Comments:

Flat Nested Threaded Embedded

Oldest First Newest First

Author	Thread:
Been There	Discussing the Elections Posted: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 11:27 AM First, I want to thank KeweenawNow for restarting the discussions. With just a few weeks until the elections, we need a place to post!   Our president is the first since Herbert Hoover to lose more jobs than he created during his term. Our president inherited a growing budget surplus and turned it into massive deficits as far as the eye can see. Our president let those who attacked us on 9/11 off the hook, instead diverting our military to an attack on Iraq to save us from weapons of mass destruction that did not exist--and that mistake has already cost over a thousand lives. Dubya's regime has been a disaster for our nation.   Kerry might not be the most inspired choice for president either, but he's worlds better than Dubya. We owe our people in uniform a commander-in-chief who served his country with honor and who will empathize with our soldiers. Dubya didn't care 40 years ago and he doesn't care now: GIs claim threat by Army. COLORADO SPRINGS - Soldiers from a Fort Carson combat unit say they have been issued an ultimatum - re-enlist for three more years or be transferred to other units expected to deploy to Iraq.   Hundreds of soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team were presented with that message and a re-enlistment form in a series of assemblies last Thursday, said two soldiers who spoke on condition of anonymity. Our soldiers cannot speak out publicly against their civilian leadership. They're counting on us to remove Dubya from office in November. We owe them that.
Been There	The Air Force Times and Ron Reagan Assess Bush Posted: Tuesday, September 21, 2004 9:41 PM With all the hype surrounding the suspect documents CBS used to support its story about Dubya's service in the National Guard, it's refreshing to read this objective account from AirForceTimes: Bush’s Air Guard stint started well, then faded into mystery. From most accounts, Bush appears to have received preferential treatment to get into the Air National Guard and avoid the draft after he graduated from Yale University in 1968. He was initially regarded as a good pilot, but his performance faded over his final two years in the Guard and he was suspended from flight status. He did not fly for the remaining 18 months he served in the Guard, though he was obligated to do so.   And for significant chunks of time, Bush did not report for duty at all. His superiors took no action, and he was honorably discharged in 1973, six months before he should have been. This month's Esquire has a thoughtful critique of the Bush administration written by Ronald Reagan, Jr.: The Case Against George W. Bush. He knows from personal experience that politicians don't always stick to the truth, but he cringes at the lengths to which Dubya has taken this: Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on. I recommend this article highly to anyone who believes that truthfulness matters.
rock	Our Christian President Posted: Thursday, September 23, 2004 9:41 AM I thank God every day that our nation is blessed to have a true Christian in the White House. Have you already forgotten what happened when the last president took girls into his office?   You say that Saddam did not have WMDs, but you don't know that. For your information, just a thimble full of WMD agent could kill every man, woman and child in the USA. If you think its easy to find a thimble in a country the size of Iraq, look for it yourself! The UN looked for years and could not find it.   If the dems win, Saddam and his boys will be right back in power and they'll get the WMDs from where they hid them and the terrorists will come after us with them. I pray that will not be.
look2it	Our So-called Christian President Posted: Thursday, September 23, 2004 11:31 AM If Bush is a true Christian then I'm the Pope of Rome. Do you think Christianity is about bombing and killing, robbing the poor to give to the rich, and lying through your teeth? If you do, I pity you.   George W. Bush personally let Osama bin Laden (remember him, the guy who attacked us on September 11, 2001?) get away by calling off our troops. Instead he sent our young soldiers to die in Iraq. Why? Because Saddam Hussein tried to kill his daddy! That's it, period. He'd already decided to invade Iraq before he was elected, and nothing was about to stop him. Certainly not a thousand American lives lost and certainly not many thousands of Iraqi lives lost!   George W. Bush is a snot-nosed rich kid who could not care less about the rest of us in general and Christians in particular. He's laughing behind your back about how he's sucked you in to vote for him while he steals your money for himself and his friends. And you fall for it, hook line and sinker.   You deserve to get taken to the cleaners by jerks like George W. Bush, but I hope there's enough people out there with their heads screwed on straight to throw the bum out.
