# Undecided but we need to vote



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Is there anyone out there who is undecided on the upcoming presidental election?

I have never been a straight Democrat or Straight Republcn voter. I lean towards being more to the left than right but I am up in arms over this election.

I have always voted Democrat for President. I even worked on the Clinton Gore campaign in 92 while in college. But I do not feel I can vote for John Kerry in my heart and I also do not like a lot of issues with the current administn.

Is there anyone else out there in this position?


----------



## IslandMamma (Jun 12, 2003)

Just curious-

Why do you feel you can not vote for John Kerry?

(full disclosure-- I'm coming from a left of center perspective.)

There's a lot of misinformation being thrown around by the right about Kerry. It's spinsanity out there, on both "sides".


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Good question Island Mamma.

I just don't know if a change in power would really make things better or worse or any different. I hate being in war (but fully support troops and their families), I did not vote for bush nor would I vote now for him, but I just do not like kerry. I agree there is a lot of misinformation out there but I just cannot put my finger on it.


----------



## steph (Dec 5, 2001)

Amy, you might want to check out this thread in W&P:
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=198074

If you don't think that things can get worse with another 4 yrs. of Bush, think again. Check out the League of Conservation Voters (non-partisan) report on Bush and the environment. Consider what Bush could do to further erode our civil liberties without worrying about pleasing voters in the future. There's alot at stake here, not just the war. Many will tell you that this election is not about getting everything we want, but about protecting what we have left.


----------



## comet (Aug 22, 2002)

I know people who are undecided often are frustrated that their vote won't do what they want it to do. They want a candidate they like and fully support. I can understand that Kerry isn't someone you liked as much as Clinton and Gore.

It is important to stand up and fight for your choices, and it's important to say that you want someone better than Kerry or Bush.

However, come voting day, it really comes down to 2 choices. Who do you prefer: Bush or Kerry? I think you owe it to yourselves to pick one or the other and actually do the vote.

My biggest concern for Bush being re-elected is what steph said about civil liberties. To me, it is inconceivable that the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II was put together by a Republican administration. Republicans have traditionally been solidly against governmental interference with individual rights and privacy. To me, this rises above virtually all other issues (you may feel different, of course!) because of the significant, unprecedent powers it gives the Presidential office.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

That is one reason as well as banning all cubans from working in the US. Now dh and I cannot hear some of our favorite musicians-(buena vista social club etc) anymore not because they are all older talented musicians who are getting old and dying but because they cannot perform here!








Bush is very pro big corp coming in and taking over everything, iraq war, plenty..., he is cleaning up his father's mistakes..

But,
Kerry also seems very pro big corp, seems like an angry individual, dosen't have an original idea in his head, is just pleasing the masses.....

Whats a voter to do


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amys1st*
...But,
Kerry also seems very pro big corp, seems like an angry individual, dosen't have an original idea in his head, is just pleasing the masses.....

Anyone who is going to get elected President in this country is going to have ties to big business and is also going to be able to please more people than they piss off. That's just the way it is.

But I do find your list interesting because some of my big issues with _Bush_ is that doesn't have an orignial idea in his head and is only interested in pleasing the far right/big business. Well, those things and I think Bush's unwillingness to be honest with the American people about Iraq is unconscionable.


----------



## DarkHorseMama (Mar 8, 2003)

Amy, from my perspective, the fact that Donald Rumsfeld is *still* the Secretary of Defense after all of the abuse, lies, and outright inability to effectively do his job wins my vote of no-confidence for the Bush administration. I may not prefer Kerry, but I certainly would choose him over Bush. Not picking on you, but I really don't understand the argument about not changing the administration because....because. Well, just because.









But at least you're willing to weigh the differing sides!


----------



## Emilie (Dec 23, 2003)

OK-well if you can not vote for Kerry- what is your other option? Could you actually vote for BUSH???
Go ABB and you will feel better.
Emilie


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

I actually considered voting for Kerry. I watched his acceptance speach and was left with more questions than answers. He spoke very little about his 20 year career in the Senate. He spoke too much about Vietnam. He also tried to make a connection that since he served in a war (for 4 months) he knows how to fight a war better. Which is not necessarily true. (FYI: Have you heard how he very much opposed the Vietnam war? He also admitted to comitting war crimes. I find the war crimes to be disturbing but not the opposition to Vietnam.) After his speech I was listening to commentators. One of them mentioned that Kerry failed to mention he was the Lt. Govenor. That made begin to wonder: Why is this guy not telling me about his career in the Senate and fails to mention a high ranking elected leadership position (Lt. Gov.)??? I have heard his many contradictions as well which cause me great concern considering our country was attacked and we are now in a guerilla war in Iraq. We need a leader that is firm in his beliefs and does not contradict himself so frequently or at all - this can be a Democrat or Republican.

I respect Bush for taking a strong stance on abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research - all of which could loose him more votes than gain. He has stated some of his personal beliefs which could cost him the election. Pretty risky to take such a strong stance on those issue and publicize them!! I am not satisfied with our borders. They are porous and should be shut down completely. He gets a D-. I do support the war in Iraq - his father and Clinton failed to take out Saddam like they should have. Plus Clinton could have obtained Bin Laden on 3 or 4 occasions but that is for a different post. The 9/11 report shows a link between Iraq and Al Quada. As for the WMD's: Bush based his decision to go to war from intellegence. Intell from the USA, Britain and Russia. Guess what? The 9/11 report says it was not strong intell. How was Bush to know? Bush did NOT lie to the country about WMD's. They could be in a different country, buried in the Iraq desert or do not exist. If the President gets bad intell unknowingly and acts on the intell which later proves to be weak intell, that is not lying. Though some in the media and his opponenets call it lying. O.k. I am off my







Oh, I have voted for mostly Republicans, but I have voted for Democrats as well. So it is not like I am opposed to voting for Democrats. Like I had mentioned, I considered voting for Kerry until I found out more about him. Plus he began talking against facts which are clearly out there for everyone to see. Example: Not word for word mind you but I will paraphrase: Kerry: There is not much of a coalition in Iraq. He would would have waited until we had more. To my knowledge, I think we currently have more than 10 countries in Iraq that are on our side. Sounds like a coalition to me. Perhaps since France and Germany are not in that coalition, it is not a true coalition. 

I am voting for Bush though you do not have to. There are plenty of places to to get information about both candinates. Just do your research and make an educated vote for what ever canidate you want to.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bayviewbill32*
... Bush did NOT lie to the country about WMD's...

Yes, Bush did lie.

There is sufficient evidence that he believed there were WMD, but there is equally compelling evidence that demostrates that he knew it was a miminmal risk to the US and even to other countries. But don't take my word for it, read the intelligence he got before we invaded.

"*...We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD...

Low Confidence:

When Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction.

Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland.

Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida.*"

Public statements from Bush and his Administration:

_"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." - President Bush, 1/3/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
-White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02_

As you said, his Daddy didn't get the job done and so he was going too. We were going into Iraq the day Bush got appointed President. He just needed an excuse. Failing to find one, he lied about the intelligence he recieved, making Iraq sound as though it was a huge threat when he knew it was nothing of the sort.

Of course, there _was_ a country that had strong ties to Al Qaeda and whose leader we should have captured. But why worry about Afghanistan when there is all that oil under Iraq?

Bush lied. And he is still lying. Just ask Senator John McCain _"In terms of the president communicating the problems in Iraq, McCain added that the president was "perhaps not as straight as maybe we'd like to see."_

As for the coalition...Does this look like a coalition to you?


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Darkhourse mama,
Don't worry about picking on me, I can deal with it. Especially in forum like this, in a place like MDC.








But getting back to because because because...voting for the other candidate because you do not like the current adminstration is why we have voting. But, if you feel that you are replacing the current adminstration with the same thing but a different face-thats more up in the air and/or undecided. This is why I started this discussion in the first place.
I will be watching the debate tonight to help me decide as well as the upcoming debates as well.
I do hope the discussions do not lead to what these candidates did 20-40 years ago since I could care less. I care more about today and the next 4 years. I can think of many things I did when I was in my early 20's that do not matter now and I'm sure others can say that as well.


----------



## Peppermint (Feb 12, 2003)

I too, am undecided, and will likely go for a write in, just can't decide who to write







.

I am terribly disappointed in our choices (to put it lightly).


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

Pungmama

"...We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD..." How is this a lie? This statement admits Saddam has WMD's. This statement says they are not sure if Saddam would use WMD's. We went to war because he had WMD's and did not want Iraq to give them to the terrorists. Soooooo, Bush did not lie.

Low Confidence:

"Whether Saddam would engage in clandestine attacks against the US Homeland." Saddam personally would conduct the attack?  Or would he assist terrorists to these acts? I believe he would. He tried to assaninate Bush Sr.

Whether in desperation Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with al-Qa'ida." Some possibility but I would hate to find out. Chemical warfare is nasty. Just ask the Kurds in Northern Iraq.

O.k. so the possibility was "low". Since it was low that means the possibility was there. Iraq is better off with out Saddam and his two sons. Would you agree?

Public statements from Bush and his Administration:

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat." - President Bush, 1/3/03" True to a certain extent. If the whole quote was written then we could more accurately tell what he meant.

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
-White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03 Iraq is not the most dangerous threat of our time - Bin Laden is. But Iraq is 2nd. Again, only a partial quote.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02 This is true as well. If the world is unstable because of Iraq, then Iraq is a threat to the U.S.

"As you said, his Daddy didn't get the job done and so he was going too." I also said Clinton did not take care of Saddam either. Why won't you criticize Clinton? Because he is a Democrat?

"We were going into Iraq the day Bush got appointed President." Prove it. This is a lie until you submit proof.

"He just needed an excuse. Failing to find one, he lied about the intelligence he recieved, making Iraq sound as though it was a huge threat when he knew it was nothing of the sort." Iraq was a threat to us since it disrupted peace in the middle east. 300,000 dead in mass graves legitimasized the war for me. Plus the U.N. refused to enforce their resolutions. Bush enforced the resolutions. Saddam would not comply with inspectors. How many more chances does he need to comply? Of course Saddam is a great, nice man so diplomacy works with him. NOT!!! Saddam is evil and a coward.

"Of course, there was a country that had strong ties to Al Qaeda and whose leader we should have captured. But why worry about Afghanistan when there is all that oil under Iraq?" Here we go with a common & unproven liberal rhetoric: we went to war for oil. Explain why gas is over $2? Oh, Bin Laden was not the leader of Afghanistan.







Did Clinton bomb Iraq for oil as well?

Bush lied. And he is still lying. Just ask Senator John McCain "In terms of the president communicating the problems in Iraq, McCain added that the president was "perhaps not as straight as maybe we'd like to see." I understand this as the President speaks of the situation in Iraq with positive words. Perhaps McCain sees the situation in Iraq in a more negative way. The media is not telling the whole story of what is happening over there. All of the progress we have made. Bush warned us that the fight against terror would be long and tough. I am with him. So is the youth of America - The proof? The military has had no problems meeting their recruitment goals. The youth of America agree with this war and see its importance and it is why they VOLUNTEER to fight for America. God bless them and may they return safely. 1000 dead Americans







How many Iraq's have been killed by the insurgents? We know at least 300,000 were killed by Saddam. I think we did the right thing going to war.


