| Bush vs. Kerry | |
|
Halendor - ex-Student  |
I was just wondering, now it's final that Kerry is going to battle Bush in the elections, who would you vote for, and please tell us why. This post was edited by Halendor on Mar 05 2004 04:38pm. |
| Poll | ||
Who would you vote for?
|
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |
| Comments |
|
Plo Koon - Student 
|
i really dont like Bush,we shouldve went after Osama the bastard who actually flew the planes into the WTC's _______________ Free Tibet! Click this link,and learn Here too |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student 
|
Ulic! Get back in here and give us something to write about  |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired 
|
Buzz- Thanks for mentioning that event. Great example. Halendor- Of course I don't think it's good. But that's the way it is here, whether I like it or not. And the Russian/American example is somewhat correct in that the tv plays such an important part in informing the populace. The first two channels on the Russian tv are basically state propaganda, and much of the white house information we see here is gulped down by the main news organizations without dissecting it. In that way, American news is acting similarly to Russian news. -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
It is kind of a bad thing yeah. This really has been going back to the early 60's when Nixon and JFK were running against eachother. This was the first year they had televised debates. Nixon had spent the day campaigning before the debate and JFK had taken the whole day off. People watching the debate on TV believed that JFK had done better and therefore won the debate. People listening to it on the radio though thought that it was Nixon that had won the debate. This really does show how big of a thing image is. And yeah its not really a good thing. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student 
|
The Russian elections are weird. Putin's opponents don't want to be elected, they just want "their voice to be heard". Putin is extremely popular, but nobody knows why. A member of the Doema explained that "You gotta love someone, then why not love the chief". I don't think you can compare the Russian and American elections But do you think the fact that everything is about image, is a bad thing? That it should be more about the content, instead of the image? |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired 
|
Image is everything in America, dude. We're a sound bite country now. Anything that takes longer to discuss than than is lost on a very large amount of the population, unfortunately. That's why Bush does so many of these publicity stunts to "look" a particular way on TV (where most people get their so-called-news). Funny: Russian President Putin does the same thing... -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student
|
Something else. This is the image of the American elections I get when I watch the news in Holland: It is really more about the person rather than their political ideas and beliefs. It's this huge media-circus where every candidate tries to make the other candidates look bad, instead of covincing the voters that their ideas and beliefs are better. I see candidates running up a stage with confetti raining down on them while they shout through a microphone "IS EVERYBODY REAAADDDYYYYYY!!!" *croud cries out* "WE ARE GOING TO WINNN YEAAAAAH!". Is this image correct, and if so, do you think it's bad? |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
Also: keep in mind that Bush and Cheney DID successfully keep their butts out of Vietnam. Cheney kept getting extentions to keep himself in school, and Bush's dad helped him get bumped to the front of a prime choice line as a fighter pilot trainee stateside. Kerry may have tried to get out of it, but at least he went. Coming back and protesting is not anti-American. It was the right thing to do, for heaven's sake. We shouldn't have been in there. My dad, who by the way DID volunteer to join the marines and go to Vietnam, found that crap out in the first few months he was there ('68-'69). He doesn't blame anyone who protested or took off to Canada. Although, Jane Fonda (admittedly, by the way) made a big mistake posing for pictures in front of North Vietnamese anti-aircraft equipment. -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student
|
On a side note, for everyone who is posting links, please use the url and /url tags. Don't forget to include the 'http://' part. Thank you  This comment was edited by Halendor on Mar 12 2004 06:58pm. |
|
(Jedi)Obi-JK - Student 
|
