Presidential Election.

  • Chitwood46
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Posts: 145
    #319469

    I should apologize for this but I won’t.
    Robotic Barber

    A popular Des Moines Barber shop had a new robotic barber installed.

    A fellow came in for a haircut. As the robot began to cut his hair it asked

    him, “What’s your IQ?”

    The man replied, “130.” So the robot proceeded to make conversation about
    physics, astronomy,
    investments, insurance, and so on. The man listened intently and said,
    “This is really cool.”

    Later, another gent came in for a haircut and the robot asked him as it
    began the haircut, “What’s
    your IQ?”

    The man responded, “100.” So the robot started talking about football,
    baseball, and so on. The
    man thought to himself, “Wow, this is really cool.”

    Later on, a third guy came in to the barber shop. As with the others, the
    robot barber asked him,
    “What’s your IQ?”

    The man replied, “70.”

    The robot then said, “So, I understand you Democrats are really excited
    about John Kerry!”

    ptc
    Apple Valley/Isle, MN
    Posts: 614
    #319470

    Offering criticism does not in and of itself make the critic bad. For instance, Gary, you just questioned the courage of a decorated combat veteran. Silver Star, Bronze Star and 3 Purple Hearts. I know I know W’s campaign would have you believe that they were not earned and that Sen Kerry had army doctors plant shrapnel in his body because he planned on running for president someday. If he was not couragous he must be one hell of a planner.

    gary_wellman
    South Metro
    Posts: 6057
    #319475

    No dude……….not at all………….

    And to top it off……….Bush has no involvment with the ads against the senator and his service……Bush has even asked the senator if he would agree to removing all ads that neithor party endorses………So, Bush has nothing to do with it…….Kerry declined the offer, and the liberals slammed Bush for not removing the ad, that he has no control over…….

    The french have gone out of their way, not only in NOT supporting us, but becoming stop-blocks in our efforts. They are not an ally………We have been defending their butt for 50 years in Europe, for them to only raise their noses at us………

    What would of happened if we would of just faught the Japs, and not the Germans…………There would be no France, and to this day, they have no appreciation for what this country has done for them………All they do is get in our way………..I say, take em out, and stake our flag there!!!!!!!

    As for Kerry’s service record………………
    Why is it ok to ask, and wrong not to make public; Bush’s service record, but when Kerry’s service record gets challenged, it is wrong to ask and right not to make public……….Huh???

    The reason why Bush’s service record is not being made public, is soley for the fact that I can explain, along with any other reservist, as to why it isn’t a big deal for the “potential” time not served……..

    Many reservist/guardsman miss their obligated weekends, because of personal affairs. This is so popular, to the point that you are allowed “AAs” (authorized absense). If you get too many absences, they are called “UAs” (unauthorized absense). You are allowed 6 UAs a year before it becomes an issue with your commanding officer……….So, if Bush missed 1 quarter (or 3 months), that would be 6 “As”, and even if it was UAs, 6 is the authorized amount before you are subject to disciplinary action…………So, if you are concerned that Bush was AWOL for 3 months………..well…..so have alot of other reservist/guardsman…………..most of them………….

    As for the senator………Well, there are challenging statements going about his service record, that he will not address. He has made false statements about them (Cambodia, on Christmas in ’68, when Nixon was Pres……..Nixon wasn’t pres at that time………) Kerry also made disturbing comments/statements about his fellow soldiers in Vietnam, in the sense they were “Gingis” Kahn in the aspect of rape, torture, pillage, stealing, genocide, etc…….That the NVA used against our soldiers in POW camps……..

    Now;
    With all of this jazz said………who really cares………I don’t care what he did in Vietnam. However Kerry does………Why, because it is the only thing he appears to be praising himself on. He is calling himself a war hero, after he threw away his medals……….That fits his personality, because he votes for something, after he doesn’t vote for it………

    My concern about Kerry isn’t his war record 30 years ago……..My concern about the senator is his VOTING record over the past 20 years in the senate……….To this date, he has nothing to brag about for his time served in the senate…..And since there is no solid voting record to go from, how do WE (you and me) know what the guy will do in office………he has no track record……….

    raysresort
    Sauk City, WI
    Posts: 86
    #319479

    First off, I don’t care what Bush says about the ads against Kerry. I have no doubt he was involved in it. It’s a republican group for gawd sakes with members of Bush’s party leading the charge.

