Hmmm - I don't see Bush making much of an effort for the born. Children still go to school hungry, lack medical care, and live in squalor - all of this in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. When we reach the point in which every child has adequate food, shelter and support, I'll be willing to reconsider my position on abortion. Rather than focus on lives which are not yet viable, I would prefer that we first direct our energy towards improving the lives of children already on this earth.Peggy said:
who will u vote for in Nov.?
- Thread starter Bijoux
- Start date
BittyBug: "Hmmm - I don't see Bush making much of an effort for the born. Children still go to school hungry, lack medical care, and live in squalor - all of this in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. When we reach the point in which every child has adequate food, shelter and support, I'll be willing to reconsider my position on abortion. Rather than focus on lives which are not yet viable, I would prefer that we first direct our energy towards improving the lives of children already on this earth."
Children go to school hungry, lack medical care, and live in squalor in every country of the world, not just the US. In many cases, the reason for it is that that is the way the parents lived, and their parents before them, and they lack the knowledge, guidance or motivation to find a way out. That is a major social problem, and not one that can be solved overnight by the chief executive of any nation.
Abortion and birth control are available, but the poor don't or won't choose or use them. Instead they continue to have children they can't feed, clothe or take care of. Many of the people who ARE having abortions DO have the means to take care of a child, but don't want to. So how is abortion helping the children who weren't aborted?
Children go to school hungry, lack medical care, and live in squalor in every country of the world, not just the US. In many cases, the reason for it is that that is the way the parents lived, and their parents before them, and they lack the knowledge, guidance or motivation to find a way out. That is a major social problem, and not one that can be solved overnight by the chief executive of any nation.
Abortion and birth control are available, but the poor don't or won't choose or use them. Instead they continue to have children they can't feed, clothe or take care of. Many of the people who ARE having abortions DO have the means to take care of a child, but don't want to. So how is abortion helping the children who weren't aborted?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
For me, full seperation of church and state is one of the most important political and social issues. Let's put aside the question of abortions for a while. One thing that worries me about America today is that "morality" and "religiousness" are becoming synonymous. I find it both scary and offensive. I consider both of my parents extremely moral people, yet my father is an atheist and my mother is an agnostic. Without mentionning G-d, they managed to instill in me the values of right and wrong, of helping others, and of doing what's right even when it's not easy. At the other extreme, I would site suicide bombers who are very religious yet do (in our opinion) very immoral acts. I understand and respect that for many religious people their belief becomes their moral compass. However, not having the belief does not mean one doesn't have a personal moral compass either.
4 years ago, Joe Liberman said something I consider very scary, "Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion". White he is technically correct, I shudder to think that our country is moving in this direction.
Finally, I'd like to mention that I consdier the seperation of church and state beneficial for both institutions. If church can interfere with the affairs of the state, why should it be a one-way street? We afford our religious institutions a lot of special exemptions -- from being tax exempt to being exempt from equal opportunity type rules. I believe this can only be maintained with a full ssperation. We don't have to go the extremes that, say, France went to -- there, they outlawed outward signs of religion from schools. But we don't have to move the other way either.
P.S. I wonder, what happened to the old style conservatives? Say, like Barry Goldwater with his famous, "They don't have to be straight, they just have to shoot straight"?
4 years ago, Joe Liberman said something I consider very scary, "Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion". White he is technically correct, I shudder to think that our country is moving in this direction.
Finally, I'd like to mention that I consdier the seperation of church and state beneficial for both institutions. If church can interfere with the affairs of the state, why should it be a one-way street? We afford our religious institutions a lot of special exemptions -- from being tax exempt to being exempt from equal opportunity type rules. I believe this can only be maintained with a full ssperation. We don't have to go the extremes that, say, France went to -- there, they outlawed outward signs of religion from schools. But we don't have to move the other way either.
P.S. I wonder, what happened to the old style conservatives? Say, like Barry Goldwater with his famous, "They don't have to be straight, they just have to shoot straight"?
