Election

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Who are you going to vote for?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    [ ] Kerry/Edwards

    [ ] Bush/Cheney

    [ ] NADAR

    [x] Aquatic's sig is out of control
  • Reply 2 of 24
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    It's become obvious to me that there is no substantial difference between Bush and Kerry. Now with Edwards potentially being the VP nominee, the Democratic party has absolutely no leverage on Iraq and other issues--they both voted for it. Ditto for the Patriot Act and other parts of Bush's agenda.



    Kerry also recently came out and said that life begins at conception--a position untenable with his pro-choice position if he really believes it. Kerry isn't even going to roll back Bush's taxcuts--the working people of this country and those on the marginals will suffer because of the huge deficit and interest on it (Kerry's just reallocating the funds for those who earn over 200k into tax credits).



    Futhurmore, neither Kerry nor Bush want to reduce the size of the military. Kerry's also recently come out that he's pro-gun and likes to kill helpless animals for fun. Kerry also opposes gay marriage and other equal rights issues such as adoption. He thinks both are state issues--exactly the same position Republicans had with civil rights in the 1960s-80s.



    I could go on and on (eg, death penalty, WTO, etc..), but here's a detailed comparison.



    I'm voting my conscience. I don't think Kerry is going to win anyway. David Cobb is nice, but Nader and Camejo clearly are more passionate and will recieve a greater share of the vote.



    Nader/Camejo 2004. www.votenader.org



    Yellow dog Democrats like those on this board are part of the problem.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Nader has no chance to win.



    Bush is far worse by any definition than Kerry ever could be.



    I'm sorry but I feel a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush.



    By the way I'm registered independent and have been since 1976.
  • Reply 4 of 24
    faust9faust9 Posts: 1,335member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    It's become obvious to me that there is no substantial difference between Bush and Kerry. Now with Edwards potentially being the VP nominee, the Democratic party has absolutely no leverage on Iraq and other issues--they both voted for it. Ditto for the Patriot Act and other parts of Bush's agenda.



    Kerry also recently came out and said that life begins at conception--a position untenable with his pro-choice position if he really believes it. Kerry isn't even going to roll back Bush's taxcuts--the working people of this country and those on the marginals will suffer because of the huge deficit and interest on it (Kerry's just reallocating the funds for those who earn over 200k into tax credits).



    Futhur more, neither Kerry nor Bush want to reduce the size of the military. Kerry's also recently come out that he's pro-gun and likes to kill helpless animals for fun. Kerry also opposes gay marriage and other equal rights issues such as adoption. He thinks both are state issues--exactly the same position Republicans had with civil rights in the 1960s-80s.



    A detailed comparison.



    I'm voting my conscience. I don't think Kerry is going to win anyway. David Cobb is nice, but Nader and Camejo clearly are more passionate and will recieve a greater share of the vote.



    Nader/Camejo 2004. www.votenader.org




    Why do you want to reduce the size of the military?



    Kerry has said hes an on again off again hunter who believes in gun regulation. You already know that because this point has been in other threads (perhaps even to you).



    Gay rights--Kerry believes its a matter for the states to decide.





    tax cuts--you obvously have not been paying attention.



    Quit stone walling. Others here have made these points for you in the past.



    PS a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Do you want Bush reelected? You are absolutely joking if you think the ego maniac Nadar has a chance. If he did get elected what would he do for the country? Would the congress or the Senate support him? Fuck no!!! He would be overridden on every veto. His presidency would be a joke plain and simple. You need to find a viable third party. Nadar isn't it though.
  • Reply 5 of 24
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Kerry also recently came out and said that life begins at conception--a position untenable with his pro-choice position if he really believes it.



    You don't understand the pro-choice position in the first place. First, you can't reasonably deny that human biological life begins at conception. It's only a bunch of cells-- a living organism that shouldn't, in my view, have the "right to life" over the will of the mother. Second, you can think abortion is morally dubious and still support the right to have that option available for all women-- so they can personally choose what's best for them. Being "pro-abortion" for everyone is just as bad as being "anti-abortion" for everyone. You can't make that decision for everyone. I want you to stop spreading FUD about Kerry and abortion. Didn't he say he wouldn't appoint any SCOTUS justices who oppose the right to choose?
  • Reply 6 of 24
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Who are you going to [troll] for?



    Unfortunately I think this is now more accurate.
  • Reply 7 of 24
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    http://fairmontsentinel.com/news/stories/070604c.html



    Kerry on abortion:



    Quote:

    Kerry told another man in the lobby of the church that "I'm against partial birth abortion," even though he voted against banning the procedure six times in the Senate. Kerry said he would have voted for the ban if it included an exception to allow the procedure if it was necessary to protect the health of the mother...



    In an interview with the Telegraph Herald newspaper published Sunday, Kerry said: "I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist ... We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."




    Kerry states he wants to take a women's reproduction rights and control over her body away with respect to "partial-bith abortions", a nonmedical term invented by republicrats. That's clear-cut. The issue of medical necessity is irrelevant--the issue is a women's control over her own body.