Quote: As for the War on Terror. I'd say that war is exactly what it needs to be. Have you ever heard of the war on drugs? Will you say that drugs are more of a threat to the United States, than organizations that have publicly stated they want to see America destroyed? http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html This guy is pretty good at poking fun at post 911 government. EDIT: Fixed the link. _______________ Silent Bob (Kevin Smith): You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you. -Steve (Obi) This comment was edited by (Jedi)Obi-JK on Mar 12 2004 08:58am. |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
Also: I have innumerable reasons for not voting for Bush, and will be posting them here throughout the week(s). So far today, I came up with 25 of them. I'll give them to you slowly so you can digest them. But right now, I *really* have to eat dinner. (Yeah, you already said that...) -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
No, this is not a scientific forum...but political decisions are made based on science (or not, in the case of Mr. Bush) and thus the global warming issue is a prime subject for discussion. And if we are going to be making political decisions, we need to understand the science. That was my point in the little lesson. Sorry to bore anybody. :/ And on that point...um...Ulic, I hate to say it, but you gotta brush up on the factors contributing to global warming. Although I appreciate that you asked us to "forgive you if you lack all the facts"... well...you should have stopped there. :O  Sun fluxuations and earth/sun proximity are in no way related to the problem at hand. The causes are as I mentioned, and as the United States is the biggest consumer and weathiest nation on earth, it should take a lead role in dealing with the issue- not pushing it aside as Bush has done.Also: blue is traditionally considered democratic (not "democrat"...that's not the name of the party, bro! ...but a lot of people make that mistake) and red is republican. Just to keep some points straight.  Upswing in religion: the religious business we are seeing in politics today started many, many years ago in Texas (of all places). In a recent conversation, my politically-savvy-grandmother told me she has been following the growth of this religion/politics stuff for 30-some years. Apparently right-wing conservatives tried to stuff their beliefs down peoples throats at that time, failed, and realized that to make changes in society they needed to go underground. They hijacked the Republican party as a way to gain power, and frankly, some Republicans are wishing they could shake them loose. I, umm... Hmm. Let me just say this: I don't think quoting one of the people in the Presidential contest is providing adequate information on the other individual. Of course, anything the one is going to say is going to be warped to make it sound as bad as it possibly can. That goes both ways. I wouldn't quote anything Kerry says about Bush because THAT is going to be warped too. Also: I see what you put down at a Kerry interview, and I frankly don't see indecisiveness. I think they are very intellegent answers. How are they indecisive? You're gonna have to help me out here on this one. Although I may agree with you that Kerry faces a challenge explaining his positions, I think that has more to do with the *public* rather than *him* (unfortunately). As you mentioned, people like things that are easy to understand, but things like the war with Iraq is/was not a black or white issue (here I go again). IF all the things Bush and Co. said were really true, then maybe it would have been worth it. AND if the war and postwar, especially...witness the current debacle...were handled better, then things wouldn't be as bad as they are now. You can be reluctantly for the war and then against how it was/is being handled. This isn't indecisiveness. It's reevaluating current situations based on what you've seen. I have more to say, but I gotta eat dinner. Until next time... -rh P.S. Halendor, I agree with almost everything you said. P.P.S. Political discussions get my juices flowing, so I'll probably be editing this thing throughout the night to tone some of my rhetoric. Apologies in advance, Ulic and others, if some things are a little abrasive. _______________ Back from the dead... This comment was edited by Ruuk Haviser on Mar 12 2004 12:17am. |
|
Buzz - Student 
|
Isn't Kerry a member of the intelligence committee in the senate? In other words he sees a lot of the same information that the president would see as well. To me Kerry really sounds like he's trying to be vague and keep everyone not knowing what he really stands for. As for the War on Terror. I'd say that war is exactly what it needs to be. Have you ever heard of the war on drugs? Will you say that drugs are more of a threat to the United States, than organizations that have publicly stated they want to see America destroyed? _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student
|
