I'm a conservative Christian Republican....

[Klaus]

I have no problem with women serving.
But of course the Republicans try to be some Acrobats who talk about "Family values" and are unable to delay the enlistment for iraq for a family with a 4 months old baby if she asks for it.
That dosn't mean that she has to be on holiday for that time but that she can work at a place where she's able to take her baby with her or at least able to see it after work.

Sting repeated several times that there is no shortage of soldiers - so from my point of view it should be possible that she either serves later in iraq or replaces any other soldier in a safe country where she could take her baby with her and that soldier would go to iraq.

So would it be different under Kerry? I don't think so - but obviousely the "Family values" are no more reason to vote for republicans because it's just lip service - like their religous values

 

[Dreadsox]

It has NOTHING to do with being a republican. The Republicans and Democrats are not in charge of the military. Under US LAW there are rules which govern maternity leave.

 

[sharky]

Sorry, but anyone at any job is not given 4 months maternity time.

And the issue you speak of is not republican or democrat. Its the way it is.

Or are you against women serving?

There's a difference between being able to breast feed a child after work and not at all.

I could never join the Guard -- I don't have the balls. I give you guys credit, but I just don't think most Guard members sign up to go into a war in which the U.S. was so unprepared. The National Guard is to be used as "reserves" if we were under attack, not because two years after invading a country, the president realizes "Oh hey! Maybe I should have had a coalition to help with the burden in Iraq." I still see Guard troops around NYC and am glad they are here protecting us. I just wonder how much longer they will be here.

OuttaControl and Dread -- I commend you guys, I really do despite our political disagreements. But we shouldn't have to keep National Guard troops in the line of duty for an extended period of time because we decided to go it alone. And I would recommend you guys post about your experiences to give those of us who haven't served an inside view about whether you expected to be sent to Iraq, what it was like there, etc. if you feel up to it. I think too often -- and this election is no exception -- that we hear "The National Guard" and don't put faces to it.

 

[Like someone to blame]

A few remarks...

Children change EVERYTHING! The issue is not about my wife not wanting to serve...the issue is a "family values" issue that, with all due respect to the conservatives here, the Republican party actively embraces as their own. The hypocrisy is unbelievable...the very party that emphatically states "We are pro-family, pro-marriage, pro- children" actually does nothing to actually try to keep families together. Let's remember, this is the NATIONAL GUARD we are talking about...not the full-time, active duty troops who sign up for this stuff every day. The National Guard's role is one of stateside duty...yet politicians of both parties have effectively usurped their mission and used them as full-time troops...while implementing unfair "stop-loss" orders that prevent National Guard troops who have honorably served their contractural duties from getting discharged...yet full-time active duty soldiers are unaffected by such stop loss orders. Additionally, (it bears repeating time and time again), Iraq was and is not a threat. Had they invaded us or took aggressive action, the story is different.

It's sad, but my wife made numerous friends at EOBC (Officer Basic Training) who were full-time active duty troops. Guess wha? While my wife is activated for deployment (leaving behind the 4 month old) well over 20 of her acquatainces in the full time Army remained stateside...Bush's Army could have chosen to send someone in my wife's place...one of these active duty soldiers remaining stateside...but there anti-family policy says otherwise...if Pres Bush and the Repub's care so much about "family" perhaps they should consider repealing the anti-family policies of their military instead of simply giving lip service to the family values crowd to secure votes.

So, to those who say "this is what she signed up for" I say you are mistaken. National Guard's role is stateside. They are a last resort in times of war...not a front line defense. I believe the oath says "...to defend our country from enemies both foreign and domestic". Iraq was an enemy? I think not. And the point is less about the merits of the war...but more about pointing out a grossly anti-family policy that takes babies away from their mothers...and fathers too. Child experts know that the first 12 months are critical to a baby's mental development...policies that take breast feeding mothers from their infant babies are abhorrent in what is the most civilized country on the earth...in fact I don't believe ANY other country allows such atrocities to take place.