    This isn't about being pro-choice. It's about the fundamental control women must have over their bodies versus sexist doctrine.



    He also states he believes life begins at conception and that he is against all abortion. This shows a fundamental lack of respect for women and their bodies no different from Republicans.
  • Reply 8 of 24
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    [ ] Kerry/Edwards

    [ ] Bush/Cheney

    [ ] NADAR

    [x] Aquatic's sig is out of control





    I'd add that but then that'd just be crazy! My AIM profile adding things friends say that are funny is getting way out of hand too, not enough room!



    ok bunge you got me this thread is a troll. PROGRESSIVISM IS COMMUNISM!!!



    Existence you make a lot of good points and there are a lot of things I think Kerry and even Edwards aren't liberal enough on or didn't stand up to against the Repubs. But it's realistic politics and currently this is the way America's political system works. It serves to preserve the status quo and keep us from going way in one direction or the other. Or at least that is what I thought until this Presidency. I like how Europe's representative system works.
  • Reply 9 of 24
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Nader is expired goods. His own party didn't want him.

    Talk about an EGO driven out of touch fool. And taking Republican money for his campaign is just right out of bizarro world.

    The only thing Nader should be running for is for President of a retirement home's Bingo club.



    Whoever thinks there is no difference between Bush and Kerry .....I can think of at least a dozen "ways" that Kerry is different than DUHbya by miles....not to mention Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rice,Rumsfeld, Ashcroft.....et al



    Aquatic: WTF are you doing quoting me?

    that quote is very retarded sounding. It's like something DUHbya would say....lol...thanks a lot.
  • Reply 10 of 24
    existenceexistence Posts: 991member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    So Kerry is against partial birth abortions except when necessary to protect the life of the mother. Well, so am I. It's gruesome. In fact, no doctor will ever EVER perform a partial birth abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk. Exactly what are you saying here?



    So Kerry is against all abortions because of his religious beliefs, but he has the integrity to allow others to disagree with his beliefs? Well, even though I disagree with his personal religious beliefs here, he definitely sounds like my man.




    Wow. It seems you Democrats have adopted Republican talking points.



    These so called "partial-birth" abortions are very rare in the first place, and there are other reasons than simply the health of the woman (aka "mother"). I shouldn't have to state examples since it's a matter of women's rights over their own bodies and the fact that they are more than simply a container for you men. The reasons are irrelevant.



    But for you, here are some examples : rape, incest, genetic disorders, etc...



    Quote:

    Nader is expired goods. His own party didn't want him.



    Nader has always been an independent. He doesn't have a "party", only endorsements. More FUD by you Democrats.



    Quote:



    Whoever thinks there is no difference between Bush and Kerry .....I can think of at least a dozen "ways" that Kerry is different than DUHbya by miles....not to mention Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Rice,Rumsfeld, Ashcroft.....et al



    In style perhaps, but not on the issues in any significant way. That is, there is a difference in degree but not in kind. You really can't talk about the cabinet because Kerry hasn't chosen his.
  • Reply 11 of 24
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Wow. It seems you Democrats have adopted Republican talking points.



    These so called "partial-birth" abortions are very rare in the first place, and there are other reasons than simply the health of the woman (aka "mother"). I shouldn't have to state examples since it's a matter of women's rights over their own bodies and the fact that they are more than simply a container for you men. The reasons are irrelevant.



    But for you, here are some examples : rape, incest, genetic disorders, etc...







    Nader has always been an independent. He doesn't have a "party", only endorsements. More FUD by you Democrats.







    In style perhaps, but not on the issues in any significant way. That is, there is a difference in degree but not in kind. You really can't talk about the cabinet because Kerry hasn't chosen his.






    Look. Like I said before I'm not a democrat! I'm registered independent.



    Nader can't win. It's just that simple.



    Bush shouldn't remain in office. If you think the last 4 years have been bad just wait. With no motivation to be reelected he doesn't have to play nice.



    Kerry / Edwards is the only hope.
  • Reply 12 of 24
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    It's become obvious to me that there is no substantial difference between Bush and Kerry.



    Not true at all.



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...threadid=42699
  • Reply 13 of 24
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Existence

    Nader has always been an independent. He doesn't have a "party", only endorsements. More FUD by you Democrats.



    He was the Green Party's nominee in 1996 and 2000 and that same Green Party wants nothing to do with him this year



    The more I hear him talk the more convinced I am that he's lost the plot upstairs. check this out...
    Quote:

    A day after not getting the Green Party's endorsement for president, Ralph Nader brushed off the rejection as an inconvenience, described the party as "strange," called the party's national nominating convention "a cabal" and predicted who the big loser in its decision not to endorse him would be.

    "The benefit was really for the Green Party," Nader said yesterday of what an endorsement of him would have meant. "I don't want to exaggerate it, so I'll just say massively more."



    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun27.html



    Cuckoo cuckoo.

    He's a senile egomaniac completely out of touch with reality. I hear his campaign slogan is gonna be "ME MYSELF and RALPH with Republican money".



