I believe the Democracy is based upon a principle that the majority rules. Democracy is a system where we elect leaders who theorhetically will pass legislation based upon the majority's wishes.
Gallup is really big here in Omaha, and many of my friends work for Gallup. Daily I hear about their polls. People pay lots and lots of money to find out how the masses view important issues.
There are two major flaws with American's particular flavor of Democracy. One is partisan politics. I don't care if you are predominately liberal, conservative, socialist, or whatever. Represent your constituents. Most politicians seem to forget this.
Ted Kennedy (bad date, good senator) had a speech some two years ago as Bush was trying to push a bill to cut down on prescription costs for senior citizens. Democrats fought the bill, not because anything was wrong with it. They fought the bill because they didn't want a Republican to do something that might make him look good. Ted Kennedy had the balls to stand up and say exactly that. He said for one day, people should stop arguing wars of partisan image, and just start passing bills that help people.
The second major problem is how our government can be bought. The Reform Party had a platform eight years ago that was based upon eliminating such corruption. They wanted laws where politicians couldn't take money from lobbyists. How did Congress respond? They passed legislation making it illegal for third parties to appear in the debates. They didn't want the public to hear what Perot had to say that year.
It should be noted that decision was made by a Democratic Congress. So much for freedom.
You know exactly fucking nothing about me. I am probably more politically aware that 99% of the people you will ever meet. I read, ALOT. And I do a lot of fact-checking. Test me on any issue, and you'll be on the receiving end of being punked.
You obviously didn't read what I wrote. This is another major problem with the government is this country. There is a major difference between right/wrong and constitutional/unconstitutional. I said, "And while I think there should be a seperation between church and state, I think most people are grossly un-fucking-educated on the subject."
You say that I say it would be okay for Church and State to become one. Don't repeat my views back to me unless you have a clue what my beliefs are. I am not a fundementalist.
On the church-and-state issue, I think we need some serious fucking clarification. When I lived in San Diego, there just happened to be a 200 year old historical artifact that people wanted torn down, because it was a cross. By the cross standing there, it was forcing people to belong to a government run religion, or so people argued and won in a court of law. It was ruled unconstitutional for a 200 year old cross (erected immediately after Spanish colonists landed in California) to be a historical landmark. Never mind the fact that several of the Spanish Missions still stand, and are government parks.
We shouldn't tear down treasured monuments because someone feels uncomfortable. I think prayer doesn't belong in school. I think we shouldn't teach creationism in school (while at the same time, I have issues with the types of evolutionism that we teach in school as being slightly flawed).
I fought in highschool for a student who was expelled for being an open Satanist. I despise his beliefs, but I would support his right to have them.
That my friends, is the heart of freedom and democracy. You don't know me for shit.
Even concise responses can contain a logical argument and facts. Sadly, your response doesn't have these. If you managed to prove me wrong on a single point, point out an actual err in my reasoning, or had any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims, I might consider your post a punking.
You call me a fundementalist. Fundementalists have a predoliction for hearing one word and jumping through the roof, as you clearly did. You misquoted my belief, and told me what I stand for. You very quickly categorized me, and put a label on me. What does that say about you?
I encouraged people to look up facts, and do research. I encourage people to make their own opinions from an educated position. How does that make me a fundementalist?
If you supply me with a mailing address, I'll gladly ship you a dictionary.
Wait two seconds? Republicans control things right now? Stop the presses! I had no clue. It's not like I suggested in my post the Republicans control the show right now.
I hate censorship. I abhor it.
Howard Stern ripped on sponsors, as well as his boss. The Janet fiasco was ridiculous, but came in the wake of the national media crying outrage, and the public suing CBS.
Our government is supposed to (in a Democracy if you are keeping up) respond to the wishes of the majority. If the majority of the people in this country demand that network TV be heavily regulated, then shouldn't the government respond accordingly in a Democracy?