Been There	Dubya is a Failure Posted: Thursday, September 23, 2004 4:23 PM I'm not in a position to assess the sincerity of Dubya's stated religious beliefs, but he is certainly an abject failure as president. The fact that his campaign slogan is "Kerry would be even worse" speaks volumes about Dubya's performance in office. The truth is that it would be very difficult for anyone, democrat, republican, or anything else, to do a worse job than George W. Bush has done. I'm not a member of the Kerry fan club, but he's the only hope we have now of restoring our nation's honor, dignity, and safety.   For those of you who may not be familiar with the Web site of Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan, I recommend reading his September 22nd posting about the real situation in Iraq: If America were Iraq, What would it be Like? What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number.   Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll.   ...   There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities? This is the reality that Dubya's attack on Iraq has brought about for that country. This is what he sent thousands to their graves to achieve.
rock	Why the Bush-Bashing? Posted: Friday, September 24, 2004 12:25 PM Why do you all hate our President so much? He's done everything he could to make this country safe from the heathen terrorists who want to destroy us, and yet you people hate him for that. Why? Why?   With the help of God, our President will defend our nation for many years to come.
look2it	Why the Bush-Bashing? Posted: Saturday, September 25, 2004 1:00 AM I don't know about anyone else, but I don't care enough about George Dubya Bush to hate him personally. I just hate that he's taking out country straight down the tubes while he smirks at the gullibility of those (like you) who support him. Yes I want him out, but after that he can return to being a drug-snorting alcoholic, so far as I care. If that sounds a little negative, well, he's more than earned it.
Been There	More Death in Iraq Posted: Saturday, September 25, 2004 1:10 PM As Dubya stumps the country praising himself for attacking Iraq, our soldiers continue to die there: Five US soldiers killed in Iraq. Four US marines were killed in three separate incidents in the restive Al-Anbar province of western Iraq, the US military announced Saturday. "Three marines assigned to 1st Marine Expeditionary Force were killed in action September 24 in two unrelated incidents, while conducting security and stability operations in the Al-Anbar province," a statement said without elaborating. Another statement announced the death of a fourth marine in a third incident, also on Friday. Al-Anbar province includes the Sunni Arab insurgent bastions of Fallujah and Ramadi, as well as the troubled Syrian border district.   Another US soldier was killed Saturday when a roadside bomb blew up in the Baghdad area. When Dubya admitted that his original pretext for the war on Iraq was baloney, he flip-flopped to say that we were actually there to perform a nation-building exercise, to replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic ally. Never mind that this was itself a complete flip-flop from what he said when he was campaigning for president in 2000. And never mind that this was a also a complete flip-flop from his declaration after 9/11 that he'd focus our military on getting bin Laden "dead or alive."   Dubya was right when he ridiculed nation-building exercises during his first campaign. Too bad he lacked the strength of character to stick to his guns.   Dubya was right when he declared his intention to track down and punish bin Laden for the 9/11 attack. Too bad he lacked the strength of character to stick to his guns.   Given the fact that Dubya has been an irresponsible coward throughout his life, it's not unexpected that he should demonstrate those same traits as president: He is still the same jerkoff who sold false IDs to his classmates so they could drink illegally. He is still the same obnoxious alcoholic who endangered lives by driving drunk. He is still the same arrogant rich kid who used his connections to elbow aside hundreds of others who applied ahead of him to get into the National Guard--so he could save his own skin by avoiding combat in Vietnam. He is still the same bored frat-boy who reneged on his commitments to the National Guard as soon as he was out of danger. He is still the same incompetent who failed at business after business, depending on family and friends to bail him out. He is still the same idiot who gambled away a growing budget surplus and threw our federal government into mountainous deficits. He is still the same lazy bum who spent 40% of his first year on vacation despite the fact that he was bombarded by reports of terrorists about to attack our country. He is still the same dolt who, after a few months of action, lost interest in pursuing those who attacked us on 9/11. He is still the same irresponsible commander who told our country that he had to attack Iraq to protect us from weapons of mass destruction--weapons that did not exist. He is still the same sneering cynic who believes that spending huge sums and spreading lies about his opponents will fool the American voters enough to elect him. According to the latest polls, Dubya stands a good chance of winning in November. Let's hope a majority of us care enough about our country to keep that from happening.
