NationStates Jolt Archive

So there are these two guys I wouldn't trust to run a lemonade stand, and one of them will end up running my country for the next four years. This strikes me as problematic, to say the least. I've seen many of the threads in which people are debating over whether George Bush or John Kerry is the worst candidate, but in the end I'm still looking at a dead heat in terms of their respective flaws (as I see them).

Here's a general indication of where I'm at.

Bush
Big Government
War? Sure.
FMA all the way!
No abortion!11!1
Some SC research.
Leave none behind.
Healthcare mostly ok.

Kerry
Huge Government
War? What the hay?
Civil unions sound nice.
I'll let them get abortions.
More stem cell research.
He left some behind!
Make it better!11!

Me
Small Government
War? Probably not.
Let the fruits get hitched.
Minimal regulation.
Why is the gov in this again?
You're both morons.
*sigh*

So what do I do? Do I flip a coin? Vote third party in protest? Write-in?

Edit: If the HTML stuff doesn't work and I can't re-edit this I apologize.

Further Edit: I fixed it.

Here's a general indication of where I'm at.

Bush
Big Government
War? Sure.
FMA all the way!
No abortion!11!1
Some SC research.
Leave none behind.
Healthcare mostly ok.

Kerry
Huge Government
War? What the hay?
Civil unions sound nice.
I'll let them get abortions.
More stem cell research.
He left some behind!
Make it better!11!

Me
Small Government
War? Probably not.
Let the fruits get hitched.
Minimal regulation.
Why is the gov in this again?
You're both morons.
*sigh*


Looks to me like you're slightly closer to Kerry. You say probably not on war and you're further away from Bush than Kerry on gay marriage and abortion (on which I think you essentially agree with Kerry).

But, you know, maybe I'm just biased because I still want to have a job I can be proud of in 4 years.

Mr. Blumrich put it best, IMHO:


Under Kerry the progressive agenda has a chance to survive

Under Bush, the progressive agenda hasn't a chance in hell. The details:

Kerry supports a woman's right to choose- Bush signs executive orders outlawing choice procedures. Kerry would overturn Bush's executive order banning US support of women's health organizations in the third world who offer planned parenthood services.

Dig this- because of the bush crime family's puritanical anti-abortion agenda- hundreds of thousands of women have been denied access to healthcare, because these health organizations dare to distribute condoms, or (gasp) offer a woman in danger of suffering a miscarriage a safe termination of her pregnancy...

I ask progressive voters- are you going to turn your back on these women's lives, simply because Kerry isn't pure enough for your tastes? If you do- their blood is on your hands. I hope you can sleep well, at night...

Kerry supports raising the minimum wage- Bush opposes it- he figures that millions of workers can live on less than subsistence wages.

I dunno if any of ya'll have ever lived in small-town america, and had no other employment opportunies, other than the local greaseburger joint, or the ubiquitous wal-mart- but I have...

Lemme tell you- there are MILLIONS in this country, living on a wage that the average american would laugh at, living in a state of poverty that would astound you. If you doubt me, write to me, and we'll take a road trip down to appalachia, and the mississippi delta- I'll show you stuff you never though could have existed in this great, rich, and powerful country.

Children are growing up malnourished, without health care- they even lack the educational services that we in the blue states take for granted.

So- I ask again: Progressive voters- are you going to turn your back on these poor kids, and their families, who are living on less than a subsistance wage? Go right ahead- I hope you sleep well, at night.

Bush still seeks to privatise social security- Kerry opposes this.

Ask your elderly relatives if they'd like their safety net taken over by the same folks who brought you Enron, Tyco, and Halliburton- I have a hard time thinking they'd think this is a very good idea...

A vote against Kerry is a vote to hand our greatest generation's trust fund into the hands of corporate predators.

Bush wants organized, christian prayer in public school- Kerry opposes it. Remember that arcane document, called the "Bill of Rights?" Read the first one- maybe that will fill you in a tad.

If progressives turn their backs on that, they turn their backs on our constitution- hope they can live with that- because I certainly couldn't.

And when it comes to the Bill of Rights- Dig this:

Bush wants to amend our constitution- our founding and most precious document- to exclude millions of our fellow citizens from equal recognition under the law. this would be the first time, since the birth of our republic, that our founding document would be amended to TAKE AWAY RIGHTS from our fellow citizens- If you haven't guessed, I'm talking about his "defense of marriage act", that would prevent states from allowing the issuance of marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.

Kerry opposes this- when progressives turn their backs on Kerry, they turn their backs on these people.

Bush wants to go further than this- not satisfied with denying these fellow citizens the rights of marriage, he wants to deny them the legal rights granted by civil ceremony. Thus- it just ain't a religious issue- this is the systematic legal disenfranchisement of american citizens.

On the other hand, Kerry is in favor of letting gay and lesbian couples the right to enjoy the rights and benefits of civil unions.

Bush wants our tax dollars to go to religious organizations- Kerry doesn't. Again, I refer you to that pesky first amendment.

