The Astral Pulse

Astral Chat => Welcome to Astral Chat! => Topic started by: cainam_nazier on October 17, 2004, 18:02:03

Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: cainam_nazier on October 17, 2004, 18:02:03
Greetings.

As the US Presidential Elections draw near I find myself more and more confused about who to vote for.  Personally I think that Bush has done an okay job.  There are a few things that I don't like about him or the way in which he has handle a couple of things.  But the more I hear about Kerry the less I like him as well.

In discussions here and else where it has become very apparent to me that people outside of the US seem to have a better grasp of our politics than the people who live here.  Myself included sadly.

So getting down to my question.

For all of you outside the US, Who would you vote for and why?  

Naturally every one is welcome to respond but I would really like to hear from all of you who live outside the US.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Archnea on October 18, 2004, 00:12:08
I am a US citizen but I will put my two cents in. Kerry has my vote although I am not overtly fond of him either. I think Bush has some nerve to claim he's Christian. He has done a very poor job of running this country.

People like me who are physically disabled have more trouble getting medical care. I am on Medicare but my last visit to the hospital cost me $800 and I can barely feed my kids. When I have to go in for my surgery who knows what they will charge me then. Co pay on my medication for high blood pressure is to way to much. I had to go a few days without it last month because I didn't have the money.

I also think all war is barbaric. I felt like he deceived everyone with his reasons for going to war. What happened to, "Thou shalt not Kill?" If he is such a good Christian why isn't he showing it? If I wrote all my reasons I'd fill a book.

I don't wish the man ill but I didn't vote for him and I won't vote for him this time either.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: cinnabardk on October 18, 2004, 15:27:13
I would not vote for either of the two members of Skull & Bones. If you need to ask why, and you have an open, inquiring mind, then you need to read David Icke. Or do some serious Internet research.

Not voting is approving of the status quo. Voting for either of the two is supporting the status quo.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Manix on October 18, 2004, 16:01:27
Well, it doesn't look like I voting for either at this point...I can't find my stupid voters card!

Should the card choose to make an appearance, I would vote for Bush. I dont keep up with politics, never have and don't plan to start. So I'll go with what my instincts tell me. There's something about Kerry that I really don't care for. So, using that highly scientific analysis , I'd prefer to keep the current idiot we have, rather than break in a new one. Besides, I'm curious to see if Bush ever finishes what he started.

<To Self: now where did I put that stupid card...>
Title: Re: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: WalkerInTheWoods on October 18, 2004, 16:23:26
Quote from: cainam_nazierIn discussions here and else where it has become very apparent to me that people outside of the US seem to have a better grasp of our politics than the people who live here.  Myself included sadly.


And cainam's point is proven correct.  :P

In this era of the Information Age, there really is little excuse for not making an intelligent reason for voting for someone. At the very least one should look at the candidate's website and see where he/she stands on issues.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: CaCoDeMoN on October 18, 2004, 17:58:07
It would be a hard choice to choose for who would I vote. G.W. Bush is obsessed with military conquest, Kerry likes more economical ways of controlling world. But they are not really different, they are funded by same corporations, and do not represent interests of people. I certainly wold not vote for Nader, because he is just a dummy set up by Bush's government to steal votes from Kerry. I think that Kerry could be better, because he wold not be so engaged in that silly "war on terrorism". Bush is also more syjonistic, and supports Palestine occupation, and insane policy of Israel. In Poland situation with democracy is much better. Campaigns for parties and presidents are sponsored from public funds, and because of that problems with corruption are somewhat lesser. The second thing is that we have much more balanced parties, and president has much less power. We have also much better, direct voting system, without voter registrations, without voter cards, and without possibility to tamper the votes. For all those that want to vote for Bush: please watch music video by A Perfect Circle called "Counting Bodies Like Sheep To The Rhythm Of The War Drums" at http://www.aperfectcircle.com/bodies.html . For those that do not have so high bandwidth to watch it online, I can send a high quality version of it by email.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Jenadots on October 18, 2004, 18:12:19
Considering how two-faced the rest of the world is torwards us right now -- want our money but not us -- it really is open season on Americans abroad -- either verbally or physically -- I wouldn't pay much attention to who anyone else thinks should be the president.  

I could easily have voted for McCain or Gephardt.  But Kerry???  I just don't trust him not to sell us down the river of a very corrupt UN - who also like to line their own bank accounts with our contributions but can't seem to support us even on something as simple as the genocide currently going on in the Sudan.  

Should be interesting to see how it all turns out.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Archnea on October 18, 2004, 18:34:24
If you want to vote for Bush check out this picture:
http://www.fotolog.net/celticcatholics/?photo_id=8711720

Hmmm, can't see it. I hope it turns up again. It is a evocative statement.
Here it is in another Link:

http://www.matrixmasters.com/world/usnews/WarPresidentMosaic.html

It also has an article about "The Bush/Kerry Skull and Bones connection." I didn't know about That until today. :shock:
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: WalkerInTheWoods on October 18, 2004, 19:38:46
Ok, to throw this off a bit, like it isn't already.

There are more than just two (or three) people running for President this time around. The sad thing is that the only ones who can get any attention are Republicans and Democrats. Most people probably don't know about these other potential Presidents, and I am sure that the Republican and Democratic candidates like keeping it this way. Atleast some people try to change the status quo http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0411/arrest.html  Maybe some day we will have more of a choice than just two parties who are not all that different.

How do you hold elections without registering voters? How do you keep track of the voters?
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Jenadots on October 18, 2004, 23:45:32
CaCoDemon.  Bush does not support Palestinian occupation.  He supports a separate Palestinian State and has said so, repeatedly.  So did the previous President.  

Not that that would end the terrorist attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah, but it is worth a try.  It is what they have always said they wanted.  Clinton almost had the deal with Arafat.....got him everything but control of Jerusulem and Arafat said no...he did not want to share control of that city and would not agree to having it declared an international city controlled by Muslims, Jews and Christians.  arafat is not a sharing kind of guy.

As to the "silly war on terrorism",  just which terrorist attacks did you happen to miss out on the past few years....or the past ten for that matter?  Pick a continent, you will be able to read up on all of them.  These are the same folks that behead people and kill children in schools.  Just because it hasn't happened in Warsaw, doesn't mean it won't.  

Glad you don't seem to have our election problems, but any election can be tampered with which is why they need to be closely watched.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: CaCoDeMoN on October 19, 2004, 09:45:13
Quote
As to the "silly war on terrorism", just which terrorist attacks did you happen to miss out on the past few years....or the past ten for that matter? Pick a continent, you will be able to read up on all of them. These are the same folks that behead people and kill children in schools. Just because it hasn't happened in Warsaw, doesn't mean it won't.
I know that it could also happen in Warsaw, because there are our troops in Iraq. I've said that war with terrorism is silly, because much more people died in US attacks on terrorist sponsoring countries, than in terrorist attacks. Why lives of Iraq/Afghanistan civilians are worth less than lives of Americans? This war with terrorism is mostly about controlling people with fear to support Bush's crusade.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: cainam_nazier on October 19, 2004, 23:11:25
Archnea--  I had not thought about the health care cuts that have been made by Bush even though I work at a health care facility and watched as the execs scramble to figure out what they were going to do because of them.  One of the places I was working at during that time was really worried because they are non-profit and get most of their funding from Medicare patients.

Jenadots -- I know what you mean about Kerry doing a 180 after he gets in office.  I have that feeling too.  I don't know...The guy just looks like a used car salesman.

Fallnagel777 -- That was a good article.  Sadly because the debates are set up by the 2 leading parties anyone else running hardly ever gets a voice.  The only exception that I can remember was....and I just lost his name....He ran back in 92 or 96...He had the really big, Dumbo like ears.  He was in 1 debate before he withdrew and the only reason he was in it was because he was considered a serious threat to both parties and they were doing their best to knock him down.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Chawp on October 20, 2004, 02:50:03
Quote from: CaCoDeMoN
Quote
As to the "silly war on terrorism", just which terrorist attacks did you happen to miss out on the past few years....or the past ten for that matter? Pick a continent, you will be able to read up on all of them. These are the same folks that behead people and kill children in schools. Just because it hasn't happened in Warsaw, doesn't mean it won't.
I know that it could also happen in Warsaw, because there are our troops in Iraq. I've said that war with terrorism is silly, because much more people died in US attacks on terrorist sponsoring countries, than in terrorist attacks. Why lives of Iraq/Afghanistan civilians are worth less than lives of Americans? This war with terrorism is mostly about controlling people with fear to support Bush's crusade.

That seems to be the idea right there.  I haven't been able to understand it, 3,000+ people die here and how many have to die over there?  Are we getting silly again or have we never stopped?   Some americans are so hyped up that they never, never pay attention to the civilian casualties over there.   All we care about is the boys that got sent off to this slaughter.  And slaughter they did,  not exactly hard to go get Saddam out of there.  Now we just have this 'new' problem of the muslims we ticked off.  I'm sure to a lot of people we're still the white devil from the crusades.  Now I get to the point where I want to type more, but I'm actually afraid to in fear that this post would throw up a red flag.  Our federal government has become it's own entity that is big, hungry, and powerful.  If it were a creature,  imagine big, scary, and a lot of heads.  I won't vote for Bush, I don't like Kerry either,  but my choice is taken away.  If I vote for anyone else, it just makes it a better chance for Bush to win.  I think more partys should have a chance.  Then again, I think that the biggest elections should be the state election.  Trying to fit the whole nation's interests and views under one platform isn't going to work.  That's why the southern states wanted to get out, the views of the federal government didn't fit their own.  I just think the federal government should just be there to watch the states to make sure they don't let their people starve and cruel stuff that humans are capable of.  Also to interact with other nations on trade policys, and some non-war diplomatic stuff.  Plus provide presense for defense on the mainland.  Who knows, maybe I'm weird.

P.S.  First post.  introduction where it needs to be when I'm not so tired.

Edit: His name was Ross Perot.  I wonder what happened to him.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: WalkerInTheWoods on October 20, 2004, 08:07:38
Yes, Ross Perot. He was the wealth business man. He probably was only able to get any attention because of his money. I heard he had a really hard time getting any air time at all. The networks would just refuse him. I think he had to complain to someone about the equal time thing. I think he did have a decent chance. He had a pretty good following until he started this drop out drop in thing. One minute he was running then he would drop out, then he would be back in. After that his support really dropped.

Has anyone given the Libertarians a serious look? While I do not agree with them totally, I do think they have some really nice ideas. They would bring a nice mix to the political scene. They are gaining strength on more local levels. I like their ideas about individual freedom and personal responsibility. Personal responsibility is something we could use more of in the US.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Manix on October 20, 2004, 10:05:43
BAHHAHAHA! I found the card (it was hiding amongst some old bank statments).

Last election I wanted very much to vote, but my card did not arrive in time (has been hiding in the bank statments ever since). Sadly, the paper work didn't come through until AFTER the election was entirely over. This will be my first opportunity to vote. So, now that the card has made it's appearance, I'm starting to think about this a bit more seriously. There will be alot more people to vote for other than the pres. So rather that using the any-mini-miny-moe method, I want to have some names in mind. But where do I start looking?! Is there a state home page that lists the canidates for the various offices appearing on the ballot?

Sorry for veering off topic!
<goes to google to begin search>
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: WalkerInTheWoods on October 20, 2004, 13:55:31
I am glad you found your card! I have yet to find a place that actually lists everyone running for President. Here are some websites I found of those I know about, in no particular order.

www.georgewbush.com

www.johnkerry.com

http://badnarik.org/

http://www.votecobb.org/

http://www.peroutka2004.com/

http://www.votenader.org/

It should be noted that all of these candidates may not be on the ballot in your area. Though I have heard that the Libertarian and Green candidates are on the ballot in most states I have not checked on this claim. On his website the Constitution Party candidate, Peroutka, shows which states he is on the ballot, which is the majority of them.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Manix on October 21, 2004, 07:44:39
Thank you for those links!
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Archnea on October 21, 2004, 20:52:17
I came across this link today and thought I'd share it here:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004974.php
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Jenadots on October 22, 2004, 19:07:10
Yes, I know civilians got killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.  But no evidence shows thousands and thousands of them.

But who is doing  killing them now?  Terrorists, at least half of whom do not seem to be Iraqis but have come over the borders to blow up anything and anyone they feel like.  

They are not going to let the Iraqi people alone - they can't.  That is not on their agenda.  