As a long time community-theatre buff and writer, I live and die by the freedom of expression. The problem here is not a Republican government completely. The problem also lies within the media, and public perception. Janet Jackson was singing a song with Timberlake about getting naked while shaking her ass. The dance had a move where parts of her clothing were to be removed. All of this is fine. But when a nipple PASTY is shown, all hell has broken loose.
Aren't the Oscars and Grammy's shown on network television where celebrities can show up in dental floss and it's acceptable?
The media sells newspapers by printing extreme stories. People are waiting for any excuse to be outraged and sue.
I think the FCC has gone too far, but one could argue that they have responded to the whims of the masses.
You have no clue what you're talking about.
Kerry and Edwards to this day both actively support the Patriot Act. Did you watch the debates? Do you watch CNN? Do you read?
Michael Moore and a few fuck-heads have made a lot of money on Patriot Act propoganda. Here's the actual truth on the subject. The Patriot Act is supported to this day by both canidates. It gives the government rights to communicate cross-bureaus, search government records in places like libraries, and detain certain suspects with a court order. In case anyone every forget the constitution is based upon a system of checks-and-balances. So is the Patriot Act. You can't do anything without a judge approving it.
The problem is not so much how the legislation is written. The "horror" stories I've heard have been half lies, and half due to judges making bad decisions and abusing power.
Have you ever read the Patriot Act? Do you have any clue what it's about?
What about the Patriot Act II? Do you have any idea what Kerry has said about the Patriot Act?
Don't bring up subjects if you know nothing about them. I'll expose you.
Okay. You can't start a real argument that way. If you want to talk about ACTUAL decisions Bush has made in office in regards to abortion, that's fine. Bush has had four years of a Republican Congress, and a Republican Supreme Court. In that time, public approval for abortion has been at a low, and the original woman from Roe vs. Wade gave a public speech saying that she never wished the case had gone to court. She regrets her abortion, and wishes they were illegal.
If Bush wanted to make abortion illegal, he could have. He didn't.
I'd rather argue facts rather than supposition. I am liberal for the most part, but I'm no fan of abortion. Kerry says the same thing. Good for him.
My stance is pretty simple. I think if we don't respect the sanctity of life, we are pretty fucked up as a people. I respect that a mother has rights, but riddle me this.
A father has ZERO say if whether a woman should carry a child or not. But, a father is obligated to pay for a child until adulthood. Our courts have ruled that a father accepted this responsibility when they choose to have sex, accepting that pregnancy is a possible outcome.
How does this not apply the other direction? A woman is not held accountable in any way shape or form. I have met people who use abortion as a form of birth-control and it sickens me.
Bush, Cheney, and most Republicans (save for fuckhead Religious Right bastards like Pat Buchannan) believe in a compromise where abortion should be legal in cases or rape, incest, or threat to the mother's life.
I'm down with that. But when you have sex, you know you can get pregnant. If you're not going to die, you should deal with the repercussions like an adult.
I thought the purpose of most of our laws was to protect those who can't protect themselves. That's what the government is for. I'm not a big fan of abortion.
I think when the rights of the child and the mother are in conflict, I don't think I have the right to tell the mother what to do. So in cases of rape, incest and medical threat, the mother can decide. But abortion as birth control is juvenile, irresponsible, and fucked up beyond measure.
If you really stand up for that, let me applaud you.
But back on topic, Bush hasn't really done anything to strip those rights away even though he had the opportunity. He wanted to make partial birth abortions illegal (which even many Democrats support), but Kerry voted against it.
I really hate Bush for his views on Gay Marriage. The 14th Ammendment basically has a victimless crime clause. The government isn't supposed to intervene and just pass laws to take away rights for no reason.
What was Kerry's platform? What? It changed? Say it ain't so! He was in favor of it. Then he wasn't. He gave a speech where he said he would fight the Ammendment, and said it was a major platform for him. Then he said he was Catholic, and Catholics jumped down his throat. Then he said he didn't like gay marriage, and wanted it illegal, but there should be civil unions.