Last edited:
Exactly - it's a major social problem and we should first be focusing on fixing those problems that are already on this earth.euterpe said:
The nerve of people to have children!euterpe said:
Did it ever occur to you that lack of education may somehow be a factor? Just because birth control is available doesn't mean that everyone understands how to use it or the entire consequences of not using it (and I'm not talking about just pregnancy, but rather the entire responsibility of raising a child for 18 years and then some). By not adding more to the already too many number of children who are either unwanted, neglected, underfed, underloved, etc.euterpe said:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2003
DORISPULASKI said:
California is only 44th? How embarassing.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2003
kerry all the way. i don't want someone who wants to tell me how to live my life (the whole marriage protection thing is just horrible) in office.
jay leno said it best: "president bush says he is deeply troubled by judges granting marriage licenses to gay couples, and feels that in important matters, the country should decide. but in matters that concern the country, like who gets to become president, he feels that judges should be able to decide..."
jay leno said it best: "president bush says he is deeply troubled by judges granting marriage licenses to gay couples, and feels that in important matters, the country should decide. but in matters that concern the country, like who gets to become president, he feels that judges should be able to decide..."
Well, TTCL, Californians seem to bring on their own troubles. For instance, they make strange choices for Governor. 
I'm glad you take the time to do your election day homework, though! If only everyone did!!! It galls me how we choose candidates by method of a "popularity contest," with less care in our choices than we take to hire a gas station attendant. (At least we ask to see his resume!) There are no particular qualifications, other than having enough money to run a campaign and -- POPULARITY!!!
As for John Kerry, if you look at his record in the Senate, it is not stellar. Of all the candidates the Democrats fielded, he was my least favorite, because he is part and parcel of the DC status quo. The Libertarian candidate (right now you're probably asking, "Who?"), Michael Badnarik looks like the best candidate in terms of policy. (See: http://www.badnarik.org/) Trouble is, the Libs can't afford to run a big campaign like the two "main" parties. Not only don't they have the typical "war chest," but they won't accept federal matching dollars.
So this election day, I'm torn between holding my nose and voting to simply unseat Bush, or voting my conscience and being able to sleep at night.
Oh, and this just in: the Communist Party of America has thrown it's support behind Kerry. Hmmm...
I'm glad you take the time to do your election day homework, though! If only everyone did!!! It galls me how we choose candidates by method of a "popularity contest," with less care in our choices than we take to hire a gas station attendant. (At least we ask to see his resume!) There are no particular qualifications, other than having enough money to run a campaign and -- POPULARITY!!!
As for John Kerry, if you look at his record in the Senate, it is not stellar. Of all the candidates the Democrats fielded, he was my least favorite, because he is part and parcel of the DC status quo. The Libertarian candidate (right now you're probably asking, "Who?"), Michael Badnarik looks like the best candidate in terms of policy. (See: http://www.badnarik.org/) Trouble is, the Libs can't afford to run a big campaign like the two "main" parties. Not only don't they have the typical "war chest," but they won't accept federal matching dollars.
So this election day, I'm torn between holding my nose and voting to simply unseat Bush, or voting my conscience and being able to sleep at night.
Oh, and this just in: the Communist Party of America has thrown it's support behind Kerry. Hmmm...
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
As one commentator said, California should have a ballot question to outlaw ballot questions. At some point, Californians voted on a property tax cap. Not a good idea (at least if you want to keep social programs going, that is)! As any arithmetic student will tell you, if you take 1 away from 5, the result will never be equal to 5.thisthingcalledlove said:
That's my problem with Libertarians. While I love the idea of social Libertarianism, I feel that the governement should do a lot to right the wrongs of society. Otherwise, it just becomes social Darwinism. Also, I've just gone to the website you gave here, and found the platform incredibly naive. Let's take the example of trade. Talking about giving individuals more chances for peaceful trade is nonsense when it comes to regimes such as China, which shoot people for trying to organize unions. Just one example.
Last edited:
Our basic premise is different, though. I don't see the role of government being responsible for "social programs." No mention of them in the Constitution! (Although the term "social programs" is rather sweeping -- I guess it depends on your definition.) Since we're not socialists, I don't see such programs falling under the purview of government.
The Libertarian platform, just like those of the Dems, Republicans, Greens, etc., is a very simplistic outline of their imagined ideal. Obviously where matters of national security and international trade negotiations, where governments are involved, would be more complicated. Libertarians realize this.