----------



## beanma (Jan 6, 2002)

the big issue for me is the environment. i don't have long to type now 'cause my girls are waking from a nap, but bush is raping *this* country not only iraq. kerry couldn't do worse. if bush is (re)elected i'm not sure there will be a world left for our kids. i'm serious as a heart attack. read about global climate change (www.nationalgeographic.com is a start) and then read about all that bush has done to roll back or just plow down protections on our environment.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

bayviewbill32, Please edit your post so it's clear which words are mine and which are yours. Like this...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bayviewbill32*
... Perhaps McCain sees the situation in Iraq in a more negative way. The media is not telling the whole story of what is happening over there. All of the progress we have made...

Thank you.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bayviewbill32*
... Perhaps McCain sees the situation in Iraq in a more negative way. The media is not telling the whole story of what is happening over there. All of the progress we have made...

I know enough people who have been in Iraq the last two years and who are there right now (like my husband) to know what is going on over there. People like Senator McCain and Colin Powell are telling the truth.

Bush lied. He is still lying. If you want to believe that "low confidence" in an event means that event is a "great" and "immediate" danger, go right ahead. I completely disagree.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bayviewbill32*
...So is the youth of America - The proof? The military has had no problems meeting their recruitment goals. The youth of America agree with this war and see its importance and it is why they VOLUNTEER to fight for America. ...

A poll by Stars and Stripes ."..._found that half of those questioned described their unit's morale as low and their training as insufficient, and said they do not plan to reenlist..."_

The Army has lowered it's standards to meet recruiting goals.

The Army is also being charged with threatening Soldiers to get them to reenlist.

Some troops are describing themselves prior to being deployed to Iraq as"angry, or reluctant to go, or both."

Other troops are just not showing up.

The Guard has fallen short of it's recruitment goal. Why? _"...The National Guard has missed its year-end recruiting mission by bringing in 5,000 fewer soldiers than its goal of 56,000.

Officials blamed the downturn on an apparent growing reluctance of full-time Regular Army soldiers to switch to part-time Guard service after completing active-duty service.

Such atypical behavior is war-related, said Col. Kelly McKeague, executive officer to Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau.

The stop-loss policy, which prevents eligible soldiers from leaving the active ranks, has the trickle-down effect of keeping them from joining the Guard when they leave the Regular Army, McKeague said..."_

I have two final words for you...stop-loss.


----------



## Rainbowbird (Jul 26, 2004)

I am voting for Kerry to get rid of Bush. I am a Democrat, although I just switched to this party this year. Previously I was an Independent, but I have well and fully had it with Republican rhetoric and platform. I wouldn't necessarily have chosen Kerry as my #1 choice, but I think he is a much better choice than Bush. I think Bush is of average intelligence, if not slightly below average, compared to Kerry who is very intelligent, and has a lot of experience with world affairs and foreign leaders. Bush sees things in black and white, IMO. He doesn't know how to use diplomacy. He has alienated us from the UN and many countries. I have a friend who works in an embassy overseas and is just horrified at how the Bush administration has wrecked our image and relationships worldwide. His stance is just so passe....isolationism and the U.S. will do whatever it damn well pleases. He is not going to win the war on terrorism the way he is going. The terrorists will keep attacking, keep growing in numbers because so many people hate us. And Bush does nothing to change that image. He is all about domination, not unity and building peace.

The whole war in Iraq really pisses me off. I remember sitting on the couch with DS when he was a newborn,watching the war unfold and thinking, "WTF? What happened to Afghanistan? Where is this coming from?" It doesn't take a genius to figure out that there are ulterior motives at work here as well as sheer stupidity and a refusal to look at the big picture. Saddam was not that big of a threat. He is evil but he wasn't the one we were supposed to be going after!!! Now we're stuck in Iraq, American soldiers and Iraqi civilians are dying day after day, not to mention the civilians from America and other countries who are being captured and beheaded. And CHILDREN are dying...little innocent children who have done nothing wrong. The situation is getting worse day by day, and we're losing credibility around the world and with the UN. AND there are more terrorist cells than ever being formed around the globe! I am not proud to be an American at the moment!

Prior to this election, no one ever questioned Kerry's role in Vietnam or his career in general. The Bush team has to criticize him in order to make their little man look better. I thought it was pathetic how Bush kept frowning, stumbling, and stuttering last night during the debate, and basically stonewalling issues by repeating his mantra of "You have to remain committed to what you decide in war". Well, how about changing your course if the war isn't going well and everyone around the world thinks you're an ass?

OK, just my rant. I am not criticising anyone personally here, these are just my feelings on Bush and I don't mean to insult anyone who is planning to vote for him. But think about it...in four years I'm afraid Bush is going to get us into more trouble, even nuclear war, because he doesn't know how to build relationships with other countries (and I mean more than just alienating France and Germany!) and he doesn't know how to use diplomacy to get what he wants. He is just an average guy who had a lackluster business career, and who skidded in on his Daddy's coattails. I for one am praying that he loses in Nov.!!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bayviewbill32*
I actually considered voting for Kerry. I watched his acceptance speach and was left with more questions than answers. He spoke very little about his 20 year career in the Senate. He spoke too much about Vietnam. He also tried to make a connection that since he served in a war (for 4 months) he knows how to fight a war better. Which is not necessarily true. (FYI: Have you heard how he very much opposed the Vietnam war? He also admitted to comitting war crimes. I find the war crimes to be disturbing but not the opposition to Vietnam.) After his speech I was listening to commentators. One of them mentioned that Kerry failed to mention he was the Lt. Govenor. That made begin to wonder: Why is this guy not telling me about his career in the Senate and fails to mention a high ranking elected leadership position (Lt. Gov.)??? I have heard his many contradictions as well which cause me great concern considering our country was attacked and we are now in a guerilla war in Iraq. We need a leader that is firm in his beliefs and does not contradict himself so frequently or at all - this can be a Democrat or Republican.

I respect Bush for taking a strong stance on abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research - all of which could loose him more votes than gain. He has stated some of his personal beliefs which could cost him the election. Pretty risky to take such a strong stance on those issue and publicize them!! I am not satisfied with our borders. They are porous and should be shut down completely. He gets a D-. I do support the war in Iraq - his father and Clinton failed to take out Saddam like they should have. Plus Clinton could have obtained Bin Laden on 3 or 4 occasions but that is for a different post. The 9/11 report shows a link between Iraq and Al Quada. As for the WMD's: Bush based his decision to go to war from intellegence. Intell from the USA, Britain and Russia. Guess what? The 9/11 report says it was not strong intell. How was Bush to know? Bush did NOT lie to the country about WMD's. They could be in a different country, buried in the Iraq desert or do not exist. If the President gets bad intell unknowingly and acts on the intell which later proves to be weak intell, that is not lying. Though some in the media and his opponenets call it lying. O.k. I am off my







Oh, I have voted for mostly Republicans, but I have voted for Democrats as well. So it is not like I am opposed to voting for Democrats. Like I had mentioned, I considered voting for Kerry until I found out more about him. Plus he began talking against facts which are clearly out there for everyone to see. Example: Not word for word mind you but I will paraphrase: Kerry: There is not much of a coalition in Iraq. He would would have waited until we had more. To my knowledge, I think we currently have more than 10 countries in Iraq that are on our side. Sounds like a coalition to me. Perhaps since France and Germany are not in that coalition, it is not a true coalition. 

I am voting for Bush though you do not have to. There are plenty of places to to get information about both candinates. Just do your research and make an educated vote for what ever canidate you want to.


----------



## Rainbowbird (Jul 26, 2004)

I agree with this. I should have added it to my rant.









We can't keep treating this planet the way we do, and expect to have anything left. A major concern for me is why we don't invest more research in alternative fuels. If we weren't so dependent on oil in the first place, we wouldn't have half the problems we do around the globe!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *beanma*
the big issue for me is the environment. i don't have long to type now 'cause my girls are waking from a nap, but bush is raping *this* country not only iraq. kerry couldn't do worse. if bush is (re)elected i'm not sure there will be a world left for our kids. i'm serious as a heart attack. read about global climate change (www.nationalgeographic.com is a start) and then read about all that bush has done to roll back or just plow down protections on our environment.


----------



## mommymarliah (Jun 29, 2004)

just ask yourself who would the terrorists want you to vote for?

Neither of them may be perfect, but I'm voting for the man the terrorist hate more


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommymarliah*
just ask yourself who would the terrorists want you to vote for?

Neither of them may be perfect, but I'm voting for the man the terrorist hate more









And who would that be? Bush is hated by the terrorists but he has done a lot for their recruitment efforts. At the same time, our recruitment efforts are starting to falter. If Bush gets elected, the terrorists win.


----------



## Rainbowbird (Jul 26, 2004)

Hardcore terrorists don't care if a Dem or Repub is in office. They will kill anyone who they consider a threat in any way, shape or form. So I am voting for the person who I think can most skillfully and effectively navigate through the difficult process of eliminating them--- without needlessly endangering us further and alientating us from the rest of the civilized world.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommymarliah*
just ask yourself who would the terrorists want you to vote for?

Neither of them may be perfect, but I'm voting for the man the terrorist hate more


----------



## kamilla626 (Mar 18, 2004)

This election year it seems we're being asked "Who would make a better cat, Lassie, or Rin Tin Tin?"

The way I see it I'm not voting FOR Kerry, just AGAINST Bush. I think a lot of people are "ABB".


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

To each his own, but I want to vote for a candidate, not against a candidate. If thats the case, then Bush will loose but Kerry won't win and neither will the voters.


----------



## kavamamakava (Aug 25, 2004)

Originally Posted by mommymarliah
"just ask yourself who would the terrorists want you to vote for?

Neither of them may be perfect, but I'm voting for the man the terrorist hate more"

In answer to your question, I will vote for the one who is least likely to incite the terrorists to attack us. I think that candidate is the person the terrorists hate LESS.


----------



## pugmadmama (Dec 11, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommymarliah*
just ask yourself who would the terrorists want you to vote for?

Neither of them may be perfect, but I'm voting for the man the terrorist hate more...

GWB has already proven that the terrorists think him being in the White House is absolutely *no* deterrent.

In anycase, I'm not a terrorist, but I'm feel fairly comfortable saying that the terrorists could not care less about this election. Do you really believe that the terrorists are holding meetings right now where they are tabeling ideas until after the American elections?

Terrorist organizations are not concerned with Democrat or Republican. It's America that is the problem.

The focus should be on flushing out problem groups abroad, and at home, _before_ they attack. Logic would seem to dictate that we have a lot better chance at doing that with _more_ friends around the world rather than _less_.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pugmadmama*
Logic would seem to dictate that we have a lot better chance at doing that with _more_ friends around the world rather than _less_.

There you go using logic again! When will the Dems ever learn!


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

So in other words- be more Pro- active than Re- active.