Been There	Monthly US Death Toll in Iraq Posted: Sunday, September 26, 2004 11:43 AM The Bush administration keeps changing its mind about when the slaughter of our soldiers in Iraq will stop. At first, they claimed that our soldiers would be welcomed by grateful multitudes after the fall of Baghdad. That didn't happen.   Then they proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" and told us that all major operations were over. It wasn't true.   Then they said that the capture of Saddam would bring fighting to a close. He would no longer be able to direct operations, his fighters would have lost their motivation, and the general population would no longer have to worry about Saddam regaining power. Nope, fighting increased.   Then they said that turning over sovereignty to our hand-picked Iraqis in June would finally do the trick. Here's our death toll in Iraq since then: June: 42 US soldiers died July: 54 US soldiers died August: 66 US soldiers died September: 74 US soldiers died (and the month is not over) Our death toll continues to rise even though many areas of Iraq, including the whole city of Falluja and large sections of Baghdad, are off limits because they are too dangerous for our soldiers to enter.   Eighteen months ago our soldiers had defeated Saddam's forces and could move anywhere in the country. Now more and more areas of Iraq are too dangerous for our forces to enter, but our death toll keeps rising anyway. What makes this situation even more tragic is that the weapons of mass destruction that George W. Bush used as pretext to send our soldiers to their deaths in Iraq simply did not exist.   Even worse, every single person with an ounce of sense saw this coming well before George W. Bush attacked Iraq. No one accepts occupying soldiers happily, no matter what rationale is offered for the occupation. It's unfortunate and dangerous for our country to have a president who lacks even an ounce of sense.
rock	No respect for the President Posted: Sunday, September 26, 2004 5:20 PM Look at the words you use to describe the elected leader of our country--jerkoff, obnoxious alcoholic, arrogant rich kid, bored frat-boy, incompetent, idiot, lazy bum, dolt, irresponsible commander, sneering cynic. I don't care what party you belong to, you shouldn't be using those words to describe our President. Especially during a war. Any normal person will stop reading when they see such words about our President, so you won't convince anyone that you are right, if that's even what you're trying to do.   If God did not want President Bush to hold office in this time of crisis, he would not have put him there. I don't know your religion, but using words like that puts you on the wrong side of the Almighty, I can tell you that.
tm	Around the Kitchen Table Posted: Sunday, September 26, 2004 9:06 PM Here is a recent state-by-state poll by the American Research Group, Inc. The result is Kerry 270 ­ Bush 253. Bush and Kerry are tied in Wisconsin and West Virginia. Bush needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Colorado, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Ohio. Kerry needs to defend small leads in 5 states - Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Their poll shows Kerry with an 11% lead in California. View the poll at: http://americanresearchgroup.com/index.shtml
Lynn Torkelson	Projecting the Electoral Vote Posted: Monday, September 27, 2004 11:36 AM Thanks, tm, for sharing the latest American Research Group poll with us. As I'm sure you know, many organizations do polling, especially during election years, and each uses slightly different samplings and questions. An interesting experimental Web site this year uses results from many reputable polls. The main page always contains a snapshot of the projected results using the most recent poll for each state: Electoral Vote Predictor 2004.   Not surprisingly, this snapshot varies quite a bit from day to day. The interesting thing about the experiment, though, is that the polling results for each state provide data points subject to regression analysis. Regression analysis produces trend lines over time that predict what the eventual outcome will be for each state on election day. Here is an example using one of the key battleground states that we all know and love: Michigan Polls.   You can see by this graph that Kerry now leads Bush in Michigan, that Bush is narrowing the gap little by little, and that (if the current trends continue) Kerry will hold on to beat Bush in Michigan. In this graph, you can see the results of the American Research Group polls--including the poll you referenced--as data points (the orange circles). This trend of Bush gaining on Kerry holds true in many states. In some of those states, if the trend continues, Bush will overtake Kerry by election day. Here's one example: Maryland Polls.   Performing this analysis on a state-by-state basis projects an electoral vote total very favorable for President Bush: September 27 Projected Electoral College Votes. Of course there are still several weeks until the election and many things--especially the upcoming Presidential debates--could influence the electorate. To turn the trends around, though, Kerry clearly faces a tough challenge. If he wants to stay competitive, he'd better do a superb job during Thursday's debate.