    Thanks for calling me a Democrat. I'll be a very proud citizen after casting my vote for the Democratic ticket for the first time ever come November.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ShawnJ

    First, you can't reasonably deny that human biological life begins at conception. It's only a bunch of cells-- a living organism that shouldn't, in my view, have the "right to life" over the will of the mother.



    You've phrased this in a peculiar way. Are you saying that life does or does not begin at conception. Define life first, then determine where it begins.



    Frankly, I think the claim that life begins at birth is dubious and scientifically unsupportable. I also think that up to a certain point after conception, abortion should be a viable option.



    It's just a matter of when. Is the fetus alive because the heart is pumping? Maybe. Is it alive because there are nerve impulses emanating from its brain? Even if it does have a heartbeat and brain activity and is determined to be alive, could we even dance around the subject by designating the fetus as NOT human, but proto-human? There's no law against killing most lower orders of life after all.



    Quote:

    Second, you can think abortion is morally dubious and still support the right to have that option available for all women-- so they can personally choose what's best for them. Being "pro-abortion" for everyone is just as bad as being "anti-abortion" for everyone. You can't make that decision for everyone. I want you to stop spreading FUD about Kerry and abortion. Didn't he say he wouldn't appoint any SCOTUS justices who oppose the right to choose?



    Pro-Abortion for everyone...heh. Reminds me of the joke that abortions should be mandatory. I'm sure there is a small minority out there that thinks the way you describe, but people who only have passive objections aren't Pro-Choice by default.
  • Reply 15 of 24
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton



    We were talking about, specifically, partial birth abortions. Do you know what they are? No... rape, incest, genetic disorders, etc. are NEVER used as a reason for a partial birth abortion. You're simply wrong there if that's what you're asserting.




    Well, statistically it may be insignificant, but the intact D&X procedure that is commonly known as partial-birth abortion is not regulated as strictly as you imply.



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortio..._United_States

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_...and_extraction



    In particular, the last bullet in the second link is the loophole which could justify the procedure being uses on a viable fetus. I'm not about to claim that viable fetuses aren't subjected to this procedure a few times a year in the US, but I do agree that this is very rare that regulating it further would just cause more legal hoop-jumping.



    In a sense, it should be dealt with in the similar way as assisted-suicides are handled now...in defiance of the law, but generally overlooked. Terminally ill patients request to be put out of their misery, and many docs will oblige, giving them fatal doses of painkillers or whatever. It's up to the doctor's discretion of course. Any legal conflicts that arise should be dealt with on a case by case basis.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    You've phrased this in a peculiar way. Are you saying that life does or does not begin at conception. Define life first, then determine where it begins.



    Frankly, I think the claim that life begins at birth is dubious and scientifically unsupportable. I also think that up to a certain point after conception, abortion should be a viable option.



    It's just a matter of when. Is the fetus alive because the heart is pumping? Maybe. Is it alive because there are nerve impulses emanating from its brain? Even if it does have a heartbeat and brain activity and is determined to be alive, could we even dance around the subject by designating the fetus as NOT human, but proto-human? There's no law against killing most lower orders of life after all.




    I think people always overplay the important of when life begins. First of all, shawn was talking about biological life, which of course does begin at conception. But the question isn't life per se, but rather when the baby is a person with legal rights like an adult. Even teenagers don't have all the legal rights of an adult. You can't just kill them of course (although wouldn't that be nice?), but still they undeniably have less rights, and they're real bona fide post-partum human beings.



    Second, even if you get past that hurdle and believe that babies in the womb have the full legal rights of a born adult, killing is not always illegal. In the case of abortion, the right to life conflicts with another basic human right.



    Hypothetical: What if some other person had a rare disease and only you, Eugene, had the correct blood to allow this person to survive. But you have to be hooked up to a transfusion machine for 9 months. If you refuse to do this, you will kill the other person. There is no question of life, or even personhood, because this other person in an adult. Can the government force you to save this person? Isn't that taking away your basic freedom and autonomy if the government decides that for you?
  • Reply 17 of 24
    playmakerplaymaker Posts: 511member
    I'm casting a vote for Miller Lite
  • Reply 18 of 24
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Doesn't look good for Bush & Co.



  • Reply 19 of 24
    cakecake Posts: 1,010member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Doesn't look good for Bush & Co.







    Amen to that!
  • Reply 20 of 24
    steve666steve666 Posts: 2,600member
    Bush is just as bad as any Democrat when it comes to pandering to the pro mass immigration lobby. Bush is in favor of an illegal alien amnesty, therefore he has lost my vote.



    Things I disagree with Bush on:

    The environment

    Abortion

    Tax cuts for the rich

    Cowboy miltarism

    Amnesty for illegals

    The fact that he consults 'God' to come to a decision



    I would normally vote for a Republican moderate but i at least expect a Republican to be in favor of law and order and immigration sanity. This country has the population growth of a third world country thanks to our insane immigration levels. Because of this Bush is worthless to me.
Sign In or Register to comment.