Imagine that- this country/american culture is very reactive which is why after 9/11/01 we have better security (or is it?). In this land it takes a couple of planes to fly into our buildings and kill thousands of people to get anyone's attention.
When I say reactive I mean every part of our culture is. Our medicine is very reactive, but what steps does it say towards prevention? This is the same philosophy that could have prevented a situation like 9/11


----------



## kerikadi (Nov 22, 2001)

Count me among the undecided and disappointed







:

I am more democrat than republican but I am pro-life, against stem cell research, and anti-war. I am still going back and forth but I live in Texas where Bush is king which just ads to my frustration.

Keri


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

It is hard being undecided in this election isn't it?
I am more democratic than republican. But I live in a very non democaratic area so I have to vote republcn in order to get someone in local office. But I am anti war, I am pro-(choose your own and not because someone said you could not) choice, pro same sex marriage.







But on a sad note. Sunday was Respect Life Sunday. At church we had a speaker at the end of mass going on and on about making abortion illegal and being against same sex relationships. I was appalled that my Pastor chose to put his postions on the alter when we are there to attend mass. I have no problem with anyone's views and how they reach them but I think they should be separate and he should concentrate on being a spiritual leader which is what he was called to do.


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommymarliah*
just ask yourself who would the terrorists want you to vote for?

Neither of them may be perfect, but I'm voting for the man the terrorist hate more









And that would keep us safe....how? It seems to me that the terrorists attacked the US when George Bush was in office! Do you really think that they are so afraid of him that they wouldn't do it again? I'm not saying that there may not be a terrorist attack with John Kerry as president but certainly George Bush hasn't disuaded them!

Now, I have another question that I have already asked but no one who is voting for George Bush has answered it. I will ask it again and hope that someone will answer it for me.

*How are we supposed to fight a global war on terror when the entire world hates us?*

This is my #1 reason for getting rid of this administration - not because the terrorists do or don't want Kerry but because the entire world dislikes Bush. We cannot fight this war on terror alone, we need allies.

Anyone...Ferris...anyone??


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Ferris is out sick...

I agree, that world hates bush but....


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

Aw come on, bring back Ferris!

***WARNING: THIS NEXT SENTENCE IS GOING TO SOUND SNARKY AND SNOTTY BUT I SWEAR IT ISN'T - I JUST CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAY IT ANY OTHER WAY***

What do you mean by "but"?


----------



## kerikadi (Nov 22, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LoveBeads*
Now, I have another question that I have already asked but no one who is voting for George Bush has answered it. I will ask it again and hope that someone will answer it for me.

*How are we supposed to fight a global war on terror when the entire world hates us?*

This is my #1 reason for getting rid of this administration - not because the terrorists do or don't want Kerry but because the entire world dislikes Bush. We cannot fight this war on terror alone, we need allies.

Anyone...Ferris...anyone??


Good question. I don't have an answer. I agree with you and that is why I am having such difficulty in chosing a candidate.
The pro-life & stem cell research are so important to me but I don't like what Bush is doing otherwise.

Keri


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Bush is pro choice. He has said twice he would not try to outlaw abortion, and has said he favors the same exemptions Kerry does (life of the mother, etc.) He would not make abortion a litmus test for judicial appointments (and didn't in TX, if you look at his appointees).

Bush's position straddled the stem cell debate, effectively angering both sides.

If SSR is wrong, it's wrong. If abortion is wrong, it's wrong.

I don't care for the way Bush tries to play both sides of these issues. I think it makes him appear shifty and dishonest.


----------



## kerikadi (Nov 22, 2001)

I disagree. Bush has made several strides against abortion and I know if Kerry took office that would all go away








And although I know Bush has strattled on SSR he didn't open the 'human babies for parts' floodgate that Kerry will.

I didn't vote for Bush Sr. because he did NOTHING for the PL movement because his wife is PC so it was easy to vote him out of office. Not so easy for me this time.
Surely under Kerry PBA's would be legal and RU486 and Plan B pills would be handed out at will
















Keri


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Bush's position on RU486/Plan B is a temporary "need more studies" position, not a ban. I think whoever is elected will allow these to come to market. Abortion is legal.

IMO Bush only supports abortion positions that cost him nothing politically. The partial birth abortion ban is a red herring. It was bipartisan legislation that was widely agreed to be utterly useless and impotent. Senator Santorum (from congressional record, just before the vote)

Quote:

It is very clear that this is one particular kind of abortion we have addressed, and we have addressed the vagueness, as put forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. And there are other techniques available for abortion that are late term in nature, and this bill would in no way stop other abortions. In fact, the previous speaker on the Democrat side, Senator Kennedy, made that very point. He made the point that this will not stop abortions.
It is a very rarely done procedure, usually to protect the life of the mother, an exemption which Bush and Kerry both support. Kerry supported a ban on partial birth abortions with an exemption for the life of the mother. I see no difference in their positions here, other than Bush's rhetoric. I think it's important to look past the bs on this issue.

I find his refusal to mount a constitutional amendment on the grounds that the country 'is not ready' just ridiculous. If it's wrong, it's wrong.


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

I haven't had time to read through this...but my big issue is the Supreme Court. It just so happens that they have fallen on Republican presidents when chosen and there's a few slots coming up this term. The Supreme Court makes all the important decisions on everything. If bush is elected again, the Supreme court will be extremely unbalanced. We live in a democracy and we need a system of checks and balances. This war is really really bad. You can't imagine how bad because there is an executive order that no pictures be taken that depict the actual magnitude of the horridness of war and all the dead soldiers, who didn't have proper body armer, returning. I read something that said a huge plane, 10 coffins deep and something like 20 coffins long arrives every couple of weeks. DOn't quote me on this, but I read that and it just killed me, and we can't see those images, so we have no clue what the heck is happening. We are blind, living in a sugar coated world. It's selfish of us that we don't see those pics. I'm not saying that we should focus on one particular coffin, we need to show the masses of the coffins. Everything has gone down the pisser, have you noticed? and bin ladin is living happily in a cave. I wish I could go live in a cave


----------



## mothernurture (Mar 29, 2003)

I would love to contribute to this excellent thread... I'm so glad women are talking about the election and the candidates....

I will be voting for the Kerry-Edwards ticket this year... and let me tell you why...

I am a former counterterrorism analyst in the intelligence community before 9/11. I left a very challenging and important job to stay home with my newborn first child about a year before 9/11. And then I had another little miracle in 2002. I don't regret my decision to leave that field of work as it has been a huge blessing staying home with my children and working in a more family-friendly environment on the west coast, but I do miss the work.

Through my professional experiences, I know without a doubt that the Bush Administration lied again and again about the reasons it chose to invade Iraq and overthrow the government. There is NO link between Saddam Hussein/Iraq and Usama Bin Ladin and 9/11 (please see the 9/11 Commission Report for more information).

In fact, I, a 30 year old government analyst, was more qualified to be the National Security Advisor than Condoleeza Rice, who didn't even know what al-Queda was when Bush entered the White House! The Bush Administration lacked interest in learning and educating themselves about the terrorist threat (see Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies). And as for Rumsfeld, he should have resigned or been fired as soon as the Abu Graib prison abuse scandal became known.

This president has shown time and again that he is not competent to lead this country. His poor judgment on critical foreign policy decisions (to say nothing of his lack of commitment to domestic issues) is nothing short of monumental. He talks about how consistent he is... yes, he's consistent, consistently WRONG and unable to admit mistakes and change course when necessary.

This president's father was not re-elected just based on the sad state of the economy in 1992... well, this current president has the economic problems in addition to a whole lot more that should prevent the American voters from giving him 4 more years to make serious errors in judgment/policy. Why did he give a huge tax cut to the wealthy when many homeland security initiatives to make American safer went largely un or under-funded? And what about Bush's environmental record? it's abysmal....

Another good resource is Mother Jones magazine (current edition) on the Bush Administration record on many different issues. The amount of money he spent and is spending in Iraq could pay for a tremendous amount of work needed on homeland security. Instead, he diverted attention AWAY from protecting Americans.

Even without the unique professional experiences I have had, all it takes is being open to seeing the reality of what is happening in America and in the Middle East, in order to cast a vote for change....


----------



## mothernurture (Mar 29, 2003)

oh yes, and the Supreme Court! thanks for the reminder Moss's mommy....

the next president will likely have the opportunity to fill 2 or possibly 3 positions on the Supreme Court (a few justices are over 80 and some have had poor health). The court is already usually a 5-4 split.. with 2 conservative judges appointed, the court would become very imbalanced. This is a frightening thought...

If for no other reason, vote for Kerry because allowing Bush to appoint 2 justices would be a disaster for our country.


----------



## gratefulmom (Jul 5, 2002)

For those out there who think writing in a candidate is a good idea, you are not really voting at all.... why even go to the polls???


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

So are you undecideds decided yet?


----------



## luv my 2 sweeties (Aug 30, 2003)

To the OP and other undecideds:

You've heard a lot of reasons to vote for Bush or Kerry, so I won't go into any of that. (I'm voting for Kerry, if you care.







) If neither choice seems acceptable to you, how about a third party candidate? OP doesn't seem like the Nader type, but many states have candidates on the ballot from the Libertarians, Greens, Natural Law Party, and other lesser known parties and Independents. You can check out the various parties' websites to find out more about what they stand for. When I lived in Massachussetts, I voted third party just to encourage them! :LOL (I would have voted Dem anyway in that heavily Democratic state, so my "realistic choice" was safe.) Now that I live in Michigan, my vote is much more significant, so I stick to the person I really want to win.

Quote:

For those out there who think writing in a candidate is a good idea, you are not really voting at all.... why even go to the polls???
I can see several reasons a person might do this.
1) There are other offices, proposals, etc. that they *do* plan on seriously voting for, but they'd rather lodge a protest vote for President
2) They really want the person they write in to be President. For example, a serious Nader supporter might write him in if he isn't on the ballot in her state.
3) Not so much for write-ins, but people say the same thing about third parties: I believe that there is no such thing as "throwing away" your vote. Every vote means something, and we have the right to vote for whomever we feel would be best for the office. The current 2 party system is fairly limiting, so I can see why someone might have a hard time deciding. Plenty of folks hold views on a variety of subjects that don't fit neatly into 1 of the 2 major parties. Voting for a third party candidate can be a statement in and of itself. If the Libertarians get a full 10% of the vote in some local election, that says something about what a portion of the public is thinking. (Especially given that there are likely another 10 - 15% -- or more? -- who might have voted the same way if they weren't so concerned about "throwing away" their vote!)

In short, I'm not against pragmaticly voting for someone you don't particularly like just because you *really* don't like the "other guy" -- I've done it myself. But I also support voting your conscience. Even if the person you vote for isn't likely to win.


----------



## guerrillamama (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amys1st*
I do not feel I can vote for John Kerry in my heart

Neither can I. Unfortunately my heart has nothing to do with it.

I feel you, really. Kerry makes me wanna puke, I totally can't believe he's the best we can come up w/. (No offense to the Kerry-fans here, I'm just speaking my truth.)