The biggest difference between the USA and the terrorists operating there now is that we actually want to leave.  The terrorists don't.  

Sooner or later the foreign troops, including us, will leave both countries.  Who knows what they will develop for themselves in five years.  It could be wonderful for them or they might go right back to the Taliban or a clone of Saddam Hussein.  

I want the troops safely home as much as anyone, but there seems to be a contigency there that will fight and kill others no matter what does or doesn't happen.  Because they love the killing more than they love their own lives.  

The USA could pack up and leave next week and these people would still be blowing up Iraqi's.  No doubt, they would find some excuse.  But they wouldn't stop.  

People are right to say we haven't learned some of the lessons of VietNam yet.  One of the biggest lessons is what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia after the USA suddenly left - yes, in defeat, but suddenly and quickly.  Millions were slaughtered.  I certainly would not want a repeat of that scenario in Iraq or Afghanistan.  

It is hard to fight an idea and the idea that needs fighting is a temperment of terrorism that may take decades to lessen.  

How do you end it?  I have no idea.  Who do you negotiate with?  Who do you talk to?  How do you fight people who are willing to kill themselves just to kill you or someone like you?  

I am sure that most of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan want some kind of peace and a normal life.  And they deserve it, and they deserve it now.  The sooner, the better.  But how do you help them make that happen?
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: CaCoDeMoN on October 23, 2004, 00:40:07
Jenadots:
People that fight with Americans are not terrorists.They are rebels, but can someone who defends his own country be a terrorist? And please do not believe US propaganda. When Hitler wanted to destroy Jewish nation, his government started blaming them for Germany economical crisis. In that time many German Jews were rich, owning shops, factories, etc. Things that German propaganda said were only excuses to rob them, and to murder them. There's a similar scheme in Iraq. US government blamed Iraq for helping terrorists, and for having tons of WMD, and WMD labs that did not exist anyway. This was only an excuse to attack this country(that never attacked US by any means), and to rob it from it's natural resources. Can you call Abu Gharib prison a part of Iraq liberation? Can you call Iraqi pseudogovernment doing what it was told by the US a democracy? Isn't a bill forcing Iraqis not to save seeds of plants from their farms but to buy genetically modified seeds from US companies every year forcing country into starvation? And what you can say about Americans polluting Iraq with great amounts of depleted uranium? It's half-life is about 4 billion years, and it will cause cancer in Iraqis to the end of the world. And people you call "terrorists" do not want to kill Iraqis, they want to kill only those that cooperated with US forces. And this is nothing strange, in Poland at WWII those who cooperated with Germans were often killed by Polish rebels.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Avalon on October 25, 2004, 23:39:01
This is my suggestion this year...

http://www.votenoneoftheabove.us/
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Skamoni on October 26, 2004, 01:08:24
I would really vote for no one, waste my vote on some hopeless party. However, i would vote on Kerry he can't do much worst than Bush, can he?
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: WalkerInTheWoods on October 26, 2004, 06:06:22
Quote from: SkamoniHowever, i would vote on Kerry he can't do much worst than Bush, can he?

There's only one way to find out.  :lol:

Politicians are like underwear, both should be changed often.  :P
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: cinnabardk on October 26, 2004, 12:09:40
If the voters of Denmark could decide who would become the next US President, John Kerry would win.

Here are the results of an online poll, done by a major Danish newspaper (NOT a left-wing newspaper!):

   George W. Bush     5%   
   John F. Kerry       82%   
   Ralph Nader        7%   
   None of the above 6%   

       11627 people voted.

(http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=342207)
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Mystic Cloud on October 26, 2004, 13:51:36
If the finnish people would vote here is the result:

http://www.varjovaalit.com/tulossivu.php

At the moment it is 67% Kerry and 33% Bush.

Honestly, anyone with a bit brains would be better than Bush. He
does not seem to have a deep going morality. But neither does Kerry.
Either way you are in a deep excrement and the dirt laundry is not going to be
nice  :(
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Frank on October 26, 2004, 17:39:13
I do not know much about the other person. He looks a bit too nice to get anywhere. Whereas Bush's background unquestionably has a barbarism worthy of the 21st century, therefore, my money is on him.

I have never voted at all, not ever. Nor am I likely too, unless someone stands for a governing formula that does not include spending billions of pounds/euros/USD on armaments, and that is just for starters.

The politics of sheer self-interest the government of the USA pursues is being questioned and criticised the world over. More and more people are realising that when America talks about defence and security, it is to defend and secure what other people see as an unjust and unsustainable American Way of Life: a way of life that would otherwise be indefensible.

The American Declaration of Independence in 1776 was fitting in its time and context. In times of slavery, colonialism and imperialism, it is right that the colonised stand up for their dignity and claim freedom from oppression.

Nowadays, however, a new consciousness is being born, and people the world over are questioning how come, for example, the USA represents a little under 5% of world population, yet spends on arms equal to 40% of worldwide arms spending as a whole? In fact, the amount spent is almost equal to the combined spending of the next 10 highest defence-spending nations! Other facts are amazing too, like; the US consumes just under 30% of the world's oil production and 30% of the world's gross product.

It is all very well the American people complaining about what they see as terrorism on their shores; but does not anyone in any authority in the USA actually ask what have you done to anger people SO much that they are prepared to kill themselves and thousands of others to be heard, and to express their grievances? Moreover, does not anyone in any authority in the USA realise that the questions of equity and justice are paramount in the minds of those who are oppressed, exploited and deprived by the worlds' wealthy nations, in particular the USA?

For too long these kinds of questions have been swept under the carpet, in the belief that dissent could be quashed either by military force, or by having people's dissatisfaction diverted by handouts of aid. Gosh, this "two-faced" argument coming from a US citizen, I see it again on this thread. Perhaps the people in question should inform themselves of the reality: collectively, the USA is doing nothing more than sweeping crumbs from its table and scattering them amongst the worlds' poor and oppressed.

The distant mirage of a consumer lifestyle for the underprivileged is no compensation for the present hardship, suffering and injustice faced by BILLIONS of people in the world today. One way or another, they are going to get angry and rebel. Little wonder that in the present day, conflict and strife dominate. Sadly, to many people in the world, including myself, the events of September 11th 2001 were not very special. It was all just yet another miserable example of a world at war with itself.

Of course, it is ever so easy to attach labels to people and condemn them as "terrorists". I would be one of the first to agree there is no justification for violence and/or killing: but not on both sides. Because in reality there are no sides. It is all too easy to preach peace to terrorists, but how can such preaching and/or condemnation possibly be justifiable and effective until the massively armed and wealthy nations, in particular the USA, begin practicing peace and non-violence themselves?

Fact is, if the USA can justify the killing of innocent people then any other nation, or faction, or whomsoever, will just stand in line and justify it in the same way. So the vicious circle continues.

To my mind, the USA missed a grand opportunity on that day of showing great compassion and restraint. Alas no, we have another war. As if there were not enough killing and misery in the world already.

Yours,
Frank
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Hannah b on October 26, 2004, 18:45:05
Frank,
Thank you, thank you, thank you!  Finally I'll be able to sleep a little bit better tonight..for the past week I've been bitting my tongue, trying not to get into a harsh discussion..(it would be impossible to hold my nerves on a tight rein)...Thankfully you've replied, and straightened out some things the way I wish I could. I absolutley agree with every single word you wrote, and.....I thank you once again;)

All the best

p.s. Jenadots...I'm just curious...I've checked your profile..and can't get a straight answer if the HS (teacher) by any chance stands for HISTORY teacher???
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: coral1 on October 26, 2004, 21:51:26
If bulls** were music, Bush and Kerry would be a symphony orchesta.
Title: Lest We Forget
Post by: Archnea on October 27, 2004, 01:04:09
This is why I will vote:

"Lest we forget..........


The women were innocent and defenseless. And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. Forty prison guards wielding clubs and with their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of "obstructing sidewalk traffic."



They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air. They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cell-mate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.



Thus unfolded the "Night of Terror" on November 15, 1917 (a mere 87 years ago), when the warden at  the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a  lesson to the  suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's  White House for the right to vote.



For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms. When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.



So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly?  We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?



Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO's new movie "Iron Jawed Angels." It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I m ashamed to say I needed the reminder.



All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.



My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry.  She was--with herself. "One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie," she said. "What would those women think of the way I use--or don't  use--my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn."  The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her "all over again."



HBO will run the movie periodically before releasing it on video and DVD.  I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum.  we  are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock  therapy is in order.



It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse.  Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy. The doctor admonished the men: "Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity."



If you are moved by this, maybe you'll pass this on to all the women you know. We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women." Author Unknown

I received this in an e-mail from a woman I correspond with named Malena http://www.malenateves.com

I will vote for Kerry because of where he stands on environmental issues. Our living earth will go through much abuse from Bush and his cronies. I have lung problems and every year the air I breath in this city gets more toxic. They don't know how to dispose of nuclear waste but they still promote its use. That is worse than flying a plane without a pilot. I lived off the grid for 8 year and hope to do it again.

I don't like Kerry but in my eyes he is the lessor of two evils.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Makaveli on October 27, 2004, 06:42:55
I'm in the US and don't like either candidate.  If I were to pick the lesser of two evils it would be Bush.  I wouldn't want someone like Kerry in office because he is very anti-gun and I'm against most gun control.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: WalkerInTheWoods on October 27, 2004, 09:08:20
Quote from: MakaveliI'm in the US and don't like either candidate.  If I were to pick the lesser of two evils it would be Bush.  I wouldn't want someone like Kerry in office because he is very anti-gun and I'm against most gun control.

Do you have sources or any info on Kerry's detailed views on the gun issue? I am curious. This is all I found on his website.

Protect Gun Rights And Stop Gun Violence
John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and both he and John Edwards support the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. Like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and John Kerry and John Edwards support mainstream measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists: enforcing the gun laws on the books, closing the gun show loophole, and standing with law enforcement officers to extend the assault weapons ban.


He does not sound anti-gun but does support some gun control. What would a law abiding citizen want/need with an automatic assault weapon anyway?
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Makaveli on October 27, 2004, 09:58:46
Quote from: fallnangel77
Do you have sources or any info on Kerry's detailed views on the gun issue? I am curious. This is all I found on his website.

Protect Gun Rights And Stop Gun Violence
John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and both he and John Edwards support the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans to own guns. Like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and John Kerry and John Edwards support mainstream measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists: enforcing the gun laws on the books, closing the gun show loophole, and standing with law enforcement officers to extend the assault weapons ban.


He does not sound anti-gun but does support some gun control. What would a law abiding citizen want/need with an automatic assault weapon anyway?

This link shows how he has voted against guns.  

http://www.nrapvf.org/kerry/default.aspx

What mostly bothers me about him is that he voted against semi-automatic weapons and his affiliation with anti-gun organizations and politicians.  I'm not for making full-auto weapons easier to get.  I think the assault weapon ban he supported was useless because it only applied to mostly cosmetic features on semi-automatic firearms which are rarely used in crimes.  

With his anti-gun voting record I doubt Kerry will really support gun rights but it's in his best interest to make it seem that way to get votes since so many Americans are gun owners.  If he becomes president I just hope he doesn't go after concealed weapons permits.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Manix on October 27, 2004, 10:59:06
"What would a law abiding citizen want/need with an automatic assault weapon anyway?"


WAIT! Give me a minute, I'm sure there's a sane explanation for wanting one somewhere around here...perhaps in the gun cabinet.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Archnea on October 27, 2004, 18:07:28
Quote from: MakaveliI'm in the US and don't like either candidate.  If I were to pick the lesser of two evils it would be Bush.  I wouldn't't want someone like Kerry in office because he is very anti-gun and I'm against most gun control.

I happen to be anti gun myself. Have you ever been threatened by one or known a loved one who had been shot?

I was like an aunt to a lad, who often lived with me when his parents were homeless. He nearly died when he was 16 because a 12-year-old got a hold of a gun and shot at him and some other boys (while they were playing basket ball). He was hit with shrapnel and nearly killed. He still has shrapnel next to his spine that the doctors couldn't remove. I also knew a 5-year-old who got her hands on her father's gun and shot herself in the face and died.

I don't want our Constitutional rights taken away but it's not like Bush hasn't chipped away at them himself.  So I wouldn't cry if anyone initiates some kind of gun control.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Makaveli on October 27, 2004, 22:32:56
Quote from: Archnea

I happen to be anti gun myself. Have you ever been threatened by one or known a loved one who had been shot?

