Aside the fact that this fact pattern most likely will never exist (I've never met anyone agreeing with a candidate on everything! or everything except one), it depends on how important the items of disagreement are.

If I feel very strongly about my personal rights, the fact that someone wants to take that right away from me may very well be the breaking point.

Personally, I could not vote for someone who thinks women who were impregnated through rape or incest should be forced to carry that child to full term.

This has nothing to do with what I personally would do in that situation, btw. I just want to make sure that the person in that situation is able to make that decision.

.. and this is bad how?

It's better to dedicate no money to education than to dedicate it to districts you do not personally benefit from?

But you would take the chance? Just because you don't THINK it will change doesn't mean it won't if the government and supreme court judges agree on the issue.

Doesn't it at all make you uncomfortable that the people you may vote into office are chipping away on your personal rights? What's next?

You know that famous poem that goes something like that:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.


When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.


When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.


When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


this might sound dramatic, but it's the chance you are willing to take.



I find this truly shocking mouse. because you got a big raise (which probably means that you've been underpaid for too many years) you are ok with 4 more years of bushism?

What about the thousands of lives we've lost for literally nothing? What about the thousands of jobs lost due to the economy. What about the fact that we are lightyears behind alternative energy and the whole world looks at us as living in the stone ages.

Aren't there any issues bigger than the ones that impact us individually?

Last post for the day.


Am I the only one outraged about the sexist stickers republican delegates sport at the convention?

How about:

"From the coldest state, the hottest governor"

or

"hot chick for VP"

or

"Hoosiers for the hot chick"



What is this 1950? Am I the only one deeply offended by this extremely sexist protrayal obviously supported by another woman?

Appaling.

http://buttons.cafepress.com/item/co...tton/300169806


(besides she has fat thighs and an 80s hairdo)

I'm not offended by it, but I do feel such stickers and buttons are really dumb. Like she hasn't got any other, more substantial qualities. I don't understand why looks are so important anyway (generally speaking, that is - not just in this case).

I see, spunky is a real crusader for the Democratic cause. Comparing the Republicans to the Nazis is outrageous and there are countries where something like this is punishable. May I remind you that the Republicans were the ones who, for example, abolished slavery. May I remind you that Democrats were the one who threw the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just two examples. I am perfectly aware that the Republicans did similarly abominable things, but as an outsider I perceive it extremely insulting to compare them to nazis. If it wasn't for Reagan and Thatcher this world would be a complete mess anyhow.

But getting back to your current elections. It's indeed shocking to see what topics are being discussed. I am someone who votes entirely on economic matters and there's no doubt that I'd go for the Republicans any day of the week. Spunky will probably call me stupid, but looking at the tax reforms of the Bush administration I can only be impressed, with what this administration has tried to implement. Social issues are a minor point when I decide. That may indeed be stupid. But having something like abortion and stem cell research on the agenda is just ridiculous. But yet again, social issues reflect the current stage of the society. Politicians simply campaign on what masses belief and if this is the current stage of the US society then this is what this society should get. Otherwise why have democracy at all? You may just as well have some form of Guardianship, maybe similar to the EU :D , they know it better anyhow.

Just one more point regarding rallies in general. You think those crowds cheer on their own? Come on, give me a break. They are all manipulated by the PR teams of the specific party, be it democrats or republicans. It's basic mass psychology, something that political consultants and mass communication people know very well. A mass will cheer for whatever bollocks you can imagine (see Obama's speech in Berlin) if it's well driven. Drawing your conclusions from seeing those on TV, I would definitely call stupid.

you do realise that up until the 50s / 60s the role of the parties was pretty much reversed so lincolns GoP is more similar to todays democrats than republicans don't you?

and i hope you're not one of these people who think reagan single handedly bankrupted the USSR

Aloha !

Yes, they cheer on their own. Reporters on the radio here that have went to see either one of the candidates stated how shocking and surprising it was to see so many people cheer for words that in fact mean nothing but are said in a way as if it's the messias himself speaking. Some people even really feel that way too, by judging upon reactions from Americans broadcasted on Dutch televistion. There might be a few PR teams provoking a reaction but most of the cheering comes from Americans that are genuinely touched by what that specific person is saying.