moots	Projecting the Electoral Vote Posted: Monday, September 27, 2004 11:45 AM Kerry's dead meat.  The dems are throwing him to the wolves so Billary can run in 2008.
Been There	Projecting the Electoral Vote Posted: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:11 PM Hi moots, and thanks for clearing that point up for us. It's always useful to have someone with contacts in high places to enlighten us on what is going on behind their closed doors.   The next time you talk to your friends who are high up in the democratic party, would you tell them to drop a few hints to the grass roots democrats who are busting their butts for Kerry these days and haven't gotten the word yet?   Is it Bill Clinton you've been talking with? If so, why not ask him why he thinks any democrat would even want the presidency after four more years of Bush?   After Clinton dug our country out of the hole it was in after Dubya's dad was kicked out, it must be very depressing for him to see junior taking us right down the tubes again. If this continues for four more years, the next president will face almost impossible challenges. Remind Bill of that, will you, and all the rest of your high-level friends too!   Nice hearing from you, moots, and keep us posted now, won't you?
moots	Projecting the Electoral Vote Posted: Monday, September 27, 2004 2:53 PM You mean the DNC doesn't tell you this?  Moots to the resucue!   Billsky did some good - he turned the house republican and put Newt in charge.  If  Billy could have kept his hands to himself, Al Gore would be president today.  The dems know you need to ride a southerner to get into the white house today but a Massachusetts liberal feeds the sharks just fine, so there's no sense throwing in your best candidate into the tank when you've got plenty of  losers to use up.   Edwards is the one to watch - he's a danger to Billary because he might come out of this looking good.  Billary are in a tricky spot, because they have to appear to be backing Kerry, but can't be too closely associated with another loser.   The current dem platform has only one plank - we  hates dubya, he schtole da precioussss from ussss.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Monday, September 27, 2004 5:40 PM Hi again, moots! I guess you're not a high-placed democrat after all, but a gung-ho republican. It's good to have you posting here. I was beginning to think all republicans here were either ashamed of themselves or didn't know how to use a computer.   Once I was a gung-ho republican too (and wouldn't even consider voting for a democrat), but I became an independent voter when (in my opinion, of course) the republican party sold out its principles. I still believe in limited government, strong defense, and fiscal responsibility, and I would gladly vote for a republican now if I thought it best for our country.   1992   When Bush 41 ran up record budget deficits on his watch and Clinton promised to get the budget under control, I had no choice but to vote for Clinton in 1992. My vote was vindicated when in 1993 Clinton exhibited the political courage to make good on that promise in the face of bitter opposition from those in my former party. As you pointed out, Clinton lost control of congress to the republicans in 1994--his 'reward' for putting our country above politics. As the old saying goes, "No good deed goes unpunished."   I was ashamed to see that not a single republican in congress voted with Clinton to restore fiscal responsibility to the government. Instead of putting our country first, Newt Gingrich and his associates and (to a lesser extent) Bob Dole announced that restoring fiscal responsibility would throw our country into a depression--that to save our economy we had to keep stealing from our children and grandchildren. Of course that was nonsense, as all sensible people knew (and the economic boom to follow demonstrated).   1996   To be honest, I thought that the combination of a republican congress and a democrat president would be good for the country: over the past 100+ years, this has been the best combination for the U.S. economy. So in 1996 this one-time republican voted for Clinton again.   2000   When the 2000 election approached, the candidates started with a clean slate, but Bush immediately began to campaign on a platform of going back to fiscal irresponsibility, so I had no choice but to vote for Gore. After Bush 43 blew the Clinton surplus in 6 months, it would take something huge for me to consider voting for Bush this year.   2004   But then something huge did happen: the attack on 9/11. Dubya made a good speech, rallied the nation, and said he was going to get bin Laden "dead or alive." He sent troops to Afghanistan to remove the Taliban who were sheltering our attackers. Our forces had Al-Qaeda on the run and were working hard to bring bin Laden to justice.   If Dubya had followed through as he started after 9/11, helping to build up Afghanistan and capturing (or killing) bin Laden and his henchmen, then today I would have good reason to vote for him despite his fiscal irresponsibility. But, incredibly, he dropped the ball on that vital mission too!   Instead, he took our soldiers from their mission and sent them to die senselessly in Iraq. Every single person with an ounce of sense could see what was going to happen there, but Bush 43 went ahead with it anyway. For the sake of our soldiers, as well as to stop the stealing from our children and grandchildren, I believe I have no choice but to vote for the democratic candidate again this year.   What about you?   Okay, moots, I've leveled with you about why I plan to vote for Kerry. Now I'm eager to learn why you support Bush. I'm sure you have your reasons, but I can't begin to imagine what they are.