Quote: Plus, I hate to say it, but global warming isn't a big issue with most voters. Some do make it an issue, but it won't be a deciding factor. So only issues that voters care about should be adressed? What about making voters care? It's a big issue with the world, damnit. Quote: My opponent clearly has strong beliefs--they just don't last very long. . . . As Bush says himself, Kerry spent a long time in the Congress. There is a difference in circumstances between now and when Kerry supported those acts. It's possible he liked them at the time, he has seen the results, and doesn't like them anymore. It shows strength if you are able to distance yourself from your previous statement and say 'They're right', instead of desperatly clinging on to your point of view, and keep believing that is right no matter what. Quote: Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Well, it shouldn't be a 'war', because that would mean wherever America has policital (or economical) interest in 'removing' terrorism from a certain country, they just ignore the UN and barge in. Stopping to call it a war is a step in the right direction. Quote: [..] it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. Of course not, but invading the enemy isn't the solution either. There is a structural problem going on in the Middle-East, and that is that for some reason they hate the West, and especially America. Find out what that reason is and do something about seems alot better to me. Quote: You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction. What I read here is that if this thing gets a happy end in Iraq, it might have been worth it. But without the WMD there was no valid reason to start a war. There are a lot of countries who live under dictatorship (and don't have oil wells), so then America should force their democracy on those countries as well, if you get my point This comment was edited by Halendor on Mar 11 2004 05:42pm. |
|
Ulic Belouve - Student 
|
OK, since this is more a political-themed forum, and not a science themed one, forgive me if I lack all the facts on this: I'll just mention that I believe in the cycle of our solar system moving through the galaxy, tha we have some sort of slightly closer proximity to the sun. No, wait, I think the sun might have changed size a bit. Oh well. But basically, if we are warming up, it may be due to the increased fluxuations of the sun (I doubt it is proximity, but you never know). So, just to note that, well, Bush isn't powerful enough to change the sun, so we can't place a ton of blame on him for this. Plus, I hate to say it, but global warming isn't a big issue with most voters. Some do make it an issue, but it won't be a deciding factor. But decent point nevertheless. Eh, now I forgot who quoted this. Anyways, good point to whomever: Quote: Conservatives are driven by rage; liberals by guilt. Conservatives attack. Liberals equivocate. Liberals inhabit a world painted a thousand shades of gray. Conservatives live in a black and white world. Conservatives believe they are battling evil. Liberals believe they are struggling to overcome human frailties. This is good to note for one decent reason: despite what some Democrats would have you believe, Kerry supporters (or potential Kerry supporters) are not motivated by their hatred of Bush. They are not raging Bush-haters, equating him to evil. They generally have "issues" that they take a side on, and take the Democrat side, obviously. For the middle ground (the Purple states if you will), the voters aren't realy motivated by rage and hatred of the leader. They generally look fo a guy that will hold value, and make clearcut decisions to carry the team. Kerry is coming across too indecicive for them, and Bush's move to be against gay marriages is a wise one in this aspect. I'll put it this way. People see that Bush keeps to something resembling a value, and that he was decisive. This shines through with a lot of the "purple state" voters (note: red is democrat, blue is republican, unless they changed it. So purple states are undecided states, or ones that go back and forth from year to year). Plus, with an upswing in religion (aided by "The Passion", gay marriage issues, and removal of Ten Commandments in Alabama), religiosity will prove key. It was proven in many elections (and most significantly in 2000), that voters who attended church more than once a week, in 2000 election, voted for Bush in a 2 to 1 margin. So the correlation exists that the more religious tend to vote Republican, or at least will vote for Bush this coming election (the correlation may not extend to ALL Republicans). And to sort of redirect (no decent transition I could come up with), I found some good articles illustrating this contrast between Bush and Kerry. I find it best to quote our current President, in a speech given in Dallas on 8 March. Quote: My opponent spent two decades in Congress. He spent a long time in Washington