Thanks, Pres Bush for misleading us into a "war"... thanks for caring so much about my family ... we all know that the adults will be fine...but it is the children that ultimately suffer....

Respectfully,

LSTB

 

[hiphop]

obviousely the "Family values" are no more reason to vote for republicans because it's just lip service - like their religous values

I am with Klaus on that matter, and it has been proven numerous times, also outside the U.S., that Conservative Christians don´t give a f*** about family values. Yes, there is all that beautiful blah-blah about the family as the ideal form of man and women and children living together and thats how God wants it etc. - and I value that thought. BUT when you look at reality, things are different. Want another shocking example?

Take South Africa, before of Nelson Mandela. Apartheid was in fact a means to maintain white rule. Under Apartheid rule, Blacks and Whites were not allowed to marry, and they lived in different areas. After work in the white areas the Blacks returned to their slum-like townships. Black areas, so called "Bantustans", were too small to support the black population. Family life amongst Blacks was destroyed by the necessity for fathers to work very far away from their homes.

Their continous absence was FORCED on them by a CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN regime.

 

[Liesje]

er, ok, this thread has not helped me in the slightest....

btw, when I refer to myself as a conservative christian, it has more to do with worship style and christian doctrine than anything else. These don't really have anything to do with politics so we can move on....

 

[hiphop]

So you´re gonna vote Bush then?

If yes, give me a good reason.

 

[Dreadsox]

So, to those who say "this is what she signed up for" I say you are mistaken. National Guard's role is stateside. They are a last resort in times of war...not a front line defense. I believe the oath says "...to defend our country from enemies both foreign and domestic". Iraq was an enemy? I think not. And the point is less about the merits of the war...but more about pointing out a grossly anti-family policy that takes babies away from their mothers...and fathers too. Child experts know that the first 12 months are critical to a baby's mental development...policies that take breast feeding mothers from their infant babies are abhorrent in what is the most civilized country on the earth...in fact I don't believe ANY other country allows such atrocities to take place.

Thanks, Pres Bush for misleading us into a "war"... thanks for caring so much about my family ... we all know that the adults will be fine...but it is the children that ultimately suffer....

Respectfully,

LSTB

The national Guard is not just for stateside emergencies, and anyone who has payed attention to the last 30 years would not make such a statement.

I made a decision when I joined the reserves. That decision was for the benefits of being in the reserves, I would step up to the plate when called upon to do so. That means my free state tuition, my student loan repayments, and my monthly salary entitled Uncle Sam to call me to duty when necessary.

When I got married, I had to weigh my commitment to the guard verses my pending family. After being activated for the first Gulf War, and watching parents in my unit and sister unit leave their children and families for almost a year, I had to decide, do I reinlist or get out. What were my priorities. I chose to get out.

It is not easy to fulfill ones obligations when faced with leaving a wife, a child, or a husband.

I do not feel that your feelings are misplaced. Having children totally changes ones mindset.

You, your wife, and your family are in my prayers.

 

[Liesje]

So you´re gonna vote Bush then?

If yes, give me a good reason.

B/c everytime I ask for straight up info (not opinions or speculations) regarding Kerry, all I get is arguements and name calling and references to topics that don't have anything to do with the election.

I'm assuming the debates will clear up all the issues/questions I have so I guess this thread has worn out its purpose.

 

[pax]

Actually, there are jobs at which more than 4 months of maternity leave are given--and even if it's not legally required to do so, one usually needs at least six months after a baby is born to be ready to go back to work. (IMHO)

I agree that it's hard for a person to claim he or she is pro-family if he or she is willing to separate a four-month-old breastfeeding newborn from its mother--and not for a pleasure cruise, either--on a long-term basis.

 

[pax]

I am with Klaus on that matter, and it has been proven numerous times, also outside the U.S., that Conservative Christians don´t give a f*** about family values.

I think it would be nice if you would not judge a religious tradition that encompasses many millions of people on the actions of a few political figures with whom you may disagree.

