Make your case to the undecided - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-28-2004, 09:18 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Make your case to the undecided

Okay Bush and Kerry and Nader supporters, here's your chance. Tell us why you support your candidate, why you are against the other guy, and why your choice would be the best thing for America. Go on, we're listening!
__________________

U2Kitten is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 09:58 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:14 AM
I do not exactly consider Kerry a "knight in shining armor". He's an imperfect candidate if I ever saw one. He's a pretty ordinary "career politician" with all of the faults of a career politico. I'm voting for him because I think his ideas are more sophisticated and intelligent than Bush's are. Bush wants to rely more on military power to deal with the terrorist problem. Kerry wants to use economic policies, like moving to free us from dependence on foreign oil and working with our allies, *and* military power. Quite frankly I'm confused about alot of issues in the wake of 9/11, security issues in particular; I keep wondering if we didn't commit some massive, naive screw-up because we mistakenly thought we wouldn't get attacked the way we did. So it's changed the way I look at foreign policy, and I think some foreign policy is necessarily going to be in the "trial-balloon" phase, some of it working and quite possibly some of it not, no matter who's in the White House. It's not enough to change my "usually-Democratic" voting pattern, but it's making me re-think a bunch of stuff. I hope this makes sense. I'm still waiting for my caffeine fix to kick in.
__________________

verte76 is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 04:26 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Thanks Verte. I thought more people would have jumped on this
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 04:43 PM   #4
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Bush has said that he feels that God works through him. The separation of church and state is too important to throw out the window, along with the Geneva Convention and all of the checks and balances that make our nation work. Bush does what he pleases, and I think that's more frightening than any ambiguous terror alert. Kerry ia brave, intelligent, reasonable man who has worked in public service all his life. He's willing to change his mind if the situation warrants it, something I consider a positive attribute, not a negative one. I don't want any more war, I want peace and prosperity. Bush hasn't shown me either.
najeena is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 04:48 PM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,927
Local Time: 12:14 AM
But has Kerry ever said he'd stop the war?
U2Kitten is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 04:50 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Great post najeena. I won't argue with it. The problem with the present people in the White House is that they haven't changed their minds in 40 years. That's too long to hold on to any one particular set of beliefs. Kerry is intelligent; Bush is not. Bush and Co. threw the baby out with the bathwater when they threw out the Geneva Conventions. This stuff is *crucial*.
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 05:16 PM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Why I will vote for Kerry:

Bush and the GOP leadership represent full and unabashed reactionary conservatism. I will not paint all GOP members with the same brush; there are many fine GOP politicians that I do not mind, such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). I particularly appreciate McCain's sincerity of beliefs over politics, which he has demonstrated over his years in office, even though I disagree with his decision to campaign for the Bush Administration. I do not believe that Bush deserves his help, after he and his reactionary conservative allies worked very hard to smear the more moderate McCain in the 2000 GOP primary.

But I digress. For those reasonable, fiscal conservative "Barry Goldwater" Republicans, Bush is not your candidate. His tax cut plans were completely lacking in any common sense; he created them with the projection that the record prosperity and surplus during the Clinton Administration would continue another decade, which not even the most optimistic economist agreed with. And, yes, an unforseen terrorist attack came in 2001, but, terrorist attack or not, his projection was made out of a complete disregard for any sound economic policy.

Ultimately, my choice for Kerry is about "reading between the lines." A vote for Bush is a vote for reactionary Christian extremism. This man has repeatedly forsaken the facts, in favor of a "faith-based" approach to the presidency. Bush has proven, too, that he will lie or string us along on circumstantial evidence to get his agenda through. Did anyone ever doubt that Bush II would eventually take out Saddam Hussein to finish his father's embarrassment the minute he was elected? 9/11 just turned out to be neoconservatism's greatest boon since the Cold War, allowing them to push through any amount of offensive legislation they want, while deriding any critics as "terrorist sympathizers" or "traitors" that walk in their path. Ask FOX News what they think of any liberal, and ask the Bush Administration which news network they interview on the most.