I voted Nader last time and don't regret it. But, yknow, Bush really is that bad. He really is.

Now, if voting was my only engagement w/ the political system, I might feel differently. Like I said, my heart has nothing to do w/ voting. But my heart has *everything* to do w/ all the other political work, the activism and organizing and service work I do. And that is also what keeps me from getting too sucked down into this election b.s. Because I am part of a movement, because I know so many amazing people on the ground doing amazing work, I know that we'll continue to struggle and fight and resist w/ either prez, and one way or another we'll be alright.

So my advice to you is, whether or not you vote, find some way, however small, to get involved in some work in your community and find that context that makes sense to you, keeps you in perspective and thinking and learning and fighting and hoping. Of course, for all I know you already are.


----------



## guerrillamama (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kamilla626*
This election year it seems we're being asked "Who would make a better cat, Lassie, or Rin Tin Tin?"










:


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

guellamama: You're right, I already am active in my community and an activist for many things. Which is why I am be active saying I am undecided and why I started this thread to talk with other undecideds.


----------



## mothernurture (Mar 29, 2003)

My thoughts on voting for Nadar are that this election is too close and my fears about another 4 years of Bush policy makes it necessary for me to vote for the only viable candidate that can potentially beat Bush. It's very clear that Nadar cannot defeat Bush.

If anyone is interested in reading about what the Bush Administration has done (and not done) for women's issues, please check out the National Women's Law Center (www.nwlc.org) and read the report entitled "Slip-Sliding Away: The Erosion of Hard-Won Gains for Women under the Bush Administration and an Agenda for Moving Forward".


----------



## bayviewbill33 (Sep 15, 2004)

I wish we had more solid choices that we could vote for, meaning 4 canidates who have a ligitimate chance of winning. I know there are more than 2 guys running for president but only 2 who have a ligitimate shot.







:


----------



## loftmama (Feb 12, 2004)

i like all the calm, thoughtful responses in this thread.

before this election, i have claimed "moderate" and "independent" though never registering for any one party. the environmental issues have really affected me. i've done my homework and am so appalled that i feel like i'm doing my children a disservice to re-elect bush. i am a big fan of the outdoors and i'm blown away by how bad bush has been for the environment.
so, this was my one reason alone to be in the probably anti-bush camp.

then, i started really reading....

and getting scared....

did you hear cheney say during the debate that he never said there was a link between 9/11 and saddam????

besides, i've been thinking a lot about the "likability" issue. some people want to vote for gwb b/c they can relate to him. he's like one of them - a good ol' boy; he is what he is. he doesn't speak grammatically correct.

well, i've been thinking: why would we want a president like that?
why don't we want someone better? why is it bad that kerry is so much smarter and "elite?" he does seem above the masses, but we're talking about the position of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I think that I DO want someone in a different league from me. he's got this super-advantaged background. he has contacts all over the world. his wife was born and educated in other countries. man, i think they really will bring up our status in the world. i think other countries WILL listen to him. i think it is just his elitest status that some of us are uncomfortable with that makes him the perfect candidate for the best position in the world. come to think of it, i hope the good ol' cowboy from down the street (i'm in texas) does NOT continue to try to ruin - er run - our country.

have you read about kerry's ideas re: foreign policy and terrorist. he wrote a book years ago and his thinking was so far ahead of everyone else's. i think it still is - which, ironically seems to be his problem. the very characteristic that makes him better suited, imo, is what people don't like. they can't relate to him or to his plan. well, it is long-sighted and very thought-provoking. i think he's light years of bush and his administration.
(if you want more info about that, let me know. i don't want to take up all the space here.)

okay ya'll, hope i'm not stepping on any toes here. keep talkin'.


----------



## mothernurture (Mar 29, 2003)

Loftmama, thank you thank you thank you for your thoughtful post!!! I agree with everything you said. It is so unfortunate that because Bush is a good old boy and talks like one, he stands an excellent chance of being re-elected. Check out MotherJones magazine for more on the inner workings of Bush Administration policy on many issues, including the environment. One of the FIRST things he did after entering the White House is he overturned a late Clinton Administration protection of wildlands executive order.... that alone told me, I can't trust this guy to be a sensitive steward of the environment.

What we need is enough undecided voters to see the Bush administration record CLEARLY. In my mind, that's all it takes to vote for Kerry. Some people say, well, we don't know that Kerry will be any better. But my argument is, well, go with what you DO know... Bush policy is anti-environment, anti-women's issues, anti-middle class.... He protects corporate America, not middle America... And I certainly fall in the "under $200,000 annual salary" category!


----------



## mommy2be (Mar 6, 2004)

BUSH! BUSH! BUSH!!! I'M VOTING FOR BUSH!

However, I've come to this conclusion: If God allows Kerry to get elected, it must just be his way of not letting Hillary Clinton run in 2008. Honestly, I don't know which would be worse..









anyways, just to share my reasoning in a nutshell:
For Bush:
against stem cell research
against gay marriage
proLIFE
he's openly a Christian (kerry quote, "I don't wear my faith on my sleeve")
DOESN'T FLIP FLOP
Terrorists Hate our country because we are free to be whatever religion we wish in America. They believe they will go to heaven (and have sex..yes, truth) if they kill Christians and Jews, which is what most of our population is in America, so NO MATTER WHAT, they will always hate us, unless we stop it now...If I were Osama, I would soo wait until Kerry was president to attack since he's so anti-war. (his words, not mine) heck, why not, they won't retaliate.

anyways....just thought I would share my 2 cents.

Bush/Cheney '04


----------



## Meli65 (Apr 29, 2002)

Ugh, how I hate that "flip-flop" phrase. Did anyone see "Wag the Dog," where media experts totally manipulated the whole country with pithy little phrases like that that mean totally nothing? I think the debates have made it clear that Kerry does not "flip-flop" and that GWB is so sure he is right about everything he's ever done that he would never consider changing his mind EVER -- do Bush supporters really believe that is a good thing? Haven't you changed your mind about some things since becoming parents?

I also don't understand why anyone is so threatened by gay marriage.

With regard to those who are pro-life -- I heard that abortion rates actually went DOWN during the Clinton years, because more people had health insurance. Unfortunately, I can't back this up, but maybe one of you better educated posters can help me out with this one


----------



## mothernurture (Mar 29, 2003)

Meli65, I concur with your thoughts. It is DANGEROUS to have a president (Bush) who is incapable of admitting mistakes and correcting course. Richard Nixon and Vietnam is a good example. Not only did he lie to the American people (hmm, does that ring any bells - GWB and Iraq), he did exactly the opposite of his publicized policy... he claimed to be ending US involvement in Vietnam and instead he broadened the war into Cambodia.

My concern is this... if undecided voters are not able to take a hard look at the Bush policy and the ramifications of said policy, we will have another 4 years of these mistakes. I would rather have an intellectual, diplomatic personality (Kerry) in the White House than a good old boy, dogmatic, right wing, egomaniac (Bush) presiding over our nation. Bush's approach has alienated most of the world (including allies).

Mommy2be, I respectfully disagree for many reasons. Actually Bush does flipflop but in a less intellectual way, therefore Kerry takes all the heat on seeing gray areas... Bush sees only in black and white, no nuances.... the clear sign of a non-intellectual.

There's a new study out by the highly respected Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Israel....

"The war in Iraq did not damage international terror groups but instead distracted the US from confronting other hotbeds of Islamic militancy and actually created momentum for many terrorists, chiefly al-Qaida (bin Ladin's group) and its affiliates."

Bush's mistake in invading and overthrowing Iraq served to accomplish exactly the opposite of his stated goal... the Iraq war is drawing Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to join the battle.

Bush's colossal error in judgment (Iraq) has been disastrous. Our country cannot afford four more years of a president who makes decisions that actually make us MORE vulnerable to terrorist attack. The billions of dollars spent in Iraq could have gone DIRECTLY toward homeland security measures in our country. Instead, we are nearly as vulnerable to terrorist attack as we were 3 years ago.


----------



## loftmama (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mommy2be*
he's openly a Christian (kerry quote, "I don't wear my faith on my sleeve")

and now...from our openly Christian president who wears his faith on his sleeve:
"Fuck Saddam. We're taking him out."

George W. Bush, interrupting a meeting between national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and three senators in _March 2002_ - a full year before the invasion

"I never wanted to commit troops", George W. Bush, _Sept. 30, 2004_ debate.

Is lying one of the Ten Commandments? :headscratch

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...mep.saddam.tm/

Vote your conscience.

P.S.







Rowan's Dad


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *loftmama*

why don't we want someone better? why is it bad that kerry is so much smarter and "elite?" he does seem above the masses, but we're talking about the position of PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I think that I DO want someone in a different league from me. he's got this super-advantaged background. he has contacts all over the world. his wife was born and educated in other countries. man, i think they really will bring up our status in the world. i think other countries WILL listen to him. i think it is just his elitest status that some of us are uncomfortable with that makes him the perfect candidate for the best position in the world.

What do you consider elite? If he seems above the masses, its because he is arrogant. This is terrible that he seems above everyone- why because he has more money? Give me a break. These people are human like you and me and just because they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth- this does NOT make them elite. It shows what a disadvantage he could potenially have since he has no idea how the majority of Americans- never mind how the rest of the world lives. I am not uncomfortable with his "elite status" because I don't consider him from an elite status.


----------



## loftmama (Feb 12, 2004)

hi amys1st - well, i guess we differ on that one. one reason i said that was because i think his an intellectual and bush is not. why i think that is because i think kerry thinks more, thinks smarter, thinks more in the long-term than bush. they were both born with silver spoons in their mouths, that goes without saying. i also said that because of kerry's connections to royalty, his connections abroad, which i think will do a tremendous amount of good - at least he has a better shot at bringing together other countries than bush does. since he's also been a vet, i think he also has more experience than bush does with what war is like. so there you have my little opinion.


----------



## Benji'sMom (Sep 14, 2004)

I like Kerry for domestic policy. He's better for the enviornment, and he wants to get rid of no child left behind (my DH is a teacher so we hate no child left behind). And Bush hasn't done much domestically. On the other hand, I don't blame Bush for the economy because the resession started before the 2000 election and as far as I know it was caused by the dot com bust and the Enron and Worldcom scandals, and 9/11 didn't help, either. And the economy goes up and down in cycles anyway. You can't have the best economy FOREVER, it's got to go down sometimes.

But on the other hand, I think Kerry's policy on Iraq is stupid. He's not planning to just end the war, even though he bashes the war all the time. He just thinks that if he's Pres. all our international allies will suddenly and majically want to be involved in the war so we won't be going it alone anymore. What an arogant retard! He thinks that he has that much magnatism? He's in for a disappointment. Well, that's why I'm undecided. Because I feel more comfortable with Bush regarding the war, for some reason. Because I don't think Kerry's so-called plan will work out. So what is he going to do when all these other countries don't send troups to Iraq? He's going to need a Plan B. What's his plan B? But I'm more comfortable with Kerry for domestic issues. So I'm torn.