Salaam Aleikum,
Sebastiaan

They may not share a genocidal intent, but certainly a lust for power and similar methods.

Please stop feigning outrage.

100% agree.

Adrian may whine about media bias, but the whole bullshit agenda being discussed is Republican: Patriotism, Family Values, the 'empty suit' question, even the whole Palin's Daughter thing plays into their hands.

Truly saddening.

That said, I doubt either of the candidates will surprise voters particularly when they take office. People know what they are getting. It's now just a
matter of getting people into the voting booths.

We learned that in the Cheating thread.

Again, it's just that it gets a few loons into a booth.

And you probably read that in books by "Uncle Karl" haven't you? Roles were revesed and then one day in the 60s they have changed or how shall I understand the whole issue? Before I start to believe that you are an idiot, look at some of Franklyn Roosevelt's policies. Yeah, he implemented them in the 50s and the 60s, sure!

Not the parties have changed, their electorates have. Southern states were traditional democrat voters while Northern states were traditional republicans. Republicans have always favored foreign military interventions more than the democrats.But I'm not going to start giving you a lecture on North American history. Just pick up a book before you start making smart-ass remarks. If at least you'd be a bit more moderate, I wouldn't be as pissed.

As regarding Reagan, I do believe he was surrounded by the smartest economists of our times. The CHICAGO school they are called. With a degree in politics, that should tell you something. But from how I got to know you, I seriously doubt it.

And BeExcellent, how do you expect me to respond to that? You chopped my post into pieces and left out some of the more relevant remarks I have made. I like your sense of humor I must say (the reference to the cheating post), but the point which i tried to make there you completely omitted, namely that this is the essence an nature of Democracy. Namely the fact that also stupid people get to vote. The Brits had it it well, Oxford and Cambridge graduates had 2 votes. Then Labour came...

excuse me?

You are either drunk off your ass or have some other serious issues. **** off!

This is ****ing classic

Ouch

I read a good quote in the New York Times today (by Judith Warner)

"Having Sarah Palin put forth as the Republicans’ first female vice presidential candidate is just about as respectful a gesture toward women as was John McCain’s suggestion, last month, that his wife participate in a topless beauty contest." (Judith Warner)

I have already answered this methinks. Don't get me wrong, I think that is great for them, but we didn't see any significant changes in schooling under Clinton or Bush.

So my students do not deserve to reap the rewards from more funding because they aren't considered poor? We all know the middle class is struggling just like everyone else, so why shouldn't they benefit from more technology, programs, etc. It has nothing to do with me but everything to do with my students. Again, as I have already stated, I am happy that the poorer districts receive help, but everyone deserves it.

All politicians chip away at your personal rights. That is part of the job description.

McCain isn't Bush although the Democrats continue to think otherwise. Not all Republicans are alike and not all Democrats are alike obviously. And I haven't been underpaid at all. I am actually quite happy with my salary.

As for the lives lost, obviously I can't condone that. Literally nothing? I disagree. One simple question, has there been a terrorist attack here since 9/11?

If we are lightyears behind then it isn't all Bush's fault is it? He has been in office for 8 years, which doesn't constitute us being "light years" behind.

Obviously there are issues bigger than the ones that impact us individually, but am I not allowed to speak about my own experiences?

A large group of Democrats at the Republican Convention, protested, jumped all over cop cars, fought with police, and overall were belligerent. Yet, the Republicans are considered extreme.

Mouse, everybody knows that this war had nothing to do with 9/11 or any terrorist threat, the current administration itself admitted it. Plus it's known now that the main islamist terrorist groups are in Pakistan and plot everything from there. It's not Iraq, not even Afghanistan. With the Iraq & Afghanistan wars it's the US and it's allies that are getting weaker everyday, not terrorists.


Ponrauil

I know that the war had nothing to do with 9/11 and that is not my point. My point is that there are terror cells in Iraq that our soldiers are fighting and dying for, so I don't think that is in vain. My other point is that somewhere along the way someone is doing something right because there hasn't (knocks wood very hard) been a terrorist attack here since 9/11. Like Bush or not, there is no denying that.

I do agree with you that Pakistan is the problem, and we should have gotten out of Iraq long ago.