Now- I could go on and on, folks. You CANNOT TELL ME that there is NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUSH AND KERRY, when it comes to issues that MATTER. I haven't even TOUCHED on bush's mishandling of stem-cell research, national security, the economy, his insane tax cut that has bankrupted the states, and the other virtiginous horrors that have issued forth from this white house.

Now- still- some out there will sweep these differences aside, and say that Kerry STILL isn't lilly-white for them.

Well- to them, I say this: If you're gonna wait around for Jesus Christ, the Dalai Lama, or Nelson Mandella to get the Democratic Nomination, you're gonna have a LONG wait. Progressives have a VESTED INTEREST in backing Kerry.

In the last election in 2000, a lot of us showed our strength by going to the ballot box and voting for Nader. The democratic party stood up and took notice of us, for the first time, in a while.

If, this time around, we put out efforts behind the Kerry/Edwards ticket, they will again stand up and take notice. We will be able to go to the Kerry White house and say: "You owe us one."

again, it needs to be said:

Under Kerry the progressive agenda has a chance to survive

Under Bush, the progressive agenda hasn't a chance in hell.


If you believe in any sort of Progressive reform at all, then vote Kerry. All Presidents are temporary.

exactly

Bush is the wound and Kerry is the bandaid

he doens't fix it he just kinda allows the body (country) to fix itself.

We the people (the red, white and blue blood cells) will be working toward fixing things.

in the interest of full disclosure, i am a kerry supporter, so take this with that in mind...

on big gov vs small gov -- guess what -- these guys are all about getting high paid jobs for their buddies in politics. noone will ever have a small government, so i'd toss this criteria right out the window. (plus, take a look at how many people the government employs from federal right on down to your local level -- if all these people were out of work, we'd be in a heap o' trouble)

war -- the dems don't have a plank in their platform against the war in iraq, that's why there were a few stray delegate votes for kucinich at the convention. besides, we've gone in there are screwed around with that country so much, to leave it as it is right now would be unconsionable.

on the social issues, you seem to fall more towards kerry than bush. i think that bush's efforts to be a uniter and not a divider means having one set of values that he thinks all americans ought to have, and i think that is in conflict with what you seem to be saying below. you seem to have a live and let live attitude, which leans you towards the kerry camp.

i think that mixing politics and science or education is a recipe for disaster, but since that how it is when it comes to funding, i err on the side of dems.

yeah, they're all morons, but i really think that bush is making the u.s look like a bunch of idiots, more than we already do ourselves!

what state are you voting in? is it a swing state? that probably matters more than any other variable you're listing in my book! ;)

Looks to me like you're slightly closer to Kerry. You say probably not on war and you're further away from Bush than Kerry on gay marriage and abortion (on which I think you essentially agree with Kerry).

Yeah, but that whole making the government even bigger thing really counts for alot with me. I may have grown up in Texas, but I don't believe that "bigger is always better" in all cases. ;)

But, you know, maybe I'm just biased because I still want to have a job I can be proud of in 4 years.

Hehe... :D I can appreciate that!

my advice?stockpile some food in your apartement/house,maybe get some friends over with some food and such aswell,pay your rent and utilities,then declare your house,apartement as an idependent nation.If your the only one living there,then thats 100% of the population agreeing to seperate from the states,then they have to listen to you.If they don't buy bombs and guns and refuse to leave the apartement/house untill you are liberated,and maybe take a hostage,like an artifact from a meuseum or something.

Thats just me though.

If you believe in any sort of Progressive reform at all, then vote Kerry. All Presidents are temporary.

While that was a nice, well-written piece, I'm not really a progressive, and the main point for me seems to be the last phrase, which I do try to keep in mind. Thanks though. :)

Mr. Blumrich put it best, IMHO:
I question his credibility for the simple reason that he never heard of the eighteenth amendment.

exactly

Bush is the wound and Kerry is the bandaid

he doens't fix it he just kinda allows the body (country) to fix itself.

We the people (the red, white and blue blood cells) will be working toward fixing things.

That is an interesting metaphor. It actually made me think a little. It didn't end up changing my mind, but I appreciate it.

I question his credibility for the simple reason that he never heard of the eighteenth amendment.

You question an opinion's credibility? How odd ...

The answer I'll give is different if you live in NY, CA, MA or TX, or if you live in PA, FL or OH. If you're in a safe state (not one of the 17-20 the pundits are calling swing states), then you should not throw your vote away by voting for one of these two bozos. You definitely sound like a 3rd party person, probably Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, would be closest to you.

As you can probably guess by my Country name, I'm a Green, and therefore will be supporting and campaigning for David Cobb.

If you are interested in learning a bit about 3rd party candidates, the first debate of the season will be tomorrow (Tues) night at 7pm EST, and include the Green, Libertarian and Constitution party candidates. IT;s supposedly will be on C-SPan (or C-Span2), but I'm not sure if it will be live or shown later.