and he's built up quite a record. Senator Kerry has been in Washington so long that he's taken both sides on just about every issue. Senator Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, for Nafta, for the No Child Left Behind Act, and for the use of force in Iraq. Now he opposes the Patriot Act, Nafta, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the liberation of Iraq. My opponent clearly has strong beliefs--they just don't last very long. . . . Some are skeptical that the war on terror is really a war at all. Just days ago my opponent indicated he's not comfortable using the word, "war," to describe the struggle we're in. He said, "I don't want to use that terminology." He also said the war on terror is far less of a military operation and far more of an intelligence-gathering, law enforcement operation. I disagree. Our nation followed that approach after the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993. The matter was handled in the courts, and thought by some to be settled. But the terrorists were still training in Afghanistan, plotting in other nations and drawing up more ambitious plans. And after the chaos and carnage of September the 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States of America, and war is what they got. One very important part of this war is intelligence-gathering, as Senator Kerry noted. Yet, in 1995, two years after the attack on the World Trade Center, my opponent introduced a bill to cut the overall intelligence budget by one-and-a-half billion dollars. His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn't have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He's for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services. And that is no way to lead a nation in a time of war. Kerry faces the challenge of showing the public exactly why he thinks the president is wrong and just what it is that Kerry is for. So far, Kerry illustrates that he is He's indecisive, noncommittal, nuanced in this interview. See if you can make sense of his explanation of his Iraq position Linked Here Quote: What would you have done about Iraq had you been the President? Kerry: If I had been the President, I might have gone to war but not the way the President did. It might have been only because we had exhausted the remedies of inspections, only because we had to--because it was the only way to enforce the disarmament. . . . Would you say your position on Iraq is a) it was a mistaken war; b) it was a necessary war fought in a bad way; or c) fill in the blank? Kerry: I think George Bush rushed to war without exhausting the remedies available to him, without exhausting the diplomacy necessary to put the U.S. in the strongest position possible, without pulling together the logistics and the plan to shore up Iraq immediately and effectively. And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war? Kerry: I didn't say that. I'm asking. Kerry: I can't tell you. . . . Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost? Kerry:If there are no weapons of mass destruction--and we may yet find some--then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war. So, if we don't find WMD, the war wasn't worth the costs? That's a yes? Kerry: No, I think you can still--wait, no. You can't--that's not a fair question, and I'll tell you why. You can wind up successful in transforming Iraq and changing the dynamics, and that may make it worth it, but that doesn't mean [transforming Iraq] was the cause [that provided the] legitimacy to go. You have to have that distinction. Oh, and one last, funny thing: (just 'cus it's good) Has anyone noticed that "John Kerry" can be rearranged to spell "Horny Jerk"? _______________ Jedi do not fight for peace. That's only a slogan, and is as misleading as slogans always are. Jedi fight for civilization, because only civilization creates peace. |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
And Monkey, I'm going to have to disagree with you on your snow comment. Although I believe human beings have contributed to a sharp increase in global warming* the type of thing you describe is the type of black/white thing I've spoken about before. And look, peeps! He's not conservative! Thus showing that both ideologies can be black and white on certain issues. All the snow going away...not gonna happen. What you WILL see, however, is a change in how much snow occurs in areas. Let's say Pittsburgh PA (where I live) is used to getting, oh, 50 inches of snow each year. I'm just guessing. Over the next century or so, we might find out that it may decline to 25 inches of snow each year. THIS is the type of climate change we'll see. Not a drastic everything-will-be-gone scenerio. BUT...some might say, "Well, who cares. You're still getting snow. What's the difference?" The difference is that our entire earth is a, ahem, circle of