    Not that it matters, you’re right. Both parties play that game. Always have.

    As for the French, they went WAY beyond “not supporting” us in Iraq and even so far as SUPPORTING Iraq in the way of sophisticated radar detection systems among other things even AFTER we were already there.

    The French can eat our …you know what, as far as I’m concerned.

    But even that isn’t enough to spare the French!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5756110/

    nate-cadwell
    Rochester, Mn
    Posts: 498
    #319488

    you know Kerry does not have any track record but I would say Track records are like Credit no records is better than bad records and as far as Bush goes his record aint to hot.
    I can not agree with one thing that bush did these past 4 years not the war not anything. especially because of the fact that several people that we know are in Iraq or dead for no reason. and as far as religion goes keep it out of politics. just like it is kept out of schools and everything else and for good reason.
    you know the greatest memorie I have of the past 4 years while no good Bush was in office is right after 9/11 Bush came on public TV and addressed the nation. for a whopping 5 minutes than an hour later they had a 2hour interveiw with Bill Clinton by the way who was our president at that time. thats right Bush.

    P.S. sense there was a post posted on where to buy Bush and Cheney signs can someone post a link guiding me where to buy a bumper sticker that says don’t blame me I voted for Gore.

    3425522624
    Waterloo, IA
    Posts: 129
    #319491

    As far as this Yank is concerned, not one thin dime nor drop of precious American blood should ever be spent to save the worthless “kiester” of another cowardous French ingrate!!

    Gianni
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts: 2063
    #319494

    Quote:


    It’s sad that after over 200 years as an unwavering ally we have deamonized the french because they choose not to join us in invading Iraq.


    American Revolution: Ally
    The Quasi-War (or ‘xyz affiar’): Enemy
    War of 1812: Indirect ally (both fighting Britain)
    Mexican War: No involvement
    Spanish-American War: No significant involvement
    WW I: Ally
    WW II: Ally (well, ally, enemy, then ally in the post-war)
    Vietnam (the French war): US Refuses to intervene
    Korea: Ally
    Cold War: Ally
    Vietnam (the US war): France refuses to intervene
    Lybia: France refuses use of airspace to US
    Gulf War 1: Ally
    Gulf War 2: Obstructionists

    Their record is pretty good when they’re facing an enemy that would crush them without breaking a sweat. To be fair, when it comes to terrorism they cannot afford to really involve themselves in the WOT due to the large population of Islamic radicals that call France home. Interesting that recent events have shown how their friendship to the Iraqis has been repaid: Two French journalists were kidnapped last week… because they didn’t stop the US? No, because the French have banned headgear in schools and muslim women are prohibited from wearing scarves. (Gianni note: These are just the people we want to negotiate for our lives with.)

    Quote:


    Now that it is evident that no ties ever existed


    It is not evident to anyone but you. The September 11th commission report says that there are ties between Iraqi intelligence and Al Queda, but no direct link to the events of 9/11.

    Can we all get on board with this, and quit hyperextending that conclusion in order to dissolve any and all of the documented links between terrorists and Iraqi officials?

    Quote:


    a majority of the American public wonders what exactly it is we risked the lives of American soldiers.


    A majority of our leaders voted to fight the WOT on the streets of cities with names like Baghdad or Fallujah instead of names like Chicago or New York. Claims that it would have or would never have happened are real crystal-ball/Ms Cleo stuff. If a majority of the people now want to vote those officials out of office, then so be it… that’s how our system of government works.