If you live in a swing state, then vote your conscience. There's almost no way that Kerry can be WORSE than Bush, and will likely be better than Gore would have been, but then I'm coming from a different point of political perspective than you, I think.

Whatever you do, please vote!

While that was a nice, well-written piece, I'm not really a progressive, and the main point for me seems to be the last phrase, which I do try to keep in mind. Thanks though. :)


Oh I dunno .... you said it yourself:

Let the fruits get hitched.

That's Progressive. ;) So, you do have some Progressive leanings. :D

Oh I dunno .... you said it yourself:



That's Progressive. ;) So, you do have some Progressive leanings. :D

Actually, that position comes from my Libertarian leanings.

on gay marriage.See,here the problem.K.In the christian doctrine(and a number of other religion),it says that homosexuality is a sin.now,personally,I don't care if two guys want to go at it.Thats there bussiness,and its not like you choose your sexual orientation anyway.But here,it say that its a sin.Now,the two guys/girls wanna get married in a christian church say for example an simplicity.K.So,say the priest agree to marry them,that fine,no problem.But say the priest does not want to marry them on the grounds of religion and refuses.Then,he opens the possibility for them to sue him,and lets face it theres alot of assholes out there.So these guys gonna sue him for descrimination,and the poor priest has to choose sacrilege or food.how can you make him do that?That is unfair,and even descriminatory against him and his beliefs.That is the problem.So if gay marrige becomes legal in your united states,then they must also proctect the religious leaders.I am rather upset that in my home nation,they neglected to cnsider this.

You question an opinion's credibility? How odd ...
Since when does an opinion warrant the use of the title "his?" I was clearly questioning the credibility of your Eric Blumrich because he though that Bush's idea to amend against gay marriage was the first amendment to be considered that would restrict freedoms. When in fact there is this thing within the ranks of the other constitutional amendments known as prohibition.

Actually, that position comes from my Libertarian leanings.

Well, Libertarians and Progressives do have a lot in common, especially when it comes to social liberties. The differences come in when you look at civic responsibilities. Libertarians tend to believe you can still bootstrap your way to success in the US while Progressives tend to believe in social welfare programs that boost the bootstrap.

I'm a Progressive because I know that in the 1950s, a family of four on a single income could afford a house, a new car every 3 years, and put both kids through college. The average family of four now couldn't even afford a modest house with both parents working 2 jobs and forget college. Times have changed. Hence, we need things like the PELL grant (social welfare), EIC (social welfare), and other programs that give folks a boost.

Myself, I am a Progressive Populist, which makes me about as close to a Socialist/Communist as one can get in the US and still be taken seriously.

I supported Kucinich tooth and nail until the DNC.

in the interest of full disclosure, i am a kerry supporter, so take this with that in mind...

I will. ;)

on big gov vs small gov -- guess what -- these guys are all about getting high paid jobs for their buddies in politics. noone will ever have a small government, so i'd toss this criteria right out the window. (plus, take a look at how many people the government employs from federal right on down to your local level -- if all these people were out of work, we'd be in a heap o' trouble)

Ah, noone will ever have a small government. That's actually a new argument for me. I suppose fatalism is where I should go on this one. ;)

Actually, I think we're in a heap of trouble with all those people employed by the government.

war -- the dems don't have a plank in their platform against the war in iraq, that's why there were a few stray delegate votes for kucinich at the convention. besides, we've gone in there are screwed around with that country so much, to leave it as it is right now would be unconsionable.

Not seeing how Kerry is any better on this, but maybe the fact that there's no difference is your point?

on the social issues, you seem to fall more towards kerry than bush. i think that bush's efforts to be a uniter and not a divider means having one set of values that he thinks all americans ought to have, and i think that is in conflict with what you seem to be saying below. you seem to have a live and let live attitude, which leans you towards the kerry camp.

LOL about the uniter/divider thing.

i think that mixing politics and science or education is a recipe for disaster, but since that how it is when it comes to funding, i err on the side of dems.

I would err on the side of the reps because of that whole small gov thing, but that's just me...

yeah, they're all morons, but i really think that bush is making the u.s look like a bunch of idiots, more than we already do ourselves!

Too true.

what state are you voting in? is it a swing state? that probably matters more than any other variable you're listing in my book! ;)

Indiana.

So if gay marrige becomes legal in your united states,then they must also proctect the religious leaders.I am rather upset that in my home nation,they neglected to cnsider this.

Churches are not required by any law to marry anybody ...... anybody.

If gay marriage is made legal, no Priest of any religious organization will be required to marry gay couples.

Yeah, but that whole making the government even bigger thing really counts for alot with me. I may have grown up in Texas, but I don't believe that "bigger is always better" in all cases. ;)

What evidence do you have that Kerry would make government any bigger then Bush? He certainly couldn't do worse on the national debt, I don't think it's possible.

No one wants to talk about gay marriage?All that work for nothing?Damn,foiled again....


And I can't belive you didn't even consider my advice.