A vote for Kerry is a vote to end this executive tyranny, and to close a chapter on a generation of extremist Republicans that have dogged down the party since the Reagan Administration. A vote for Kerry is a vote against the worst elements of the United States.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 05:27 PM   #8
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 09:14 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2Kitten
But has Kerry ever said he'd stop the war?
Kerry's plan has been to increase international involvement in Iraq. That doesn't sound so different from what Bush has been pushing recently, but that's only because Bush has finally realized that we can't do this (relatively) alone.

Are any politicians seriously suggesting that we pull out completely? It's sort of a "you made your bed and now you have to lie in it" sort of thing, anyway.
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 06:09 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Now that we're in Iraq, we have to clean up our mess. We just can't pull out with all of that instability and chaos going on. We need help from the allies, something Bush wouldn't admit when we first went over. TG's link describes the situation perfectly. That's the only way to stop the war.
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 06:56 PM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 02:44 AM
where are all the nader supporters? I heard he's a shoe in
Basstrap is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 08:20 PM   #11
The Fly
 
Wild Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 188
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
Bush and Co. threw the baby out with the bathwater when they threw out the Geneva Conventions. This stuff is *crucial*.
It wasn't Bush and Co. who did that, it was a few backwater hicks who were cruel enough to abuse prisoners and stupid enough to leave photographic evidence. They were not on orders from Bush, Rumsfeld, or anyone else as far as I know. I don't see how that's Bush's fault. He's no innocent baby, but he's not guilty of that.
Wild Angel is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 08:27 PM   #12
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Wild Angel


It wasn't Bush and Co. who did that, it was a few backwater hicks who were cruel enough to abuse prisoners and stupid enough to leave photographic evidence. They were not on orders from Bush, Rumsfeld, or anyone else as far as I know. I don't see how that's Bush's fault. He's no innocent baby, but he's not guilty of that.
Bush himself most likely didn't order it, true. But.....who exactly *did* order it is anyone's guess, and that's what makes it so awful, IMO. The whole thing is too vague for anyone outside of the government to know. It's the suspicion itself. It kills any illusion of innocence. There's only a grey area between guilt or innocence. It's always innocent until proven guilty but this situation stinks. Some big shots screwed up big time. And there's supposed to be a sign in the Oval Office saying "the buck stops here". Perhaps it's only symbolic but it's powerful enough to exist in the public psyche--and my own personal one.
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 08:43 PM   #13
Refugee
 
ThatGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Vertigo
Posts: 1,277
Local Time: 09:14 PM
It does make you wonder how far up it went, especially when the White House counsel called the Geneva protections "quaint."
ThatGuy is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 08:49 PM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by ThatGuy
It does make you wonder how far up it went, especially when the White House counsel called the Geneva protections "quaint."
Absolutely. Some guilt is indeed clinging to some people who are too damn close for comfort. I really want to know who did this. The whole mess is very upsetting and demoralizing. Maybe I am too emotional about this. The thing is, can you be too emotional about torture and abusive behavior? We're not supposed to be in the torture and abuse department. We claimed we were going to Iraq to stop this, did we not?
verte76 is offline  
Old 05-28-2004, 09:55 PM   #15
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:14 PM
Vote for Bush, I wan't the AUS/US FTA!
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 11:43 AM   #16
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 64,184
Local Time: 01:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Why I will vote for Kerry:

Bush and the GOP leadership represent full and unabashed reactionary conservatism. I will not paint all GOP members with the same brush; there are many fine GOP politicians that I do not mind, such as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), and even Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). I particularly appreciate McCain's sincerity of beliefs over politics, which he has demonstrated over his years in office, even though I disagree with his decision to campaign for the Bush Administration. I do not believe that Bush deserves his help, after he and his reactionary conservative allies worked very hard to smear the more moderate McCain in the 2000 GOP primary.

