Bush / Kerry / Nader

BinkWile,

I am not sure I follow this. God has existed since the beginning of time, not just in the last 2,000 years.

 

..... and what was shaping up to be a decent thread on why people are voting for one candidate or another in November becomes another thread on religious belief.

Is it so extremely difficult for some people to understand that some religiously minded individuals do not seperate their faith from their daily life and attempt to live by what they believe to be God's instructions?

Is it also so extremely difficult for some religious minded individuals to understand that there are people who might maintain a belief in God as an abstract yet choose to live their lives according to whatever secular value system motivates them; and that their views are able to change and are not guided or even constrained by any particular dogma?

If you live your life according to your faith then of course you are going to make decisions in life based off of that belief. If you do not, then you probably can not understand someone who does.

Now it would be nice if the thread could get back to being input on why people are voting for one or another candidate.

 

I'm voting for Kerry

I'm voting for Kerry for a few reasons, most of them because I can't bring myself to vote for Bush...

1. Despite the fact that the Bush family in general are "nice people", I don't think the leadership that George W. has provided has been up to the task concerning his handling of foreign affairs and the economy.
2. I basically think that George W. is whacked on the religious thing - he let's his personal faith cloud his judgment
3. I think George W. is kind of dumb. I mean he got "C's" at Yale. People I know who've been to Yale did much better, and they were not bright people - the trick is to get accepted, and the grades just sort of "come" in the Ivy League schools. C's are a real statement of failure in that privileged institution.
4. I think Kerry has basic northeastern "Yankee fortitude", which I sort of admire
5. Kerry is a decorated war hero, despite the fact that he tossed his medals over the fence at the White House in a (in my opinion) very justifiable moment of protest against the injustice of the Vietnam War.
6. Kerry seems to care about the little guy, although it is quite clear that he is anything but a "little guy" in his own personal life
7. Kerry will not allow the continuation of the erosion of civil liberties in this country.
8. I think if you get John Kerry angry enough, he'll kick major butt against terrorism - the trick is to switch him to "on"....

Fairly basic gut feelings, but that's where I'm coming from.

- Carl

 

Re: I'm voting for Kerry

Carl,

You present some good arguments for those on the left of center to support Kerry.

However, can you please tell me what civil liberties you no longer have? I haven't lost any of mine. I am just as free today as I was under Clinton.

One more thing. All this talk about Kerry and the environment puzzles me. Have you noticed most of the environmentalists who are left of center and express concern about energy and the enviornment own multiple vehicles that are gas hogs, own several huge mansions that are energy hogs, own private jets, etc.

I'm reminded of Arianna Huffington, the "great environmentalist" who was called on her numerous plane trips across the country. Her comback? "I only use them if they're going there anyway."

A little hypocritical, don't you think?

Oh, by the way, a number of environmental groups say Bush has a better environmental record than did Clinton.

 

Re: I'm voting for Kerry

No, he didn't. He just said that he did, yet another example of a long list of trying to have it both ways.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Investigation/kerry_vietnam_medals_040425-1.html

 

In a way the theological debate was part of why people chose one candidate over another. Some of us made the statement we would not support Kerry over the abortion issue. Bink made the statement that God/faith should not be part of any political discussion. It splintered from there.

My vote is GW, not thrilled by his leadership thus far, but he is the better choice. In fact I have not "for" a president since Reagan, I have been forced to choose between the lesser of two evils.

 

What do you call this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...5/17/usarin.xml

 

I guess I am different. I don't see Bush as a "lesser of two evils." I don't see him as evil at all. He will be the first national party candidate I will have voted for in 20 years!

Campaign rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. No candidate knows exactly what he or she will do once elected. No one can predict what will transpire after one is in office.

This election, as all do, boils down to performance, not rhetoric. Compare Bush's performance as President to Kerry's as a United States Senator.

This is all anyone has to do. After a thorough, comprehensive, objective examination, the choice is clear--Bush.

And again, I remind all, I did not vote for Bush, did not like him, etc. Yet, he has demonstrated strong, consistent, decisive leadership based on his principles, values, and convictions and not public opinion.

 

Re: Re: I'm voting for Kerry

Yes he did. No wait, they were ribbons. No, ribbons and medals are the same thing. Wait, no they're not. Hey, wait a minute buddy...'that's not your business' anyway.

 

every vote counts

My daddy always told me to never discuss three things: income, religion, and politics. He said those were private matters and never discussed these topics outside of family members and very, very close friends. He even died without me ever knowing what political party he belonged to. So, I'm not going to voice my opinion re the Bush/Kerry debate, but I did want to share an eye-opening experience of mine.

Ever since I was 18, I've always voted in every presidential election, and when in the U.S., have tried to vote in state and local elections as well. However, I often wondered if my one vote ever made a difference.

For the 2000 presidential election, my husband and I were here in the Middle East. We seriously procrastinated getting absentee ballots to vote, and finally just figured, well, we'll sit this one out -- our votes probably won't do much anyway.

Guess where we are both registered to vote . . . in Florida! As you can well imagine, we were rather shocked that the election was so close, in our state, and IIRC, hinged in great part on absentee ballots.

Needless to say, we learned our lesson about our votes counting, and will both be voting this year!