Abortion is legal. The only abortion that Bush has come out against is partial-birth abortion. He has not tried to change abortion laws.

The answer I'll give is different if you live in NY, CA, MA or TX, or if you live in PA, FL or OH. If you're in a safe state (not one of the 17-20 the pundits are calling swing states), then you should not throw your vote away by voting for one of these two bozos. You definitely sound like a 3rd party person, probably Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate, would be closest to you.

As you can probably guess by my Country name, I'm a Green, and therefore will be supporting and campaigning for David Cobb.

If you are interested in learning a bit about 3rd party candidates, the first debate of the season will be tomorrow (Tues) night at 7pm EST, and include the Green, Libertarian and Constitution party candidates. IT;s supposedly will be on C-SPan (or C-Span2), but I'm not sure if it will be live or shown later.

If you live in a swing state, then vote your conscience. There's almost no way that Kerry can be WORSE than Bush, and will likely be better than Gore would have been, but then I'm coming from a different point of political perspective than you, I think.

Whatever you do, please vote!

Thanks for your friendly and well thought out response. I do plan to vote, and I take my responsibility to do so very seriously. I live in Indiana now, which tends to go Republican in national elections.

yes,not legally required to marry anybody,but they can still be sued for descrimination.Their in lies the problem.

yes,not legally required to marry anybody,but they can still be sued for descrimination.Their in lies the problem.

Churches cannot be sued for discrimination as they are private organizations that have requirements for membership.

If discrimination lawsuits were possible, then I could go sue every Christian church in the US that refused to allow me membership because I refuse to become a Christian. Religious discrimination!

It doesn't work that way in the US.

on gay marriage.See,here the problem.K.In the christian doctrine(and a number of other religion),it says that homosexuality is a sin.now,personally,I don't care if two guys want to go at it.Thats there bussiness,and its not like you choose your sexual orientation anyway.But here,it say that its a sin.Now,the two guys/girls wanna get married in a christian church say for example an simplicity.K.So,say the priest agree to marry them,that fine,no problem.But say the priest does not want to marry them on the grounds of religion and refuses.Then,he opens the possibility for them to sue him,and lets face it theres alot of assholes out there.So these guys gonna sue him for descrimination,and the poor priest has to choose sacrilege or food.how can you make him do that?That is unfair,and even descriminatory against him and his beliefs.That is the problem.So if gay marrige becomes legal in your united states,then they must also proctect the religious leaders.I am rather upset that in my home nation,they neglected to cnsider this.


Ridiculous. The Church doesn't even have to marry a couple of opposite genders if it does not think them suitable.

A priest, pastor, or Rabbi can refuse to officiate at a wedding and there is nothing the prospective newlyweds can do except go look for one who WILL marry them.

Church weddings are routinely refused to divorcees, unless they can obtain an annulment. All that allowing gay marriage would do would be to allow CIVIL marriages of same gender couples.

What evidence do you have that Kerry would make government any bigger then Bush? He certainly couldn't do worse on the national debt, I don't think it's possible.

Kerry: Says he wants to give everyone the same healthcare that Congress gets.

Bush: Privatize that sucker!

You don't think it's possible? With American politicians, anything is possible, even honesty on occasion.

No one wants to talk about gay marriage?All that work for nothing?Damn,foiled again....


And I can't belive you didn't even consider my advice.

I did consider it. I just didn't respond to it. If that offended you I apologize.

[QUOTE=HotRodia]
So what do I do? Do I flip a coin? Vote third party in protest? Write-in?
QUOTE]

You might consider laying low in another country for four years 'til your countrymen decide whether they want despotism or democracy...it's been done before, after all.

Move to Sweden?

I was only joking....last time me and my cousins did it,Sherrier ended up shot.But that was partially his fault for saying he had a suicide belt........Anyway,its not Important.

on gay marriage.See,here the problem.K.In the christian doctrine(and a number of other religion),it says that homosexuality is a sin.now,personally,I don't care if two guys want to go at it.Thats there bussiness,and its not like you choose your sexual orientation anyway.But here,it say that its a sin.Now,the two guys/girls wanna get married in a christian church say for example an simplicity.K.So,say the priest agree to marry them,that fine,no problem.But say the priest does not want to marry them on the grounds of religion and refuses.Then,he opens the possibility for them to sue him,and lets face it theres alot of assholes out there.So these guys gonna sue him for descrimination,and the poor priest has to choose sacrilege or food.how can you make him do that?That is unfair,and even descriminatory against him and his beliefs.That is the problem.So if gay marrige becomes legal in your united states,then they must also proctect the religious leaders.I am rather upset that in my home nation,they neglected to cnsider this.

You don't understand the way things work in the US, do you? A church leader cannot be forced to perform a marriage on two straight, white people if he/she wants. The church can decide to marry/not marry whoever it chooses, based on whatever its religion says and the couple has absolutely no basis on which to sue. It is the *government* that has no business denying marriage licenses based on sexual orientation.

All that allowing gay marriage would do would be to allow CIVIL marriages of same gender couples.