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:10 AM Good luck getting any republican to say why he's voting for Bush. All they care about is smearing Kerry and the democrats. We've had republicans post here before, but they always run and hide when someone asks them to talk issues.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 10:16 AM Been There,   Which is the real you - the civil debator, or the name-calling polemicist in your previous entry? I prefer the former, because regardless who wins the election, we're all in this together.   I'll give Clinton some credit if you'll give the republicans contract with America its due.   As far as Iraq goes, the fat lady hasn't sung yet.  The fact is that that President Bush acted to defend America.  All the Monday morning quarterbacks and hindsighters can analyze and criticize, but where were they when the votes were counted?  Whether the Iraqis are able to live together is an open question, but the whole world knows that we have a president who is more than words.  Strength still is respected in the world.  You will notice the Pakistanis have been very cooperative and active lately in moving against al Qaida, far more active I suspect than they would have been had not they seen what happened to Saddam.   Dubya's in good company.  Abraham Lincoln was judged harshly by his opponents and called by similar names that you apply to Bush.  The bottom line is that a president is called to act according to his best judgment.   Our primary mission in Iraq was to ensure that Saddam did not propagate the WMD which we believed he had.  We have done that.  It is a messy job and in hindsight there are things that could have been done better.  But the perceived risk was grave, too grave, in the president's judgment,  to permit further inaction.   Yes, we could have gone back to that great committee, the United Nations, and talked and resolved and promulgated dire threats.  Committees are great places to avoid responsibility and blame shift.  Saddam had nothing to fear from the UN.  Perhaps he could have been contained, but we'll never know, will we?  I would submit that learning the contrary would have been a far more bitter lesson.   Kerry's a great talker, Bush is a mealy mouth by comparison.  But I would rather have a president who is willing to act, not merely talk.   By the way,  what are you going to do after the election - run down the president?  If Kerry's elected president, he'll be President Kerry to me.  I made a point of limiting my characterizations of  President Clinton to playful nicknames, but I often used his title when speacking of him.  The president sits in a lonely seat, and neither you or I have Been There.  Cut President Bush a little slack, he'll likely be there another four years.   Moots
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 7:57 PM Hi Moots,   Let me ask you the same question: Are you the person who laid out his arguments nicely in the post below or the name-calling polemicist of your first two posts? Yes, we're all in this together for many more years (the good lord willing and the creeks don't rise) and I prefer a civil discussion of the issues also.   Hats off to republicans   Let me say right off the bat that I'm always pleased to give republicans credit whenever I have the chance. For example, in my very last post I gave Bush 43 credit for his activities after 9/11 and for taking action against the Taliban who gave safe harbor to our attackers. As a person who believes in limited government, I support republicans whenever they oppose wasteful and ineffective programs (and democrats too, when they do so--years ago democratic Senator Bill Proxmire of Wisconsin was a master at finding and exposing wasteful spending).   As a taxpayer who has sent large amounts to the government over the years, I also appreciate the republican emphasis on low taxes. What I really want to see though, is fiscal responsibility: get the spending cuts first, then bring the taxes down accordingly. It drives me up a tree that things are being done ass-backwards again! You probably gathered as much from my other posts, but you haven't even mentioned the issue here. Does it not bother you?   What about bin Laden?   