Guess what. He didn't even bother to show up to vote for a Constitutional Ammendment. He doesn't take his job or duties very seriously. You have no clue where you stand with this guy.
Do we want him in charge of serious issues?
I'm not defending Bush. I'm just saying that people are overlooking Kerry. Kerry is running on the "I'm not Bush ticket" and that's wrong. It still stands that you don't know who is the lesser of two evils if you don't know one of the canidates, and I honestly believe the public really doesn't know either canidate.
Up until two weeks ago, I agreed with you. I believed the situation was shady, and I assumed that Cheney took money.
Here's the catch. Non-paritsan parties swear that Cheney hasn't received a penny. No one has produced a shred of evidence that he has.
So I'm a dumbass for believing something with no proof, when a independent fact-checking service swears they have the facts on the issue?
Show me how I'm wrong. Prove to me that Cheney took money and I'll gladly admit I'm wrong and denounce Cheney for being as amoral and corrupt as Kerry.
Kerry has taken tons of money, and I can show you evidence as to who he has taken money from.
There is nothing more ridiculous and stupid than this "puppet government" rhetoric. Facts and simple logic are against you.
First off, do you have ANY CLUE what the situation in Iraq was like? Haven't you heard about the mass graves? Did you know that entire cities of people were forced to flee into the mountains and live in caves for their survival because Saddam was trying to practice GENOCIDE?
Apparently that's okay in you're book. Let me mark that down. Genocide is fine. The situation was fine before we got there.
Where do you get this shit? Can I see any proof?
The puppet government arguement doesn't work. If the United States ran all this puppet governments that we supposedly did, then why the fuck do they do all these things in contrary to our agenda?
Maybe we don't control all these governments after-all. Bush promised he'd hand over the keys to the country, and did it ahead of schedule. He openly told the world what he was going to do with Iraq, and did exactly that to the letter of the law.
And you're forgetting a few key points her.
[b]Clinton created a lot of this mess.
Kerry supported going into Iraq. Edwards supported going into Iraq. Gore supported going into Iraq.
The United Nations passed over 96 resolutions declaring Iraq in violation of other resolutions.
Intel agencies from around the world all said that Iraq was pursing weapons.
We did find weapons of mass destruction, but in small quantities. We also found storage containers, training manuals, and labs that were now vacant. That should scare you more as it suggests they have a lot of weapons missing because we gave them too much of a head start.
The countries that hated the US did so before this war, and continue to do so. The war didn't create that opinion. Countries like France, Germany and Russia were the ones with a specific agenda. They were owed money by Saddam, got their oil from Saddam, and we've discovered weapons from France and Russia sold to Iraq during their sanctions. Naughty countries.
Saddam cut off food, water, and power to major cities. He ordered mass murders in cities. He ordered ethnic cleansing. He ordered chemical weapons to be used on his own people.
Did you somehow miss this stuff?
When we fought for revolution, and when France fought for revolution, it was bloody and took years. Innocent civilians died, but in the end it brought freedom. Bush and Powell said from day one that this would be a long, bloody conflict. Was anyone listening?[/b]
How is voting for Kerry fixing FoxNEWS being fuck-heads? How will it fix Sinclair's partisan bias? Unless you support censorship.
Pick a stance.
Name one single piece of EVIDENCE that shows Bush was AWOL. Bush produced paperwork showing he completed every bit of training. A large reward was offered if anyone can proove otherwise. No one has. One single person, who is a die-hard Democrat, came forward and said that he never personally saw Bush. He didn't say that he had proof Bush was AWOL.
Another person had supposed proof, but they proved to be faked documents. Sorry CBS.
However, the troops in Kerry's photo (16 of the 19) came forward and said Kerry was a coward and a fuck-head who shouldn't be commander in chief. Those who served with Kerry said they saw him shoot-himself to remove himself from fighting.
Kerry ran ads blasting Bush's military campaign and the second that stuff appeared about Kerry's record, he said "military records shouldn't be an issue." Kerry demanded that third-party groups stop running ads that made him look bad.