Yep ... and there are plenty of churches out there - even Christian churches - that will gladly perform gay marriages if a gay couple wants a religious ceremony.

When I perform gay marriages - which I've been doing in Texas for years - I give the couple an Affirmation of Love certificate and a Letter of Good Standing. Now, this means that only my church - and other churches that recognize my authority - recognizes the marriage.

The State will eventually come around.

However, as it stands, marriage is a State issue, not a religious issue.

Abortion is legal. The only abortion that Bush has come out against is partial-birth abortion. He has not tried to change abortion laws.

*sigh* Of course he hasn't tried to...oh wait...that partial birth abortion ban thing wouldn't change abortion laws by adding to them...would it?

Besides, given his stance on stem cell research and other things, I think he's playing to the middle on that issue.

I think Bush is to the middle on most things. He certainly is not following the right wing.

I think Bush is to the middle on most things. He certainly is not following the right wing.

On that my friend, I agree wholeheartedly.

My advice involves more work for you.
You seem to have the issues that are important to you already figured out, so do your own research in government sites and senatorial and presidential records. It may take some effort but its just as hard to try to filter through the inevitable bias.

If this is not a option for you, picture worst case scenarios. What kind of long term effects could result from either side getting too much of their way.

I too am a fan of small government but in recent decades the repubs have somehow turned into exactly what i despise, legislating on state issues and allowing moral, religious, and personal opinions to dictate their stance on everthing including foriegn diplomacy.

Separation of church and state is falling by the wayside and im afraid that if bush gets four more years he may get his way in infusing his religious beliefs into legislation.
Good Luck and I wish you peace of mind with whatever decision you choose.

Me
Small Government
War? Probably not.
Let the fruits get hitched.
Minimal regulation.
Why is the gov in this again?
You're both morons.
*sigh*

Wow, I've (seriously) never met someone as like-minded as me in politics like you.

*sigh* Of course he hasn't tried to...oh wait...that partial birth abortion ban thing wouldn't change abortion laws by adding to them...would it?

Besides, given his stance on stem cell research and other things, I think he's playing to the middle on that issue.


Re: the abortion issue, you might also consider that whoever is next elected to office may well be responsible for a Supreme Court appointment.

If you see little difference in either major candidate, I'd suggest a careful consideration of the long term damage you assess each as capable of.


Re: health care -- I don't think that Kerry would ever get every citizen the same health care coverage that Congress gets -- I think he's using it as a means of pointing out that the folks making decisions about what needy Americans get have no idea what it's like to be without healthcare.

And really any Medicare/Medicaid policy right now basically is privatized -- once eligible for either, you have to select who your carrier would be, and it's private companies that are administering those benefits for the government. Wonder why it's so expensive to administer? Ask the health insurance companies...

I think Bush is to the middle on most things. He certainly is not following the right wing.

Bush may be in the middle on some things. However, the things that he is illogical and extremist on are all right-wing. And he is certainly for writing religion into government, which tends to be associated with right-wing causes.

RosaRugosa, The problem with healthcare is that those that are not rich, cannot afford the extra burden of carrying anyone beyond welfare recipiants, that do not have healthcare. Most of them are already paying copay for their own healthcare. Democrats time after time have said that they will only tax the rich for these things but that is not what happens. The middleclass always carries the burden. The rich have disposable income, beyond their monthly bills, most of the middle class do not. Even when taxes are distributed throughout the rich and middle class, it is the lower middle class that suffers. You can't put the blame entirely on drug companies. If drug companies do not have extra money, how will they research new cures?

Dempublicents, Please explain your statement."Bush may be in the middle on some things. However, the things that he is illogical and extremist on are all right-wing."

It will help if you are more specific.

Dempublicents, Please explain your statement."Bush may be in the middle on some things. However, the things that he is illogical and extremist on are all right-wing."

It will help if you are more specific.

Let me clarify then, the things that Bush would like to push through that are unconstitutional or stupid generally have to do with the fact that he thinks he has been given divine mandate from God to rule, or are even more completely illogical.

1)He thinks he should push through the partial birth abortion bad without making allowance for the life of the mother because his God told him abortion is bad.
2)He thinks that he should push through an amendment to the Constitution that would write in discrimination because his God told him that gays are bad.
3)He thinks we should go to war on false pretenses because his God told him we needed to get into a holy war and they're all evil anyways. Besides, the country was founded on Christian principles (in the mind of Bush) and history doesn't really matter.
4)He thinks we should start giving government money to religious intitutions because, well I don't know why, but I assume it is because his God said so.
5)Bush's God has told him that stem cell research and environmental protections are bad, so he surrounds himself with advisors that will bow down and agree with him.
6)He thinks that civil liberties don't really matter, as long as the government can arrest whoever it wants and say that it is in the interest of the nation's safety.

All of these causes are associated with the extreme right-wing and Bush's only real reason (except for the war, which may have been a good thing if it weren't so poorly handled) is "God told me to," which holds water with me when you're talking about actions of an individual, but holds none when you are an elected official meant to represent people of all faiths.