I was like an aunt to a lad, who often lived with me when his parents were homeless. He nearly died when he was 16 because a 12-year-old got a hold of a gun and shot at him and some other boys (while they were playing basket ball). He was hit with shrapnel and nearly killed. He still has shrapnel next to his spine that the doctors couldn't remove. I also knew a 5-year-old who got her hands on her father's gun and shot herself in the face and died.

I don't want our Constitutional rights taken away but it's not like Bush hasn't chipped away at them himself.  So I wouldn't cry if anyone initiates some kind of gun control.

I don't know anyone that has been shot but that wouldn't change my stance because guns aren't the problem.  It would probably make me more pro-gun because people should be able to defend themselves against criminals who will always have them regardless of the law.  If I were threatened by a gun or someone close to me was I would want to have one for protection instead of becoming a defenseless victim.  The main concerns with guns should be gun safety which has improved and keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals.  

I think statistics show that gun control isn't effective at all and doesn't reduce crime.  Guns are used something like 2.5 million times a year in self defense so why take away peoples ability defend themselves?  More guns and concealed weapons permits are strongly correlated to less crime.  If guns are taken away from citizens cops and criminals will be the only ones with firearms and that is going to make it easier for criminals to operate.  According to the statistics in this link firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.  
http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

A couple of quotes from the link I just mentioned to show part of why I'm pro-gun:

QuoteGuns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day20. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.21
QuoteAs many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.23
QuoteConcealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%;29 and

If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.30

This is the only political issue I feel strongly about so I would pick Bush.  I'm undecided on and don't pay much attention to most political issues because I can see them from both sides and can't make up my mind.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Archnea on October 28, 2004, 02:01:29
The man with the 5 year old felt the same way as you Makaveli. The gun you use to protect yourself can be used against you.

I lived in a bad neighborhood for many years in an inner city and had to walk home at night from work after the buses stopped running. I got out of many tight situations which could have cost me my life and not once did I need a weapon to protect myself. I used fearlessness and words but also one time a cat spooked two men who threatened to rape me away.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Makaveli on October 28, 2004, 02:58:08
Quote from: ArchneaThe man with the 5 year old felt the same way as you Makaveli. The gun you use to protect yourself can be used against you.

I lived in a bad neighborhood for many years in an inner city and had to walk home at night from work after the buses stopped running. I got out of many tight situations which could have cost me my life and not once did I need a weapon to protect myself. I used fearlessness and words but also one time a cat spooked two men who threatened to rape me away.

I wouldn't agree with the man with the 5 year old if a 5 year old was able to access a loaded gun that easily.  That is horrible gun safety.  Just because one pro-gun man practiced bad gun safety which allowed this to happen doesn't mean everyone that is pro-gun is like this.  

It's true that it's possible that a gun for protection may be used against its owner.  Guns are used more often to save lives.  As shown by the statistics I referenced it's much more likely that my gun would be used in self defense rather than to kill me it's 80 to 1 or 50 to 1 according to the Clinton anti-gun administrations statistics.  Allowing concealed firearms permits which most states do is a great way to reduce crime.  

Carrying a concealed weapon can in some situations be a good way of avoiding a bad situation without any violence.  Just by pulling a concealed firearm out or flashing it should be enough to scare off most criminals without violence if there is enough time to react.  Actually firing a gun at a criminal in self defense should be a last resort if your life is in danger.  I'll probably never have to use a gun in self defense.  But you never know if it will be necessary and it's nice to have just in case given the amount of crime and the 2.5 million people a year who have needed a gun to defend themselves.  Just because many people haven't needed a gun for self defense doesn't mean that they won't need it in the future and that others won't need it.  I would be for more gun control if it actually reduced crime but it looks like it does the opposite.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Novice on October 28, 2004, 09:04:35
Frank -
I'm not sure I have much else to add to the excellent post regarding Bush, the US 'way of life' and the way in which we are perceived worldwide.

I simply can't take another 4 years of Bush. I couldn't stand the way he pushed through with the war on Iraq. And then all kinds of fingers when flying every direction when no weapons could be found. And when I watched on live television, as he basically told the UN that we don't need your permission to do anything, we'll do it anyways. I was horrified. The sheer arrogance is immeasurable. What kind of statement did he think he was making?

As a one of the most powerful nations in the world, the majority of our people live more barbaric than the rest of the world. I'm not talking about material goods, look at any statistics and you'll know we consume far more than our fair share of goods. I'm speaking of the way in which we deal with ourselves and others as well as our earth.  There's nothing wrong with growing strong and powerful, However, its how that power is used that defines a country and a people. And I believe we have failed miserably on most fronts.

A two party system will never get us out of the mess we are in. Both parties have serious financial backing by corporations that have no interest in changing the norm. We need a total re-haul in the way in which are government operates. But that in itself is such a monumental task. I'm not even sure how one would approach it.

I like neither Bush nor Kerry. I'm looking at the other candidates to see if the smaller parties look any better. But as for the main two, you are basically choosing the lesser of two evils.

And one after thought. I think I'd vote for any candidate that would stick to issues instead of joining in on candidate bashing incessantly. My kids bicker less than this....and trust me, that's not a compliment!!
Title: Re: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: pmlonline on October 28, 2004, 10:44:48
Quote from: cainam_nazierPersonally I think that Bush has done an okay job.

I live in the U.S. and personally can barely force myself to look or hear at both parties.  Although I could never vote for someone who pushed so hard for preemptive strike to kill 1000's of people.  Some may think it is wise to attack before letting someone else attack you.  But I say it is far better to focus 100% on defense.  When attacked, then all bets are off and the enemy better be prepared.

As way of example, I have never heard of the Angel & Archangel kingdom preemptive striking the fallen angels.  It is not of God and the Light.

I am saddened to say that my country will be judged for this like no other in late 2005 / early 2006.  Weather changes will affect the world and especially the U.S.  ... Terrorists have now switched their prime focus to America.  Most of the world did not care for the U.S. but now the world in totality hates my country and would rather go broke than give this country a penny.  The U.S. can expect another great depression in late 2005 / early 2006.  :-(

When the dust settles I hope those who did not truly believe in Karma will have learned their lessons.  You know the old saying?  In order for the new to come forth, the old must be destroyed.  Yes, America will be the shining new capital of the world in the upcoming 1000 year Peace Period.  You can expect the Peace Period to slowly begin at around ~2023. :-)

Peace & Love,
Paul
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nagual on October 28, 2004, 15:04:53
Personally, after all the oil/reconstruction/etc scandals, the acknowledged WMD/terrorism lies, the horrible healthcare/social-security/environment/education, the pathetic foreign policy...  I REALLY don't understand how Bush still gets more than 50% of the votes...   :shock:  :?:  :?:  :?:

I don't like Kerry but, there's no way he could be as bad as Bush!!!

Personally, I would have voted for Nader if he had a chance...

We had almost the same problem in France's last elections...  We had to choose between Chirac (that nobody wanted to re-elect) and a "right-wing"? racist guy (Le Pen).  So we chose the least lame of them...
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: wisp on October 28, 2004, 17:38:53
Nagual,
QuotePersonally, I would have voted for Nader if he had a chance...

I agree. And it wouldn't make sense to waste a vote.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: atalanta on October 29, 2004, 21:55:47
In Australia, Bush is seen as a very bad joke by the media.  Kerry is seen as a more honest, peaceful and caring choice.  Our embarrassing joke John Howard is seen as Bush's puppy.  That didn't stop us from voting for John Howard.  The problem is that once someone is threatened we have a tendency to freeze up and protect ourselves.  I think in an 'unconscious collective' way the world is doing that right now.  That is why Howard came into power yet again, despite the fact that the poor and middle-lower classes are struggling and people are paying record taxes with nothing to show for it.

Its the same with Bush, there have been several documentaries here in Australia showing how Bush has clear links to the Saudi Arabian Royal family.  That the very day of 9/11 Bin Ladens family members were in a meeting with major banking officials and investors in NY and that the only plane allowed to leave that day was the one that got the Bin Ladens out of New York.  That many of the major buildings in NY and others have been built by the Bin Ladens and all thanks to Bush and his father.  There are connections that clearly indicate that the Saudi Arabians finance Bush and his family and basically have bought their souls.

Apart from this, there are documentaries here also showing that Bush has involvement in cheating the ballot box.  For example, in Florida in the last election, a list had been made up of thousands of names of people who are supposedly criminals or ex-criminals, stopping them from voting.  However, a large proportion of those names belongs to people who are not criminals or have ever committed a crime.  'Somehow' their name ended on the list and they were not allowed to vote.  These names belonged to blacks in Florida who overall tend to vote for Democrats.  Not only this, but now they have introduced electronic voting which has been shown to be easy to hack.  Hackers and computer experts said that the box containing the computer only requires a pen lid to open it and once inside it needs no password to enter the computer system and change the votes.  Anyone can do it.  The other fault with the system is if you accidentally press two numbers, ie, 1 and 3, then nominee 2 is selected.  It doesn't read it as an error.  When the creator or administrator of the system, who is Republican was asked about this, she said that there was no problem eventhough she was directly shown the problem and then turned around and said that the nominee who lost the last election was basically just being a sore loser and his friends didn't really vote for him but they don't to tell him the truth because they don't want to hurt his feelings.  :roll:

As late as last night, I was watching a show where the host was saying that even if you put all of the war issue aside, Bush has taken an economy which was strong and stable and brought it into deficit, so for economic reasons alone he should not be voted for.  

Having said all this, that they lied about the war, that Bush and his family are in bed with the very people that attacked on 9/11, that they put the USA and the world in greater peril by terrorists, that they have the blood of their own young soldiers on their hands, that the economy of the country is going backwards, that they are censoring people and on the verge of turning the USA into a dictatorship, etc, will it make any difference.  I don't think so.  I think they will vote Bush back in again, irrespective if whether the people voted for him or not.  They will cheat their way back in, the way they did with the war.  Even if they don't cheat, so much fear has been created that people are too scared to vote for someone who is for peace.   Afterall, if you have been convinced that you are under threat, who do you vote for, Arnie types or Brad Pitt types.  Personally, I'd rather be in bed with Brad Pitt.  :wink:
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Berserk_Exodus on November 02, 2004, 02:40:10
America is now a single party system posing as a two party one.  The current politics now date all the way back to the civil war.  The Federalists were booted out and power was consolidated to one party, which also split.  Or supposedly did.  

We can see from history that both sides are equally willing to make bad decisions for their people.  Democrats support peace?  Bullshet, JFK gave us all a taste(Big Bite more like it) of Vietnam.  Nixon took advantage of the situation and did some Cambodian campaigns.  This era in politics is completely different than anything seen beforehand, it's amazing to me.  In the social scope of things, people are becoming much more critical, which is definitely not a bad thing.
Title: Re: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Legend on November 02, 2004, 02:51:25
Quote from: cainam_nazierGreetings.

As the US Presidential Elections draw near I find myself more and more confused about who to vote for.  Personally I think that Bush has done an okay job.  There are a few things that I don't like about him or the way in which he has handle a couple of things.  But the more I hear about Kerry the less I like him as well.

In discussions here and else where it has become very apparent to me that people outside of the US seem to have a better grasp of our politics than the people who live here.  Myself included sadly.

So getting down to my question.

For all of you outside the US, Who would you vote for and why?  

Naturally every one is welcome to respond but I would really like to hear from all of you who live outside the US.

It's funny and am surprised that it took this much time for such a question to appear on here.  I read a lot of "predictions" about the subject today and the reality is that everyone seems to be split (such as the American nation is).  My personal opinion is that both man run under the same agenda (maybe not microscopically) but in a global sense yes.  I feel like most people that both candidates are "unworthy" or perhaps a better way to put this is that "there must be a better choice out there", but the agenda needs to be fulfilled.  Instinctively (no meta involved besides instinct), I would vote for Bush and guess that he will win the elections.  Without the terrorism fiasco, I would go for Kerry but am concerned that should he be put into power, that he would screw-up the Iraq/Iran issue and lose control over it.  As much as I hate Bush and wouldn't/didn't want him in in the first place, I would put him forward to clean up his mess :(.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: snic on November 02, 2004, 11:35:39
I find it interesting that we have elections at all. the government no longer represents the people, The government is there to pass laws to protect big business. take a look at the laws that have been passed in the last 10 to 20 years. Is free trade "free". Why do they privatize government assets and utilities.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Novice on November 03, 2004, 07:39:57
I simply can NOT believe we're getting 4 more years of Bush. The results aren't final yet, but that's what is being indicated right now. Its not looking very likely that Kerry can pull out the votes he needs to take the lead.