In the end both sides are not clean. You have Obama accepting dirty money and Palin accepting dirty money. Obama has flip flopped and great deal and made bad decisions, and McCain has also made bad decisions. As for extremist religion, lets not even get into the church that Obama belonged to and supported until he became a nominee. Then we have McCain who has his own extreme religious views. Both are nothing to write home about. The list could go on forever.

One of my main concerns with Democrats as a whole is their history of taxing and spending. The small business tax that Obama wants to impose on businesses that make over $250,000 scares me. Especially when you have people like my dad, who owns a small business, busting his butt 6 days a week to support our family. With insurance and health care costs, $250,000 isn't that much money. The taxing of people who make more than $250,000 also bothers me, because if you have a family of four, that isn't as much money as it used to be. Neither side is for the middle class, and that is my main concern. If Obama wants to find funding without hitting me up for it, I am all for it, but I can't afford to subsidize funding for the needy out of my own pocket.

I am not going to go into the rest of my reasons because it will go back and forth, rightfully, and I am not here to change anyone's mind, nor do I think that is even possible. I like reading what others have to say, as long as they don't belittle me for stating my beliefs too.

Rant over....:)

These were not there before the US military came in. They are there thanks to powerful islamists lobbies in Pakistan, Iran or Syria to kill US soldiers and Iraqi citizens to ruin the US efforts for a stable regime and peaceful country. US soldiers are fighting something that would not be there if they had never came in the first place.

Something that could be fought more efficiently at much lower costs. How is that not in vain?


Ponrauil

we;re fighting them over there so we don't need to fight them over here :facepalm:

one of my mates from uni spent a year in the U of NC as part of his degree and said for the modern political thought and IR classes you got bombarded with realist theory and nothing else so it was no wonder the guys running the country were warmongers. quite scary and shameful when you think about it.

holy **** it turns out that sarah palin is an book of revelations literalist that thinks alaska has been destined by god to take some part in the end of days.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naXqE...2091829&page=2

it's like feckin manifest destiny mkII, how a clown like this is even allowed within a mile of the whitehouse never mind quite possibly running the thing down the line is half mind boggling half terrifying.

That's the same sect as John Ashcroft, former Attorney General in the GW Bush administration and involved in many controversies.

Way to go America!


Ponrauil

oh dear.

disgression but related to politics.

my sister works for the scottish governments health department and tonight she's organising some big wig event that the 1st minister is going to be at.

kinda funny that in a generation my family has gone from the building site to literally the corridors of power.

makes me wonder what my kids might wind up doing :D

http://pol.moveon.org/mccain10/email.html?rc=homepage

Notice all these are documented with sources.

#9 particulary scares me

I despair for my country - I really do. How have McCain and Palin become known as "mainstream" America?

scary aint it! .... Fox news , apathy , over the top Patriotism, ie. if you dont support the war you are a traitor.... Either with us or with the terrorists etc etc etc.

Become somehow they're seen as the "lesser evil"... go figure.


Ponrauil

Yeah, 'cause Moveon.org would never misrepresent the truth or be less than 100% objective in their journalism...

I bet if I were to post a top ten list about BHO from, say, Fox News, all with "documented sources" it would cause an equal amount of despair.

Adrian

there's a bit of a difference between statements about how he's voted on certain policies and saying LOOK HERE'S A PHOTO OF OBAMA WORE MUSLIM GARB HE MUST BE A MUSLIM!!!!!!!

Moveon.org and Fox News are the same. Each cater to their own side.

Who cares about the messenger?
Is the message true or not is what matters.


Ponrauil

Because the "messenger" distorts the truth to suit their side. You can't tell me that you honestly think only one side does it. Both sides are guilty of it.

Of course. But it's your job as a citizen to not only "swallow" the info from your favourite media but also and most of all to cross-check the info on other sources.


Ponrauil

as i said, a left wing site pointing out voting records and comments to back up their claims of what mccain is like is a bit more subtantive than claiming obama is a muslim because this or that reason, obama hates america because he didn't wear a badge, obama this, obama that.

Wait a minute...

So you're saying that all these sites where this info is drawn from, ABC News, CNN, the Boston Globe etc all are biased towards the left?