LivLuv, I personally am sorry for the derailment of this thread and the defamation of your religious beliefs. However, I'd like to keep it open, in hopes that maybe some nice, levelheaded people (on either side) will be able to help you out. If you'd rather I close it, PM or e-mail me and I'll close it.

BTW, not everyone in this thread has misbehaved...but you know who you are.

 

[hiphop]

I´m not supposed to be nice.

What I talked about wasn´t the actions of a few political figures. I talked about Apartheid, a political system that was upheld for decades, by a conservative Christian regime.

I will admit though, that Apartheid has not much to do with the original question of this thread, even if the title uses the words conservative Christian (I just had to add regime, interesting, no?). On the other hand, threads develop all the time into something that hasn´t a lot to do with the original; just take a look at hundreds of other threads on FYM. As a mod, you are surely aware of that.

 

[Liesje]

Not to dismiss the significance of Apartheid, but it doesn't have anything to do with the upcoming election....

And like I said, unless you're a conservative chrisitan yourself, I doubt you have any knowledge or concern for the discrepancies in worship style and Reformed doctrine that I use to define myself as "conservative". Anyway, I should've made that more clear from the beginning, so just forget I ever mentioned that.

 

[hiphop]

I doubt you have any knowledge or concern for the discrepancies in worship style and Reformed doctrine that I use to define myself as "conservative".

True.

I am a Christian. Most of what I know and have heard from conservative Christians, is totally contrary to my belief as a Christian.

 

[pax]

I´m not supposed to be nice.

As long as I'm moderating FYM, you are.

What I talked about wasn´t the actions of a few political figures. I talked about Apartheid, a political system that was upheld for decades, by a conservative Christian regime.

Compared with the millions of persons worldwide who describe themselves as conservative Christians, this is not many people. Also, most of those people are probably now dead.

On the other hand, threads develop all the time into something that hasn´t a lot to do with the original; just take a look at hundreds of other threads on FYM. As a mod, you are surely aware of that.

I'm aware of that, but this thread really has derailed spectacularly. And, to be perfectly frank, I feel personally badly for LivLuv because a thread that was started in good faith was hijacked--yes, hijacked--so people could have more of the same bitter arguments they've been having for months now.

I've been a moderator of FYM now for over two years, and this is one of the worst derailments/hijackings I've seen. And that's saying a lot. So I'd appreciate it, if you're not going to help LivLuv out, if you'd post elsewhere.

 

[VertigoGal]

LivLuv...

Sorry your thread was hijacked...and sorry you've been told conservative Christianity is as a whole destructive and cares not about family. While I myself may not fall in that boat, generalizations are not only unfair...but they also won't convince you anymore to vote Kerry!

But, what more do you need to know about (my feelings on) Bush's handling of education, healthcare, and the economy, the three issues you said you were really concerned about? If you dig back through the first couple of pages, I promise there's some worthwhile information actually relating to the topic, after all! If this thread hasn't been helpful at all to you, maybe you need to ask us more specific questions about healthcare, education, and the economy, so we can answer questions that WILL help ya. Just ask, and I'm sure you won't have any problem getting dozens of detailed, heated responses from all sides around here!

 

[Liesje]

Well, the first thing is that I don't need to know anything about Bush's handling of political topics; it's Kerry I'm interested in.

 

[hiphop]

As long as I'm moderating FYM, you are.

Don´t censor me I live like saint
I meditate every morning drink carrot juice I´m hardly late
Try censoring your candidate who gets head under the desk
If that´s what you get you can bet I wanna be the next Prez

I deserve the best and if you think my lyrics are incendiary
I´ll go back to being an insipid secretary
Won´t inspire no one then the world will be safe
I´ll just use words to talk about how Microsoft Word is so great

 

[Like someone to blame]

LivLuvAndBootlegMusic:

I honestly thought I was trying to help you with your decision by bringing to the discussion real life examples of how Bush/Republican policies affect average Americans.

I don't believe I offered up opinions/speculations about Kerry, rather, I laid out before you how Bush/Republican policies are affecting the state of the union.