I am thoroughly surprised and disappointed with the results of the votes. People actually believe Bush is doing a great job, according to the popular vote.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nagual on November 03, 2004, 08:24:32
Quote: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."   :?
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Novice on November 03, 2004, 09:18:09
On the contrary. I advocate democracy. I think people voicing their opinions freely about election results actually supports democracy.

My comments were not meant to bash democracy. Rather, I'm disappointed that the majority of people in the US support Bush's policies.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: astralspinner on November 03, 2004, 11:43:02
Bush won.

Big surprise.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Gandalf on November 03, 2004, 12:28:53
suprise suprise, bush has won..

I know almost everyone here in the UK and most of Europe wanted Kerry (in fact most of the world!).

You may wonder why the rest of the world is so intertested; its not just that we in the UK are America's lap dog, it is also to do with the fact that since the US is currently the most powerful country in the world, it matters to everyone who is in charge, this won't change until the next nation comes along, China most likely, although not for a while yet.

However, i don't condone the idiotic move by some UK newspapers (like the Guardian) who encouraged readers to write to US home addresses urging people to vote Kerry, that was just wrong.... other nations have no business interfering with others election processes

I suppose now we'll just have to see what happens next, can't say I'm too excited by Bush's victory though...

Douglas
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nagual on November 03, 2004, 15:21:16
Some exit polls from CNN:

============================================
Most Important Quality        Bush     Kerry
============================================
Will Bring Change (24%)         5%       95%
Strong Leader (17%)            87%       12%
Clear Stand on Issue (17%)     79%       20%
Honest/Trustworthy (11%)       70%       29%
Cares About People (9%)        24%       75%
Religious Faith (8%)           91%        8%
Intelligent (7%)                9%       91%
============================================
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: thinker on November 03, 2004, 16:47:27
bush won

I can honestly say I have never felt more embaressed to be an american than I do right now.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Archnea on November 03, 2004, 17:11:38
I'm am disappointed he won but am glad that I live in one of the States in which Kerry took the lead.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 03, 2004, 19:37:15
LOL..oh boy, I'm standing all alone with this one.  I would be very interested to know the age of all the Bush bashers...eeks!

Those exit polls are a joke and they shouldn't be allowed to do them anymore, if they can't get it right.  They failed to take into account the people whom voted EARLY!  duh.. and if they are going to do exit polls they really should do it at every poll district, not just the select few whom are swinging towards one group, it gives the wrong impression as Kerry supporters found out.

I for one am extremely happy Bush won another 4yrs..  Kerry scared me.  Everyone is screaming that we are going to be attacked now and perhaps we will, but I can say I have a boat load of more confidence in Bush handling it.  I can also say I think had Kerry been elected we would have POSITIVELY been attacked again, heck those terriost wanted Kerry to get elected..wonder why?  another duh moment.  

On boards across the cyber space are Kerry supporters yelling fowl..but the thing is,  I don't think you all really trusted Kerry anymore then we did, you just hate Bush so much you would vote for anyone else.  Think goodness others saw that Kerry was not the one to pick, perhaps next election?


Here are a few reasons why Kerry just freaked me out..

Diana West helped me see why...

Ever since John Kerry's presidential nomination was sealed with a scream (Howard Dean's), certain revelations about the Life of Kerry have set off buzzers within me that say there's no way this man will be president.

For example: There's no way this man who threw away his medals in protest -- but now says he didn't throw away his medals in protest -- will be president. There's no way this man who promoted a Viet Cong plan for U.S. surrender will be president. Those things.

I'm calling these Kerry Gut-checks, simple facts and personal traits undecideds should think about before they pull the lever.

1) Think about John Kerry's lucky hat. John Kerry keeps an old camouflage hat in his briefcase, The Washington Post reported last year. Kerry says this "good luck hat" was "given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."

Forget about the "global test"; this tale one doesn't even pass the smell test. Kerry has repeatedly spoken of his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia ("seared, seared" in his memory, as he said in the Congressional Record), but not one crew member, not even the ones who support him for president, corroborate his story of venturing into Cambodia -- not at Christmas, not ever. Richard Nixon couldn't even have sent him there, as Kerry has claimed, because Richard Nixon wasn't yet in office. There's no evidence, official or even anecdotal, that John Kerry was ever in Cambodia. All of which makes that moldy old hat of his look pretty scary on a potential commander-in-chief.

2) Think of John Kerry's Vietnam re-enactments. When I learned that John Kerry, during his four months in Vietnam, would routinely return with his crew to scenes of skirmishes and re-enact them for a Super 8 camera (or, as his campaign prefers: "return to various locations to film one another"), I really thought the race was over. Sure, the films make ducky campaign footage -- although the part where the ex-naval officer is dressed like an infantryman is plain weird -- but such vain calculation is too hollow for presidential timber.

3) Think of John Kerry's annulment. A little-known fact of Kerry life is the senator's decision to seek an annulment from his first wife of 18 years, Julia Thorne (divorced 1988) in 1996, one year after his second marriage to Theresa Heinz. Julia Thorne, mother of Kerry's two daughters, learned of the annulment proceeding in a letter from a Catholic Church official, and told the Boston Globe in 1997 it was "disrespectful to me, it was aloof to any emotional issues, and devoid of any sense of the humanity of what this means to me and the children." On "Imus in the Morning," former altar boy Kerry joked about the proceeding, adding, "It doesn't affect the status of the child at all. It's just in the eyes of the church."

4) We've all tried to parse John Kerry's indecisive wordiness. But think about his dodgy silence. Bob Woodward has been trying since June to ask John Kerry how he would have fought the Iraq war differently. He even sent his questions to the candidate. "I interviewed President Bush and he answered hundreds of detailed questions," Woodward told Fox's Bill O'Reilly this week. But not Kerry.

5) Think about having a U.N.-poodle for president. There's one thing that justifies the loss of American life, Kerry believes, and that's service to the United Nations, not the United States. "If you mean dying in the course of a United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that," Kerry said in 1994. "If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can effect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." Such non-American thinking puts the nation at risk in a post-9/11 world.

6) Think of John Kerry's supporters. From Kim Jong-Il to Yasser Arafat, from the Tehran Times to the Syria Times, John Kerry has already passed quite a global test.
Recently, Malaysia's former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad openly urged American Muslims to vote for Kerry. Remember Mohamad? As prime minister, he offered to support the United States and Britain in an international coalition against "terrorism" after 9/11. But only, as he put it, "if they wanted to take action against Israel."
With friends like these, who needs ... a Kerry presidency?

Nay
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Naiad780 on November 03, 2004, 19:37:16
Someone mentioned that they couldn't understand why anyone would vote for Bush.  Today I asked a co-worker, a reasonably intelligent academic, why she voted for Bush.  Apparently she and her friends feel that Bush may not be great, but Kerry didn't demonstrate himself to be much of a leader (to them) and they did not feel like he could handle the war in Iraq.  Also, if you are really against abortion, gun control, and gay marriage, you definitely want Bush.

(to be clear, I voted for Kerry)

I am mostly sick of hearing people whine about how they will now move to Canada or somethng to get away from Bush.  Right, a country devoid of opposition, I'm sure Bush would love it, people running away instead of trying to make changes.  *grumble*
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: clandestino on November 03, 2004, 19:50:47
Well, I believe that whilst Kerry has certainly told a few fibs in his time, they pale in comparison to Bush's stance on Iraq & weapons of mass destruction.

The biggest lie that the public have been fed in current times, yet no-one seems to mind. (because it affects innocent Iraqis, not innocent US / UK citizens.)

One thing that I find curious. In USA, UK and Australia there was public outrage at our actions in Iraq. We acted against the wishes of the UN. Our governments lied to us. Yet, who remains in power ? Blair, Bush & John Howard.

Obviously, we weren't really that bothered by our unlawful actions in Iraq.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 03, 2004, 20:38:30
I can understand your position Mark, but in my opinion the media is and has always been very bias when it comes to "liberals and conservatives"  We hear twisted half truths all the time.

War is ugly..it isn't suppose to be pretty.  People loose lives.  If it wasn't for those couragous souls from times past, we wouldn't have the United States we have now!  I for one stand by all those men and women whom have chosen to protect our country and give them my utmost respect, and say thank you for giving your life so others could live free.

And also I've heard from military over seas, and they say hospitals, schools and other things are really looking and functioning so much better!  These are the things not being reported because of the bias news...so sad... because I feel THIS is what is keeping America split.  We never hear about the good things in the main stream media.   God forbid if anyone knew that Bush was actually making things better...

Nay
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: SpectralDragon on November 03, 2004, 20:50:37
Both kerry and bush act like children.

"I can handle this war better than you"

"No I CAN handle this war better..."

The reason this war is taking place to begin with is because bush stuck his nose in where it didn't belong, without the UN's permission I might add. I would also like to add that it was proven he ran last years balot, and I believe he ran this years as well. Course at the point it was proven the individuals who proved it were hushed...

I heard that bush wished to get into the presidency simply to get revenge on the middle east because one of his family was killed there....hmmm, why did this war start again?

Also, I am totally against the blurring of the line between church and state... which is the reason he got the vote of the southern countries by my guess.

Well, I gotta watch this guy for another four years, while he says "you can't say anything bad about the US or it's president because we are in a war and doing so will be an act of treason."

I do not think this presidency was meant to be a good one...
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 03, 2004, 22:12:44
Quote from: SpectralDragonBoth kerry and bush act like children.

"I can handle this war better than you"

"No I CAN handle this war better..."

The reason this war is taking place to begin with is because bush stuck his nose in where it didn't belong, without the UN's permission I might add. I would also like to add that it was proven he ran last years balot, and I believe he ran this years as well. Course at the point it was proven the individuals who proved it were hushed...

He ran the ballots?  LOL..for someone whom you all claim is a figgin retard he can do some amazing stuff.  And frankly that isn't true.  The UN had 4 resolutions to do this..starting in 1991.. (don't forget that we were in a cease fire agreement with Irag, the war was not over) They thought it necessary to go in and take action, but of course the news reported differently.

QuoteI heard that bush wished to get into the presidency simply to get revenge on the middle east because one of his family was killed there....hmmm, why did this war start again?
WHAT? someone in Bushes family was killed there, that is news to me!!

QuoteAlso, I am totally against the blurring of the line between church and state... which is the reason he got the vote of the southern countries by my guess.
The blurring??? The state does not wish to have the Ten Commandments in their government buildings.  I for one don't think that is the right way to go...I feel the commandments are a great set of rules to live by, no matter what your religion.

QuoteWell, I gotta watch this guy for another four years, while he says "you can't say anything bad about the US or it's president because we are in a war and doing so will be an act of treason."

Honestly I don't get this, did Bush actually say this?  have you looked up the word treason in the dictionary?  Because saying something about it isn't teason, acting on it is.  Kerry in my opinion has acted in a much more "treason" way then Bush ever has, infact Bush has never acted against his country.  Ya'll are sounding like your against your own country, is that not sad to you. ?  Do you want other countries to tell us how to go about our business?  We have always been willing to stick up for other countries..but yet now, they are forgetting... did we not fight for France and Russia in WWII...Have they have all forgotten?


QuoteI do not think this presidency was meant to be a good one...

*sigh*  I'm just sighing from all of the negative talk about Bush.  He won fair and square, yet I understand your pain.  I knew going into this election that some ppl thought Bush might not win..thanks to the exit stupid polls..lol.  If John Kerry said Bush won fair and square...why not come together and make this country good.  Give Bush a chance.  Stop listening to the media.

Nay
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: SpectralDragon on November 03, 2004, 23:03:07
Quote from: Nay
Quote from: SpectralDragonBoth kerry and bush act like children.

"I can handle this war better than you"

"No I CAN handle this war better..."

The reason this war is taking place to begin with is because bush stuck his nose in where it didn't belong, without the UN's permission I might add. I would also like to add that it was proven he ran last years balot, and I believe he ran this years as well. Course at the point it was proven the individuals who proved it were hushed...

He ran the ballots?  LOL..for someone whom you all claim is a figgin retard he can do some amazing stuff.  And frankly that isn't true.  The UN had 4 resolutions to do this..starting in 1991.. (don't forget that we were in a cease fire agreement with Irag, the war was not over) They thought it necessary to go in and take action, but of course the news reported differently.