But I digress. For those reasonable, fiscal conservative "Barry Goldwater" Republicans, Bush is not your candidate. His tax cut plans were completely lacking in any common sense; he created them with the projection that the record prosperity and surplus during the Clinton Administration would continue another decade, which not even the most optimistic economist agreed with. And, yes, an unforseen terrorist attack came in 2001, but, terrorist attack or not, his projection was made out of a complete disregard for any sound economic policy.

Ultimately, my choice for Kerry is about "reading between the lines." A vote for Bush is a vote for reactionary Christian extremism. This man has repeatedly forsaken the facts, in favor of a "faith-based" approach to the presidency. Bush has proven, too, that he will lie or string us along on circumstantial evidence to get his agenda through. Did anyone ever doubt that Bush II would eventually take out Saddam Hussein to finish his father's embarrassment the minute he was elected? 9/11 just turned out to be neoconservatism's greatest boon since the Cold War, allowing them to push through any amount of offensive legislation they want, while deriding any critics as "terrorist sympathizers" or "traitors" that walk in their path. Ask FOX News what they think of any liberal, and ask the Bush Administration which news network they interview on the most.

A vote for Kerry is a vote to end this executive tyranny, and to close a chapter on a generation of extremist Republicans that have dogged down the party since the Reagan Administration. A vote for Kerry is a vote against the worst elements of the United States.

Melon
fine... you've made plenty of good points as to why bush isn't the right man for the job. i disagree with some, agree with others. but you didn't make one point as to why kerry is the right man for the job.

and your hatred for fox news is bordering on just plain sillyness. you said in another post that fox news is the worst thing to ever happen to america. that is one of the most absurd statements i have ever heard. do they lean to the right? of course they do... i don't think anyone thinks they're actually "fair and balanced." but do the new york times and the washington post, papers who set the standard for all other papers in the nation, and who have syndicated articles printed throught the nation, lean to the left? you're damn right they do... yet i never hear one complaint about that. fox leans to the right, the times leans to the left. why is one worse than the other?
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 02:33 PM   #17
War Child
 
BluberryPoptart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 532
Local Time: 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
A vote for Kerry is a vote to end this executive tyranny, .. A vote for Kerry is a vote against the worst elements of the United States.
I am not at all convinced Who knows what kind of asswipe he could be once he gets in there? You're being far too optimistic, and stating as a fact something you may hope for but have no proof of.
BluberryPoptart is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 02:59 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
why is one worse than the other?
Because FOX News borders on being the American equivalent of Soviet "agitprop." They lie or grossly embellish to smear prominent liberal figures, then bitch loudly about how the "liberal media" ignores such "important news." Over time, it filters through other conservative news sources, some from the ridiculous, such as conservative talk radio, and some from the more "distinguished," such as the Washington Times. Then, in time, the mainstream media is forced to address it as "real news," solely because of how much it has repeated. It is little different than how the Soviet Union used to propagate fake news during the Cold War, except they used to plant it in obscure third-world countries, knowing that news eventually travels. There is no other "news network" that I hate more than FOX News; and who would expect anything "fair and balanced" from a network led by a former RNC head?

I base my support for Kerry solely on the fact that *anyone* would be a better president than Bush. The man stands for nearly everything that I'm against, and while Kerry isn't the most liberal individual, he's the only chance we have against Bu$h.

But it may be too late to recover the mess that this country is in from social conservatives. I hate watching this nation die a slow death into religious fanaticism, not so different from the Iranian pseudodemocratic theocracy. If I have to read anymore news about homophobic politicians and presidents trying to "defend marriage," I really will have to move to Canada. That's what these bigots want anyway, as homosexuals cannot disappear through legislation. So, barring the GOP creating concentration camps, we'll all have to move to other nations just to live with some sort of dignity. Why would I want to live in a nation that works very hard to enshrine discrimination against me?

That is why I cannot stand Bush in every fiber of my being. His stupidity, unabashed religious fundamentalism, and aggregious "the end justifies the means" lying, not to mention his equally fanatical administration and political party, makes me believe that absolutely anyone would be better than this joke for a president. Any true, principled fiscal conservative (i.e., "libertarian"-leaning) would have abandoned Bush a long time ago. But I know how party allegiances go, and I might as well contribute to the party opposite the party of warmongering, ethnocentric bigots. Since Kerry won the Democratic nomination, he's got my vote.

