The Truth About My Country

Talk about anything!

Moderator: Station Managers

Postby Tacz » Tue Nov 23, 2004 2:51 am

I believe in gay rights, gun control, stem cell research, and abortion, but I am also for the minimization of the government in economic and social restriction, so Im sorry, I tend to lean to the right.

I dont like Bush, but I also dont like Kerry.
I voted Duchachus :D
User avatar
Tacz
Unstoppable!
 
Posts: 2309
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2002 7:21 pm

Postby Mire » Tue Nov 23, 2004 4:25 am

if you can fly a jet you can't be that dumb.

so, what you're saying is... he's just playing this stupid to distract people from what he's really been planning. everyone thinks he's a complete and utter moron acting like cheney's puppet when in actuality many of these things are his ideas. would they misguide people? clearly not ever, especially with all the misleading initiatives this administration has pushed forward to help cut down trees and pollute the air, i mean "healthy forests" and "clear skies" as primary examples. find me a poor man and i'll vote for him, at least he won't have the corruption already started before he's in office. it's the price we pay for electing officials who have money at stake in big industry.


Playing stupid, hardly, poor at public communication skills? most certainly. In my life I had lead corporate heads left and right, get me infront of a crowd and I freeze, stammer and fumble all over my words. Why? because I am no where near a public speaker. Never been disciplened. Hell, I can't even spell properly most of the time, and my sentence structure stinks. But does that make me dumb? or just ignorant on the proper grammer?

As far as Bushes policies, There are some I like and some I don't. Clearning forests is a must as any forest ranger will tell you to keep forest fires down to a controlable level. If you are talking about clear cutting of a forest, you had best look to your congressmen and senators to place most of the blame on those things. Most of the time, those type of policies are thrown in a piggy back like fashion to a budget bill or some other bill. It is called pork, something the senators and congressmen benifit far more than the President.

find me a poor man and i'll vote for him,


Define poor, then tell me who you voted for.

*cough*onlybecausehisbrotherrunsflorida*cough*"

2008 :)

But, honestly, there were other contenders for both sides that would have and could have been better. Giving and holding on the same old excuses as the 2000 election (which no one has been able to prove on a solid foundation of facts only assumptions and presumptions) or Ohio, which if there were something behind it I think Kerry would have fought if he knew it was actually there.

if you think this government is not overtly corrupt and michael moore is the devil

No, I think the goverment is overtly and covertly corrupt and Michael moore isn't the devil just a propagandist making money. You can't as a capitalist do anything but commend someone like Moore making money on fears, suspescion and misleading statements. No, I don't like his methods, but I do respect the man for doing the same exact thing everyone blames the "neo-cons" of doing.

i urge you to check this link, just appointed head of the cia a few days ago, this is interview footage not released in farenheit 9/11 filmed in march of 2004. as you watch keep this in mind, bush says "he's the right man to lead this important agency at this critical moment in our nation's history."


Yes, I have seen that link and many like them. Trust me I have many many liberal friends who point me to all of thier links, and I read all most every one of them time permiting. Thing is, I don't discount the context of the message, just how the message is delivered, for both sides of the same coin.

i love this country for the most part, it just seems like everybody's putting on blindfolds and deciding it's time for their last cigarette and i'm not ready yet.


Ditto.

'Morals' is their politically correct term for homophobic bigots keeping themselves in the past.


And this is what I mean by giving the wrong message, you won't win over minds that way.

I believe in gay rights, gun control, stem cell research, and abortion, but I am also for the minimization of the government in economic and social restriction, so Im sorry, I tend to lean to the right.


Libertarian my friend, libertarian. :twisted:
Why give flowers to anyone? They wilt, they die the dry out.

Image
User avatar
Mire
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:35 pm

Postby Ichyro » Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:02 am

I understand mire, and you are correct that statement wouldnt win over minds. I just have encountered many who snob at the remark of being homophobic, all the while telling me why gay marriage would harm the sanctity of marriage and telling me they have many gay friends.

It seems a little odd that you would be someones friend, while telling them essentically (Spelling?) they do not deserve the same rights you do. :(

I can't see any right answer for this topic, becuase if one existed, it would have turned a lot of heads by now.

And I stand by the comment. Their idea of moralities is a rigid following of their christian beliefs, all the while Kerry is of the same religion. The use of the word "Morals" is a synonym for their personal beliefs, which include a ban on abortion, a ban on gay marriage, ectera. These are not morals of a society or America, but merely their religious morals. There would be similiarites if a Muslim President made the entire nation Kosher, and was voted in predominately because of his so-called morality.

I would kill for a president who does not let whatever his beliefs are influence his judgement and as a result enforce said beliefs on a nation at large. JFK said it best with this: "As President Kennedy said when he ran for president, he said I'm not running to be a Catholic president. I'm running to be a president who happens to be Catholic."

*Followed up by this quote*

"If the time should ever come...when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do likewise."

In summary, I find it shitty that people elected Bush because of his Morals simply because those morals were a part of his own religion and their own; NOT the morals of our society, but rather of Christianity (And rather ignorant morals if you ask me).

I had the upmost fear that a president would be elected by those of his own faith because of that faith, and it seems my fears were made true this election.