I would suggest if you aren't finding what you are looking for here that you visit the web site for John Kerry and/or the DNC...at least you'll find their platform and position on the issues....compare that to Bush and base your decision off that.

As an evangelical Christian who supports Kerry, I apologize for not being educated enough in the theology of Dutch reform to understand how it may/may not affect your political decisions. I do know that, contrary to what the Christian right teaches, I'm not going to hell for supporting a Democrat. Last time I checked, my Bible teaches we are all sinners...not just Democrats, socialists, and anyone else who doesn't agree with the Christian Right! LOL! Fact is, I believe Jesus isn't keen on many of the social issues championed by the left and he most likely isn't to thrilled with the economic/environmental policies advanced by the right. But this is only my opinion...I don't profess to have Jesus on speed dial and know his thoughts...only what HE teaches in the Bible.

Good Luck...I wouldn't count on the upcoming debates to help you much...they are being heavily scripted (32 pages of rules...everything from camera angles, makeup artists, follow up questions etc) to avoid spontaneity and challenges to each other. It's a huge Hollywood-esque production and we, the voting public, are getting bamboozeled by the whole thing. Each side is so concerned about their guy looking bad that all we are going to get is a rehearsed, robotic 90 minutes of recycled one-liners and rhetoric so thick it will make your stomach turn...don't excpect anything even approaching intrigue to arise from the debates and certainly don't expect in depth policy discussions to arise that might give an undecided voter any clue as to who is best suited to run the country. Aaargh!!!!!

LSTB

 

[Dreadsox]

If I derailed I apologize, however, is it not fair to rebut things that are not quite true?

As for kerry and the National Guard:

#1 He is not going to do anything different about iraq.
#2 He is going to try and convince others to join the coalition.
#3 Germany has already said electing Kerry will not open the door for them to help, and I am willing to bet other countries feel the same way.
#4 The Troop activations will continue to happen no matter who is the President. Many times the new President finds out once elected that what they said in the campaign was false (IE Kennedy in 1960 and the missile gap).
#5 Electing Kerry will not change the activations because the recommendations will be coming from the same Generals at the Pentagon.
#6 No matter who is President, I believe that if there is ONE more conflict within the next three years, we are looking at a draft. We are spread too thin.

 

[VertigoGal]

[I'm trying to link you to something, but don't have enough posts]:

 

[VertigoGal]

The pages I'll give you are basic political rhetoric and vague promises (of course...this is politics folks!), but if you click on the page-shaped bullet notes to the right side, you'll at least get a pretty good idea about his platforms on these issues.

 

[VertigoGal]

Dreadsox: You are definately right that the situation in Iraq isn't going to be drastically changed if Kerry is elected...but LivLuv has said she's made up her mind privately on the war, and wants to know Kerry's positions on healthcare, education, and the economy. Save this for one of the gazillion threads on the war that I'm sure exist...

 

[VertigoGal]

And yes, I'm very worried about this draft bill being sneaked in through the House, but now I'm being a hypocrit...

LivLuv: Should have enough posts after this.

 

[VertigoGal]

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/economy/
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/
http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/

Again, the bullets to the side provide a somewhat more detailed description...

 

[sharky]

Um....let me see if this is what you would like Bootleg.

-- Kerry helped cut US dealings with a bank that was known to be giving money to terrorists
-- he was instrumental in bringing the Iran Contra scandal to the attention of Congress
-- he has served more years in Congress than Bush served as governor of Texas
-- as a member of the Foreign Relations committee, John Edwards has more international experience than Bush did when he was elected, Edwards has worked on several important international issues including terrorism abroad
-- contrary to what people will say about "trial lawyers", Edwards best known case was a class action law suit brought against a pool maker who made defective filters. One such filter severely damaged the internal organs of a child. The company knew of the defect and did nothing about it. Edwards won the case.
-- Kerry also was a great lawyer and when he first came into the sector, reorganized a D.A.'s office in Mass. to make it run more efficiently. He can do it again with the U.S. government.
-- Kerry's experiences abroad -- both in and out of war -- have prepared him to better understand the balance between the U.S. and foreign countries