You also didn't mention bin Laden. Does it not bother you that he's roaming free, while our man Karzai has little influence outside of Kabul and dare not leave the city? To me, it's just sickening that the president dropped the ball after he declared his intention to get bin Laden "dead or alive."   Views on Iraq   You did, however, give an eloquent presentation of your views on Iraq, containing accurate observations: As far as Iraq goes, the fat lady hasn't sung yet. The fact is that that President Bush acted to defend America.  All the Monday morning quarterbacks and hindsighters can analyze and criticize, but where were they when the votes were counted?  Whether the Iraqis are able to live together is an open question, but the whole world knows that we have a president who is more than words. Strength still is respected in the world. You will notice the Pakistanis have been very cooperative and active lately in moving against al Qaida, far more active I suspect than they would have been had not they seen what happened to Saddam. It's true that the situation in Iraq is still in flux, so the end of that story has yet to be written. And I'm sure that you're also correct that fear of a U.S. attack influences the behavior of other governments such as Pakistan and Libya.   Predicting the future of Iraq   No one can predict the future infallibly, but let me submit this to you: in my postings on this Web site over the past two years (perhaps the old posts can be restored) I have disagreed often with what the administration was saying would happen, and I've been right every time.   Although we can't know the specific details in advance, the main outline of what will happen in Iraq is crystal clear: Our troops will stay on for an indefinite period to create a semblance of order while an interim government gains partial control of the country, a la Afghanistan. During that period, our troops will continue to die. At some point, the president (whether Bush or Kerry) will need our forces somewhere else and will pull out of Iraq--probably declaring "peace with honor." The terrorists will then declare victory over the U.S. and wild celebrations will break out over the Muslim world. The Iraqis will overthrow the interim government and execute their former leaders for collaborating with the occupation. A bloody civil war will break out across Iraq. When the smoke clears, a hostile government (or governments) will take over. I realize that you and many others consider this scenario unduly pessimistic, and I sincerely hope you are right. But don't bet on it.   Where I was wrong about Iraq   In the run-up to the attack on Iraq, the administration justified its actions because of the need to safeguard our country from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. Even though I could foresee the actual aftermath of the war (as could every sensible person), I realized that--if we faced a real threat--action was required despite the awful consequences.   Therefore I paid very careful attention to all of the arguments put forward by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell. Nothing they said pointed to the necessity for an immediate attack expect for one thing: the suggestions by Cheney and Rumsfeld that they had hard, irrefutable intelligence on the nature and location of Saddam's WMDs that they could not reveal because to do so would reveal too much about our high-tech intelligence capabilites.   So here's where I went wrong: I believed them. Because the evidence they presented did not justify an attack on Iraq, I presumed that the real evidence was too secret to reveal. Yes, they snookered me, and I don't like it. And they won't snooker me again!   Kerry served his country face to face with the enemy. He'll defend our country like a tiger, but he'll never send soldiers to die because of a hunch someone threatens us.   Agreeing to disagree   As we have both stated, Moots, we're in this together. We've both stated some facts, we've both stated some opinions. I respect you for posting here and would appreciate reading your response and rebuttal to any or all of my statements here. Good luck to us all!   Been There
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:56 AM Why don't you two long-winded philosophers figure this all out and wake the rest of us up when you've got the answers. Okay? Bye.