life, and everything revolves around each other. See changes in one aspect and you'll also see changes in another. If the polar ice caps...no, AS the polar ice caps melt, we will see a rise in the general level of the oceans. This presents serious problems for those who live on the coastlines. Think you see and hear about bad hurricane/flooding problems now? Wait and see. Class dismissed. Tomorrow we talk about how the El Nino cycle affects fishing off the coast of South America. -rh (* Everyone needs to keep in mind that our planet has gone through many, many, many cycles of hot and cold. That's part of nature. Global warming or cooling exists. Period. Always has been there, always will be. (If you don't understand what I mean about this aspect, ask me. I taught college-level classes on this subject.) The period between cycles, however, is very great/long. Until now. The sharp increase in the global temperature is unprecedented in world history. Various scientific tests/projects have shown this to be true. Most scientists don't disagree on global warming, per se, just on how great its effect.) _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
Here are some things I found on Google regarding the Liberal/Conservative issue (for the first two, copy and paste the source into your web browser). ===== Conservative vs. Liberal: The Problem With The Package Deal of Political Labels Posted by Kyle Sing source: (copy and paste into your web browser) http://www.chicagoreport.net/archives/000630.php ===== Conservative vs. Liberal source: http://www.lasersol.com/progress/lib_con.html ===== THIS LAST ONE IS GOOD, SO I'LL PASTE THE ENTIRE TEXT IN HERE... Conservative Rage vs. Liberal Guilt Published on Sunday, January 21, 2001 in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune by David Morris source: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0121-03.htm Regarding John Ashcroft, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., maintains, "A Republican president ought to be able to appoint people of strong conservative ideology." Can you imagine Sens. Jesse Helms or Trent Lott uttering those words about a Democratic president and his strongly ideological liberal nominee? Think Lani Guinier. Conservatives and liberals take a fundamentally different approach to politics. Conservatives are driven by rage; liberals by guilt. Conservatives attack. Liberals equivocate. Liberals inhabit a world painted a thousand shades of gray. Conservatives live in a black and white world. Conservatives believe they are battling evil. Liberals believe they are struggling to overcome human frailties. Christopher Lasch's 1978 book, "The Culture of Narcissism," was rumored to be Jimmy Carter's favorite book and the inspiration for his infamous "malaise" speech. We have seen the enemy, the liberal president advised in that speech, and he is us. No self-respecting conservative would be burdened by such self-doubt. Tolerance is the watchword for liberals. Punishment is the watchword for conservatives. In 1980, when the nation's overworked air traffic controllers went on strike, President Ronald Reagan fired every last one. Ten years later, after the union had been broken and a trickle of unemployed controllers came hat in hand to apply for jobs, President George Bush refused to hire them. In the 1960s, Morton Halperin served in both the Johnson and Nixon administrations. In 1970 he resigned in protest over Nixon's illegal invasion of Cambodia. In 1993 President Clinton nominated him to a Pentagon post. He was eminently qualified. Enraged conservatives didn't care. To them Halperin was a traitor. They forced him to withdraw. A few days after the polls closed in Florida this past November, Republicans made it perfectly clear that if a court-ordered recount declared Gore the winner, they would fight the outcome all the way to Congress. On Jan. 6, 15 Democratic members of the House of Representatives rose to challenge Florida's electors, citing a pattern of irregularities in the voting. Their challenge could not be heard unless one senator signed their petition. No Democrat would do so. In January 1993, a liberal president took office. The Republicans were a minority in the House and the Senate. That didn't stop them from waging war. Indeed, Sen. Bob Dole used the filibuster to an extent unknown in U.S. history to stop Clinton from enacting any significant legislation. For almost two years, Dole forced liberals to gain 60 votes, not 51 votes, to win. Does anyone believe Minority Leader Tom Daschle will embrace such a strategy? I appreciate liberals' devotion to tolerance and diversity. Really. But after a while I begin to think Robert Frost was right when he defined a liberal as someone "so broadminded he won't take his own side in an argument." This is a dangerous time. We have a president who takes great satisfaction in having