    The fact is that the president and his national security team have an immense amount of information available to them that we will never see. It is fair to question thier judgement, but we should always hedge our Monday morning quarterbacking with equivocations and weasel-words like, “knowing what I know…”

    nate-cadwell
    Rochester, Mn
    Posts: 498
    #319498

    never thought I would say there are some blondes smarter than some of our nations leaders

    Steve Plantz
    SE MN
    Posts: 12240
    #319516

    Quote:


    and as far as religion goes keep it out of politics. just like it is kept out of schools and everything else and for good reason.


    This is an editorial written by an American citizen, published in a Tampa newspaper He did quite a job; didn’t he? Read on, please!

    Will we still be the Country of choice and still be America if we continue to make the changes forced on us by the people from other countries that came to live in America because it is the Country of Choice??????

    Think about it.

    All I have to say is, when will they do something about MY RIGHTS? I celebrate Christmas, but because it isn’t celebrated by everyone, we can no longer say Merry Christmas. Now it has to be Season’s Greetings. It’s not Christmas vacation, it’s Winter Break. Isn’t it amazing how this winter break ALWAYS occurs over the Christmas holiday? We’ve gone so far the other way, bent over backwards to not offend anyone, that I am now being offended. But, it seems that no one has a problem with that.

    I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Americans. However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the “politically correct” crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others.

    I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to America. Our population is almost entirely made up of descendants of immigrants. However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, needs to understand. This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom.

    We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, learn the language!

    “In God We Trust” is our national motto. This is not some Christian, right wing, political slogan… We adopted this motto because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

    If Stars and Stripes offend you, or you don’t like Uncle Sam, then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don’t care how you did things where you came from. This is OUR COUNTRY,our land and our lifestyle. Our First Amendment gives every citizen the right to express his opinion and we will allow you every opportunity to do so. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about our flag,our pledge, our national motto, or our way of life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great American freedom,
    THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.

    nate-cadwell
    Rochester, Mn
    Posts: 498
    #319532

    Steve
    I have to agree with that article almost 100%
    I do believe that we speak english and so should everyone else I also believe that everyone should believe in the stars and stripes heck I even have a flag on my wall that is bigger than the perkins flag.
    what I was getting at with the religion factor was I do not think that it should be brought up in politics just for the fact that no one can tell me one religion is better than another or there religion is right and mine is wrong. just like the Republicans will vote for the Republicans and us Democrats will vote for well the right guy LOL
    as far as politics go I believe the canidates should stick with the facts and what they can do for our country. who cares what religion they are does it make someone a better canidate whether they are catholic or lutheran or Jewish or whatever else I dont think it does.
    just my two sense.
    and keeping religion out of schools I support 100%
    but I can also remember a time that I wore a AMERICAM FLAG T-shirt to school and was asked to take it off or Leave. well I chose to stay. and the consequenses were rediculous. Now that is BS

    kooty
    Keymaster
    1 hour 15 mins to the Pond
    Posts: 18101
    #319543

    I have to ask, do you truly believe Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on our country in the last 10 years?? I’m not happy our friends and neighbors are overseas, away from their families, but I also believe I would rather fight terroristic countries on their turf, not mine.

    Do I think president Bush is the savior for our country, No. Was president Clinton, hell no. He may have had the economy sailing, but look what he did for to our military. He is a major reason so many reservist are in Iraq right now.

    Do I think we need to rid the world of terrorism, YES. Do I think it’s possible to erradicate it completely, no. If you think the radical muslim world didn’t wage war on us on Sept 11, pull your head out of the sand. They brought the fight to us, and GW has the brassies to take them on.

    I’ll take another 4 with Bush.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #319545

    Quote:


    you know Kerry does not have any track record but I would say Track records are like Credit no records is better than bad records and as far as Bush goes his record aint to hot.


    John Kerry has a 19 year voting record as a Senator. No track record??? Wow is all I can say….WOW!

    Steve Plantz
    SE MN
    Posts: 12240
    #319546

    I hear ya Nate. I guess the reason I want to know where the candidates stand on religion is I want to know if there moral values are the same as mine. I agree with you that just because a candidate is a certain religion does not make him better than another for the job. As for religion in schools well I guess that’s why I send my daughter to a Lutheran school where they can still say the pledge of allegiance, they are allowed to pray, and they learn about God every day. I understand that in the public schools you can not teach one religion to a diverse group of people, but it really makes me sad that the kids in the public schools can not even say the pledge of allegiance anymore.