Melon
melon is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 07:42 PM   #19
War Child
 
Seabird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: with 2 kids in high school they tell her that she's uncool, but she's still preoccupied with 1985
Posts: 906
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase


i don't think anyone thinks they're actually "fair and balanced." but do the new york times and the washington post, papers who set the standard for all other papers in the nation, and who have syndicated articles printed throught the nation, lean to the left? you're damn right they do... yet i never hear one complaint about that. fox leans to the right, the times leans to the left. why is one worse than the other?
Why? Because the people who complain agree with the left leaners and hate the right leaners, therefore, whatever disagrees with them is not okay. It's the biggest paradox of politics, liberals are often the most judgemental and most likely to shut the door on someone or something because they hate what it stands for so much, though they accuse the right wing of being that way. So when it comes down to it at the end of the day, everyone's tail is tarred and feathered with the same brush, only from a different point of view.
Seabird is offline  
Old 05-29-2004, 08:12 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 12:14 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Seabird
Why? Because the people who complain agree with the left leaners and hate the right leaners, therefore, whatever disagrees with them is not okay. It's the biggest paradox of politics, liberals are often the most judgemental and most likely to shut the door on someone or something because they hate what it stands for so much, though they accuse the right wing of being that way. So when it comes down to it at the end of the day, everyone's tail is tarred and feathered with the same brush, only from a different point of view.
Yes, that's the burden of liberalism. People take the word "tolerance" and stretch it to an unrealistic degree, so as to make it impossible to live up to. Even Jesus couldn't live up to the conservative mockery of the word "tolerance." Just like how they mocked the word "liberal" in the 1980s to make it bad word. That's too bad, as well, because, while "liberal" is a hollow word, "tolerance" is what this nation was founded on; it's the only reason this pluralistic nation didn't devolve into religious warfare on the moment of its creation, IMO. But who cares about that, right? It's all about taking out those nasty pinko commie baby-eating "liberals."

Conservatives, on the other hand, make no secret that their nothing more than stubborn bigots, so when they make racist, homophobic, or misogynist comments, people look the other way. After all, "that's what conservatives do!" Or they bury their intolerance under the cloak of "religious freedom." That excuse only goes so far, and it does appear that, while former Sen. Jesse Helms got carte blanche to be as racist as he wanted, upon his retirement, it suddenly became taboo there too, and former speaker, Rep. Trent Lott, got the ax first. But, really, it was more of a passing of an era. While anytime Sen. Helms was losing an election, all he had to do was air a scathingly racist campaign commercial, and his poll numbers would jump. Now the GOP doesn't need to imply that Democrats would encourage more *sarcastic gasp* "interracial marriages" to get votes. Now, instead of the archaic "race card," they just play the "gay card," conjuring up images of Democrats "promoting homosexuality / gay marriage" and the public, just like in c. 1990, eats it up. So much for an act of penance.

There's a saying that the "nice guy finishes last" and that's probably why the Democratic Party has floundered since 1968 (not to mention having all their heroes assassinated during that decade). Maybe the Democratic Party should have more of a spine and be scathingly and openly intolerant against any conservative ideals, much like how the Republican Party paints liberals as "terrorists" and homosexuals as "dangerous to families." After all, the Bible does say "an eye for an eye," and conservatives have gouged a few too many eyes over the decades. Anyone remember the "Red Scare?"

I have zero compassion left for the GOP, particularly after their fearless leader made the word "compassionate conservatism" an oxymoron, and, as a result, my own tolerance has run out. It's every man for himself and a dog-eat-dog world. Predator capitalism. Social Darwinism. The GOP declared war on America a long time ago, and it is ultimately too bad that Democrats have all but let them win. Now they can remold America and its history in their pseudoimage.

Melon
__________________

melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×