perpetuate very, very wrongheaded policies. Besides, what is a wasted vote? Isn't every vote for a candidate that loses a wasted vote?

I don`t think that anyone who votes for a third candidate can later complain about the caricature and any of his actions because his voice would be part of the re-election even if it's meant in a totally different way.

Wrong again. We in this country have something called the First Amendment. Thank God. I spent the first seven years of my life in a place where you couldn't speak your mind. So I've lived it, though admittedly back then I didn't have much to say, except when's dinner and can I get a new Matchbox car? And regardless of how I vote, you may rest assured that I will continue to complain... if for nothing else, because I do it so well.

Remember, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[stefan]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

Sorry, Stefan, you got that wrong. Every vote not going to a third party goes to Bush. Plain and simple.

--Kerry wants to perpetuate the conflict in Iraq, a conflict your country was deadset against if I remember correctly.
--Kerry wants to perpetuate the Bush roadmap for Palestine, a plan your country also opposes if I'm not mistaken.
--Kerry now claims he is a conservative and he is personally against abortion.

Would you vote for him?

I think we as the voters are often enough forced to vote for the less bad option instead of for the better one.
Kerry may say these things and I admit willingly not to know the man as detailed as it might be one day if he really gets elected one day- which I doubt. But look Carne, the american voters wouldn`t vote him if he said the complete opposite. Everything he says now regarding Iraq to me is said under tactical aspects. A lot of US people still believe the Iraq war was right, at least to remove Saddam from power. The question if the US was called for that or if it was an illegal act in confrontation to the UN is of no interest for a lot of people. In fact most of them don't know about the background facts and don't care for it either. My impression is that the mass medias over there were instrumentalized (does that word exist in english?) So imo GWB Jr. has proven to be a criminal cheater using his position of strength to suppress other countries. I don't claim that Kerry will be great but he still has to prove to be the criminal moron the current president is. Unless he does so every change is a good change in that position imo. And whoever runs for president as third option won`t make it to the White House finally. That only takes away votes that are needed to vote Dubya off.
Btw I doubt that any different president will walk over the UN like Godzilla the same way the caricature did. That is probably the greatest harm he did to the US. Your country is regarded in a very critical light over here since these incidents and a change would be a new beginning regarding that.
I don`t know the english term for Mehrheitswahlsystem. It`s the voting system you have, following the rule "the winner takes it all". If- let`s say 60 per cent of the people in one state want Bush to go and one part of them votes for Kerry and a minor part votes for Mr third guy the Bush minority will finally get the votes. I doubt that Dubya was president now instead of Gore if this other guy (I forgot the name) had not been there. And look what harm has been done because of that... If your system had a percentage aspect and two oppositional forces could go together and then have the majority of votes against a different party- then I absolutely would agree with you Carne.

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

though admittedly back then I didn't have much to say, except when's dinner and can I get a new Matchbox car? And regardless of how I vote, you may rest assured that I will continue to complain... if for nothing else, because I do it so well.

Well why- I think that`s a lot! If you kept your Matchbox cars from your childhood (as I did) then you could give your collection now to your son like I plan to do one time. In fact I don't plan to give my cars to your son. I would give them to mine once I`m a father if that ever happens
And yes you are good in complaining. But it`s always a good read so keep on dude even if we're on different tracks concerning this election thing. At least we agree on two things:
1) Lindsey Buckingham is great
2) Dubya is an dumbass

[CarneVaca]

Originally Posted by stefan

I doubt that Dubya was president now instead of Gore if this other guy (I forgot the name) had not been there. And look what harm has been done because of that... If your system had a percentage aspect and two oppositional forces could go together and then have the majority of votes against a different party- then I absolutely would agree with you Carne.

Stefan, I've done the math too. In fact, I've done enough of the math to conclude that too many people who should have voted were denied the vote in Florida. That's the real reason Gore lost that particular state. Those people would have been denied the voted regardless of whether Nader was in the running. And a lot of people who voted for Nader wouldn't have bothered to vote if he hadn't run.

But is mathematics all there is to it? Sure, it all comes down to numbers. But before the numbers, there's this: There's putting up a viable candidate who stirs the passions of the voters. Gore didn't do that. And from what I can see, neither is Kerry. The Democrats need to grow a spine and put up candidates that stand for something. Ironically, now Gore is coming across as having more conviction than he ever did as a vice president and as a presidential candidate. Go figure.

And yes you are good in complaining. But it`s always a good read so keep on dude even if we're on different tracks concerning this election thing. At least we agree on two things:
1) Lindsey Buckingham is great
2) Dubya is an dumbass

Hear hear.

[larg]

I never said I agree with the way things have happened... but ideally, I have certain opinions that I stick to. I feel the Iraq war has worked poorly... and its been poorly managed equally.

Wellfare, also, I think is a terrible idea. I agree, the money does trickle down to major corporations; alas, I still like the idea of earning what you get. Saying that my hard-earned money goes more to the major corporations than the lazy bum in NY only further proves my argument that extensive taxation and wellfare are bad ideas.

Abortions I believe are wrong. My sister's had six, and she'd probably have another one. They are birth-control, and that's it. Which I think is wrong and evil.

I'm saying that I find it offensive when republicans are considered heartless and ignorant. Maybe I am somewhat uninformed in many ways, but I still stand to what I believe. Sorry.

Adam R.

[amber]

Originally Posted by larg

Abortions I believe are wrong. My sister's had six, and she'd probably have another one. They are birth-control, and that's it. Which I think is wrong and evil..