    DaveB
    Inver Grove Heights MN
    Posts: 4443
    #319551

    Kerry supporters….

    Hate to beat a dead horse, but how do you feel about the FACT that Kerry’s own diary from Vietnam mentioned that their boat had not met any hostile fire AFTER the date of his 1st purple heart. He has now ADMITTED that is 1st purple heart was self inflicted (he didnt do it on purpose, but he did do it to himself).

    With all of this talk about his war record, he really has not defended his story. Instead he has called on Bush to MAKE the swift boat veterans stop running the ads.

    I am a biased, die hard Republican, but still, it sounds to me like one person keeps changing his story while the other side is steadfast. Why do we question his service record????? Because HE has not given us a reason NOT to.

    Explain the inaccuracies and lets move on to current issues. The only reason these attacks have been so effective is because Kerry is making such a big deal about them.

    Bush will win the election because Kerry is a blue blooded liberal. 6 months of campaigning is not long enough to erase a 20 year voting record outside of mainstream America.

    krisko
    Durand, WI
    Posts: 1364
    #319553

    I’m not into politics and this will be my only post because of the fact you keep calling Kerry a die hard “LIBERAL” Have any of you looked it up in the dictionary. If he is a liberal and Bush a conservative and that is the opposite of liberal. I would vote for Kerry. Some people need to quit watching TV commercials and adds and look into things themselves. Our society is too dependent on what others say or see. Just look at the facts and you’ll vote for who you want based on that. Please don’t vote because of ads and what others are saying.

    Just my opinion and don’t support either really, but I know who I will vote for and why. Thanks for listening.

    mossboss
    La Crescent, MN
    Posts: 2792
    #319555

    Personally, I think what this country needs a 3rd party, a moderate party. I often find myself aligning with guys like McCain, who seems to vote whatever way he feels on the issues, even if it goes against party lines. I find myself aligned with the Republican platform probably about 60% of the time, the Dems 40%.

    I have friends who I think of as “Rushies”, guys who would support the party line no matter what the issue. Most of the time, they seem like a bunch of lemmings to me ready to march in line right to and over the cliff just to always support the party line. The radical liberals, aka Mike Moore, I find the most annoying.

    Anywho, any other moderates out there?

    scottsteil
    Central MN
    Posts: 3817
    #319556

    Hey Waterfowler, you may want to look at the statement “Clinton had the economy sailing”

    Personally, I don’t give him credit for that. He was the beneficiary of a growing economy and got to spend 7 years reaping the benefit. Just before his last year in office it started running out of gas as he/congress spent it into the tank.

    I predicted the president (Gore or Bush) would be a one term and out, because of the impending recession we were facing the last year Clinton was in office. However, the economy seems to be on the rebound and you won’t hear much about it as a campaign issue, as neither party really wants to touch the subject.

    raysresort
    Sauk City, WI
    Posts: 86
    #319563

    Quote:


    Personally, I think what this country needs a 3rd party, a moderate party. I often find myself aligning with guys like McCain, who seems to vote whatever way he feels on the issues, even if it goes against party lines. I find myself aligned with the Republican platform probably about 60% of the time, the Dems 40%.

    I have friends who I think of as “Rushies”, guys who would support the party line no matter what the issue. Most of the time, they seem like a bunch of lemmings to me ready to march in line right to and over the cliff just to always support the party line. The radical liberals, aka Mike Moore, I find the most annoying.

    Anywho, any other moderates out there?


    I’ll go along with this any day of the week! I also would’ve voted McCain over either of the two losers we have running!

    skhartke
    Somerset, WI
    Posts: 1416
    #319566

    [quote
    I’ll go along with this any day of the week! I also would’ve voted McCain over either of the two losers we have running!



    I couldn’t agree with you more!