And you must have all heard that during the Clinton Admin. they made it the official US policy to change the regime in Iraq. So why is everyone so flabergasted that Bush wanted to oust Sadam from the beginning? Why wouldn't he? That's what everyone wanted. And if you don't like it, blame Clinton.

And I don't think it's fair to say Bush is not as smart as kerry. He's definitely not as good a public speaker, but are YOU a good public speaker? I don't know, it's not like we went and gave them IQ tests and we can actually tell which one is smarter, so that's just a cheap shot.

Oh, this is sort of OT, but since we're talking PBA - if you're doing it to save the mother's life, b/c supposedly giving birth would kill the mother, then how is PBA supposed to save her? The baby is born except for the head, right, so how is that better than letting the head come out? I'm not looking for an abortion debate, I'm just wondering if someone has a link for a medical explanation for that, because I never understood it. But I'm no doctor, so I'd just thought I'd ask.


----------



## Meli65 (Apr 29, 2002)

This is an interesting statement:

_What do you consider elite? If he seems above the masses, its because he is arrogant. This is terrible that he seems above everyone- why because he has more money? Give me a break._

Couple things. I don't think of John Kerry as being above the masses -- I think of him as being an educated man. I am myself an educated, intelligent person and would prefer to have someone in the White House(not to mention the Leader of the Free World) whose intelligence I respect. I think it is well documented that George Bush is not the sharpest crayon in the box -- I think he has said so himself on more than one occasion (didn't he once joke that he was proof that C-studenhts could become president?). And I think it is important to put serious thought into decisions -- not just emotional reactions. Just because many of us DO tend to be reactive doesn't mean that we shouldn't strive for someone more thoughtful and deliberate to lead us.

As for the money thing -- GW Bush is made of money. They both are. It's unfortunate. But I have never seen any evidence that the Bush administration cares about those who don't have money -- certainly their economic policies are built to benefit the very wealthy (like the Bushes, and the Cheneys, and the Bruce Springsteens....)


----------



## loftmama (Feb 12, 2004)

First, to address the PBA, I there's a discussion going on in spirituality that might interest you.
http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=202031

Second, about Kerry's policy on Iraq. Have you read about it yet? It's not as simple as

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Benji'sMom*
all our international allies will suddenly and majically want to be involved in the war so we won't be going it alone anymore.

Its actually quite different from Bush's plan. In fact, he foresaw this kind of problem years before the terrorists attacked. He proposed a plan years ago nicknamed the "Kerry Agreements." In fact, it became the Patriot Act, which is why he is for most of it - just not the Big Brother stuff that's in it.

I think many people think, like you, that his plan is the way you described it. This is unfortunate. Here is a brief description about his plan. As you can see, it's VERY DIFFERENT from Bush's.

Quote:

By singling out three states in particular- Iraq, North Korea and Iran - as an "axis of evil," and by invading Iraq on the premise that it did (or at least might) sponsor terrorism, Bush cemented the idea that his war on terror is a war against those states that, in the president's words, are not with us but against us. Many of Bush's advisers spent their careers steeped in cold-war strategy, and their foreign policy is deeply rooted in the idea that states are the only consequential actors on the world stage, and that they can - and should - be forced to exercise control over the violent groups that take root within their borders.

_Kerry's view, on the other hand_, suggests that it is the very premise of civilized states, rather than any one ideology, that is under attack. And no one state, acting alone, can possibly have much impact on the threat, because terrorists will always be able to move around, shelter their money and connect in cyberspace; there are no capitals for a superpower like the United States to bomb, no ambassadors to recall, no economies to sanction. The U.S. military searches for bin Laden, the Russians hunt for the Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev and the Israelis fire missiles at Hamas bomb makers; in Kerry's world, these disparate terrorist elements make up a loosely affiliated network of diabolical villains, more connected to one another by tactics and ideology than they are to any one state sponsor. The conflict, in Kerry's formulation, pits the forces of order versus the forces of chaos, and only a unified community of nations can ensure that order prevails.
This issue is one of the most important we've ever faced in choosing a President. To understand more about the choices, click here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html

There's so much to read to stay informed when you have kiddos. Good luck!


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

So called Christians who think that Bush is Christian are completely diluded and obviously haven't read the Bible. They just go to church for the need to have that feeling of belongingness fulfilled. What would Jesus do? He surely would have not killed all of these people. Satan is so alive in this administration posing as Christians for marketing reasons and doing a damn good job at it! Read your Bible for once and understand the words thou shalt not kill and don't call yourself a christian if you stand behind this administration. History will prove this era for America to be shameful, just like the Vietnam war, just like slavery...all of which we will never be able to forgive and forget. My blood pressure is a little high now. Let me go yack...why..why..why are people this way?-yes you... you're just as bad as hitler thinking that way. SHame on YOu!


----------



## boston (Nov 20, 2001)

and who do the terrorists hate more?


----------



## guerrillamama (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boston*
and who do the terrorists hate more?

oh haven't you seen the latest polls? gallup has been doing a random phone survey of terrorists in all the swing nations... :LOL


----------



## loftmama (Feb 12, 2004)

Moss's Mommy - ITA! It completely blows my mind beyond belief that so many Christians will vote for Bush b/c they are pro-life, yet he has cost so many more lives. We haven't even begun to address the issue of all the poor children who are now orphaned or whom have seen their families obliterated, tortured, etc. Really - it just seems so fundamentally anti-Christian.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *guerrillamama*
oh haven't you seen the latest polls? gallup has been doing a random phone survey of terrorists in all the swing nations... :LOL


I heard that Bush scored high for recruitment!


----------



## Meli65 (Apr 29, 2002)

I am surprised by the pro-life people who vote for Bush, too. In the Catholic church (I saw a documentary on this) they called it the "sanctity of human life" -- so fetuses are protected, just as are people on death row, just as are the terminally ill. That is, if you believe life is sacred, then ALL life is sacred. Even those retarded prisoners in Texas who were executed. Even all those Iraqis who have been killed. etc. etc. etc.

We have talked about this in another group I belong to and I remember one person asking, so, you believe that life is only sacred while it is still in the womb?

I have not yet received an explanation for this from anyone who believes this way -- besides the fact that unborn babies are "innocent" and convicted criminals are, presumably (and that's a big presumably) not.


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

Ug. I'm sooooo tired of the tag line... and who do the terrorists hate more? How are we supposed to know the answer to that one? Do we want them to hate us more? It is so ignorant for us to act like children and say nah-nah-nee-boo-boo. And to answer your question as to who they hate more...the answer is simple... Bush hasn't been focusing on Afganistan...., so maybe they like him more...who cares who they like or dislike, I can't believe you'd even think on that level, as to their likes and dislikes...it doesn't matter what they like and dislike....
Also, I think all of us mothers on this board agree that spankings don't work, violence is not the answer, but I know that Kerry will continue with the violence because he's got to get us out of this mess somehow... and I'm seeing that he has a plan to win the peace, unlike peanut brain who had no plan of ever gaining the peace. duh.


----------



## misfit (Apr 2, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gratefulmom*
For those out there who think writing in a candidate is a good idea, you are not really voting at all.... why even go to the polls???

Because our votes send a message. Because there is no "None of the above" option on a ballot. Statistically, no one can tell the difference between a voter who didn't vote because she didn't care, and a voter who didn't vote because she didn't like either of the candidates. A write-in or third-party vote says, not Bush and not Kerry either.


----------



## number572 (Aug 25, 2004)

Some good info is being revealed in a PBS (channel 2 in south florida) nationwide special on Kerry & Bush. Their histories, work & personal... past war experience, etc. It may help you decide who you agree with more. It is from 9-10pm eastern time zone. Not boring, good info, good narration/voiceover.

sorry if this is o/t,


----------



## number572 (Aug 25, 2004)

really, you should watch, full of accurate info.


----------



## number572 (Aug 25, 2004)

oops! must be from 9-11pm... sfi


----------



## merpk (Dec 19, 2001)

Which one the terrorists hate more?









Give me a break.

They could care less who's in charge. The US is the enemy, whether Bush is the boss or Clinton or the other Bush or Kerry or Giuliani ... or Hamid Karzai, for that matter. They're ag'in' it. So truly not seeing how speculating which one Osama would vote for, or Rantisi's heirs ... not seeing how it's relevant.

Am sad I missed that 'Frontline' tonight. Hoping it'll be repeated.

loftmama, thanks for that mind-expanding &issue-clarifying excerpt and your link. Interesting reading.


----------



## dukeswalker (Feb 1, 2003)

It really is interesting to hear undecided voters talk about their reasons for being undecided...On one hand they really do agree with the majority of what Kerry has to say, but over and over again I hear "I just can't vote for him" - well, if that is the case tell me WHY you CAN vote for Bush??

The other day I went to check out Farhenheit 9/11 at Albertson's, there weren't any on the shelf so I asked the guy behind the counter if they had any and he said "Why would you want to watch that crap? If you're any kind of Bush supporter you're gonna watch it and its gonna make you wanna kill someone." Nice heh?? It so scary to see that kind of anger - and that is what I see in Bush.

BESIDES all of the issues, I think he has allowed his emotions and his feelings to cloud his presidential responsiblity of good judgement.

Ever heard of seperation of church and state? He should NOT be wearing his religion on his sleeve - it shouldn't be an issue and for him to pull the religion card is only a way for him to falsely attain more votes - I don't want to know his religion - it should not play into his decisions and if it does he is not respecting his resposiblity as president to make clear, unbiased decisions for the good of America and the World.


----------



## musician/mom (Feb 12, 2002)

Loftmama,
as I was reading all the posts I was thinking of posting this article but you beat me to it! I highly recommend reading it - the WHOLE thing - to get an idea of Kerry's vision and experience in foreign policy.

Here it is again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html


----------



## mothernurture (Mar 29, 2003)

Dukeswalker, AMEN to everything you said!! I completely agree that there is no clear separation of church and state with Bush in the White House... This is why I, a Christian, am not only voting for Kerry but also volunteering for Kerry's campaign in Seattle.

It truly frightens me to think about allowing this guy 4 more years in power.... if America is truly a melting pot of cultures/values/religions, then there necessarily MUST be a separation of church and state due to the many different religions that co-exist in our country...


----------



## sleepies (Nov 30, 2001)

i am tired of the same old stuff with bush.

lack of jobs, bad economy, etc.

kerry also wants to try and pass a tax CREDIT for anyone taking college classes!!! up to $4,000. this would be a great value to my family.

i also really decided to vote for Kerry, after viewing his website. you should take a look.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

sleepies!! oh my gosh!!

I am amazed to see you voting for Kerry! Good for you, for deciding what is best for your family and going with it.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

I saw the pbs frontline special. Very well done like all their others.

Anyone see the debate tonight? Went a lot smoother than the others. No timber companies etc dug up.


----------



## loftmama (Feb 12, 2004)

hey amys1st. i thought the debates went a lot smoother, too.

there's, like, a 20-page discussion going on about the debate tonight here: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=205247.


----------



## guerrillamama (Oct 27, 2003)

curious, undecided people - did this debate help you at all?


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

I'm still feeling undecided but I am thinking about a lot of issues brought up.