presided over about 150 executions while governor of Texas, more than the previous three governors of that state combined. Despite the mounting evidence that many innocent people have been executed, George W. has no doubts that every last one of those people deserved to die. The moral burden does not weigh heavily on our new president. "Guess what?" Governor Bush asked the television audience during his second debate. "The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death." (Actually, only two of the three received the death sentence.) The Chattanooga Times editorialized, "The triumphant look on his face was chilling...." Republicans from Richard Nixon to James Watt to Tom DeLay have treated their opponents as the enemy. That is a well-documented historical fact. What makes the nomination of John Ashcroft as attorney general so ominous is that this tendency toward demonization may soon be wrapped in a higher authority. "There is no king but Jesus," Ashcroft proudly proclaims. To which I would respond, there is no war more devastating than a holy war. David Morris, of Minneapolis, is vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. © Copyright 2001 Star Tribune ===== Maybe this will help explain some things. -rh _______________ Back from the dead... This comment was edited by Ruuk Haviser on Mar 10 2004 10:37pm. |
|
Ulic |retired| - Student 
|
Although the world is heading to a future near to that, it will not be that dramatic in this century. I totally agree the largest pollutioner in the world should at least cooperate with treaties like Kyoto to improve the environment and stop the extra warming up of the earth. But then again, it effects me greatly because if the temperature rises i would now live several meters below the sea. _______________ Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
|
Lord Exar Kun - Student 
|
the snow part is bullshit, sru. The Arctic ice wont melt in 30-40 years, even with the global warming etc. sry for the off topicness _______________ -Retired april the 19th 2004 |
|
SilkMonkey - Distributor of Cold Ones 
|
I voted Kerry because Bush's administration terrifies me. I'm completely anti-patriot act, and bush trying to push for banning gay marriage is just stupid. And I'm not sure who here knew about this; but the big proposal with Russia, USA and 1-2 other countries got shot down by Bush because it would have apparently cost too much money to reduce environmental pollution. Being from texas, Bush wouldn't care, but being from the Northwest I know what that means to me. In 30-40 years, there will be no more snow in the world. Yes, I mean the WORLD. I don't want to have the planet even more screwed up by an ignorant administration so...I'm voting Kerry. _______________ |-HK-47 -SilkMonkey: You are receiving a warning for being_too_sexy. If you do not stop, action will be taken against you.|| (11:13:43) � Virtue dances for Silk ||Smiling owner of Smilykrazy's 6000th comment =) ||Odan Wei's Proud Big Brother|| Janus is my official TaruTaru Cuddly Animal Type Person. ||(@Virtue) Or you could just be a man and set fire to your genitals.....you won't fall asleep for days after that.......trust me.||Thomas Skywalker er for sexy for sitt eget beste!!!!| Not changing sig until the JA loosens up. (Started: Aug 31, 2005) This comment was edited by SilkMonkey on Mar 10 2004 03:45pm. |
|
Halendor - Ex-Student
|
I don't have a BA in Political Science, so I'm not exactly sure with what everyone means with 'black and white' and 'grey'. Could someone give a clear example of when Conservatives think black and white and Liberals think grey on the same issue? |
|
(Jedi)Obi-JK - Student
|
I am going to play a slight devil's advocate here. We are going assume this is true: 1.) Conservative think most issues are black and white. 2.) Liberals think most issues are grey. EDIT: Also about my post "Kerry is ahead in the JA polls," no, I would never assume this polls means a damn thing, I mean really it wouldnt be hard to have say 8 or 9 JA accounts, and have them all vote for one side. Also consider the issues they are looking at. They aren't, should joe buy a coke or a mountain dew, ( btw, he should buy a coke cause I say so )Aren't most of these issues going to fall more into the "grey" catagory? _______________ Silent Bob (Kevin Smith): You know, there's a million fine looking women in the world, dude. But they don't all bring you lasagna at work. Most of 'em just cheat on you. -Steve (Obi) This comment was edited by (Jedi)Obi-JK on Mar 10 2004 06:11am. |
|
Ruuk Haviser - Retired
|