Wow. That's balls. Bush did ask the third-party to stop the ads because he didn't support them.
As far as Sinclair goes, the courts have ruled that Sinclair isn't doing anything illegal. I haven't seen a specific law quoted that would make me believe it's illegal. Do you want the government to come in and censor programming? What is it that you want?
You have no fucking clue who you're talking about. I joined the Marine Corps specifically due to people like Osama Bin Laden, and this was years before 9/11. I lived in Omaha, NE at the time, as I do now. A buddy of mine was the NCO-IC for counter-terrorism at StratCOM here. If you don't know, it's basically Strategic Headquarters for the country. When 9/11 happened, it's where Bush went to.
Don Davis, this SSgt in question, couldn't tell me much about his job due to security clearances. But he told me repeatedly, as he did his superiors that Osama Bin Laden was the biggest threat to US Security out there. I used to argue (like an idiot) that China and North Korea were bigger threats as they have threatened to use nukes in places like Taiwan.
I should have listened, as should have his superiors. A year before 9/11, he left the country and decided not to reenlist. He told me that his superiors (under Clinton) refused to accept his intel and advice.
What I know from CNN at the time is that Sudan offered up Bin Laden to Clinton, and Clinton refused custody. Clinton bombed Afghanistan, Sudan and Iraq based on intel that Al Quaeda and Iraq were working together on weapons production. That intel was good enough to bomb three countries without any approval from the UN, but there wasn't enough evidence to arraign Bin Laden he said.
Never mind the fact that Bin Laden publically took credit for three attacks on the US at that point.
In Afghanistan there are mosques, camps and caves where they don't want Westerners. We had no proof that Bin Laden was in the cave that Kerry refers to. The locals wanted to go in, and in a diplomatic gesture we allowed them to. Someone escaped. No one knows who escaped. Kerry says that he knows for a fact that Bush allowed Bin Laden to escape.
Either way, you don't make allies or improve the image of the US by telling other governments to fuck off and run all over their country.
You can't say the US is creating puppet governments and at the same time say that we should do whatever the fuck we want and stop respecting the sovereignty of other nations.
You have no fucking clue.
quote:
You are correct because Bush and company don't espouse any of the values that made this country so great.
Say what you want about Kerry, but voting for Bush means you want the goddamn apocalypse.
Here's a small challenge. I'd like to make a list of ACTUAL laws that Bush signed that you take offence at.
I guarantee you I can make a longer one. I don't love Bush. I disagree with most of his policies.
I'd also like you to make a list of Bush lies.
I guarantee that I can produce a list TWICE as long of lies about Bush, or lies Kerry stated.
Can you support in anyway shape or form the idea that Bush will bring the apocalypse?
Consider this for a moment (not for me to win an arguement, but more so because I seriously want people to try and make educated, unbiased decisions when voting)...
In the wake of 9/11, the American public demanded retribution. The public completely supported going into Iraq. The Democrats had been saying for 8 years that Al Queada was linked to Iraq. Foreign intel also supported this, and the UN voted on a resolution (1434 or something like that) telling Iraq to comply immediately or else.
Bush could have gone immediately to war with Iraq, had more support from the world, and caught Iraq off guard. We likely would have avoided much of the mess we have today.
Why didn't he? Powell urged for diplomacy to work.
Kerry says today that Bush ignored diplomacy while Kerry himself voted for war. Arguably Bush made himself look worse by trying diplomacy for two years.
Bush has had a Republican Congress, a Republican Supreme Court, and four prolific years of legislation. Why do people believe he's going to act so completely differently and create this "apocalypse" compared to his actual record over the past four years?
If you're going to criticize Bush's 4 year record, why are you so opposed to looking at Kerry's 20 year record? Why isn't that an issue at all in this campaign?
Do you have any answers, or do you have more labels to throw on me?
---
"Nihilism makes me smile."