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:07 AM Ah... the ritolin-deprived American electorate.  Sound bite city.  Sorry, look2it...we aren't ever going to figure this out, but short sentences help.   Bin Laden is in Pakistan - we can't go there (they've got the bomb), but the Pakistanis seem to be working on it.   Fiscal responsibility - I have always tried to avoid debt personally and have misgivings about tax cuts and spending.   Bottom line - I am not a hardcore Republican so much on fiscal issues as social ones.  I believe in the right to life of unborn children and I believe marriage should be defined as the union of one man and woman.  If  the dems run a candidate like that, he could be a socialist and I would probably vote for him.   Elections - usually won on good style, slogans, properly confusing the electorate.  We reward them for that, so I guess we can't blame the politicians for responding to the market.   Final word - our political differences didn't look so great Sept. 11, 2001.  We were all Americans.  Bush is probably going to win.  Kerry might pull off an upset.  Either way, we face great challenges as a country - not all the doing of our politicians.  Collectively we have decided to make ourselves dependent on foreign oil and the mideast.  Changing that would require massive disruptions in our economy.  We are a lot like New Orleans - hoping the big one doesn't hit (check out the latest issue of National Geographic).  I would counsel humility and prayer.
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 2:29 PM Funny, the sound bite thing occurred to me too this morning when I read Look2it's post...   The bottom line   Thanks for giving your bottom line, Moots. I do understand now. You're willing to tolerate some things I don't because your bottom-line issues override the issues that concern me. I can understand that, I respect your position, and I have no intention of trying to change your mind.   Our bottom-line issues differ, so we'll vote differently. Our right to do so helps give our country its strength. I just hope that everyone, regardless of how they finally vote, takes the time to make certain that they vote to advance their true bottom-line issues.   Right now it looks like your man will win, but I'll go down fighting. If I lose, I'll still be a patriotic American, calling attention to what I believe the government does wrong and what it does right. If Kerry wins, I'll do exactly the same thing.   Discussing your issues   If you don't mind a civil discussion of your bottom-line issues, I'd like to understand why they are so for you. (If you don't want to discuss that, no problem, but I'm curious.)   My personal philosophy opposes the constant enlarging of government and the consequent increasing of restrictions on personal freedom. Yes, government is necessary to create a safe and fair arena for individuals to blossom and prosper, but we always cede power to it at our peril.   My religion   As it happens, I am one of the fortunate few whose religious views are absolutely and certainly 100% correct. While there is no possibility of my being wrong about this, I'm well aware that the majority of my fellow citizens hold different, incorrect, religious views. The sad reality is that many of them will never see the light.   Although it might be tempting to ask the government to force my fellow citizens to accept the truth--in behavior, if not belief--I don't believe such action to be within my rights. Furthermore, an attempt to do so by me might backfire: the majority might attempt to force their falsehoods upon me by force of law.   Reconciling church and state   I'm sure you've thought about this and have satisfied yourself that you're not advocating an unwarranted breach of the separation of church and state by taking the positions you do. I'm interested in learning about your reasoning, because I've never been able to justify it for myself. (Again, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, but just want to learn your thinking on this.)   Been There
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 7:36 PM Gee, sorry, I didn't know I was intruding on the conversations of the elite here.   BTW, there's a reason people talk in sound bites, they want others to pay attention. For my money, if you can't say something in a few short sentences, don't bother to waste my time because it's not worth saying.   Yawn. Bye.
Cousin Jack	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2004 2:58 AM Ancient Cornish Proverb:   It's the already snookered who snooker the new snookees...   Sigh, CJ
rock	Faith Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2004 9:32 AM Dear Been There,   I read your posts to find some witness of your faith and found none. Maybe you think your religion is true, but could it be you who is incorrect? Think about it.   Rock
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:53 PM L2it,   Have some more ritolin and hang onto your spitballs.    BT,   Unless you subscribe to the philosophy of anarchy (which, I have recently learned, has some thoughtful proponents), I think you would agree that   1.  We need enforceable laws in order to secure mutual safety, justice, blah, blah...   2.  Those laws must be based on broadly shared core beliefs.  This is the catch, for..   3.  What we believe about a thing does not change the thing.  If that thing is true it will remain true regardless whether I think it true or not (you following this L2 - hold them spitballs, ok?)   If you are 100% correct, then by all means declare it - persuade people, proselytize, etc.  What is true is true.  It's not true for you and not true for someone else.  Truth is indivisible.  Go for it.   As far as limiting human freedom - all law does that in a sense.  We have become so relativistic that we no longer care about truth, only plausibility.   The arguments to support slavery we complex and many.  Similarly, the arguments to dehumanize unborn children are compelling - if you decide that you are unable to determine the humanity or the innate worth of a human life.   Sorry L2, back to your video game, I can't keep it short.   moots
tm	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:13 PM Moots and other readers, Here is an article about John Kerry that reveals perhaps more than you hear from Fox News and other mass media: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/093004A.shtml by William Rivers Pitt. And be sure to watch the debate tonight!