QuoteI heard that bush wished to get into the presidency simply to get revenge on the middle east because one of his family was killed there....hmmm, why did this war start again?
WHAT? someone in Bushes family was killed there, that is news to me!!

QuoteAlso, I am totally against the blurring of the line between church and state... which is the reason he got the vote of the southern countries by my guess.
The blurring??? The state does not wish to have the Ten Commandments in their government buildings.  I for one don't think that is the right way to go...I feel the commandments are a great set of rules to live by, no matter what your religion.

QuoteWell, I gotta watch this guy for another four years, while he says "you can't say anything bad about the US or it's president because we are in a war and doing so will be an act of treason."

Honestly I don't get this, did Bush actually say this?  have you looked up the word treason in the dictionary?  Because saying something about it isn't teason, acting on it is.  Kerry in my opinion has acted in a much more "treason" way then Bush ever has, infact Bush has never acted against his country.  Ya'll are sounding like your against your own country, is that not sad to you. ?  Do you want other countries to tell us how to go about our business?  We have always been willing to stick up for other countries..but yet now, they are forgetting... did we not fight for France and Russia in WWII...Have they have all forgotten?


QuoteI do not think this presidency was meant to be a good one...

*sigh*  I'm just sighing from all of the negative talk about Bush.  He won fair and square, yet I understand your pain.  I knew going into this election that some ppl thought Bush might not win..thanks to the exit stupid polls..lol.  If John Kerry said Bush won fair and square...why not come together and make this country good.  Give Bush a chance.  Stop listening to the media.

Nay

I respect your opinion on this, however some research will show most of what I spoke of above is true :)
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 04, 2004, 00:35:04
Thanks for respecting my opinion SD...that really means alot, and I truely mean that.  :)

I understand you wanting to do some research, heck that is what it is all about, right?

Nay
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: atalanta on November 04, 2004, 03:27:57
Didn't need to be psychic to see that result coming.  Still, it begs the question, what on earth is going on in our world when we elect people who are pro-war and anti-freedom, women, gays, etc?  

I swear, I think John Howard and Bush are using the same PR people, and they in turn have been selected by Murdoch/Fox.

I use to love the forties and fifties, but suddenly, I feel like I am actually living them, nice Christian folk, women at home, men ruling the house and finances, gays don't exist, when did we suddenly agree to step into this time warp.

Damn, I am in desperate need of some laughing gas.   :(   How else did women survive in the forties and fifties.  :roll:   :wink:
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nagual on November 04, 2004, 03:41:38
From my point of view, people re-elected some kind of Cowboy with a gun in one hand, and a bible in the other...  That's what most foreigners don't understand.  It's a culture clash.  All the "right to carry guns", "strike first and ask questions later", etc...

Anyway, as the saying says: "the robe does not make a man a monk".  All this "God talked to me and blablabla" bullsh*t is really frustrating.  How can people fall for this when you see how many people dies and how much $$$ they put in their pockets???

On the other hand, I can understand (but does not agree with) some of the Bush voters...  After being "bombarded" with "They will attack us!!!", "Terror alert!", "Buy duct tape and keep a room prepared against biological attacks!", "They hate us!!!", "I am the only one able to protect you!!!", "fear!", "watch out!", etc...

They just played "Wag the Dog" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120885/) on TV.  It was an interesting movie...
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Makaveli on November 04, 2004, 04:29:01
I'm happy to see that Bush won again not because I like him much as a candidate it's because I really dislike Kerry for many reasons.  I'll probably always vote republican but hopefully we get a better choice of candidates next time but I wouldn't count on it.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: goingslow on November 04, 2004, 04:51:21
Not surprising from a guy a with a gun as his avatar.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: goingslow on November 04, 2004, 04:54:28
Age of bush bashers?  

No person can really be in anyway advanced or intelligent and still like bush it just isnt possible.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Makaveli on November 04, 2004, 05:14:10
Quote from: goingslowNot surprising from a guy a with a gun as his avatar.

Yeah, obviously because Kerry is too much of a gun grabber and luckily people didn't fall for him supporting the second amendment.  But there are many other reasons why I don't like him.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: WalkerInTheWoods on November 04, 2004, 06:46:08
Age of Bush bashers? What is the age of Kerry bashers? No I don't want an answer to that, but just because someone says something less than desirable about one candidate then you should not take it as a personal attack and strike back. Neither candidate was "perfect" and one thing that is desirable to one person is not to another. The BS is over. Now is the time to move on. There is no point on dwelling on the past and what could have beens. The important thing now is to try to be more tolerant and come together as a nation. That does not mean to accept views that you don't agree with, but to be tolerant of them. The past year has spawned such tensions to really split this nation. I hope that the people can get over this division and come together. I also hope that Bush will try to unite the US, but he needs to realize that cannot be done with a 'for us or against us" attitude.

I would like to have seen Kerry win because I do think he would have done a better job than Bush. I voted for Bush the first time but have been unhappy with his job performance. But that does not matter now.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Novice on November 04, 2004, 10:27:20
Nay-
Speaking for one non-Bush supporter. I want to state clearly that I am not a Bush basher and have never criticized him as an individual. I just disagree with his policies, which I believe are what others here are expressing as well. I also stated before the election that just focusing on the two parties, the vote was simply selecting the 'lesser of two evils'. If I wasn't so strongly against Bush's politics, I would have voted for Cobb, but there was no way that stood any chance.

As for my age, not sure how applicable that is, but I'm 36 (married with 3 kids if you are interested).

And whoever described Bush as a cowboy with a bible in one hand a gun in the other is EXACTLY my perception. I don't believe the most powerful country on the planet should have an individual leading them with a 'my way or the highway' attitude. And this is the feeling I get from him every speech he gives.

In fact, just the opposite is necessary. We need to lead by example. ANd invading a country because it MAY be a threat to our security, is not the way. There were no weapons of mass destruction ever found. But our invasion is still justified because Saddam was a 'bad' person and the people are better off now. I am not stating that Saddam was not a horrible dictator. However, let's be honest about our intentions and not switch stories to justify our actions. If we went in there to remove him for humanitarian reasons, why did we use another excuse? And if that was the sole reason, then why wait so long to do it? Its not like he just came to power recently. There's much more to this than the public knows.

I also think his religious beliefs weigh too heavily on his decisions. I agree that religion can be healthy to have and use as a guide in your life. But there are plenty of examples of extremes in which attacks and killings are made in the name of religion. ANd that is simply abuse. I'm not saying that Bush is on the extreme side, but there is a lot of grey area between those two points, and I think his policies appear to be guided more heavily by his religious convictions than they should be for a man who leads a free country.

While I believe that Kerry did lie (I also believe all politicians twist the truth to various degrees), I also did not like the arrogance in his voice when discussing his medals or his qualifications. I think at times he came off in a condescending way to people. But I think they both came off as bickering like childeren.

I also fully recognize that Bush won by popular vote and electoral vote. And I only remember reading one post in which they stated otherwise.

I simply found it amazing (and slightly scary) that so many americans support his policies.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Rob on November 05, 2004, 14:06:44
One of my favourite films of all time is "twin warriors" with jet li. Briefly the story is Li and his buddy get kicked from the shaolin temple they grew up in, and his buddy becomes powerful and evil. But my point - there's a great scene where his now evil brother says "anyone not on my side....must die!!!". Sounded eerily familiar.....

Anyway, my opinion is that bush probably stole the election again, the exit polls are significantly different to the results states with e-voting, but they match when paper voting was used. If this is true it looks impossible to explain away, sorry Nay! And I must also apologise to anyone else here who backs bush for calling him scum, descended from a long line of scum. Bush bashing? Hell yes!

So, anyone want to place any bets on who he'll invade next?

Rob
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 05, 2004, 16:02:46
Quote from: IngumaOne of my favourite films of all time is "twin warriors" with jet li. Briefly the story is Li and his buddy get kicked from the shaolin temple they grew up in, and his buddy becomes powerful and evil. But my point - there's a great scene where his now evil brother says "anyone not on my side....must die!!!". Sounded eerily familiar.....

Anyway, my opinion is that bush probably stole the election again, the exit polls are significantly different to the results states with e-voting, but they match when paper voting was used. If this is true it looks impossible to explain away, sorry Nay! And I must also apologise to anyone else here who backs bush for calling him scum, descended from a long line of scum. Bush bashing? Hell yes!

So, anyone want to place any bets on who he'll invade next?

Rob

Wow..Rob, very mature.. :oops:   The exit polls didn't work well last time either and they won't work properly until they fix the problems they are having with them.  Oh well, I knew I was alone on these boards when it comes to political views, bash away.  :)

Nay
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Hannah b on November 05, 2004, 16:11:19
I put my bet on..........heck, why not Iran??!!! It quallifies perfectly...and there's always so much to gain from another war...

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=3500
http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/366/10083_iran.html
http://www.politrix.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1221

and a very interesting discussion from few months ago
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_07/004324.php
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: cinnabardk on November 05, 2004, 16:47:37
My bet is also on Iran - though it may be postponed a bit.

Here's another link of possible interest:
http://tbrnews.org/Archives/a1130.htm

It seems people in America want more of the same, and I am sure Bush will be glad to give it to them.


Happy nuclear war.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Hannah b on November 05, 2004, 16:56:21
I love this guy...if you have no strength to cry anymore, atleast have a good laugh..
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Rob on November 05, 2004, 17:59:30
Yeah well Nay, you know me, Mr Mature on a stick with extra fried maturity and a healthy dollop of mature bloke sauce  :lol:
I dunno, there aren't many things which consistently get me angry, but the Bush's are one.

Iran - I dont think Dubya is stupid enough to actually attack a country that might genuinely have WMD's.....is he?? A scary thought.
Rob
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 05, 2004, 18:28:45
Quote from: IngumaYeah well Nay, you know me, Mr Mature on a stick with extra fried maturity and a healthy dollop of mature bloke sauce  :lol:
I dunno, there aren't many things which consistently get me angry, but the Bush's are one.

Iran - I dont think Dubya is stupid enough to actually attack a country that might genuinely have WMD's.....is he?? A scary thought.
Rob

Hahaha!  yeah I got cha.. but one thing I don't get is why all the complaints from people that don't even live here?!  Could it be...Oh, that you are getting media information that isn't being too kind to our President?  Which to me is really un-american.  

Frankly, if I lived some where else but here, I wouldn't stress myself out with all of it.  Maybe I'm just not up to date on this, but what happens here, does it really effect your life, when you live in a different country?  Ya know, the whole taxes, ss, and healthcare thing.

You're not upset about the Revolutionary war are you? lol   And don't forget we helped out in WWII..wonder how you'd sound with a German accent, not near as sexy as your accent now me thinks   :wink:

Nay
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Rob on November 05, 2004, 20:40:46
QuoteHahaha! yeah I got cha.. but one thing I don't get is why all the complaints from people that don't even live here?! Could it be...Oh, that you are getting media information that isn't being too kind to our President? Which to me is really un-american.

Weeeeeeell Nay, when your president starts going around invading other countries, when he makes the world a less safe place for everyone by annoying most the Muslim world, when he burns the Kyoto treaty, arms the world, and consistently sides with corrupt and amoral corporations, etc etc then it becomes an issue for the world community not just the US. Its all kinda interconnected you know??? And the US is the most powerful country in the world, so its influence is very strong in all areas.
Besides I think that really......you just dont like our "bush bashing"! <sniggers>

QuoteWhich to me is really un-american

Well thats good then as I'm not american!! But you should know that I really respect your founding fathers and the lofty principles your country was founded on, its just whats happened since then.

QuoteYou're not upset about the Revolutionary war are you? lol And don't forget we helped out in WWII..wonder how you'd sound with a German accent, not near as sexy as your accent now me thinks

LOL
<Stricks tongue out at Nay>
you little minx you.....!

btw you know that mussolini (founder of fascism) once said: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"
- that means your government is, officially, fascist!!!! Not good not good......
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: bitkari on November 05, 2004, 21:19:55
Nader.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 05, 2004, 22:26:51
Hehehe..I'm only going to quote and respond to one thing you said.

QuoteLOL
<Stricks tongue out at Nay>
you little minx you.....!

I looooooove being called a minx..how did you know?  :wink:

*Purrrrrrrrr* ~ Nay
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: no_leaf_clover on November 06, 2004, 01:21:17
I don't know if anyone's made a reference yet, but Titor's messages are starting to seem more and more possible. Whether he was just trying to influence society, had a good idea of where it was going regardless, or actually was a time traveller as he said, his messages dealt a lot with the time we're in right now, around the 2004 elections.