Uh, they're not birth control AND THAT'S IT. And if you don't like your money going to people on welfare, believe me, a lot more of it would be going there if there were no abortions. Your logic, uh, confounds me.
Also, did you know the percentage of taxes that go to Welfare are about 1/10 of 1%? But your tax dollars that go to the defense budget, are about 25% (It could be more or a bit less, but it's waaaaay more than welfare even comes close to being)

Originally Posted by larg

I'm saying that I find it offensive when republicans are considered heartless and ignorant. Maybe I am somewhat uninformed in many ways, but I still stand to what I believe. Sorry.

Adam R.

To me, the person who will be most wrong, and most unhappy, is the person who does not acknowledge that it's possible for them, OR ANYONE, to be wrong. And to not be able to change your ideas, ON PRINCIPLE, no matter what information you acquire? To be forced by your own self to be that rigid as to never change your opinion no matter what the circumstance or evidence?
Amber

[Vianna]

The problem is that Kerry is not different enough from Bush to present a real choice. Too many people will say why change the status quo when we're not going to get anything different. I personally also don't like the way Kerry has switched sides so to speak regarding the war. It looks like he has no convictions that he is willing to stand up for, even if they are unpopular.

That's why I liked

"now you slip, now you slide"......hehe

We need Bush out of there!!I don't think Kerry can win and I am so bummed!

[dissention]

Originally Posted by larg

Wellfare, also, I think is a terrible idea. I agree, the money does trickle down to major corporations; alas, I still like the idea of earning what you get. Saying that my hard-earned money goes more to the major corporations than the lazy bum in NY only further proves my argument that extensive taxation and wellfare are bad ideas.

And what about the people who have lost their jobs due to Bush's mismanagement of the economy? What if those people were single mothers with three kids and a dead husband? Or no husband? Should they just crawl under a rock and die because you don't want to help them by giving a few bucks out of your paycheck each week? Is that the American way? How are they to afford health insurance? How will they pay bills and put food in their mouths? The actions of the few who abuse the system are not enough to ever warrant the dismantling of the entire welfare system. To say that it's a bad idea or that you just don't like it is rather ignorant and selfish. I dare you to go down to your local welfare office and tell someone less fortunate than you are that you don't give a **** and that you just want all the money for yourself. Give them a step ladder and a piece of rope while you're at it, they just might die quicker.

Originally Posted by larg

Abortions I believe are wrong. My sister's had six, and she'd probably have another one. They are birth-control, and that's it. Which I think is wrong and evil.

Abortions are not birth control, condoms and diaphragms are. The people who abuse abortions should learn how to use them properly. However, just because they abuse their right to have an abortion, it does not mean that abortions are wrong or that they should be banned. Tell it to someone who was raped by their father and is now pregnant with his child. Or to a woman who has just found out that not only is she she pregnant, but that she has AIDs, too. How about a crack addict or an alcoholic who suddenly becomes pregnant? Or how about a woman with breast cancer who has suddenly become pregnant? While we're at it, how about the women who get pregnant but cannot possibly raise a child because they don't have the financial means to do so? Put the kid up for adoption? Run the risk of the child being adopted by a child abuser, a drug addict, or a child molester?

Originally Posted by larg

I'm saying that I find it offensive when republicans are considered heartless and ignorant. Maybe I am somewhat uninformed in many ways, but I still stand to what I believe. Sorry.

Adam R.

Yes, but if what you believe is based on half-truths, misinformation, and flat-out lies, those beliefs have no relevance. The policies put forth by conservatives and Republicans are heartless and cruel, that's what I believe and I have the facts to prove it.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

For the record, I am pro-choice. But I still find it troubling that if a woman decides she doesn't want to have a baby, she can terminate her pregnancy, but a man is required to pay child support, whether he wants the child or not. I know, old argument, but I've yet to hear a good rebuttal.

It's her body, end of story. He's not the one who is supporting a baby in his stomach for nine months. If he isn't responsible enough to use a condom and the mother wants to keep the child, he's going to pay for his irresponsibility. If a woman accidentally gets pregnant and does not have the means to take care of a child, it's her decision what to do. It's not the man it's happening to, it's the woman.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally Posted by dissention

It's her body, end of story. He's not the one who is supporting a baby in his stomach for nine months. If he isn't responsible enough to use a condom and the mother wants to keep the child, he's going to pay for his irresponsibility. If a woman accidentally gets pregnant and does not have the means to take care of a child, it's her decision what to do. It's not the man it's happening to, it's the woman.

I disagree. I think women are just as responsible for birth control as men are. I can certainly understand the circumstances in which birth control fails, and a woman is not ready to care for a child, that she should have the right to end that pregnancy. But I'm sorry -- irresponsibility on the woman's part is no excuse, IMVHO.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

I disagree. I think women are just as responsible for birth control as men are. I can certainly understand the circumstances in which birth control fails, and a woman is not ready to care for a child, that she should have the right to end that pregnancy. But I'm sorry -- irresponsibility on the woman's part is no excuse, IMVHO.

Disagree all you want, it's not his body. Irresponsible or not, it's her body, her decision.

[Gwillaker]

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by GypsySorcerer

For the record, I am pro-choice. But I still find it troubling that if a woman decides she doesn't want to have a baby, she can terminate her pregnancy, but a man is required to pay child support, whether he wants the child or not.

17 years and I've never received a dime. I know lots of others in the same boat.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

17 years and I've never received a dime. I know lots of others in the same boat.

My mother, too. My father is actually on the list of Top 100 Deadbeat Dads in MA. It's been six years since I've turned 18, but he's still on it.