    DaveB
    Inver Grove Heights MN
    Posts: 4443
    #319568

    We dont need a 3rd party, what we need are 2 different parties. The casual observers to politics that only pay attention come election time (which is fine, dont get me wrong) here the same message from both parties. Bush says, vote for me, strong against terrorist, more of the same. Kerry says, just what he said, but I will be smarter.

    Then once these guys get into office, their true colors come out. Clinton made lots of promises, didnt really accomplish hardly anything, maybe it was the Rep congress, maybe it was that he really didnt WANT too. However, the court system and judicial activism we have today is a result of Willy’s appointees.

    To you 3rd party people, McCain wouldnt offer anything different. Forbes, Nader, Perot, those guys offered NEW ideas. McCain, although well liked and respected, would just be another candidate (who lost to Bush in 2000 remember).

    mossboss
    La Crescent, MN
    Posts: 2792
    #319578

    Lost to Bush in the Republican race, not the overall race.

    To me, that is precisely why we need 3 parties. In many states, you must be a registered Republican or Democrat to vote in the primaries or participate in the caucuses. The voters in these elections tend to be decidedly more “left or right” than the swing voters and independents. Also, a guy like McCain, who has often butted heads with guys in his own party, are at a political disadvantage in getting votes from hard core party voters. You also notice, when a party is not in the office, they tend to choose the more moderate candidate (as in Kerry over Dean this year). Though both Bush and McCain were pretty moderate in 2000. I think part of McCain’s doing his speech last night was an attempt to grease the wheels for a run in 2008.

    I like McCain becuase he is hard core conservative on some issues (like pro-choice), but is not afraid to go against the grain on other issues. And, I often find his views align more than often with mine.

    An often overlooked part of a candidate is just his charisma, and leadership appeal. Reagan was the kind of guy, and speaker, that people could just get behind. Clinton also had a certain charisma of a leader. Gore had none of this, and I think it is what cost him in 2000. Buch to me comes off as a dumb backwoods hick. Keery comes off as a wishy-washy snob. McCain just seems confident and a leader. The president is the guy who is the face of our nation to the world. That is one of his top job descriptions.

    Maybe McCain wouldn’t offer anything new. But maybe he would be an improvement on what is in place? When I say 3rd party, I’m not loking for radical change. In fact, by suggesting a moderate party, I am thinking along the lines of someone non-partisan, and certainly not Nader like.

    I don’t really listen to any of what these guys say until they start talking specific details. You are right, they both spout the same crap, or even totally opposite crap, but no ideas of how to impliment it.

    stillakid2
    Roberts, WI
    Posts: 4603
    #319584

    List one good thing Bush did in office? How about that tax cut? We loved it when the check arrived but now it’s critcized as being part of our economic struggling and budget concerns. That move was made before 9/11 and the events of that tragic day only added to an already deflating economic status. The presidents…….. HELLO! Get this……. do NOT control the economy. Congress controls interest rates and investors react in kind to this, but the rest is in business operation. We can talk about jobs overseas and yadda, yadda, yadda……. but congress has WAY more influence in economic issues than the actual president does. I don’t blame Bush for this economy because I can’t. I can’t do that anymore than I can credit Billy for the booming 90’s! Who set up that economic growth? If you cling to political control, it was set up by a 12 year run of Republicans running the Oval office. If that’s what gave Billy an easy economy, why aren’t we begging the Republicans to get us back on track? Wasted breath.

    As for religion in politics, this country was founded on those principles and if you want that thrown out the window, throw your flag in the trash. Both are equally unpatriotic and here’s why: If you observe any religion at all, no matter the style or god, you base your life upon something greater than this physical realm. If you observe nothing, you must borrow all of history’s values from those that do believe in something greater….. it’s ABSOLUTE truth. You can be an atheist if you want, but it’s still true. Humanism is foundationless and is without direction. It has no solutions or answers but wants to resist all entities of established order. Be an individual, do as you see fit, live and let live. Where there is no order, there is chaos. Period.