----------



## LoveBeads (Jul 8, 2002)

Amy, you should feel really good about yourself and all of the thought that you are putting into this. Whatever you decide, it may not be fthe perfect candidate with all of the solutions you would like, but it will certainly be a decision derived from a lot of time and mental energy.

I respect that. And I respect you. I keep coming back to this thread to see if you have decided - I know it's really not my business but I would love it if you would share with us your decision when you do make it.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

LoveBeads,
Thanks! I have never been this undecided about an election before so I do want to put some thought into it. I have thought of voting for Ralph Nader but I remember last time every vote for Nader was a vote for Bush since it took away from Gore.
As a family, DH and I have thought about how his small business expenses are for him and his partners and what could be done. Such as taxes the company pays, health insurance costs, malpractice/liabilil. insurance etc.
We pay less personal income taxes the last 4 years than we have ever paid. As well as a $600 refund in Summer 2001 that Bush did. When I say that I mean not just dollars but percentage since I no longer get a salary as of 2003. But when we were double income we paid less under Bush than Clinton- and I made more money while Bush was president.
Medical insurance costs cannot by lowered by Kerry getting into the White house. They were risen by double digits while Clinton was still in office.
We would not be able to take advantage of Pell grants now or when we were earning our degrees. But I thinks it important that there are those grants available to those students who could use them. All and all along with these points, as well as some others, we are _leaning_ towards Bush. ITs a surprise to us but we have to think about our investments and our income.


----------



## number572 (Aug 25, 2004)

Amy & other undecided people ~ Not sure if you caught the last showing, but PBS is giving a special again tonight entitled "CHOICE 2004" on their Frontline production. It will air from 9 - 10:30pm tonight (thursday).

The show is a documentary style viewing of both Bush & Kerry. It is non-partisan, publicly funded. Gives facts, pictures, video clips, etc. Good info, positives & negatives of both guys... nice voiceovers that aren't super annoying as well. I just looked up that you can order the video tape thru PBS.ORG, but its 30 bucks!!! eek, hopefully you can catch it for free!









Anyway, good luck deciding, it's important!


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

I saw the Choice on Tuesday evening- it was well worth staying up past 11pm to see.









Did anyone notice John Kerry give a plug to Blue cross blue shield at the debate?


----------



## number572 (Aug 25, 2004)

Amy ~ Yes! I was thinking at the time "wow, the heads of BCBS must be flyin' high right now! What an enormous plug. I'm digging into that right now to make sure there are no major funding strategies at work. I also heard him mention a few other companies for healthcare in other speeches, in the end it feels more like he (kerry) would like to see more choices & equality amoung us common folk.

Did you happen to catch the question during this last debate regarding the fact that: if the same healthcare options that are available to washington folk were available to us regular folk, what would thety think? (not accurate wording, but the basic question was asked) And George Bush said SL "If we offered the same health care programs to everyone in North America, we'd be looking at a $280 billion something bill!" What flashed thru my mind at that time was that he didn't feel that all of us deserve the same coverage & options as they have. Which really bothered me!

How did you feel about that particular question & responses of Kerry & Bush? I'm really interested in your answer b'c I want to hear all points of view, as we're all in different situations. So cool of you to post this thread btw.


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

[QUOTE But on the other hand, I think Kerry's policy on Iraq is stupid. He's not planning to just end the war, even though he bashes the war all the time. He just thinks that if he's Pres. all our international allies will suddenly and majically want to be involved in the war so we won't be going it alone anymore. What an arogant retard! He thinks that he has that much magnatism? He's in for a disappointment.[/QUOTE]

Obviously, one can't say whether this is true or not. But I think it is more true than you make it out to be. Although Britian is working with US in Iraq, the people are extremely hostile towards Bush, and the government have unofficially admitted their preference for Kerry (there have been various leaks, off the record remarks etc - nothing offical and nothing from the horse's (Blair's) mouth, but I think it's fairly clear). I would imagine this is be broadly true across Europe.

As undecided voters, how would you feel receiving a letter from this scheme? http://guardian.assets.digivault.co.uk/clark_county/
I can't decide whether it would piss me off or not!

(Also found this, while looking for the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...327568,00.html for whether the international community would prefer to work with Kerry or Bush)


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Regarding the BCBS issue: When it first happened,







John Kerry said said in response to equal heathcare- "I have BCBS..." DH and I laughed out loud and DH said whao what a plug that was! Then when he repeated it we laughed harder. But not before Kerry talked about the numbers of people who have no healthcare insurance in certain states. Those states were of course...drumroll, Swing states! As he was saying them as if it was random DH was saying Ohio, Florida, Iowa...just before Kerry would say them.







:
I guess having pizza and octoberfest beer during the debate set our mood.

I also thought it was a low blow of both Kerry and Edwards (in his debate w Cheney) to bring up Cheney's daughter's sexual preference. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. She is not running for office (even though shes involved w the campaign) and she deserves privacy.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Opps, I dodged the question in my soapbox...

Equal heathcare would be a great thing but how equal would it be and where do you draw the line? This came up in 92 with Clinton and it went the way of the wind.







: Another issue of equal healthcare in Illinois is malpractice insurance. It is getting to the point where Dr's are exiting Il to neighboring states that have limits on what patients can receive in damages recovered in lawsuits against Drs. Or Drs here are limiting their practices so no patient of a high risk can be treated. In parts of central il there are no Drs to perform emergency surgeries or no Drs for miles around.
So how would we offer "equal" heathcare when there isn't anyone to give this equal heathcare to patients?
This plus climbing insurance rates and low coverage is what people in my state face.
Also, I am sure there are mdc mamas who work in the heathcare field like my DH who could also shed light on this...
What steps would we need to give equal heathcare??


----------



## loftmama (Feb 12, 2004)

amys1st - since you're leaning toward bush for financial reasons i just wanted to ask you a question. And I ask this in all honesty, too - no underhanded meanings. I'm truly curious.

Okay, Bush took us from a huge surplus to a deep deficit, what my repub husband calls "borrow, spend and pay for later". I've been wondering how he thinks he's supposed to pay for that debt he incurred. Perhaps I need to check out his plan, too. I saw a list of dozens of noted economists that have decried bush's financial plan. So, my question to you, I guess, is how do you think he's going to do this since he rolled back taxes already? Raise taxes? How much? How will that affect you? He's already underfunded a number of programs he initiated and plans to eventually fund (notable NCLB - I'm a teacher)

so, since it's come down to finances, how does his financial plan work for you? Thanks!


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amys1st*
I also thought it was a low blow of both Kerry and Edwards (in his debate w Cheney) to bring up Cheney's daughter's sexual preference. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. She is not running for office (even though shes involved w the campaign) and she deserves privacy.

I thought it was perfectly reasonable for both Kerry and Edwards to bring up Cheney's daughter's sexual orientation. She is actively campaigning for her father who is running for VP with a candidate who supports changing our constitution to implement his version of morality and religion that will directly effect her ability to marry and raise a family with the woman she loves. Bush wants to twist our constitution to discriminate against homosexuals. He wants to implement government sponsered discrimination against Mary Cheney. Once she steps up to the plate, she is fair game. She can't have it both ways. She is effectively supporting someone who would make her a second class citizen.


----------



## number572 (Aug 25, 2004)

Why should Mary Cheney be expected to be upset by Kerry's comment? Being gay or being straight is nothing to be ashamed of at all! Yes it's a personal issue, but not one that is some huge secret to be kept & talked about only through the corners of the mouth in a low voice. It's so ridiculous in this country to think that someone would prefer to be kept in some social closet as to not offend the featherweights who can't deal with the realities of our world. People have attractions for ohter people. Period. Doesn't matter if their attraction is for someone of the same OR opposite sex. Seems more like a problem of the offended than a problem of the gay person.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

I have no problem with Mary Cheney's preference. Because I also believe she was born with that just like I was born with my preference. She should have every right to be happy like any other citizen of this country. She should also live her life like I do and not hide away and speak in undertones.
Just like I feel nursing in public is as right as it is to bottle feed in public, I feel its right to be who you want to be with just as it is who I want to be with.

My problem is not the issue, but that Kerry and Edwards both used her as a political weapon against the other side and its personal. As I stated before its no ones business to judge me if I am gay or straight and its certainly not anyone's business to judge what she is. I remember Edwards at his debate saying "your Gay Daughter" over & over again in his point. He was only trying to get Cheney mad. Who cares what she is doing, she is not running for office. Its below the belt to bring someone's family into the issues no matter how well they fit into the scenerio.
I guess its my mothering instincts kicking in. I would be protecting of my DD as well and I am not excusing myself for that.








I challenge anyone here who would not feel the same if their children's privacy and right to live their life was challenged in any way.


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

I'm a Kerry supporter and agree that that was low. There's no use stooping to Bush's level. I remember Bush in the 2000 debates bringing up the fact that Gore went to a Budist temple, like it's something to be ashamed of. I still think that if Kerry were elected, we'd be closer to a more than 2 party system.... and the supreme court, you mamas! Is soooooo important that it is balanced. We need a market place of ideas in that court....


----------



## 5796 (Oct 19, 2002)

I'm voting for Kerry. Proudly by the way.... and I too cringed when he brought up Mary Cheney. That would NOT have been my choice. Thought he blew that one.

But then, I see Dick Cheney say, "I've never met Edwards before tonight" and then of course they had met before. I saw Dick Cheney say he is in the senate every tuesday and of course the fact checkers found out he had been there 2 in one year.

Then in the last debate, GWB says, "I never said I don't think much about Osama bin laden" or something like that..and of course by the time the debate was over almost every news organization had the clip of Bush saying..exactly what he said he didn't say.
I could go on and on about what made a man be so off on that, but I won't. My only guess is that he lives so much in a bubble surrounded by so many prooperuppers that he doesn't know where he begins or ends...

but listen, that's just my pov on really inconsequential issues.

However, regarding healthcare... Amy1st, I'm not sure where you saw that health care rates raised during the Clinton administration but remember you have to compare it with the price of living and everything was up but so were salaries a very salient point....... I am not bringing it up for you to go out and find a link..that's more work than you need to do for me.. but seriously there is so much to this issue and I think you might be interested in this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=H04

those numbers scare the beetlejuice out of me...

but then, I hang out in the Vax forum quite a bit. And if you hang out there you would see this is also of concern to me..(at least)

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=111257

I don't know if you have been to the annenberg fact check which is non partisan and blows holes claims by the candidates... I wish I could use the annenberg foundation when I talk to my father about many issues..but that is a whole other discussion..

anyway, check out this link for more on both men (kerry and bush) and health claims.

http://www.factcheck.org/article264.html

http://www.factcheck.org/default.aspx


----------



## gratefulmom (Jul 5, 2002)

As a Mama who cannot afford healthcare it is a major issue in our minds. My Dh is a self employed small business person. He does not fit into Bush's ideal of "small business" . We are not part of his tax cuts, we make a lot less than the individuals he watches out for. We have to find our own health care and we cannot afford it. We are lucky to live in a state that has great healthcare for children. Kerry's healthcare agenda to include parents in plans that cover our children is much needed. It just comes right back to taking care of our families and supporting families that believe a parent should be hom ewith their young children.
Check out mothers opposing Bush for some more family issues.
www.mob.com


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

I do have personal proof of rising health care costs when Clinton was president. Its on my payroll check stubs. Every year there was a double digit increase.
But on a larger scale, I worked for two fortune 500 companies. One sold payroll services/Employer Services. Our job was to call on companies to sell them services. One major being payroll as well as employer services such as PEO (Professional Employee Organizations). 90% of clients/ prospects that had 200 or less employees (small business America) had double digit increases after 1998 in medical insurance. It took a good 18-24 mo's for it to catch up with the employee. The companies either would have to stop offering benefits or raise the deductions that their employees would contribute to having health insurance. Or worse, deal with less then average health care insurance. HMO's etc.
I also worked for a very major telecom company. From the time I started when medical benefits were included with NO deductions until I left that company to raise DD, the benefits were out of reach for some employees. Sorry I do not have a link but I do have w-2's and tax returns plus check stubs to show.