Those who remember my long posts, be forewarned. Those who have not encountered them, welcome to the club: Buzz - Good points. Halendor - Bible interpretation...exactly. That's one of the reasons why there are so many types of Christians. Some believe in it word for word. Others believe in it symbolically. I tend toward the latter. I can go into this further if anyone wishes. Ulic - Although you work in a rather unique environment that definitely helps inform your views, I have to lean toward what Buzz was saying. Please take just a little more care in commenting. There are a very many reasons why people do not support Bush (me being one of them), and if I have some time I'll dig some information up for you all. I happen to be one of those in your minority: I have a job, insurance, and also happen to have a Masters degree. I've been following the run up to the Presidential election before Howard Dean was even a speck on the media radar screen, and have also been closely following Mr. Bush's administration over the past few years. And I haven't been impressed with what I've seen. I will STRONGLY AGREE with you regarding the mainstream media...bunch of sorry fox chasers. Too much of the media is owned by large corporations, who are primarily interested in the entertainment value of the news. Everyone please notice how shows like Crossfire, Hardball, etc. involve, many times, people basically just yelling at each other. No matter what anyone says, National Public Radio remains one of the few places where I can attempt to find neutral territory. And I said "attempt." They aren't perfect either. But, at least I feel I can get a more thorough and balanced view from both sides. And an FYI: I have listened to Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilley, and other conservative radio commentators, in addition to subscribing to the republican-leaning newspaper in my area. I like to try to see what the other side is saying. It's my way of trying to make myself a more well rounded/informed person. As for your comment regarding b/w being conservative and grey being liberal, I will have to take a position here of saying that, yeah, conservatives have a TENDENCY to be black and white, while liberals have a TENDENCY to think things are more grey. Which is very frustrating for me, because there are some things the left wing people are spouting that pisses me off (thus my agreeing more with conservatives) while many things the right wing people talk about frighten me (hence my tending back left). Most everything for me is grey. Basically like what Billy said. If more people would take both sides of the story and look in the middle, I think we'd find the truth. That, to me, seems like a grey thing to do. Which, unfortunately, appears to be something that does not tend to lie on the conservative welcome mat. So, good people, knock on my door: I'll listen, and if you provide me with good information/reasons I'll most definitely try to look at things from your point of view. I most certainly acknowledge that my ideas are subject to change. Especially if I feel as though you have a good argument. Now, does this mean I flip-flop on issues and shouldn't be elected President? I don't think so. I think it means I stood on *always* shifting ground based on my then-current knowledge. I'm opening myself up for comment, so have at it. -rh _______________ Back from the dead... |
|
Buzz - Student
|
Ulic many of your last comments are really coming acrossed as being condescending to the majority of the people here, including me and I agree with you on a lot of stuff. It really isn't a good way to go about doing stuff, you should know that. Even though most of the people here aren't adults, most are a lot more mature than the average teenager I've seen. Now for Kerry's thing about the bible. He was specifically talking about homosexuality in the bible, not any of the other 10,000 issues you can find condoning and condemning in the bible. He was specifically talking about homosexuality. I've never heard any support for it so I think he's just being the same as Clinton, trying to be vague and please everybody while not taking a firm stance on anything. _______________ When you are going through Hell, keep going. -Sir Winston Churchill. Those who seek power and control of others, no matter the level, no matter the intentions, should never be given it. |
|
Odan-Wei Belouve - Student 
|
Vote for me I'm going for president of the USA !!! [Edit]Sorry I know this is a serious thread, just wanted to joke a bit  Odan-Wei _______________ Padawan and brother to SmilyKrazy - Adopted in the Belouve Family by Fizz and Bubu, BELOUVE ON! - Vladarion, you'll always be in my heart and memories - Spam-Padawan of Jacen Aratan - [DJ is my beloved wife! - JA Family: Brothers:
Virtue, Furi0us, Vladarion, Hardwired, Janus, Axion, D@RtHM@UL, Motrec, Mike , xAnAtOs , Luke Skywalker; Little bro to SilkMonkey ; Special kind of brother to Kenyon ; Sisters in-law: Rosered, Ain-Soph Aur] Photoshop works: click here This comment was edited by Odan-Wei Belouve on Mar 09 2004 05:40pm. |
| < Recent Comments | Login and add your comment! | Previous Comments > |