    Order was established for the freedom of the people. We said in the beginning that if you do not agree with these things, you were free to not observe them. But today, we’re being told we can’t exercise them. THAT is the most BOGUS definition of freedom I’ve ever heard! The minute you can’t exercise what you believe in, you’re no longer free and slavery begins again. I don’t want anyone in the presidency who’s personal belief or cabinet’s values agree in the making of more laws to PROHIBIT exercise. To take away my freedom to exercise my personal beliefs is persecution. Atheists, humanists, any non-Christian faith, even cults…… benefit in this prohibition because it enslaves me. By taking my exercise, the exercises of the unbelieving are being forced upon me. How is it proper for a people who professed the Holy God first and formost, to establish a country where those who were unlike them were welcomed to exercise their own choices, only to have future generations proclaim that it’s wrong, improper, and unbecoming to be like those who originally brought this to the entire world?

    A religious sect founded the very pillars of this free world, and those who still cling to that establishment are being targeted as being offensive, unfair, and even foolish.

    I’d rather work for peanuts and live FREE than have material riches under the ever growing socialistic practices that are being jammed down my throat and ever choking my freedom in it’s grip. My God died and rose again to give EVERYONE a free world, to accept or deny, in a definitive age of grace. In other words, I want you all to have the choice to believe or not to believe as I do, but don’t take away my right to practice my belief just because I’m different or part of a national “majority”. This is all I defend first and formost and why I’m behind our current president. Bush opened the doors for faith based groups….. not just mine, yours too. Who else has done this? I beg for answer! WHO?

    I have but one question… more freedom or less freedom? Some think that the abandonment of religious practices is the establishment of freedom…….. but it’s constrictive law making, that continues to drive our country into the ground. These decisions effect business, which effects economy, which effects the moral of the people, which effects the involvement of government, which leads to mandated restriction, which leads to effecting business, that effects economy…….. and round and round we go. The greater the government, the lesser the freedom. This is true in every country, in every economic system, that EVER was established throughout history.

    If we don’t preserve this, this precious gem called freedom, that we’ve been given to preserve and protect, we will only add our country’s name to that historic list. Do a Google search on this guys…….. find something different. Show me I’m wrong here.

    The issues over in Iraq……. I had the priviledge of talking with a serving vet in this war last week as I was getting 2 new tires placed on my vehicle. He was in the waiting room with me. As we began to small talk, it became quickly evident that he knows something about this whole ordeal. I didn’t pry too much because I knew he wouldn’t tell me everything, but I learned that he’s disgusted with the Americans who think Iraq was a waste of time. He claimed that just because we didn’t find the WMD, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist. We gave them too much to time bury the stockpiles in the desert sands. He said we should’ve just finished it back in ’91. We should’ve ousted Saddam then. Saddam used, without question of evidence, the products he produced on some Iraqi peoples. He invaded a country once, what guaranty did ANYONE have that he’d never attack people beyond his borders again? None.

    I’ve grown tired of watching us send soldiers over there, only to have us crying over conditions at home. What if someone was bombing your town, your city, on a daily basis? Would you be concerned about the future? The Iraqi’s want what we’re trying to give them, but there are those who oppose this with hatred and it’s confusing the people about the value of freedom, because it is coming at a very high price. This is also taking place on our own soils. There are those who oppose my beliefs with the same hatred, and it confuses the value over price that demands to be paid. No one said it’d be easy, but those founding leaders have asked all future generations to pay any price necessary for the preservation of this republic. My beliefs support that, so they’re going to be intertwined with my reasoning. My president is willing to do this at the cost of being popular.

    Kerry has to make himself popular and it’s an easy target because when you know where somebody stands, you know what buttons you can push.

    To say that these are the worst two candidates history, I ask this: Which of us…….. any of us…… are truly fit to run that office? Certainly not me because I would base everything on the preservation and expansion of freedom, the way it given, the way it was intended. The man we have now is closer to that than conviction, committment, and devotion than his challenger is. I need no other issues. I need no other hoopla. The media is wasting their time with me because the records show clearly who carries my interest. That’s not a blind action or decision. That’s a very focused one. That’s not lemming cliff diving. It’s not a monkey see, monkey do. I’m actually bucking a very ferocious wind and I feel alone more often than I feel part of any majority or company. But I’ve learned not to confuse the issues. Economies cycle. How’s our freedom doing? Everyone has flaw, makes a mistake, gets misrepresented, misinterpreted, and so on, and so on……. how’s our freedom doing?