But, talking to my clients over several years, I cannot think of any small business owner who has not seen this happen to the health insurance they offer (DH included). If you were to speak to 20 people who receive a paycheck, ask them how their healthcare deductions have risen. If they answered they have not, ask them again in Jan 2005.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Under Clinton my healthcare rates went up but under Bush they have gone up even more. I now pay a co-payment when I see the doctor, a premium every month plus co-insurance for any procedure. Coverage under Bush, as gone from 100% to 90% to 80% (that is where the co-insurance comes in). My salary increased steadily under Clinton. During Bush's reign our salaries were frozen for a year and after that salary increases were miniscule and totally wiped out by increased health insurance costs. Bush has been bad all around for our family.

What really worries me about Bush is the attacks on organic foods and the continued resistance to labeling things GMO despite the fact that 92% of Americans would like GMO foods labeled as such. If you are not eating organic, you are eating GMO foods.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

BTW- I said insurance rates started to rise when Clinton was in office. This has nothing to do with his term. My point is they were already going up when Bush took hold of the White House. It just reached epidemic proportions while Bush has been President. There are amny other reasons other than the White House we have such an issue with healthcare.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amys1st*
BTW- I said insurance rates started to rise when Clinton was in office. This has nothing to do with his term. My point is they were already going up when Bush took hold of the White House. It just reached epidemic proportions while Bush has been President. There are amny other reasons other than the White House we have such an issue with healthcare.

Yes this true, but Bush said that he would address healthcare issues when elected four years ago but he has done little to nothing. Things I have seen come up during his reign are pushing for protecting vaccine companies from lawsuits, attacks on the organic food label, no labeling of GMO foods, states dropping people from heath insurance roles due to lack of funding, etc. Bush has not been friendly to the little guy when it comes to health coverage. Everything seems to favor big pharma companies.


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

Looks like it's going to be like the last election. There are already problems going on in Florida, supposedly. Maybe John Kerry will claim he won, like Bush did last time.... if he does, I'm voting for a 3rd party next time bc that would be just....WRONG.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rhonwyn*
Bush has not been friendly to the little guy when it comes to health coverage. Everything seems to favor big pharma companies.


I totally agree with that. But I get the feeling all people in office favor the big pharma co's.


----------



## gratefulmom (Jul 5, 2002)

Yes, in regard to health care, my DH's plan has gone way up...
The company I work for is a "small Business" but not considered a fortune 500. In fact, most small business cannot be considered a fortune 500 company. For my family to get health care on their plan would have been abot $700 per month. ANd that was 2 years ago. NOw we are in the "30" age braket so it has raised even more...
I have hard time thinking womyn that parent as I do like George. Maybe those that do feel the same for Kerry.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

DH's business is a small business (40-50 employees). It started as just 5 people 8 years ago. Even then benefits were very expensive for a small group. Today, they are very high.

My former employers were large businesses, thus allowing for less costly deductions every month. But when I talk to former co-workers at both places, they say in the last 18 mo's their health care deductions have sky rocketed for not as good insurance.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Amys1st*
My former employers were large businesses, thus allowing for less costly deductions every month. But when I talk to former co-workers at both places, they say in the last 18 mo's their health care deductions have sky rocketed for not as good insurance.

This has been my experience at my job for the last 3 or so years. Less coverage, higher costs. I am moving backwards instead of forwards net income wise.


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

Flat out, why I know I MUST vote for Bush, in just two words:

Judicial Appointments.

There will likely be three justices departing the Supreme Court in the next four years. It is important to me that their replacements be conservative. That trumps every other issue for me. I don't like Bush, but I KNOW Kerry will appoint activist liberals to the bench. I will not vote to allow that to happen.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HoneymoonBaby*
Judicial Appointments.

There will likely be three justices departing the Supreme Court in the next four years. It is important to me that their replacements be conservative. That trumps every other issue for me. I don't like Bush, but I KNOW Kerry will appoint activist liberals to the bench. I will not vote to allow that to happen.


I am not disagreeing or agreeing, I respect your answer. My question is why you want the appointees to be conservative? I am just looking for an answer for my own reasons for voting. Your answer may sway me one way or another.

also, we may have a new appointee sooner than later since the CJ is ill now.








Also, Thank you everyone who has contributed to this discussion. You have assisted me in my decision on who to vote for. I refuse to bash anyone who is pro bush or pro Kerry because I am glad you are in fact exercising your right to vote for who you want.


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

I want the Supreme Court to be balanced, a system of checks and balances. It can't be if it tips more to the liberal side or more to the conservative side. The only way for it to be balanced would be if Kerry became president. There already are More conservative justices.


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

I want the justices to be conservative because I believe in conservative values. If you are liberal, then you'd probably want to vote Kerry to ensure a liberal-leaning Supreme Court.

Right now, the court is divided almost in half (5-4, conservative-liberal). A Kerry presidency could tip it to 5 or 6 liberal, 3 or 4 conservative, depending on who retires or dies. He has stated publicly that he will not appoint pro-life justices. As abortion is my biggest issue, I'm not okay with that. The Supreme Court is often the last line of defense for helpless babies. As bad as things are for the preborn right now, they'd be even worse for YEARS to come after Kerry court appointments. Those are lifetime appointments, so Kerry's bad choices would reverberate long after his 4 years were up.

(Of course, the SC has other important decisions looming, too, about religion, culture, elections, etc. I believe a conservative court will make much better decisions on all of those issues than a liberal court. I am admittedly very biased, because I am a conservative and I think liberalism is a bad thing in general.)


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

I get what you're saying. I guess I'm one of those bad people then! Haha. My biggest issue is all those dying children, mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends etc. in Iraq (including all of the armed services people). So, I guess we can just agree to disagree!


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

I didn't say liberals are bad people. I said I think liberalism is a bad thing. Please don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Joyce in the mts. (Jan 12, 2003)

I want the judgments made by a SC Justice, to read in such a way that you cannot tell whether they are conservative OR liberal, in their personal outlook on politics.

The SCOTUS is no place for politics slanting this way OR that way. It's the place where the Constitution is kept safe for All Americans and future generations. The constitution is CLEAR and regardless of whether we like it or not, it must be upheld or this is NOT America.

Joyce in the mts.


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

Oh Honeymoon... I wasn't trying to be rude! Let me rephrase that then... I guess I'm one of those people who do bad things.... like oppose the war because my big issue with the administration is all of the living people being killed for senseless matters.
Also, there's no difference on Bush and Kerry's stance reguarding abortion. Either way, the outcome is going to be the same. But I did hear that there's a third party candidate that wants to abolish abortion.


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

If you think fighting the war on terror in Iraq so that we can avoid fighting it HERE is senseless, that's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.

I'm not going to have a pissing contest with you in Amy's thread, which has been so civil until you started flaming me with your sarcasm. If you want to say nasty things to me, please say them in a PM. Hell, say them openly. Don't muddle them with sarcasm. Tell me exactly how evil a warmonger you think I am. I'm a big girl, I can take it.

Just don't do it in Amy's thread.

Thank you.

JOYCE IN THE MTS:

In a perfect world, I'd agree with your post totally. Justice should be blind. But in reality, it's not. In this society, we're unfortunately forced to choose between two extremes.


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

I hope you're not talking to me, because if you think I'm trying to be sarcastic and fight, that's really not my intentions. I thought we were having a civil, honest discussion on candidates that undecideds might want to vote for. and I was trying to make the point that there are is a pro-life candidate out there. I respect that you are pro-life, but I don't think George Bush has any intentions of promoting a pro-life agenda. Sorry if I upset you, didn't mean to.


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

Okay, fine.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are serious.

Kerry has stated publicly that he will not appoint even ONE pro-life justice to the bench if elected. Bush has no such litmus test. I realize there are 3rd party candidates who align with me more closely on this extremely important issue, but they will not win, and so a vote for any of them is basically a vote for Kerry.

Nader is anti-war. He has pledged to pull us out of Iraq and stop the bombing if elected. Kerry will not. Are you voting for Nader?


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Hmmm,
Honeymoon baby- thanks for stating the reason. Its means a lot and I didn't expect you to feel like you got egg in the face for it.
Don't worry about the pissing contest, like you said you're a big girl and you can take it. Read back and you'll see I have had a few of my own. I don't think anyone means to start a fight, but with politics you can see how they escalate.

I tend to be swayed more to the left than right, but I consider myself in the middle. In Il, I will have a split ticket this election like I have had many times before. Like I stated before, I have to think of how a candidate will affect my family.
Right now we have a seat open for Senator. Obama is a great candidate (Democrat) and will go places even if he does not win this election.
Keyes (put in after a crazy drop out for republicns) comes from another state. He has very conservative values and makes no bones about it. He has some very important points he has made and I agree with him on some points. But since he is a carpetbagger, I would no more vote for him than I would have Hillary in New York 4 years ago. In all his rhetoric, I have not once heard how he will help the people of Illinois- most likely since he has no clue since he does not even live here! So amoung other reasons- Obama it is.
Since I have been getting older, I have noticed my swaying on issues- which is why I started this undecided thread!


----------



## Joyce in the mts. (Jan 12, 2003)

Funny, I guess as a pagan, my view is different:

With all due respect, this post contains my deeply and painfully considered opinions and concerns:

This planet is perfect, but its' the human inhabitants who are in need of further development beyond this particular chapter in history, hopefully coming away with hard if helpful lessons. So, respectfuly and meaning no offense to folks for their view, but just expressing a general feeling: this "in a perfect world" stuff is just words....and indicates a mentality of impotence and limitation...nothing personal and no offense intended to anyone.

For me, energy follows thought, so OF COURSE if we think it's just not a perfect world, we get stuck in accepting such limitation, then we will manifest such and even accept it, as destructive as that may be to our most cherished goals, morals and values.

I do not see the world as some do...obviously,... so I cannot agree that there are only two choices in this world and that they MUST be extremes. I am truly sorry for those whose reality is so limited that they cannot see anything but that black and white picture...forgive me for saying so.