As I see it, Moveon.org are only reporting what these sites have already.

only difference between a hockey mom and a pitbull is the lipstick.... Palin

If u put lipstick on a pig its still a pig...... Obama and McCain..

LOL - lipstick is being given a rough ride !!!!!!!!!!

Dawn

Moveon.org is lefty propaganda at its worst. They will put the spin on any information to make the Republicans look bad. Like I said, Fox does the same. You can't possibly think that the Republicans are the only ones who possess news stations (Fox) that favor them. It is an equal opportunity playing field.

I have never even seen that information on Obama before, but then again I don't sit in front of Fox all day either. It isn't limited to "Obama hates America" nonsense either. There is just as much information out there questioning his politics as there is on McCain.

But of course people are going to favor information that paints their choice in a wonderful light. That is just human nature. As for cross-checking, I totally agree, but it isn't a one way street. You need to do it on both sides to determine the truth.

and yet here we're discussing mccain's shall we say ever so right wing leanings again....

the "maverick" is nothing more than a shill for the gop. i'm actually half convinced his "we're going to run the scoundrels out of washington" angle is really just some huge sociological experiment to see how gullible the average american is.

once again, and i say this with every ounce of sincerity in my body (as a former total true blue thatcherite that kathleen amongst others will confirm if you don't remember yourself) after close to 10 years of an absolute joke of an administration why are the replublicans even in the running for this election?

forget your partisan bullshit, forget obama this or mccain that, LOOK at the party that has been running the show for the last 8 years, the party that has been running the greatest nation on earth into the ground for 10 years and give me ONE and only one good reason why anyone in their right mind with an objective head and heart would vote for these conmen, there crooks, these liars, deceptors and deviants?....

it really does not compute on this side of the pond how you could give a party who has ****ed up time and time again, mislead time and time again and outright lied time and time again another 4 years of running the show just because the man in charge has a pair of tits as his second in command and tells everyone he's a maverick, he's different and he's going to get rid of the scum in washington.

And Bill Clinton's presidency isn't tarnished with any of the above? C'mon, it doesn't matter who is at the helm, the end result will still be the same.

that's what is commonly known as projection.

clintons incumbent started a ****ing deceptive unjust war (also something i was 100% for at the time) that has led to the death of AT LEAST tens of thousands of people including several thousand US and british soldiers amongst other things.

he's ran the strongest economy in the world into the ground

he;s made the US the laughing stock of the world

he's needlessly (and intentionally might i add) started confrontations with russia and iran

amongst other things

but clinton got a blow job so yeah **** the democrats they suck.

Well - I gotta say Jim - it just goes to show that an education wasn't wasted on you. Yes - you believed all those things a few years ago - and you either learned better or saw better by demonstration of living conditions.

Unfortunately, the poeple I know well, (like my husband's parents - one of whom is from Wisconsin) will even vote against their own self interest - and self preservation. My father-in law is an ex LA cop who has a government pension (a very nice pension mind you) and he votes against everything union or big government (he is still a member of the Police credit union - oh that's different he says). He votes against any tax increase for schools - after all his kids are grown - he doesn't need to support education. And he votes pro-war all the time - even though he had 2 sons who could have been killed in the Vietnam conflict - and he now has grandsons who could be killed in Iraq.

And why does he do this? The Republicans are the religious party and the Democrats are anti-god. He is pro-life (aren't we all) unless it comes to the war - that he always votes for.

He doesn't care that he has two grand-daughters who will be affected by his pro-life (anti choice) vote. He doesn't care that the next president will most likely have 3 supreme court justices to appoint - and then Roe vs Wade will most likely disappear.

His wife - my mother-in-law - votes the same way he does. Isn't that what a woman is supposed to do?

Aaaargh!!!! - I don't think I have ever felt so pessimistic about the future of my country as I do now.

Bush didn't run the economy into the ground on his own. Nobody forced banks to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them. People took advantage of the interest rates by going with the arm option and purchasing homes way beyond what they could afford. Once the rates went up, things went downhill fast. Not to mention that it was the mostly Democratic Congress who passed that people could buy homes with no money down.



Now you and I both know the Clinton's had their own share of corruption in the White House way beyond the entire Monica nonsense.

See below:
http://www.io.com/~cjburke/clinton/clinatoz.html