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:23 PM Moots,   No, I don't subscribe to the philosophy of anarchy. It's never seemed practical to me for the real world (for example, how would you defend your state against a well-organized military force?), so I haven't really studied it.   Also, I can't say that I disagree with any of the points you made. Key among them is: Those laws must be based on broadly shared core beliefs. And yes, I agree that persuasion is the proper course to convince people of the truth. Over time, sufficient numbers might be persuaded to accept at least some of the truth--enough to affect our broadly shared core beliefs. However, there is never any assurance that the beliefs of a majority, even a substantial majority, are correct at any given time. In fact (as I well know), they often are not. So we come down to the questions like: What exactly constitutes broadly shared? How seriously does a particular behavioral deviation from the broadly shared core beliefs affect others? In my case, I'm happily married with children I love dearly. I certainly wouldn't want to see churches being forced to marry people of the same sex, against scripture. However, I don't see that the state, a secular institution, should be prohibited by the federal government from authorizing civil unions. And I don't see that such civil unions, if they did occur, would diminish my marriage at all.   The abortion issue is much more serious, in my opinion. I think that over the past 30 years many women have in fact been persuaded to forego abortions because of pro-life efforts. Still (and I've discussed this many times with many people) a substantial number absolutely (and sincerely) do not accept that abortion equals murder. It will be many years before that equation becomes part of our nation's broadly shared core beliefs, if it ever does.   Needless to say, I have lots of other thoughts about the abortion issue too--and I'm sure you do also, Moots. However, I've already gone way past a sound bite, so that's all for now. Thanks for the intelligent discourse.   Been There
Been There	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:36 PM Thanks for the link, tm. I had known about Kerry's early life and his history as a prosecutor, but I didn't know (or had forgotten) his role in bringing down the terrorist-financing BCCI.
look2it	The Presidential Election Posted: Thursday, September 30, 2004 7:48 PM We think our news media is bad, but look at this: Candidates offer voters no choice on Iraq policy. I saw this article about the debate an hour and a half before the debate even started!
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 8:37 AM BT,   A good debate last night, quite civil.  Actually highlighted some objective differences.   Thanks for the compliment by the way.  L2, thanks for reminding us to spit it out plain.   your questions: What exactly constitutes broadly shared?   I suppose this is best expressed, however imperfectly, by legislation.  Again we have checks and balances (ie. judiciary) to limit the "tyranny of the majority" How seriously does a particular behavioral deviation from the broadly shared core beliefs affect others?   on a scale of 10, zero to 10, depending on the deviation. The world would be a dull place without eccentrics.  I would submit that on foundational issues, such as the definition of marriage, the courts have no right to usurp the prerogative of the legislature.  I of course hold to the biblical deifinition of marriage, but for legal purposes, let it be defined by the majority.   moots
moots	The Presidential Election Posted: Friday, October 01, 2004 10:02 AM BT,   Another thought   Your comment However, I don't see that the state, a secular institution, should be prohibited by the federal government from authorizing civil unions.   (I assume you mean individual states eg. Michigan, Wisconsin...)  Here again the struggle between states rights and federal authority.  "States rights" used to be a buzzword for Jim Crow laws, but now we see liberals defending "states rights".   The fundamental issue at stake in the American civil war was in Lincoln's mind (if I can remember correctly)  "Does a minority have the right to dissolve a government made by the majority"   Even today this is a complex question.  The southern states viewed themselves as sovereign states within a confederation, Lincoln viewed the union as the only sovereign state, and he, as we know, defended that principle to the utmost.   For better or worse, the civil war established that the rights of invidual states were subject to that of the state, and the state, for better or worse, is represented by the federal government.  It ain't good, but its the best we got.   moots