    I’d like for anyone, anywhere, to show how my freedom is growing in this country. How will it grow under this new leardership, if elected? Freedom is not always prosperity. How is my freedom growing? Last I checked, and it just checked this morning, it’s still on the decline and I’m facing a candidacy of future representation who doesn’t even address this real and historic position. He’s too busy criticizing things that were put in place long before Bush or his administration ever took office and laying the blame for purposes of popularity. That’s the politcal game in a nutshell. I don’t care what slop the Republicans find on Kerry. That’s just part of the game, practiced and forced by both sides. But when I consider the man, his core, and the one thing dearer to us than anything else, it’s not in alignment with history’s examples, experiences, recommendations, or my interests for a future America. The fact that there’s even argument over war service says that that duping is working. Either they’ll force you to choose one of two over exposed nothingness, or they’ll get you to become so disgusted that you won’t do anything at all.

    Somebody has to run for office. It’s the way it is. But to say that “this is the best America can come up with” only supports that the PROBLEM isn’t in the leadership, it’s in the values of the PEOPLE.

    So here it is again. Today’s question, to get at the heart of it all, how’s our freedom doing?

    kooty
    Keymaster
    1 hour 15 mins to the Pond
    Posts: 18101
    #319588

    Your right Scott, I should have stated it as he reaped the benefits of a good economy. Just ask any Democrat, they will tell how great of a president he was. God forbid his nazi gun stealing freak of a wife ever gets elected.

    mossboss
    La Crescent, MN
    Posts: 2792
    #319593

    Just for some clarification on your post kid:

    How are my freedoms being taken away today? And if they are, with a Republican congress and President currently in office, how will this get better by electing the same as today? How will they get worse with Kerry? What has he said that would take away right to expression of religion, or other freedoms? Or is your point large government in general suppresses freedom?

    Wasn’t one of the founding fathers chief reasons for creation of their country to have a nation where their choice of religion was not assigned to them by a sovereign, government, or majority decision?

    I agree fully that this country is founded upon principles created in a Christian based society. I also agree freedom of expression should not be suppressed. However, how close to you let the line get from expression to oppression? Should kids be allowed to pray in school if they want? I would say so. But say 26 kids in a class are Catholic, and 2 kids are Jewish and one is Hindu. Now, when it gets to the point that the expression of religion by the 26 becomes oppression and outcast of the 3 non-believers solely because of their beliefs, and their ability to function in a public, government funded school is oppressed because of their religion, does a line need to be drawn? What if the shoe was one the other foot? IF 23 Muslims are in a class with 3 Christians, and the expression of the Muslim faith becomes a problem in a public arena, what then?

    I don’t disagree with your general point when it comes to the suppression of religious expression for Christians in todays society (I don’t think), but it is a fine line to walk, and one I think needs to be tread carefully.

    DaveB
    Inver Grove Heights MN
    Posts: 4443
    #319594

    Just for the record, Dean and Gephart are much more moderate than Kerry. Edwards in only slightly more moderate. Kerry, historically, has voted more liberal than even Ted Kennedy, only Wellstone was rated more liberal than Kerry prior to his passing.

    Gianni
    Cedar Rapids, IA
    Posts: 2063
    #319595

    Quote:


    I’m not into politics and this will be my only post because of the fact you keep calling Kerry a die hard “LIBERAL” Have any of you looked it up in the dictionary. (sic)


    Perhaps you’re using the wrong dictionary. From American Government, Essentials and Perspectives, Holmes, Englehardt, Elder:

    Quote:


    Liberalism

    Modern liberalism made its first strong appearance in the United States with the progressive movement of the late ninetheenth and early twentieth centuries. Backed by urban middle-class professionals and small businessmen, the progressives supported tighter regulation of big business and some limited social welfare programs like worker’s compensation. Progressives were active in both political parties and ran third-party campaigns in 1912 and 1924, but, since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, liberalism has been mostly in the Democratic party. For most of the past half-century the Democratic party has been the majority party among those who vote in the United States, so the liberal reformers whose historic role has been to question and criticize established institutions have in a sense become the “establishment” themselves (Gianni note: Ha ha).