He talked about civil war as a direct result of the events that are unfolding now.

Some stuff from http://www.johntitor.com/ :

"Does the current relationship between Arabs and Jews have anything to do with the coming war?

Real disruptions in world events begin with the destabilization of the West as a result of degrading US foreign policy and consistency. This becomes apparent around 2004 as civil unrest develops near the next presidential election. The Jewish population in Israel is not prepared for a true offensive war. They are prepared for the ultimate defense. Wavering western support for Israel is what gives Israel's neighbors the confidence to attack. The last resort for a defensive Israel and its offensive Arab neighbors is to use weapons of mass destruction. In the grand scheme of things, the war in the Middle East is a part of what's to come, not the cause."

"How and why do the Arabs Jews become entangled in the civil war of the U.S.A?

They are not directly involved but political situations are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005."

"The Arab countries appear to have weapons of mass destruction. Do they use them against America?

Not against America but they are used against each other."

"I disapprove of war because I think it's immoral. What do you think?

I disapprove of murder. Man as a species is incapable of changing his nature through will alone and war is a tool of biology. The ability for war sleeps in each one of us and we must decide what we will do before the beast awakens. As for morality, again I point to the "universal" balance of good and evil. For every worldline where there is peace, there is a worldline that has destroyed itself.


(4) I'm glad to see it's so easy for to dismiss the Middle East. Yes, I suppose it is a no brainer but pretty soon it will be a "no arrmer" and a "no legger".


The year 2008 was a general date by which time everyone will realize the world they thought they were living in was over. The civil war in the United States will start in 2004. I would describe it as having a Waco type event every month that steadily gets worse. The conflict will consume everyone in the US by 2012 and end in 2015 with a very short WWIII."

"Why are you so interested in the Constitution?

After the war, the United States had split into five separate regions based on the various factors and military objectives they each had. There was a great deal of anger directed toward the Federal government and a revival of states rights was becoming paramount. However, in their attempt to create an economic form of government, the political and military leaders at the time decided to hold one last Constitutional Congress in order to present a psychological cohesion from the old system.

During this Congress, the leaders discovered and decided that coming up with a new and better form of government was nearly impossible. The original Constitution itself was not the problem it was the ignorance of the people that lived under it."



"Does anything happen in the year 2012? I've heard stories about the world ending.

In my 2012, I was 14 years old spending most of my time living, running and hiding in the woods and rivers of central Florida. The civil war was in its 7th year and the world war was three years away. Yes, there are unusual events in 2012 but they do not cause the world to end. Unfortunately, I have decided not to discuss events that you or I can do anything about. It is important that they be a surprise. Perhaps you are familiar with the story of the Red Sea and the Egyptians?"

....etc.

Really is some interesting stuff, considering all this came about prior to 9/11, and now we're entering the times he detailed the most. How much validity there is to what he said will start to become apparent in the next few years.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: cinnabardk on November 06, 2004, 17:19:15
Interesting post, no_leaf_clover !

I just found this (Outrage in Ohio: Angry residents storm State House in response to massive voter suppression and corruption): http://michiganimc.org/feature/display/7644/index.php

- could this be the beginning of something more ?
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nagual on November 07, 2004, 03:34:12
Also on CNN... http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/index.html

It's "funny" (not really) that the most "advanced" country in the world has so many problems with organizing an election...  There have been so many reports of electronic voting "bugs".  They can send people on the moon, program satellites to meet a planet in 10 years, explore quantum physics, etc...  but still fail to develop a simple multiple-choice voting program that can safely add votes...

So much for the champion of democracy...
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Rob on November 07, 2004, 12:27:16
Ok lets assume then that Bush did steal the election, as frankly all the facts seem to be pointing in that direction. Two good articles mentioned last (its interesting to note the mainsteam papers are picking up on a few things, but these "errors" only ever seem to add votes to Bush. Just another indicator).

Anyway - taken that as a given, does anyone want to make guesses for why? I mean - why now? Why are they so determined to get Bush in for a second term?
What did he achieve in his first term - put in place so 9/11 could occur in his reign and so he could then attack afghanistan and iraq, and do all those other nasty things that become possible when everyone in the US was terrified. So it could be argued that he just wants to continue on the "terrorist war" but thats really dragging, I think people are getting tired of all the rhetoric and lack of safety affirming action.
Perhaps this indicates there's gonna be another big terrorist attack? That'd certainly light his fire again, allow him to achieve all the rest of the things his cronies want.

I'm beginning to think more and more that Kerry was set up speifically as the fall guy. He might have even known he was going to "lose".

Rob

Ps Nay:
"I looooooove being called a minx..how did you know?"
LOL you need ask???? tehehehe!!!
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: cinnabardk on November 07, 2004, 14:08:34
Perhaps the answer is to be found in madness.

Looking back at the royal lunatics of history, this does not seem unlikely.

You can read about them here:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmon.htm

- try reading about Caligula, or Nero.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nagual on November 08, 2004, 03:28:16
The Washington Post:
Evangelicals say they led charge for GOP
Churches cultivated grassroots, often beating party to the punch
By Alan Cooperman and Thomas B. Edsall

As the presidential race was heating up in June and July, a pair of leaked documents showed that the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign was urging Christian supporters to turn over their church directories and was seeking to identify "friendly congregations" in battleground states.

Those revelations produced a flurry of accusations that the Bush campaign was leading churches to violate laws against partisan activities by tax-exempt organizations, and even some of the White House's closest religious allies said the campaign had gone too far.

But the untold story of the 2004 election, according to national religious leaders and grass-roots activists, is that evangelical Christian groups were often more aggressive and sometimes better organized on the ground than the Bush campaign. The White House struggled to stay abreast of the Christian right and consulted with the movement's leaders in weekly conference calls. But in many respects, Christian activists led the charge that GOP operatives followed and capitalized upon.

Etc...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6431260/
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: wisp on November 08, 2004, 12:34:21
Nagual,
Bush isn't suppose to have a strategy for votes? This sounds like it was a good plan if this is so. I doubt if any of these Christian groups had a threat against them if they chose not to vote for him. Church affiliation is common. It doesn't sound like a big deal. The important thing, he won....hooray!

Nay,
I enjoyed your words about this unpopular man and country. Your posts are encouraging to me, and many more I am sure.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Covelo on November 08, 2004, 14:20:36
I would just like to say that war usually creates more war and peace usually creates more peace and that when I see or hear Bush talking I can clearly see that this guy has fun going to war and will probably do it as much as he can.  I personally don't agree or like this kind of a leader in charge of my country, as things could easily get way out of hand if he and his war proponents are not slowed down or stopped soon.

All be well...

Covelo
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 08, 2004, 14:59:41
Hi Wisp, nice to have someone whom sees it from my point.  :)  

I found this article by Mark Styne today, whilst agreeing with it, there was a few things Brian Reade from the Daily Mirror said that I didn't agree with.  And wow, what a excellent example of stereotyping.. :roll:

Inaugurating the new second-term outreach was Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror, who attributed the President's victory to: "The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport-ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest d**k in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'."

Well, ok I'm a bit self-righteous, but not as much as Brian Reade apparently.  

I'm not gun-totin', actually hate holding them now as a adult, but was raised around them and can shoot skeet or kill a deer if need be, but guess I'll save that for when the end of the world comes.  

I'm proud to say YES, I am military-lovin'!! We are a military family and love our country.  

As for sister-marryin', I think that would be just down right awkward for all involved.  

Abortion-hatin'..well, I'm pro-choice, sooo...  

Gay-loathin'...nahhhh, sheesh, that means I'd loose some friends and relatives.  

Foreigner-despisin'.. only those whom kill, starve, and control their own people.  

Ok, ok, I don't have a passport..but what the heck does that got to do with anything, it doesn't mean I don't wish I could visit places that involved needing one.   And I don't consider myself a redneck but my husband DOES believe he has the biggest ummmm...*cough* ya know...so how in the world can the whole of America have the biggest one when he's sporting it?  :lol:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/07/do0704.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/07/ixop.html

Covelo, I understand all these people whom hate war, but where would WE be had it not been for people standing up to fight for our country and others?   What is so wrong with us helping another country whom wants to be free!  contrary to what the media is saying  :twisted:   I've heard totally different stories from actual military men that are out there serving our country.    War is hell, and not pretty but my personal belief is it is sometimes necessary.

And goodness on this very sight we are always talking about things happening for a reason.   I believe all these people who are dying or have died in wars, chose to have the life they had, and along with that comes their deaths.  For whatever reason, be it karma,  or a lesson....it was meant to happen.

Of course my humble opinion.. :)

Nay
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: cinnabardk on November 08, 2004, 16:27:08
There isn't really a consensus reality in America anymore, is there ?

If so, how will any kind of reconciliation be at all possible in the Divided States of America ?
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Covelo on November 08, 2004, 18:00:25
Nay said,  

"I understand all these people whom hate war, but where would WE be had it not been for people standing up to fight for our country and others?  What is so wrong with us helping another country whom wants to be free! contrary to what the media is saying  I've heard totally different stories from actual military men that are out there serving our country. War is hell, and not pretty but my personal belief is it is sometimes necessary."

Nay,

I never said I hated war, as I have found that hating anything isn't healthy.  I think it is important to stand up for yourself when your country is personally attacked, but there has never been any connection to Iraq in this way that I am aware of.  I also think we have gone way too far over there and continue to do so, as it is getting to be more and more of a blood bath as the days go on.  Killing other people is not the answer to these situations.  I would suggest that working together with them by asking the general population what they want us to do would be a better approach.

My feeling is that the longer we keep killing other people as a general policy there we are going to suffer the consequences as the rest of the world continues to turn against us, which has been the case ever since we went over there and started blowing things and many people up.  If you think about it we are doing so much damage to the whole infrastructure of that country that the whole population is going to suffer for a long time.  I don't think we're doing them any favors at all and I don't think even anywhere close to 1/2 of their people want us to do these things.

I think we need to be thinking more about our standing with the rest of the world here and continue to make better friends with the rest of the world, instead of more enemies as these actions continue.  If we want to have a world of peace we had better start being a better example ourselves.

Let us all wake up and smell the roses and see how foolish it is to keep spreading more attacks there or anywhere for that matter.  

I wish all to be well and continue to open up their perspectives to higher and brighter places as we collectively create the future for all involved in this world.

May we all find peace...

Covelo
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: atalanta on November 08, 2004, 18:07:02
Nay, you are obviously selective in what you hear and remember.  

Firstly, any link to the Telegraph newspaper says it all.  I buy that newspaper and in my country just before the Howard elections, one of the things I noticed was how many pro-Howard people seemed to be suddenly writing to the newspaper.  Of course I knew not to believe everything I read in newspapers, but I was delusional enough to believe that there would be at least even space given to both parties.  No, it wasn't, almost all stories of Howard were positive and almost all reader's letters were pro-Howard, I am talking about about 80%.  It really made me realise how powerful Murdoch and the media is and how easily people could be manipulated.

Secondly, although I am no great historian, I believe that the Israel/Palestinian problem is a creation of the UK and USA.  It was at their instigation and with their military support that these two groups were separated thus causing the current problems.  America chose to support Jews over Moslem's because of its Judeo-Christian outlook and in doing so has turned a blind eye to the murder and starvation of the Palestine people.  In general, America creates problems and then blames them on others.  There would be no terrorism if it wasn't for the fact that America finds it acceptable to destroy lives and countries through unfair trade agreements.  If people in these countries had the things that most Americans take for granted, ie, food, medicine, education, work, there wouldn't be such hatred of this country.  All these people have wanted is an even go at having a chance at life and the American government does all it can to make sure it doesn't happen and then has the cheek to turn around and accuse these people of being jealous, fanatical, etc.  The American government is in Iraq for two reasons only.  Firstly, oil, it wants to position itself to make sure that as world supply runs out which from memory will be happening over the next 50 years, it can get as much as it wants.

Third, you obviously haven't seen the programs we have in Australia of soldiers and their families demanding to come home, of soldiers and journalists saying that the people do not want America there any more, of the Iraqi people who wanted to be saved from Saddam and who consider themselves moderate, saying they now feel like they have not been saved but invaded by another Saddam, of soldiers mistreating and torturing civilians and Iraqi military personnel.  Etc...  I don't know how anyone can watch the bodies of children and say that a war is an acceptable form of debate.