Also, as a feminist, I appreciate both Teresa and Elizabeth. Not a good reason to vote for them husbands but I just wanted to plug them. Teresa has done great work with the Heinz Foundation -- I believe the foundation even donated money to DATA [correct me if I'm wrong]. And Elizabeth could hold her own as a lawyer. She also is over 50 and in addition to losing her son, she raised a smart daugher and has two small children. You try being 50 running around chasing after two small kids.

Oh, and i don't like that smirky thing Bush does. It annoys me.

Ok, that's my new rant to try and get this thread back on track.

 

[pax]

 

[Dreadsox]

Um....let me see if this is what you would like Bootleg.

-- Kerry helped cut US dealings with a bank that was known to be giving money to terrorists

DREADSOX: More info on this please.

-- he was instrumental in bringing the Iran Contra scandal to the attention of Congress

DREADSOX:Good

-- he has served more years in Congress than Bush served as governor of Texas

DREADSOX:He lacks executive experience. Quite possible been a part of the system too long.


-- as a member of the Foreign Relations committee, John Edwards has more international experience than Bush did when he was elected, Edwards has worked on several important international issues including terrorism abroad


DREADSOX:Texas is the size of a country. Being the executive of Texas trumps this. As Governor he worked to bring trade to Texas. Edwars has NOT been an executive in a state, and is on his first term. As a rookie Senator, he has not been given heavy duty responsisbility by the powers of the Senate.

Bush's four years of international experience and his experience as the Chief executive make him far more experienced. Cheney's little pinky is more experienced than Edwards.


-- contrary to what people will say about "trial lawyers", Edwards best known case was a class action law suit brought against a pool maker who made defective filters. One such filter severely damaged the internal organs of a child. The company knew of the defect and did nothing about it. Edwards won the case.


DREADSOX:OK...good.

-- Kerry also was a great lawyer and when he first came into the sector, reorganized a D.A.'s office in Mass. to make it run more efficiently. He can do it again with the U.S. government.


DREADSOX:That's what the bio says. Not exactly how some feel about him.

-- Kerry's experiences abroad -- both in and out of war -- have prepared him to better understand the balance between the U.S. and foreign countries

DREADSOX:See my comments about Bush's experience as Governor and now President.

--Also, as a feminist, I appreciate both Teresa and Elizabeth. Not a good reason to vote for them husbands but I just wanted to plug them. Teresa has done great work with the Heinz Foundation -- I believe the foundation even donated money to DATA [correct me if I'm wrong]. And Elizabeth could hold her own as a lawyer. She also is over 50 and in addition to losing her son, she raised a smart daugher and has two small children. You try being 50 running around chasing after two small kids.

DREADSOX:Women(According to the polls) are not supporting Kerry the way they supported Gore in 2000. Theresa Heinz's foundation has also contributed money to organizations many, like myself would not want the 1st lady being a part of. We have debated this in here.



Oh, and i don't like that smirky thing Bush does. It annoys me.
Ok, that's my new rant to try and get this thread back on track.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Sorry, but anyone at any job is not given 4 months maternity time.

And the issue you speak of is not republican or democrat. Its the way it is.

Or are you against women serving?

Does any politician in america believe that maternity leave should be at least 6 months, if not a year? doesn't matter if the job is the national guard or a janitor in a school. that's not supoprting family values - a good reason to question any party's stance and if the issue is important enough, to consider your vote.

 

[Liesje]

Does any politician in america believe that maternity leave should be at least 6 months, if not a year? doesn't matter if the job is the national guard or a janitor in a school. that's not supoprting family values - a good reason to question any party's stance and if the issue is important enough, to consider your vote.

Personally, I think it should be as long as the mother is breast feeding which in a lot of cases would be 6 mos to a year.

thanks, Dread and Sharky