    .
    What distinguishes the perspecitve we now call liberalism from early liberalism is this changed view o fhte proper role of government. Modern liberals continue to see concentrated power as a threat to individual freedom, but they see the threat coming as much from big business as from government. According to many liberals, Adam Smith’s “invisible hadn” is dead (Gianni translation: The free market economy does not work any more). Major industries are now controlled by giant corporations, which often do not compete but cooperate to fix prices and divide up markets. Liberals complain that libertarian and conservative policies of shying away from economic regulation help the rich at the expense of lower- and middle-class Americans. Without government supervision, liberals argue, business is likely to abuse its powers and victimize both workers and consumers. A major government presence is seen by liberals as essential in the marketplace. Furthermore, as the United States now competes in international trade with many countries that foster private industry, the American free market economy is at a disadvantage. Liberals argue that a apolitical system with few linkages between government and business is simply obsolete in the modern world.
    .

    Besides being suspicious of business power, liberals are anxious to have the government actively promote human welfare in areas untouched or inadequately served by the private market. They support increased spending for public services like education and health care (see profile of Edward Kennedy). Emphasizing equality as much as libertarians stress freedom, liberals are concerned about what they see as an unfair distribution of income in the United States. Many favor taxing the rich to pay for social welfare programs that improve the quality of life for the poor. These liberal concerns were represented in the 1988 presidential campaign of Michael Dukakis, who called for increased spending on education and other social services, government aid for industrial development, and job training for workers. They were highlighted even more in teh 1984 presidential campaign of former Vice-President Walter Mondale, whoc called for an increase in taxes in order to reduce deficits while maintaining spending on programs for those who need help.

    .
    In spite of their reliance on governmnet to sovle an increasing number of problems, liberals have not abandoned their belief in individual freedom. Generally they agree with libertarians that government should not intervene in matters of personal conduct. For example, abuses of personal freedom, such as stepping on the American flag, unlike abuses of economic freedom, are not something the government should resolve. LIberals have energetically defended freedom of speech and other civil liberties from government incursions. One point of disagreement between liberals and libertarians concerns government action to protect minority groups from discrimination. Liberals have championed such legislation for many years, while libertarians oppsed it on the grounds that discrimination by private individuals or businesses is their own business and government should not become involved. In this instance liberals can be viewed as putting natural rights as embodied in the Bill of Rights above both majority rule and individual autonomy. Liberals have also placed an increasing emphasis on the tendence of wealth to create inequities between rich and poor citizens. These inequities, they believe, give unfair political advantage to the wealthy. Thus, liberals emphasize leveling the “playing field” so that all participants may begin the economic and social competition on an approximately equal basis.


    Our political system was not designed around a two-party apparatus. The full intent at our Republic’s founding was that popular election of a president was nearly impossible except in extreme cases such as Washington, and the House would decide who was to be president in a typical election cycle. A two-party apparatus emerged naturally to prevent that from happening.

    Popular election of Senators, Kid, is one of my milestones for the decline of freedom. Anyone who cares about their ability to be free should be for repeal of Amendment 16.

    mossboss
    La Crescent, MN
    Posts: 2792
    #319596

    Intersting, thanks.

    I guess maybe I was just thinking of Dean’s torrid anti-war stance.

    krisko
    Durand, WI
    Posts: 1364
    #319597

    OK sorry did I say anything about Liberalism lets think hard NO! I said Liberal with out the “ism” bizim. You are using Liberal. Sorry to confuse you but here are the letters L I B E R A L. See this is why people get confused they can’t even look up a word correctly without adding something No wonder politics is so messed up So unless someone screws up again I won’t post here.

Viewing 30 posts - 151 through 180 (of 206 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.