Let me reiterate:
I DO feel and think that it is possible for the Supreme Court of this country to make judgements based on the law in an non-partisan manner. I DO believe that regardless of which side those justices' bread is buttered on, that they better reflect objectivity and uphold our Constitution as-is. That's their job.

And I also believe that to concede to extremes is to perpetuate them. It is, in my opinion complicity to the extremes and the goals of said extremes. AND further, I would state without any hesitation that it is exactly that black/white thinking is what is so very WRONG with our national picture today and what must be changed on Nov. 2.

Our reality is, in my view, that what's been happening over the last four years, ain't working, for this country. And we need to redirect and will do so on Nov. 2. From there it is our job and responsiblity to keep our new direction steady, keep our new president's feet to the fire to continue what we have chosen to start, and to make sure that the healing of very real and painful damage done to our society, the world and our national psyche has begun in earnest and that it continues.

And then...we take it from there. The necessary changes will not occur overnight...because it took a full four years to do the very extensive damage that leaked out all over the world...so we KNOW it will take time; just as it takes more time for a chronic illness to clear than an acute one. It will take lots of time, for the American people to regain some trust in a new president, and he will have to earn that trust...this current one has so broken our trust and some people's spirits, that there are actually folks who don't feel their votes are worth much. And the criminal thing is that the destructive forces in the current administration are willing to intimidate, and do nearly anything to prevent those voters who are timid and easily cowed.

It's really unconscionable. So when we choose our vote this time, yes, it will likely be for one of the dominant parties, but we STILL get to renew the power of the people if we want to- and we MUST!-, and take that seriously once we get a new president in office. It's our responsibility to hold his feet to the fire from the day of his Inauguration. There's follow up, just as in our lives, our parenting, our businesses, etc- we must follow up our choice with actions and no one can do it for us. We must SHOW the new president that we mean business and we mean to take our responsibility as citizens VERY seriously, instead of just riding along and trusting.

I voted for Nader last time. I decided when Bush was appointed, that I would wait and see. I waited, witnessed and saw. I chose to give it time, and I chose to give Bush a fair chance. Then I saw the anomalies in the midterm election return numbers and I knew what I had heard before, was true. The Bush administration meant to grab and keep power for a long time to do whatever they wanted under the guise of morals and values and service. The evidence shows that they have hurt far more than helped; that their intentions are only to line their pockets with ill-gotten gains. It's their karma not mine. But I knew then, we had to rid ourselves of this dis-ease in the White House before it succeeded in eating away all remaining semblance of America's identity as a pretty fair, very innovative and creative, agent in our world....and its' potential for becoming more honest, more compassionate, more aware, more willing to be a part of what is for a greater good in this world.

Before it is too late, we must stop further damage and elect Mr. Kerry....and I say that, because so far...he has been very open to suggestion...his campaign shows its' responsiveness to me because I have and take the time to watch it daily to see reflections of what the people are saying and how he responds. I think he is aware of the wariness of the people and their unwillingness to just lay down and let him have free rein.

And again...I want to share what John Kerry said in his youth as he testified before Congress: How DO you ask someone to be the last one to die in a war? And I heard his testimony last night...and I cried because it was so moving...I realized we could have substituted names and places around the ongoing Iraq war, for all those he used around the Vietnam War, and the statements would hold true NOW. Mr. Kerry spoke some resounding truths to power. And they listened.

I intend to take that example seriously and do so when HE is in the WH....BECAUSE he showed me that one voice DOES count. He was ONE guy...and he did it; so I can too and so can you. THIS is STILL America. We must ALL pay our due; our involvement and our voices, for our freedoms. We MUST take our obligation to voice our concerns and demand redress of grievances very seriously...we have seen what happens when we wait too long. We are marginalized by this administration and by those serving it.

We need to do what is reasonable: to end this national nightmare of a war and meet the challenges of a world where we are no longer leading a charmed life, untouched by terrorism and grow up about it; to end the further looting of our own treasury, close loopholes for corporations and keep jobs at home, and to begin to recover so we can start to draw back down the debt that had been previously drawn down, to save our kids from paying with their blood or their dollars for the folly of the last four years. Yup we are going to have to bite the bullet in some ways and help our new administration and contribute to the efforts; the HUGE efforts it will take to straighten out the mess, but it will be for our kids and their kids that we do so; it will be for our peace of mind that we did all we could beginning with evicting Bushco from our White House...at this point things have been messed up so much that there is no other viable way.

OUR votes MATTER like NEVER before. There IS no safe state where we can play with our votes to give some other folks a boost...I thought this same thing last time. I voted Nader and it all backfired on me...much to my surprise and sorrow. Hindsight is 20/20 and we can't afford hindsight this time.

We must take this opportunity seriously and know that WE are responsible. We will determine with our votes, the direction of justice according to the laws of this land and international law, we will determine a direction toward peace with cooperation and renewed honor in the world, we will uphold equality for all US citizens to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; and we will be part of the renewal of citizen involvment and responsibility to hold our elected officials: our reps and president, to their Oaths of Office: to uphold the Constitution. WE MUST take our citizenship seriously or pay for our complicity and apathy for another 4 years.

If we do not, what do you think America will look like in 4 years? Will our national forests be clearcut and our wildlife refuges be drilled for oil to appease the addictions to money and power and all the outward trappings of "success" we have as a culture? Will my kids, ages 19, 21, and 24 be alive or will one or all of them die in War Without End for those cultural addictions? Will the debt be even greater with no end in sight? Will more homeless families and mentally ill folks be relegated to the streets than ever? I don't know and I don't wanna know that kind of scene. I know it's possible it can happen that way and it is not so extreme a scenario based on what is going on today in our country. I want to prevent it.

So the question is: what is YOUR will?

The answer is: DO your will.

Joyce in the mts.


----------



## Rhonwyn (Apr 16, 2002)

Joyce!!!!!


----------



## Moss's Mommy (Mar 28, 2002)

Wow Joyce, I pictured you saying that in a calming voice. I thnk Kerry will wage a smarter war, not pull away, like some believe and like the Bushies have tried to use to scare people off. With Kerry's smarter war, we will be able to save many lives and get the heck out of there faster. Bush went into this war based on pure emotion. You know if you go into a fight all flustered, the other side is going to win. He went in with absolutely no plan on winning the peace of the people. He was caught blindsighted in the fact that it didn't end after a few months, even after important war strategists told him time and time again that he needs more troops and it's going to take time. He also has not built a strong alliance and not included them in the process of trying to rebuild Iraq. Haliburton was given a no bid contract. and what's the deal? We can talk all day on cell phones that take pictures and send email. I road around in a solar vehicle 10 years ago!!!!!!!!!!! The price of gasoline is sky high........WHAT IS THE DEAL? and it wouldn't happen to have anything to do with that Haliburton project or the saudi's would it? He is also unable to admit his mistakes.... So how are we ever going to fix the mess we're in and win with Bush in office? also, I wish I had a sound bite of him during the last election saying how he was known for his ability to reach across the aisle and unify. I have never been at such odds with my own family or friends in my life. This is my child's life here and I will fight for it.


----------



## loftmama (Feb 12, 2004)

Beautiful, Joyce.


----------



## gratefulmom (Jul 5, 2002)

honeymoonbaby, in you ropinion..
Is it OK that the conservatives vote for the death penalty, as long as they are anti choice???


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

I have steered clear of this thread, however, one must give credit where it is due -

*JOYCE* - WORDS ALMOST FAIL ME. I HOPE EVERYONE ON THIS WHOLE SITE READS THE WORDS YOU JUST WROTE. IN FACT, THAT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED. YOUR INTELLECT, INSIGHT AND COMPASSION IS ASTOUNDING, AND I RARELY TAKE MY DAMNED HAT OFF TO ANYONE, BUT MY FRIEND -

MY HAT COMES OFF FOR YOU.

Thank you. And may the wind be at your back.


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Calm*
I have steered clear of this thread, however, one must give credit where it is due -


If you have steered clear of this thread, how did you know about Joyce's words of wisdom??


----------



## Bippity (Sep 12, 2003)

: Sheesh... even an untrained observer such as myself can see that Calm's simple intention was to not POST in this thread.


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *gratefulmom*
honeymoonbaby, in you ropinion..
Is it OK that the conservatives vote for the death penalty, as long as they are anti choice???

I am against the death penalty, but I think it is far less immoral to vote in favor of the murder of convicted criminals than it is to vote in favor of the murder of innocent babies. Liberals often seem more worried about the rights of the guilty than the rights of the innocent. If there were a party that wasn't hypocritical on this issue, that'd be great. As it is, I'm more comfortable with hypocrisy that benefits innocents than I am with hypocrisy that benefits criminals.


----------



## guerrillamama (Oct 27, 2003)

FYI, not all convicted criminals are guilty. That's one of the big arguments against the death penalty.

The Innocence Project

Center on Wrongful Convictions

The Exonerated


----------



## HoneymoonBaby (Mar 31, 2004)

I know that, guerillamama, why do you think I oppose the death penalty?

However, the ideal of the death penalty (punishing the guilty for their own choices) is far less abhorrent to me than the ideal of abortion (punishing the innocent for choices made by another).

The death penalty is not perfect, and that's why I oppose it. But abortion is just inherently evil, AFAIAC. ***Evil in the moral/ethical sense, not the religious sense.***


----------



## guerrillamama (Oct 27, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HoneymoonBaby*
I know that, guerillamama, why do you think I oppose the death penalty?

OK, I was just making sure! (There are lots of other reasons to oppose it too.)


----------



## Calm (Sep 17, 2004)

Thanks, Beth.


----------



## gratefulmom (Jul 5, 2002)

I just think it goes back to anti choicers being OK with other forms of murder(war, death penalty) Bush is totally for the death penalty but in his Christian sense cannot let a women decide things about her own body.
Us "Liberals" are not always pro abortion. WE are pro choice. If a woman is raped she should have legal abortion available. George W doesnt agree. Yet he doesnt fund tthe social programs to take care of unwanted children. I think we need to remember what a child goes thru that is not wanted. There are some sick stories that have seen in my work. Just walk a mile in a womens shoes who may choose that abortion before you judge her.....


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bippity*







: Sheesh... even an untrained observer such as myself can see that Calm's simple intention was to not POST in this thread.









DUUUUHHHHHH


----------



## Amys1st (Mar 18, 2003)

Okay Mamas,









Tomorrow is your chance to really get you voices heard and not just here. Get out and vote!
But before that,

I want to thank each and everyone one of you who have contributed to my discussion. Also, if you lurked and followed silently, hopefully this made you think about your decision tomorrow more carefully. Or maybe it caused you to discuss it somewhere else. Wahtover it maybe, you came here and it got you thinking.

I may not have agreed with everyone's views or how they brought them forward, but they all have helped me in one way or another. All I can hope is that whatever you wrote or thought, you will keep right on doing it. We all can agree on the fact that we share a common trait- we are voting on what we believe in and what is best for our family. We all know how wonderful it is to be able to exercise our right to feel what we want and post educational discussions here.

I look forward to other discussions with everyone again.


----------