Regards,
Adrienne

 

Wow - well said Adriene (aka aarbrooks)

Your vote does count and no matter who you vote for, you have the ethical obligation to cast your ballot. If you choose not to vote, then I say "shut the frick up!". For no matter if you love (or tolerate) Bush, Kerry, or like me a third party, you need to speak up.

With that said, one of my few pet peeves is someone who immigrates here, goes through all of the processes and becomes a citizen, and does not vote. I live in an area of the south east bay area that has a large population of Afghani's (they call this Little Kabul), and east Indian's. One of my neighbors, who is Indian was complaining to me of the fact that out of 7 city council members, there is only 1 Asian (in a city of about 60% asian population) and no other "minorities" (whatever that means in CA) on the council. I ask "do you vote?" - he did not. I explained that if he wanted representation that represented his interests, then he must find a candidate that represents this belief system and promote them throughout the Indian community. So far, this hasn't been done. It would be nice to have the different perspectives since this is a multi-ethnic community. But if you don't vote, then you get what you get!

Just my two...

Process check: Is anyone other than myself seeking out a third party candidate?

 

BTW: I thought it was don't discuss Sex, religion or politics


2nd BTW: aarbrooks: from your signature, I assume that either your husband or you are in the military. As a former sailor, I say thank both of you for your service. I can't say that enough. What I hope separates this from Vietnam our committment and recognition to our armed services. I have to tell you, disrespect towards anyone serving in the region by someone here is an excuse for some good "stick - time" (Our resident cop on the board will understand what that means..)

 

I couldn't agree less. I generally do not vote for having no candidate representing my views. And I do not STFU. Voting has zip, zero and nada to do with my right to speak out.

 

Yeah, well, I'm rather glad my mom took care of the birds and bees talk, although her timing was lousy -- she hit me with that,
and the whole 'there's no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy' all in the same day!

Both my husband and I are Army vets -- Ray was in during Vietnam (although served in Germany, thankfully), and I was in during the late 80's-early 90's. Thank you for your thanks, and much back to you! We are here in the ME as civilians, in a country that is so far removed from what is going on in Saudi/Iraq/Israel, etc. etc. it's hard sometimes to believe we're in the same region.

BTW, I want to say that I was in the Army as an interrogator, and we were not, under any circumstances, taught to treat prisoners as has been in the news lately, and any news outlet reporting this is full of it. The MI Corps takes the Geneva Conventions very, very seriously, and this was drummed into our heads at Interrogation school. In fact, a colleague of mine (and this is not a friend of a friend story -- I know this first hand) was joking around in a mock interrogation one day, came into the room, looked at his 'prisoner' (one of the instructors), pulled out a copy of the Geneva conventions, ripped it in half, threw it about the room, then took a knife and slammed it into the table, point first. He said, " **** the Geneva Conventions, in this room, with me, we go by the (his last name) Conventions!"

He was out of MI the next day, security clearance revoked.

I'm truly sickened by what has gone on at the prison, and there is a definite loss of professionalism and breakdown in leadership somewhere along the chain of command! However, I did want to speak up and say that Army interrogators are not trained to do those things.

Okay, off my rant box . . .

 

I call it charade. It appears that expert opinions don’t mean anything these days. They have been substituted by and large with political expediency. Both David Kay and Hans Blix separately opined that what was found in Iraq last weekend was possibly an infinitesimal remnant of chemicals from earlier Iraqi weapons program that goes back to the period prior to the first Gulf War. It is true that in early 1980s, President Regan’s special envoy to the region (Secretary Rumsfeld) negotiated with Saddam and eventually provided chemical weapons to the “Butcher of Baghdad”.

Saddam used these American-supplied chemical weapons against Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. From all indications, it seems that UN inspectors comprehensively destroyed these weapons in early and mid 1990s but the hawks in Washington erroneously believe that Iraqi scientist succeeded in their quest to produce these weapons in large quantities. Thanks to Ahmad Chalabi who aptly succeeded in conning these hawks and their acolytes. Iraqi scientists were in fact accorded more respects than they actually deserve. I strongly believe that they simply lack the know-how.

 

That's true? Which "chemical weapons" were supplied?

 

Yes it is true. According CBS news magazine story (60 Minutes), the weapons were provided to Saddam in order to tilt the balance in the Iraq-Iran war in the eighties.

I can't remember exactly but they are the ones that UN inspectors sought.

 

Of course, because it destroys the argument that there are no WMD's.

 

Yep. The argument is fundamentally flawed. .
On a more serious note, I am watching CNN's Late Edition, which is now in progress, and Wolf Blitzer is interviewing (guess who) Ahmad Chalabi. Mr. Chalabi is suggesting that the onus of verification of any information that was provided by Iraqi defectors prior to the war rests squarely with CIA and other US spy agencies. He is now shifting blames to CIA for failing to investigate information that was received from Iraqi defectors (human-based intelligence) before reaching conclusions. He also appears to doubt that the weapons exist. And you think that this is a man to be trusted?

 

That does not answer the question. I'm asking which chemical weapons were supplied.

That is the first I've heard that UN inspectors were seeking U.S. supplied WMDs.

In a "King has no clothes" fashion, it is all too obvious that the Soviet Bloc supplied Hussein with the bulk of his weaponry.

Did 60 minutes raise the possibility of France, Germany, Italy or China supplying Hussein with any weaponry?