I have American friends, I don't hate Americans or America, I would love to travel there, etc.  However, even in my country, I and many others are starting to feel like just another state of America.  We are shown American TV, eat American foods, we are becoming obese like Americans, our government seeks American approval and backing, etc.  I don't hate Americans but I hate that I am slowly being forced to become American.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Jenadots on November 08, 2004, 21:06:08
Dear Atalanta....no one if "forcing" you to be American in your culture or your values or your lifestyle.  That is your choice.

You could always give up seeing American movies and listening to American music.  And anything else that you consider somehow influencing you.  

That said, your country has a unique culture and environment.  The future of it can be whatever you, collectively, want it to be.  

If it has become too Americanized, just treasure your local culture and create a future that isn't.  

Sort of take the best and leave the rest.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 08, 2004, 23:47:36
QuoteNay,

I never said I hated war, as I have found that hating anything isn't healthy.
That is a very safe answer.  I hate war, too, yet I see what role it must take.  To be honest, I think you said that whole 'hating anything isn't healthy' is because...well, like I said safe.
QuoteI think it is important to stand up for yourself when your country is personally attacked, but there has never been any connection to Iraq in this way that I am aware of.
I might be wrong, but Saddam paid the families of sucide bombers 25,000. (ea.)  to give up the souls of their sons or daughters for each bombing, they also provided training camps for "Islamic Militants", I'd say, that is being connected.
QuoteI also think we have gone way too far over there and continue to do so, as it is getting to be more and more of a blood bath as the days go on.
It was a blood bath BEFORE we got there.  I'd go so far as to say it's been a blood bath since before Jesus was tacked onto that cross.  
QuoteKilling other people is not the answer to these situations.  I would suggest that working together with them by asking the general population what they want us to do would be a better approach.
Working together with whom, to make a better approach?

QuoteMy feeling is that the longer we keep killing other people as a general policy there we are going to suffer the consequences as the rest of the world continues to turn against us
The rest of the world turning against us?  Are you out to win a popularity contest?   Since when did you need to listen to other countries to tell YOU how to feel in this country?
Quotehas been the case ever since we went over there and started blowing things and many people up.  If you think about it we are doing so much damage to the whole infrastructure of that country that the whole population is going to suffer for a long time.  I don't think we're doing them any favors at all and I don't think even anywhere close to 1/2 of their people want us to do these things.
I disagree, BECAUSE OF the "people" you talk about,  I have heard about things,  straight from the horses mouth, and not the bias medias horses mouth.   Their hospitals are better, schools have kids in them again, people aren't afraid to walk on the streets, they have electricity and running water, and not to mention their own, excuse the pun, Democratic voting system now!  WOW, check it out, they are becoming a free country!!!   Why does this tick off sooooo many people?

QuoteI think we need to be thinking more about our standing with the rest of the world here and continue to make better friends with the rest of the world, instead of more enemies as these actions continue.  If we want to have a world of peace we had better start being a better example ourselves.
Once again, there ya go with the 'thinking more about our standing with the rest of the world'  Can you form an opinion without thinking what other countries would think?.  

QuoteI wish all to be well and continue to open up their perspectives to higher and brighter places as we collectively create the future for all involved in this world.

May we all find peace...
I completely agree with you.  :)
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nay on November 09, 2004, 00:07:59
Quote from: JenadotsDear Atalanta....no one if "forcing" you to be American in your culture or your values or your lifestyle.  That is your choice.

You could always give up seeing American movies and listening to American music.  And anything else that you consider somehow influencing you.  

That said, your country has a unique culture and environment.  The future of it can be whatever you, collectively, want it to be.  

If it has become too Americanized, just treasure your local culture and create a future that isn't.  

Sort of take the best and leave the rest.

I have to go with what Jendots is saying, in that unique wonderful way of saying....if it doesn't appeal...don't harp on it and go on.   :D:

atalanta, I don't have selective hearing....well, not too much, not anymore than you do. :P  I just don't understand why it means soooooo much to you?  I'm sorry the media has made you think otherwise..but I'm still trying to get an answer as to how our countries problems mesh in with yours?  Everyone is dogging the USA, yet...they aren't really connected, why is that?

I LIVE in the United States and can't figure that one out... :?

Nay
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: atalanta on November 09, 2004, 01:41:09
Nay, the idea that what happens to America and what America chooses doesn't effect the rest of the world is a myth.  The reason Americans need to think about the rest of the world's opinions is because we are all living on one planet and we depend on each other.  When one country has such power to control, manipulate other communities, there is going to be a problem.  America has a right to determine its own path, but unfortunately, it is also determining the path of other countries with it.  I find it curious that you are on a site which I think aims to make people aware of our interdependence and relatedness, our Oness, etc, and yet you think somehow America does not need to bother with how it effects the rest of the world.  I think it is this attitude which is causing the rest of the world to effect America now.  This is the very seed of every destructive act including war, the belief that we can do what we want and to hell with everyone else.  In psychological terms it is called Narcissism.

Please don't think I am angry about this, I am not, I am concerned, alarmed at times but not angry.  I also don't hate America or Americans.  There is a great deal of things to be proud of in America and Americans.  My concern is centred mainly around the political system it has which I consider is corrupt and its corporations which includes the media.  I believe the reports that suggest that the Saudi Arabian royal family has bought George Bush's soul.  I believe that the media is extremely biased presenting a positive picture of the war when that is not the case.  We know its not the case because even today there were new bombings in Baghdad.  It is a fallacy to think that Iraq is going to become this wonderful new Democracy and that all the other Muslim countries will follow.  You can't force Democracy on people, they have to want it and the simple fact is that most of them don't.  The simple fact is that in order to make any dent in the Middle East, that America is going to have to spend decades in this country to try and turn it towards its way of thinking.  It cannot just recreate one country overnight, nor can it allow it to be the only one recreated.  In order to have any lasting cultural change, it will have to 'introduce' its ideology to surrounding countries as well.  This is going to make Vietnam look like a short tour of duty.  And after all this, will it stop the suicide bombers, etc.  The answer is no.  

I find it bizarre that on this site, some people are willing to believe the most twisted and weird conspiracy theories, but can't see what is staring them in the face.   They are willing to believe aliens crashed into the pentagon, the president is a reptile, but not that their government may be corrupt and doing things that may bring the entire world to the brink of destruction.

As for the idea of my staying away from American products and culture, I don't mind small doses of it, but we are awash with it here and that is difficult.  Its a bit like GM foods.  You can avoid buying Canola for example, but it is hard to avoid it when other foods have traces of the stuff in it and 80% of products in stores have traces of GM foods.  Luckily here it isn't so bad, yet.  Its not that I don't like American things, so I don't feel like I need to avoid American things, its that it is becoming disporpotionate to our own stuff.  Its like, I love milkshakes, but if I went into a store and that is all they sold, it would be a problem.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: no_leaf_clover on November 09, 2004, 01:43:09
I live in the United States!  :?


QuoteThat is a very safe answer. I hate war, too, yet I see what role it must take. To be honest, I think you said that whole 'hating anything isn't healthy' is because...well, like I said safe.

I once saw an interview with a survivor of the Holocaust who said her granddaughter would sometimes say she hated a certain kind of food, or etc., and the woman would tell her that, no, she may dislike something, but hate is what the SS felt towards the Jews, what drove them to throw live babies into the air and use them for target practice. Ever since I saw that interview I started correcting myself whenever I would slip and say I hated something. Hate indeed isn't good for anyone. :/

Just something I thought somebody might get a kick out of.

QuoteIt was a blood bath BEFORE we got there. I'd go so far as to say it's been a blood bath since before Jesus was tacked onto that cross.

After the crusades, the Middle East was relatively peaceful until the World Wars, especially WW2 when we decided to put a bunch of Jews onto Muslim land and give the Jews weapons and tell them the land was theirs. From there on things got pretty bad. Recent diplomacy is turning Muslims more and more against the US.

QuoteWorking together with whom, to make a better approach?

The UN. This is where Bush's poor diplomatic policies come into play. And if I remember correctly, he didn't even want to go into Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy! The four words I remember hearing most often were 'weapons of mass destruction' but I think you could fuse them into one: oil. And yes, we have seized oil fields since our invasion, and Halliburton has made quite a bit of money. The whole 'Saddams a bad ruler' thing wasn't really popularized until some time passed with no WMDs. Frankly, our government as a whole has never displayed much active concern against brutal rulers until it's too late. We've even put one into power and given him refuge after revolt cast him out. Bush especially is not exactly your understanding human-rights activist, as is evident with his anti-gay and sexist policies, not to mention the political prejudices evident from the website representing him during the elections. Yes, we were attacked on 9/11, but by Saddam? Not only did Saddam have nothing to do with 9/11, the 'harboring terrorists' excuse doesn't work either - because what Iraq was doing for terrorists was nothing compared to how other countries in the region were harboring them, especially Iran (which is also believed to have WMDs!)! Don't be surprised if we invade them next, though. Maybe another terrorist attack will do the trick. :/

QuoteThe rest of the world turning against us? Are you out to win a popularity contest? Since when did you need to listen to other countries to tell YOU how to feel in this country?

I think that's how Saddam felt!

The only difference is that instead of having to worry about some super hero of the world to come valiantly destroy us, we have to worry about large-scale terrorism, as well as increasing political division (even internationally as we see now) as people either realize what the Bush Administration authorized was a totally retarded or extremely immoral set of actions or else become right-wing zealots developing prejudices against members of opposing political parties in a manner reminiscent of fascism. The word 'liberal' today is derrogatory and even used on its own as political slander. This alone is a sign of our times, because this country was raised on liberal ideologies. It's what the Declaration of Independance and Constitution are based on. The original idea was that the government would interfere in our lives as little as possible as to allow as much personal freedom as possible without authorizing behaviors infringent upon the rights of other human beings (the big exception to this being slavery, which of course was dealt with some eight decades later). There was a heated debate in our country when government money was first used to finance roadbuilding(!), as the right for the government to do this wasn't explicitly granted in the Constitution. Since then we've had a mandatory DRAFT for a war in a country that posed absolutely no threat to us! And that was decades ago!! We are not meant to be a world mediator. We are a single country, and our constitution is set up so that we are best when looking after ourselves.

But I've gotten off subject (so easy to do with so many interconnected issues). It isn't just what people think, it's how people are thinking and what they're doing as consequences of these ways of thinking.

QuoteI disagree, BECAUSE OF the "people" you talk about, I have heard about things, straight from the horses mouth, and not the bias medias horses mouth. Their hospitals are better, schools have kids in them again, people aren't afraid to walk on the streets, they have electricity and running water, and not to mention their own, excuse the pun, Democratic voting system now! WOW, check it out, they are becoming a free country!!! Why does this tick off sooooo many people?

For one reason, our citizens are being killed on a daily basis for this to take place. Also, Iraqi citizens are also dying on a daily basis, and we've attracted terrorists into the country who are now bombing sites similarly to bombings carried out regularly in Israel. Terrorism wasn't a problem when Saddam was in office, nor were American casualties. Again, Saddam was a bad guy but that isn't why we went into Iraq, and even if it was, such an act is unconstitutional and really should be mediated via the UN. Maybe the reason why the UN has been so reluctant to forcefully remove Saddam from power has something to do with what's happening to our soldiers at this very moment.

QuoteOnce again, there ya go with the 'thinking more about our standing with the rest of the world' Can you form an opinion without thinking what other countries would think?.

Again, our policies are affecting the whole half-civilized world.


QuoteI wish all to be well and continue to open up their perspectives to higher and brighter places as we collectively create the future for all involved in this world.

May we all find peace...

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee  :D
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Covelo on November 09, 2004, 16:52:21
Nay and all,

I'm not going to spend any more time on this topic here, as I see that it is just kind of going in circles and not reallly getting anywhere.  The only thing I might mention is that hating anything isn't healthy and is something to be considered.

All be well...

Covelo
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Jenadots on November 09, 2004, 21:53:37
The USA and England did not decide to put the Jews into Palestine after WWII.  They decided to put themselves there as their traditional homeland.  The Brits did everything they could to keep the Jewish refugees from flooding into what was then called Palestine.  

Jewish leaders then petitioned the UN for a statehood and got it. Palestine was divided into Jordon and Israel.  Israel did not require that Muslims leave.  Many did and became the Palestinian refugees - the same refugees that the rest of the Arab world refused to take in ever since.   Some contries did take them in as laborers, but rarely have they been allowed citizenship in those other Arabian countries.  Just visitor workers, even tho many of them have been visitor workers for 50 years.  

As for the oil thing -- where is it?  We don't have it as my last visit to the gas pump proved.  We do not have to invade any country to get oil.  We just have to be willing to buy it at whatever they decide to charge.  So the oil argument doesn't hold up.

As for the media giving us a rosy picture of things in Iraq, where is that?  Not here.  We rarely hear about the schools being built, the hospitals being rebuilt, the utitilities being rebuilt after decades of neglect, or the food, medicine, and other goods being distributed.  

The Kurds in northern Iraq seem quite happy running their own affairs and things are peaceful there as in other places.  

Yes, it is open season on any Westerner in parts of Iraq.  Every terrorist in the area is or wants to be there.  Some of the beheadings were done by Jordanians, not Iraqi's.  

And nay is right in saying there has been bloodshed in that part of the world for hundreds of years.  The Shites and the Sunnis started going at it right after Mohammed's death and have rarely stopped since.  

Most Iraqi's, like most people anywhere, want peace and prosperity.  If they would make peace with each other, they can very likely have it.  Whether they have a democracy or not is difficult to say as it is a part of the world where that is considered a new idea, and perhaps not an entirely right one.  Freedom is a scary proposition.  It is a whole lot easier to be told what to do and think than to actually decide it for yourself.  It is also a messy business as everybody gets to express their thoughts and opinions and to vote.  

I think part of the problem was over-expectation that everything would be wonderful overnight.  It takes time to set up a new government and write a constitution.  Thus far, no Iraqi Thomas Jefferson has arisen - because Saddam killed anyone who might actually have that talent and ability.  He tolerated no one who questioned his authority.  

But someone will, eventually, put together a new Iraqi government that is acceptable to most of the people there.  

Perhaps the solution is a 3 independent state Commonwealth of Kurds, Sunni and Shite states.   In any case, it would be a real shame if the Iraqi nation descended into Civil War and any form of totalitarian dictatorship because of outside terrorists and inside tyrants who do not want the people to have any freedoms or choices.

More importantly, I think the one thing we didn't hear in this election was a vision for the future of the USA.  No one actually asked us, the citizens, if we wanted to be a super-power or the world's 911 for everything.

I would guess if it was actually put to us as a referendum, most of us would say NO.....we do not want to be that.  

I did have not heard anyone in our government address the issue of where are we going and what kind of nation do we want to become in the future.  We lack a vision.  We lack a direction.  In some ways we lack a frontier and an American without a frontier or the idea of one seems not quite whole.  

We are a part of the world's community.  But in many ways, I beleive we have neglected our own country of communities - paid too much attention to the world beyond our borders and not enough to what we are creating within them.  It is not really that we have lost our way in the world, it is that we seem to be at a crossroads and must create a new vision - a new path for the future.  

As a group of citizens, I would say that most of us do not want to become the rulers of the world.   Because of the fall of the Soviet Union, we have become the only superpower almost by default.  No one expected that change to happen so fast.  It was almost a surprise when it did.  

And we are still saying Now what?  George Washington said beware of foreign entanglements.  That kind of thing dominated the past century and we must ask ourselves is that what we want for the next one?  Most of us would say no.  None of us want any more Americans dying in foreign wars.  After a almost a century of that, I would say we have had enough.  

The problem is how do we get anyone in the government, or anyone who wants to run for President to even discuss the issue?  

The media focuses on scandals and dirty laundry from decades ago.  The political parties focus on hate, half-truths, outright lies, and manipulating the public with all sorts of fears.  The corporations focus on being lobbyists and influencing Congress to get what they want without a thought to the public good.  And "We the people", feels so overwhelmed and distrustful of what we see and hear, that we don't demand better treatement from any of them.  We don't even expect it anymore.  

I kept waiting for either one of the candidates to talk about  the long-term good of the country - and no one did.  They live in a four year framework while the rest of us live in a life-time framework.  

Presidents come and go, but this country needs to have a new direction, a new vision of itself and its responsibilities to its own citizens as well as its place and role in the world.  I would vote for any candidate who begins to talk about that next time.  

Do you think there is a chance of it?????

Sorry for the rant, but I get so frustrated with the candidates and the Congress.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Fyrenze on November 09, 2004, 22:45:15
Jenadots,

Some good points.

QuotePresidents come and go, but this country needs to have a new direction, a new vision of itself and its responsibilities to its own citizens as well as its place and role in the world. I would vote for any candidate who begins to talk about that next time.

But it'll take huge shifts to bring stuff like this about, and I would be incredibly surprised if in 4 years a candidate brought up long term stuff. Republicans know what they want, which is ok by too many people who are happy with the way things are, and the Democrats are no good at campaigning and getting people behind them. Add to that the fact that, as I recently said in another thread, societies tend not to look well upon people who speak their opinion, and what do you get? As I said, it seems like a major change is needed. And not just here in the States, but all over.

Know what's scary? The Bush Administration always talks about this "post-9/11" world and to me that's a crock of *edit*. First of all, it is tiring for them to play the 9/11 card all the time. Yeah it was a horrible thing, and there's much more to be said and I in no way mean to belittle it, but it was several years ago, already. It's in the past. Let's not dwell. For a while we all united and there were some changes, and the administration loves to use it in order to pass just about any restrictions of freedoms they care to (I'm aware this is an exaggeration, but obviously I don't like the Bush Administration). But we're as divided now as ever, and I don't see any long term improvements. Are you really going to tell me the removal of Saddam is such an improvement? First of all, I believe he would have been removed sooner or later with or without a 9/11. Second, there are plenty of fascists and despots just waiting for the opportunity to take power. And I also think that maybe Americans tend to be just a bit nearsighted when they talk about the rest of the world wanting to be free. This may be true, but who are we as Americans to go around "freeing" countries that don't want our help?

Oh right, so the scary thing. If 9/11 didn't bring about those supposed changes, what'll it take?

Here's to those world changes that some people seem to think have already started. I've yet to see much evidence of it.

By the way, this may seem opinionated. Good, I am. I love opinions. Tell me yours. Use your voice.

- Mark
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: atalanta on November 10, 2004, 01:27:07
My sister just sent this to me from her work.  She doesn't know about the discussion we have been having so I thought it was a nice bit of synchronicity for her to send me this.  I think it is hilarious but Republicans may not think so.

http://www.imgag.com/product/full/ap/3067907/graphic1.swf


QuoteAnd nay is right in saying there has been bloodshed in that part of the world for hundreds of years. The Shites and the Sunnis started going at it right after Mohammed's death and have rarely stopped since.

Most Iraqi's, like most people anywhere, want peace and prosperity. If they would make peace with each other, they can very likely have it.

This sounds contradictory, they have been at war for hundreds of years and in the second paragraph, they want peace and prosperity.  Maybe they don't want peace, maybe they like their way of dealing with disputes and they don't like the kind of peace and life that Westerners have decided for them.  There is only so much Jerry Springer type freedom and morality that the world can take.  Maybe they prefer the devil they know than the devil that they don't.  There are great things about America, but there is also things like high rates of violence, sexual promiscuity, psychological problems, such as drugs and alcoholism, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, not to mention suicide.  I don't have any stats but what is the bet that many of those problems don't exist or are very minor in these Muslim countries.  If America wants to hold itself up as the jewel of democracy, then it needs to show the world that it is successful in ways other than monetary.  It needs to show the world that it has compassion, is honesty and has high standards of ethics, morality and spirituality.  Otherwise, all is doing is offering one devil for another.

Apart from this, it still doesn't answer why the American government thinks it has a reason to go in there.  Let me put it to you another way, the Saudi Arabians believe in stoning women to death for the slightest misdemeanor, they also behead a number of people each week in a market place atmosphere, women are not allowed to drive or go into certain shops, etc.  At the same time, the Saudi's are linked to several organisations who are financially supporting terrorism and in fact Osama and many of the terrorists stem from that country.  It would make sense then to stem the flow of money from that country and to seek the terrorist training schools and terrorists in that country.  There are desperate people in that country who are losing their lives as well, why doesn't the American government get serious with that country since its all about compassion, self protection and not about oil?

QuoteI did have not heard anyone in our government address the issue of where are we going and what kind of nation do we want to become in the future. We lack a vision. We lack a direction. In some ways we lack a frontier and an American without a frontier or the idea of one seems not quite whole.

Well said.  I think both America and Australia have lost their vision of who they are and who they should be serving.

QuoteIsrael did not require that Muslims leave. Many did and became the Palestinian refugees - the same refugees that the rest of the Arab world refused to take in ever since.

Israel did require Muslims to leave.  I am not justifying the terrorist acts of the Palestinians, however, there is an expansionist vision that the Jews have which does not include Muslims or any other religious groups.  There are many right wing Orthodox Jews who do not want Christians there but who tolerate them only slightly better than Muslims.  Many Muslims left under threat and duress and many were forced off their land into these refugee camps.  As for other Arab countries taking them in, why should they?  They didn't create the problem and they are poor, resource deprived countries, why should they take in these people.  In my rich country and state, despite being rich, we lack water, if these people had turned up on our door, we would have to turn them away.  There is a certain tone in what you are saying here, is it that you think that these people are not worthy or rejects and that is the reason other countries aren't taking them in.  I am not presuming anything, just asking for clarity.

QuoteAs for the oil thing -- where is it? We don't have it as my last visit to the gas pump proved. We do not have to invade any country to get oil. We just have to be willing to buy it at whatever they decide to charge. So the oil argument doesn't hold up.

Environmentally our world is beginning to run out of oil.  From memory of scientific documentaries, it is only a matter of decades before this happens.  Therefore, whoever positions themselves to control this oil will not only have resources, but will also control other countries.  No one to my knowledge said that the day America steps into the country will be the day that America became flooded with free oil.  This is a longterm strategic step which is going to occur over the next couple of decades.  Its the American government making its presence known in the Middle East.

Just as an example of the type of things that are going on, as we all know many buildings were destroyed when America dropped bombs on Iraq.  The Iraqi people have been rebuilding.  However, they have been forced to use American contractors who are incredibly expensive instead of their own people.  The American government forbids them to use anyone other than their own contractors.  So the Iraqi people are forced to pay American builders higher amounts of money, to build buildings that American planes brought down.

I am curious, what are Americans paying for their petrol these days?  In Sydney we are currently paying $1.10 per litre and its expected to rise to $1.50 by sometime next year.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Fyrenze on November 10, 2004, 10:22:31
Well I don't drive much anymore because I'm currently living in the city, so someone else should really tell you what they're paying, but last I remember actually looking at the price at one of the stations in the city it was about 2.10 per gallon.

I believe it would be about US $0.55 and a half in litres, but I'm not positive about that conversion.

But like I said, someone else would be more informed.
Title: The US Presidential Elections.
Post by: Nagual on November 10, 2004, 11:46:43
QuoteAs for the oil thing -- where is it? We don't have it as my last visit to the gas pump proved. We do not have to invade any country to get oil. We just have to be willing to buy it at whatever they decide to charge. So the oil argument doesn't hold up.
But it does.  The USA is starving for more oil.  When Saddam was in power, he refused to sell oil to the USA.  Now that he is out of the picture, US companies are happily pumping.  But of course, because of the outdated infrastructure and the pipelines being bombed every other week, it's not as much as they would have liked.
QuoteWe rarely hear about the schools being built, the hospitals being rebuilt, the utitilities being rebuilt after decades of neglect
Ahem... let's rephrase that to: "We rarely hear about the schools/hospitals being rebuilt (by US private companies) after the US bombed them to pieces."

And, for fun, some more on the voting "bugs"...
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1106-30.htm
http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000715.html
http://www.michigancityin.com/articles/2004/11/04/news/news02.txt
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/news/epaper/2004/11/05/a29a_BROWVOTE_1105.html
http://www.ansiblegroup.org/furtherleft/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=51
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0301/S00166.htm

But I agree that the Bush or Kerry problem is not the main problem...  The real problem is that the US elections system is a (bad) joke.  "Black-box" voting, full of bugs (weirdly always in favor of the Republicans), foreign election observers were denied access to the voting centers, no paper trails.  What good is democracy without fair elections?  It's no more elections; it looks like some kind of war, with groups clashing with each other, people raiding centers at night to rip off their boards/signs, people spreading FUD to scare them not to vote...

Even if your party won, it should not (I hope) stop you from asking for fair elections...