Then there are the ones that really make sense, like having the government take in less money, but spend more. I don't think even Bush believes that God told him that one, so where did it come from exactly? That's not even really right-wing traditionally, so where the heck did it come from?
How about the so-called "no child left behind" program. Apparently, Bush thinks that every human being is exactly the same with exactly the same potential to do everything, so obviously teaching towards tests instead of teaching kids how to learn is the way to go. (This one isn't so much right-wing as it just irks me).

Ok, I've just started ranting so I'm going to end here.

RosaRugosa, The problem with healthcare is that those that are not rich, cannot afford the extra burden of carrying anyone beyond welfare recipiants, that do not have healthcare. Most of them are already paying copay for their own healthcare. Democrats time after time have said that they will only tax the rich for these things but that is not what happens. The middleclass always carries the burden. The rich have disposable income, beyond their monthly bills, most of the middle class do not. Even when taxes are distributed throughout the rich and middle class, it is the lower middle class that suffers. You can't put the blame entirely on drug companies. If drug companies do not have extra money, how will they research new cures?

I didn't blame the drug companies, I'm blamed the health insurance industry, but now that you've mentioned it, I do think that giving the corporations that run the drug industry full reign to charge what the market (e.g. other corporations -- health insurance companies) will bear that we will never have afforable health care in the U.S. the way the current system is designed. There is no incentive for profit controls the way it works now, and there sure as heck is no incentive for quality controls when profit is the bottom line. You think all that profit is going into research? Take a look at the prospectus for a drug company and see how much their stockholders are making. Really, it would be nice if it worked that way, however, it just isn't so.

And, since when are private corporations the only places where one can research new cures?

Re: the abortion issue, you might also consider that whoever is next elected to office may well be responsible for a Supreme Court appointment.

I have already.

If you see little difference in either major candidate, I'd suggest a careful consideration of the long term damage you assess each as capable of.

That's a good tip. That would swing me towards Kerry probably. My bet is that he'll be too busy seeing subtleties to do as much harm as Bush.

Re: health care -- I don't think that Kerry would ever get every citizen the same health care coverage that Congress gets -- I think he's using it as a means of pointing out that the folks making decisions about what needy Americans get have no idea what it's like to be without healthcare.

Maybe, but it's still worrisome to me. Good point though.

And really any Medicare/Medicaid policy right now basically is privatized -- once eligible for either, you have to select who your carrier would be, and it's private companies that are administering those benefits for the government. Wonder why it's so expensive to administer? Ask the health insurance companies...

...and have them tell me that it's because they have to go through so much red tape? Meh.

1.Please show me where PBA has saved the life of a mother. If I thought PBA was a legit way to save mothers lives, maybe I will change my mind about how disgusting this practise is. I have heard that it is a bogus excuse.
2.Gays do not have a 'right' to marriage. With the mayor of SF illegally performing gay marriages and the possiblility of marriage in one state legally carrying over to another where it would have been illegal, I think something should be done. Talk about civil unions and maybe we can get it passed. The Republican Party is changing and most of us are moderates on social issues.
3. Show proof of Bush's 'Holy War'. I never heard anything about it. The fight against terrorism and countries that are out to destroy us, is connected to a Holy War, how? Is the country being founded on Christian principles part of this. If so show proof please.
4.Perhaps you should study up on why giving government money to charitable institutions who have great records with rehabilitating the addicted, helping the poor, and educating the young may be a good idea.
5. Bush has encouraged stem cell research. Here is what he said in his own words: Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
I encourage you to read all of it to fully understand his point of view: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

6. I don't understand why you would get that impression. Are you talking about the Patriot Act? What specifically do you not like about it? It was approved by Congress and the Senate, including J. Kerry. Or perhaps it is something different? Please let me know.

I think you are confused about what Bush thinks God told him. If you gave me reputable links then maybe I would understand better.

My advice involves more work for you.
You seem to have the issues that are important to you already figured out, so do your own research in government sites and senatorial and presidential records. It may take some effort but its just as hard to try to filter through the inevitable bias.

I was actually thinking of just writing a personal letter to both Bush and Kerry and tell them my vote is riding on how they answer the questions I pose, but I suspect I'll end up doing the research like you suggested because they'd most likely fail to respond or respond with a load of horseshit.

If this is not a option for you, picture worst case scenarios. What kind of long term effects could result from either side getting too much of their way.

Using that analysis swings me towards Kerry.

I too am a fan of small government but in recent decades the repubs have somehow turned into exactly what i despise, legislating on state issues and allowing moral, religious, and personal opinions to dictate their stance on everthing including foriegn diplomacy.

Separation of church and state is falling by the wayside and im afraid that if bush gets four more years he may get his way in infusing his religious beliefs into legislation.

Amen to that.


Good Luck and I wish you peace of mind with whatever decision you choose.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

Wow, I've (seriously) never met someone as like-minded as me in politics like you.