I'm sorry world. I hope we are the ones to suffer and carry the weight, not you all.
User avatar
Ichyro
I Post, Therefore I Am
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:19 am

Postby Mire » Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:13 am

Everything you say I totally agree upon except:

I had the upmost fear that a president would be elected by those of his own faith because of that faith, and it seems my fears were made true this election


As I said, I have no doubt nor do I deny the fact that beliefs on somone's "morals or thier belief in god" didn't have an influence in this election. But, I am sorry world, I don't think 51%, or 90% of our country is that shallow. Ignorant, maybe, but not shallow.

I guess, as I said, I run in different circles than some and don't have the benifit of knowing or allowing those that I associate with get off with the simple reason of " because he belives in God too!" Sorry, just haven't met that many who think like that, and when I do, I test them and finally come down to what they really "think" not believe. [/quote]
Why give flowers to anyone? They wilt, they die the dry out.

Image
User avatar
Mire
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2004 12:35 pm

Postby Demongirl » Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:04 am

my post actually should be taken with a bit of sarcasm... the 2000 vote shouldn't have wasted all the time and money it did, a re-vote would have been just as fruitful. as for 2004 from all the anti-gay amendments passing it is clear who the US voters consist of... and you other 40% who didn't vote, we're coming for you if bush decides to take over another convenient country... think: jay and silent bob strike back. :twisted:

Define poor, then tell me who you voted for.
poor- Having little or no wealth and few or no possessions.
i voted for the guy that hangs out at the corner of cass and bagley in detroit, black man about 6 foot... tarryk, deca, i know you know who i'm talkin' 'bout... always asks how you're doing and if you can spare some money because he's f*ckin' freezing waiting to spange from everyone leaving city club at like 3-4 am saturday and sunday mornings... j/k like 49% of america i voted for the lesser evil because too many people in this nation are too afraid to vote 3rd party, i was set on libertarian before. seems i still gave my country too much credit so no more lesser evils for me. damn it where's jello biafra when you need him!

now that cigarette comment i made was the total serious one.
Image
"You are overburdened... on a message board. Go f***ing mule already." ~ A Tired Player Saga
User avatar
Demongirl
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:32 am
Location: Lurking in the shadows

Postby Ichyro » Tue Nov 23, 2004 6:25 am

Mire wrote:Everything you say I totally agree upon except:

I had the upmost fear that a president would be elected by those of his own faith because of that faith, and it seems my fears were made true this election


As I said, I have no doubt nor do I deny the fact that beliefs on somone's "morals or thier belief in god" didn't have an influence in this election. But, I am sorry world, I don't think 51%, or 90% of our country is that shallow. Ignorant, maybe, but not shallow.

I guess, as I said, I run in different circles than some and don't have the benifit of knowing or allowing those that I associate with get off with the simple reason of " because he belives in God too!" Sorry, just haven't met that many who think like that, and when I do, I test them and finally come down to what they really "think" not believe.
[/quote]

Nah, I understand. I failed to mention that it was not 51% that were all fueled by religious reasons. I know at least one person who voted for Bush because they had concerns over Kerry's flip-flopping (whether its factual or not).

What I mean to say is there were some who voted for Bush because of his strong religious convictions (And resulting enforcement of said beliefs on the population), and so called Moralities. Not the entire number of voters who voted Bush/Cheny, but I believe a sizable number...something like 21% maybe? *

My real point is that true moralities would have rights for all, instead of just rights for those decided by an Ancient Tome.

By the way, our entire population didn't vote..so I can't see 51% being 90% of our country! :shock: If it is then I am scared.


On the topic of third party. I wonder if this nation would be better off abolishing the idea of two political parties, and instead offering us a handful of candiates, without the backing of democrats or republicans. That makes it seem like you have to vote for a canidate out of loyalty..

I might be happy with two conservative, two liberal, and two independant canidates. That way, you run less risk with ending up with two candiates you hate.

Lets say it could have been for 2004: Bush-Mccain-Kerry-Edwards-Nader-'nother Independant

I dunno. Just a thought. :)
User avatar
Ichyro
I Post, Therefore I Am
 
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 2:19 am

Postby Demongirl » Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:59 am

On the topic of third party. I wonder if this nation would be better off abolishing the idea of two political parties, and instead offering us a handful of candiates, without the backing of democrats or republicans. That makes it seem like you have to vote for a canidate out of loyalty..


or even say, separate vote for vp? like any other executive house make different parties work together, add that to your abolishment of current parties... and it would just be one person working with another, both elected to their office by the people. right now it's like a concert, a few might go for the opening band, but most know and will go to see the show for the headliner. right now we have two main parties, one considered liberal and one conservative, with little between... with individuals that would vary more and may very well bring someone to office that represents the face of common america today. i think alot more people would be voting, too, if they had more options. as anyone here knows by now, if you don't vote democrat or republican at this point in time you can't expect your choice to win because of party loyalty alone.
Image
"You are overburdened... on a message board. Go f***ing mule already." ~ A Tired Player Saga
User avatar
Demongirl
 
Posts: 320
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:32 am
Location: Lurking in the shadows

Previous

Return to General/Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests