cyndi wrote:
It's time for regime change ......in America! The SOB steals the election, floods the courts with right wing fascists...One man one vote has turned to pocketbook politics... The screams of terrorism <are> a facade to strip the last freedoms from our masses. The last curbs to total control. Empires require an Emperor. We freely surrender the very soul of our constitution for alleged security. The riches of all are given to a select few. The truth become lies. Too late we will find we have no freedom and no security. We shall find the horror, and it will be us. |
Cyndi:
Hold it right there, missy.
Flood the courts? Steal the election?
I don't think so!
First off, the election was 2 plus years ago; it might as well be ancient history. Gore
lost--deal with it. While I am no fan of Bush's, I'm no fan of Gore's, either. Each person has their good and bad side. While I am not sure Bush is the right man for the job, I am somewhat convinced that Gore would not have done as well.
Congress hasn't voted on a judge in quite some time because the litmus test seems to be whether or not that judge is "Pro-Life" or "Pro-Choice".
Candidates who are quite qualified to hold office are being locked out of their confirmations because the Congress has gotten so partisan. Give me a break!
However, I do agree with the pocketbook politics charge. While I am for some sort of Governmental fiscal responsibility (hey--if I have to live on a budget, why can't Uncle Sam?), I am also tired of having my clutch emptied by Uncle every time some third world country blows its nose. We have poor people in America, too. Homeless, hungry--we need to take care of our own.
Finally...while I agree that we are tossing our freedoms overboard for "security", I am not ready to conceed that we have lost everything...yet. While there are still people who care, that will be a mighty hard stunt to pull. The fact that you even posted your comments show me you are one of us. You care. I care. We may not be a majority...but we can slow down or stop the train.
I am not quite ready to thank the Almighty for the EU, either. (Sorry, folks--there are some things I just won't do!), I'd like to remind you that they aren't perfect. Continued internal bickering and centuries old rivalries that will not die out insure that the EU will not totally be a force for much good until they start acting as a unit, and not like the UN.
Or the US Congress.
Luv 'n hugs,
Jayne Sakura
"Almost-Angel, T-Girl Genius, and Ultra-Flirt"
September 8, 2003 2:17 PM BST
It's quite interesting to look back through this thread.
Now that the war is over - Is it? I think that the battle is over but the war has just begun. More US and British soldiers are being killed now than during the initial onslaught.
The war was clearly justified on the basis of hyped up intelligence and has incited more and more people of the Islamic nation to become terrorists.
Apart from the initial desire to show the world how easily America could flatten Iraq, what has been achieved?
Does anyone actually believe any of our politicians? Does anyone still believe the war was justified? Does anyone think that the world is now a safer place? Does anyone think that our troops will be able to withdraw from Iraq within two years?
If your aanswer to any of the above is 'yes' then I think that you are living in cloud cuckooland.
Lisa
September 20, 2003 9:33 AM BST
I hate getting up and going to work each morning, but when it comes time to pay bills and buy dinner, I'm glad I decided go to work. There's only one person who's obligated to take care of me.
I hate seeing our soldiers killed in combat, but sometimes war is also necessary. Tyrants and terrorists don't go away because we want them to, they only go away when we make them go away. I'm glad we're in Afghanistan and Iraq.
There's no free lunch, and that applies to freedom, liberty, and democracy more than anything else. If we don't protect ourselves, who will?
September 24, 2003 2:20 AM BST
Aren't the armed forces supposed to kill people? I didn't think we sent them over there to give makeovers (now there's a thought...).
I don't see this as another Vietnam situation. Our mistake in Vietnam wasn't in being there, it was in letting politicians play as Generals.
Anyway, are you suggesting that we just bail, now that we've overthrown a dictator? Should we just leave a vacuum over there for another tyrant to fill (or for Saddam Hussein to come back)? Don't we have an obligation to help stabilize Iraq (and Afghanistan) before we leave?
September 25, 2003 6:38 AM BST
It's difficult to argue with that last paragraph. I also get tired of the USA and UK having to do 99% of the work to keep things stable, but it's either that or wait around for another world war against an enemy who might actually be able to defeat us. It didn't take Hitler long to take Germany from shame and defeat after WW1 to being the strongest single nation on the planet (at least until the USA woke up). How much would it have been worth to have avoided WW2? How much to avoid WW3?
Some say we're in WW3 now against terrorism, but that would imply that the majority of the world is involved, and as we've noted, most of the world's nations seem to have other interests these days.
February 18, 2004 12:58 AM GMT
February 18, 2004 4:18 AM GMT
I disagree completely. LOL
February 19, 2004 3:19 AM GMT
So, Rachel, why do you hate Bush so much, aside from your disagreement with his policy in Iraq? You say he was "unelected," yet he won the electoral vote. Do you think he's intolerant? For example, what do you think of his opinion that gay marriages are "wrong"? Do you think he would consider us "wrong" for being trannies, as well?
February 20, 2004 2:50 AM GMT
Regarding the election, I don't think it's realistic to cry foul just because the election was close. The fact is that we do have the electoral college, like it or not, and candidates design their campaign strategies based on that reality. Had the popular vote (either a majority or a plurality) been the goal, each candidate would've campaigned differently. Who's to say how the popular vote would've gone had the campaigns been based on a different set of requirements?
It's comparable to being checkmated in a game of chess. The goal is not to have the most pieces left on the board when the game is over, but to checkmate the King. The player who wins could actually be down by a Queen and two Rooks, but as long as he can checkmate the enemy King, he wins, and his opponent has no business claiming that the win isn't valid just because the winner had fewer pieces. Both players entered the game with checkmate as the goal, and they spent the game working toward that end. If the rules were to change, so would each player's approach to the game.
By the same token, the overall national popular vote has never been the goal in Presidential elections. Betty, I don't care for the electoral college, either, because I think it's outdated, but the time for changing the rules is before the election, not after.
If you want to blame someone for placing Bush in office, look no further than Al Gore. He couldn't even win his home state, which would've won him the election. Fortunately, those of us in Tennessee knew him better than voters in the rest of the country, which is why we voted against him. Tennessee, not Florida, kept Gore out of the White House. As for the conspiracy theories regarding election fraud, I dismiss them as sour grapes on the part of the Democrats. Besides, there are just as many stories of Democrats trying to deny military votes and throwing out obvious Bush ballots in Florida that they subjectively deemed questionable. Also, the post-election recounts proved that Bush won Florida, any way you slice it.
February 20, 2004 2:50 AM GMT
I was going to reply to the rest of Betty's political statements, but as much as I enjoy doing that, I think I've covered most of those issues in previous posts. I want to get back to the tolerance issue, because that's something that should be relevant to most of us here. I asked whether any of you consider Bush to be intolerant. Do you think he's a generally intolerant person? Do you think he is specifically intolerant of those who are gay, bi, and/or trans? Why?
What about anyone else who is against equal rights (specifically marriage, because it's the hot topic these days) for those who are gay, bi, and/or trans? Is a stance against gay marriages a sign of intolerance, or just a matter of opinion?
February 20, 2004 1:26 PM GMT
Well, I think we agree 99% on that one.
While the "religious right" is certainly against gay marriages, many on the left, including John Kerry (who appears to have his party's nomination) are also against gay marriages. Kerry (and 13 other senators) voted against the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, but now he says he's against gay marriage (he favors civil unions instead). Bush has come right out and said that he supports a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages nationwide, and he would need the support of both major parties in Congress to see it happen. Let's hope Congress doesn't let it go that far.
February 26, 2004 4:10 AM GMT
We started losing rights long before the Patriot Act...
National Firearms Act of 1934
Federal Firearms Act of 1938
Gun Control Act of 1968
Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986
Crime Control Act of 1990
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1994
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994...
February 27, 2004 1:06 PM GMT
March 1, 2004 5:59 AM GMT
I can think of five worse presidents in my lifetime - Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton, and Bush's father. I think it's unlikely that Bush will be defeated in 2004, unless something new comes up that causes his support to vanish. I'll be voting Libertarian again, but I doubt that anyone running this year has a chance to beat Bush.
March 4, 2004 1:01 AM GMT
Alexandra, if there's a bright spot for Bush in my eyes, it's the way he handled Afghanistan & Iraq, and most Americans are behind him on that issue, even if many Americans here at Trannyweb aren't. Domestic policies are Bush's weak points, mainly his weak immigration stance, his socialist position on the Medicare prescription drug issue, and his general lack of urgency in trying to reduce deficit spending. I think those blunders will hurt his popularity to some extent, but not enough to lose the election. Something new would have to come up for that to happen.
March 6, 2004 7:20 AM GMT
We'll just have to disagree on that.
Hi Jayne
No. I'm not out there, I'm in here.
If Bush does want to undertake another expedition it's likely to be without us. Our military has left Blair in no doubt that they will be in no position to undertake anything else of significance for two years. That'll be too late for your next election campaign.
Sarah
What do any of you think about the possibility that our action in Iraq will prevent the need for further actions elsewhere? Do you think it's possible that we are now in a much stronger position to negotiate for peace?
I've spoken with others on this issue who consider "negotiating from a position of strength" bullying. However, I don't see how good guys can really bully bad guys.
Of course, we'd have to agree on the definitions for "good guys" and "bad guys," but I think it's pretty clear that nations (at least their governments) such as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya have been trouble makers for the past few decades. Shouldn't we (not just the USA, but all nations who desire peace and stability in the world) be tough with other nations who really are the bullies and bad guys?
Lisa, I grasp it just fine, but it seems that few on your side even want to admit a remote possibility that the USA might actually be correct in this case. Just because someone (or some nation's government) says he hates the USA, that doesn't automatically mean there's a logical and/or justifiable reason for it. Too many want to assume that the USA was wrong to invade Iraq just because we are the stronger force. Being weak (relatively speaking) doesn't make one innocent.
There also seems to be some confusion over why the USA invaded Iraq. It wasn't because of WMDs, it wasn't because of the plight of the Iraqi people, it was because Iraq violated (time and time again) the terms that ended the first Gulf war, and the current USA administration had enough. The other reasons given are all nice, but they are secondary. Saddam played Clinton like a violin, but he couldn't do that with Bush.
Regarding world domination on the part of the USA, we could've already conquered the world, had that ever been our goal. The fact that we haven't proves that we do care about establishing and maintaining peace. That's what we can't do alone, though, and it would be nice to have more help from other nations who claim to be for peace but don't want to roll up their sleeves and do anything about it. Thank goodness for the UK and Tony Blair!
Jill, Blair might really be on his way out, but so was Churchill, once he cleaned up Chamberlain's mess. Sometimes grattitude is hard to come by, but that's politics for you.
Anyway, I know we disagree, but that's why we have elections.