I'm very sorry. It's good to have like-minded people around so that you can be assured that you are not the only one suffering under the burden of intelligence. ;)

Kerry: Says he wants to give everyone the same healthcare that Congress gets.

That doesn't mean government will get bigger HR, ever hear of reallocating funds? I'm sure there is plenty of pork in Washington that could be cleaned up to pay for universal healthcare. I thought you were some what of a religious person? I can't imagine why you wouldn't think that to be a good thing. Would Jesus privatize healthcare for only those who can afford it? ;)

That doesn't mean government will get bigger HR, ever hear of reallocating funds? I'm sure there is plenty of pork in Washington that could be cleaned up to pay for universal healthcare. I thought you were some what of a religious person? I can't imagine why you wouldn't think that to be a good thing. Would Jesus privatize healthcare for only those who can afford it? ;)
I'd imagine Jesus would do all he could by himself and try to encourage other people to help, but Jesus was never, IIRC, one to force people to do things.

I'd imagine Jesus would do all he could by himself and try to encourage other people to help, but Jesus was never, IIRC, one to force people to do things.

I just find it funny that it seems most very far right religious people endorse the Republicans when most of what they do go against the very teachings of Christ. Irony I'spose!

Me
Small Government
War? Probably not.
Let the fruits get hitched.
Minimal regulation.
Why is the gov in this again?
You're both morons.
*sigh*


Haha.

I just find it funny that it seems most very far right religious people endorse the Republicans when most of what they do go against the very teachings of Christ. Irony I'spose!
Example please?

if i was from the US, id vote for kerry, because even though Jenna bush is fine, shes a lush, and ive never seen her wear clothes like this.

http://www.thefirsttwins.com/kerry.html

(scroll down to the bottom)

I find neither of the major-party candidates even remotely appealing, and have decided this:

In the end, all that I can do is vote my conscience. No such vote is a wasted vote.

That doesn't mean government will get bigger HR, ever hear of reallocating funds? I'm sure there is plenty of pork in Washington that could be cleaned up to pay for universal healthcare.

I'm sure of that too, but the pork won't be cleaned up until I become a communist.

I thought you were some what of a religious person?

Yeah, but then I'm also against people using the government to force their religious views/preferences on other people. (Ditto on what Kwangi said.)

I can't imagine why you wouldn't think that to be a good thing. Would Jesus privatize healthcare for only those who can afford it? ;)

If he runs for president I'll vote for him and we'll find out. ;)

I find neither of the major-party candidates even remotely appealing, and have decided this:

In the end, all that I can do is vote my conscience. No such vote is a wasted vote.

um, did you see my link? the election will be rigged anyway, youve already seen that. go for the one with the most promising first daughter i say. Get her drunk on power and then have unsanctimoniously dirty sex with her in every room the white house has to offer.

now thats logic. :D

I just find it funny that it seems most very far right religious people endorse the Republicans when most of what they do go against the very teachings of Christ. Irony I'spose!

It's incredibly ironic, and it disgusts me.

1.Please show me where PBA has saved the life of a mother. If I thought PBA was a legit way to save mothers lives, maybe I will change my mind about how disgusting this practise is. I have heard that it is a bogus excuse.

Considering that it is, by definition, a late-term abortion, it can only be used in cases where the mother's health is in danger in pretty much every state. Even if there has never been a single case where it was necessary (which there has), then you would still need a clause with an exception for life of the mother in case there ever was one.

If you don't believe me, read the Roe v. Wade decision and then go looking through state laws.

2.Gays do not have a 'right' to marriage. With the mayor of SF illegally performing gay marriages and the possiblility of marriage in one state legally carrying over to another where it would have been illegal, I think something should be done. Talk about civil unions and maybe we can get it passed. The Republican Party is changing and most of us are moderates on social issues.

Nobody has the "right" to marriage. However, since the government has seen fit to provide for a contract between two people who wish to be seen as one legal entity by the government, that contract can not be denied simply on the basis of sexual orientation. Civil unions, are, by definition, nothing but civil marriage. Why call it a different name just because you don't like gays?

3. Show proof of Bush's 'Holy War'. I never heard anything about it. The fight against terrorism and countries that are out to destroy us, is connected to a Holy War, how? Is the country being founded on Christian principles part of this. If so show proof please.

The fight against terrorism is one thing. The fighting in Iraq is another. And Bush is using the same "winning the hearts and minds of the people" line that this country heard from Johnson when he was fighting the great evil of Communism. Bush has, on more than one occasion, said that "God called him" to do this and has tried to state that our country is a Christian one. All this does is solidify the view of the insurgents in Iraq (and terrorists in other countries) that this is, indeed, a holy war.

4.Perhaps you should study up on why giving government money to charitable institutions who have great records with rehabilitating the addicted, helping the poor, and educating the young may be a good idea.

And indoctrinating them? A religious institution that does these things should only be entitled to government money if they are equal-oportunity employers, do not indoctrinate their charges into their religion in any way, and provide help to anyone who walks in off the street and needs it. However, with many or even most religious institutions, these three requirements are not met. Therefore, they have to run off the funds donated by like-minded people, not by the government which should be separated from their faith.

5. Bush has encouraged stem cell research. Here is what he said in his own words: Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations.

That's because Bush doesn't understand how research works. Nothing will produce great cures and treatments within 8 years, even when Bush isn't putting undue limits on the research. People need to realize that research takes time. We know some of the potential of stem cells, and that is great, but we need time to understand the ways to differentiate reproducibly down the lines we want. That takes time.

Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.

Yeah, I've heard the quote. But great care doesn't = only private industry can do it. In fact, those two are the exact opposite.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

Theoretically, they would have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, if and only if they were kept exactly as they would be inside the body. Guess what? We don't have the technology to be that exact. Each and every one of these cell lines has been grown on a mouse feeder layer, in oxygen levels way above those seen in the body. Those that have been karyotyped have already demonstrated changes in genetic makeup.

Not to mention, the quote even says "private research." How many private companies do you think are handing out stem cells like candy to the researchers that need them? How many do you think will give them out even for loads of money and an agreement to not share research with others?

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

But were going to be frozen and then destroyed anyways. There really isn't a moral dillemna here. It is either incinerate or use them.

As for Bush's so-called "leading scientists," it has been shown that Bush purposely surrounds himself with scientific advisors with little to no standing in their field just because they are the ones willing to tell him what he wants to hear. So, I don't trust that he really spoke to even a single "leading scientist." After all, he might not like what they said!

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1322
and, for an update:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
I encourage you to read all of it to fully understand his point of view: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html

Considering that I am currently working on adult stem cell research, I understand that progress can be made down these avenues. But that is not a reason to cut off other fruitful lines of study. This point of view is like saying we should have researched the nuclear bomb, but not nuclear power, since the nuclear bomb was gonna be a really big thing.

6. I don't understand why you would get that impression. Are you talking about the Patriot Act? What specifically do you not like about it? It was approved by Congress and the Senate, including J. Kerry. Or perhaps it is something different? Please let me know.

The Patriot Act is certainly an example. It was pushed through Congress in an atmosphere of fear - the same atmosphere that the Bush administration seems to want to propagate.

Do what I would probably do given the oppertunity. Vote for someone who isn't running. Colin Powell and John Edwards I think would make decent presidents, but neither are running. Edwards tried, but didn't manage it. Sad. Anyway, if you still can't decide, I'm thinking Mickey Mouse. I mean, he's 35 years old, a resident of the USA for over 14 years and was certainly born here. Maybe he isn't running, but don't you think that other countries would be scared enough to wet themselves if a slap stick cartoon character controled 3,600 nuclear warheads?

Ah well, I just think you're screwed personally. Jesus! Four more years!

-R. S. of UC

Thanks for your friendly and well thought out response. I do plan to vote, and I take my responsibility to do so very seriously. I live in Indiana now, which tends to go Republican in national elections.
Check this out
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Looks like Indiana is not a swing state. Vote Libertarian without guilt!

1.Please show me where PBA has saved the life of a mother. If I thought PBA was a legit way to save mothers lives, maybe I will change my mind about how disgusting this practise is. I have heard that it is a bogus excuse.

there are no registries of those who have had abortions so you cant do a poll to see if their reasons meet your requirements of being serious enough.

partial birth abortion is the most horrible form of abortion, its not done lightly. no one wakes up one day and says "i think ill kill my baby today instead of waiting a month and delivering it more safely and easily" and if she did, she couldnt find a doctor to perform this procedure. its done after the doctor informs the parents that its necessary. and ban or no ban these babies will still be aborted because it has to be done.

in better answer to your question, i say a woman on tv speaking one day. she had gone in front of a senate committee to testify about the worst day of her life, the day her doctor told her she needed to abort the baby she had been eagerly awaiting the birth of. i really cant imagine the pain of getting news like that. after telling her story, she was shocked that several senators berated her for doing what medically had to be done. she couldnt believe that the didnt accept that it was not anything she had ever wanted to do.

but anyway

there is one more important thing to factor in

congress will still be controlled by the republicans

this is why all the worst excesses of george bush have been enacted.

if kerry gets elected his biggest changes dont have a chance in hell of getting through. there will be no universal health care. it wont get enough votes.

if kerry wants to get ANYTHING done, he will have to do what bill clinton did (not THAT, you perv!) he'll have to push through the moderate reasonable plans that both parties agree with. remember the balanced budget? that only happened because it used to be a republican basic notion. there are all sorts of reasonable changes that can get through if kerry is willing to work with the other party like clinton was.

its not my biggest reason for voting kerry, but its something you might want to keep in mind.

HotRodia, in the name of all that is holy, vote for Michael Badnarik.

HotRodia, in the name of all that is holy, vote for Michael Badnarik.

Yes! Do it! Peer pressure!

... wait.