The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same things and expecting a different result. The status quo isn't working. We've gotten away from our Constitution -- the bedrock of what makes America unique. A change is needed, and Bush and Kerry are part and parcel of the status quo.
The Libertarian platform, just like those of the Dems, Republicans, Greens, etc., is a very simplistic outline of their imagined ideal. Obviously where matters of national security and international trade negotiations, where governments are involved, would be more complicated. Libertarians realize this.
The definition of insanity is repeatedly doing the same things and expecting a different result. The status quo isn't working. We've gotten away from our Constitution -- the bedrock of what makes America unique. A change is needed, and Bush and Kerry are part and parcel of the status quo.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
You are absolutely correct that social programs are not part of the Constitution. However, let's not forget that the original constitution allowed for such things as slavery -- so let's not put too much stock in it. Societies evolve, and so do their needs; we live in a drastically different world today than did the founding fathers. Good schools, universal healthcare, help for the poor -- all of those are social programs that are not mentioned in the Constitution. To me, though, the question is "What do I think would make a better society".
BTW, I would disagree with you that Bush is "status quo". He is anything but. Step by step, especially in foreign policy, he has dismantled the status quo that has been carefully created by politicians for decades. His moves in social policies and security vs. personal freedom arrangements have also been anything but status quo. Not that I think it is a good thing...
BTW, I would disagree with you that Bush is "status quo". He is anything but. Step by step, especially in foreign policy, he has dismantled the status quo that has been carefully created by politicians for decades. His moves in social policies and security vs. personal freedom arrangements have also been anything but status quo. Not that I think it is a good thing...
Again, I'm not talking particulars, I'm talking about the role of government -- especially the federal government. Like schools, any government "social programs" should be state issues. It's not the government's job to be in the health care or insurance business. Individual states mandate educational requirements, so it's up to individual states to either provide "good schools," or set minimum requirements for private schools. And do you really think that the federal government is the best instrument to handle your health care? It is up to US to "make a better society," and it's the government's job to stay out of our way.
As for putting "stock" in our Constitution, I'd say that I certainly do! You must ask yourself what it is about America that makes us different than any other country. Pick almost any talking point and there's another country that can best us. Natural resources, land area, crop production, population, education....you name it. The one thing that makes our republic different is our Constitution, with it's unique Bill of Rights. To hold public office, one must take an oath to "defend, protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States."
Since it was created by imperfect human beings, it has required some tweaks over the two centuries and change it had been in effect. What is totally amazing about it isn't the few things initially wrong with it, but what they initially got right! Certainly there will be additions and adjustments to our Constitution to adapt to a changing world, but that doesn't render the entire document plastic. You don't dismantle the foundation to your home when adding a dormer or sun room! The divisions of government, the vested, inalienable rights of The People and the limitations of the powers of government need to remain firmly intact or America will no longer be America. And you're correct in one sense; Bush hasn't been a good custodian of our Constitution.
But he and his Republicans are indeed status quo. He made campaign promises and later sold-out those depending on him to carry them out. He cherry picks those part of the Constitution he supports and shreds those parts he finds inconvenient. We saw all this under the Clinton administration and will surely see it under Kerry. Kerry is a long-time Senator, and is therefore responsible, in part, for the current state of affairs. Jr. George is simply carrying on what his father started, and the neo-cons are, and have been, behind them. Status quo, status quo, status quo -- with only slight differences. Do I think one is worse? I sure do! But I don't see Kerry as the savior of the country. I see Badnarik as being much closer to the American ideal than either of the two main candidates. Take the time to read the platform statement of all three parties. Heck, toss-in the Greens and the American Communist Party (who recently endorsed John Kerry) to boot! Which statements sound more like our Constitution?
As for putting "stock" in our Constitution, I'd say that I certainly do! You must ask yourself what it is about America that makes us different than any other country. Pick almost any talking point and there's another country that can best us. Natural resources, land area, crop production, population, education....you name it. The one thing that makes our republic different is our Constitution, with it's unique Bill of Rights. To hold public office, one must take an oath to "defend, protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States."
Since it was created by imperfect human beings, it has required some tweaks over the two centuries and change it had been in effect. What is totally amazing about it isn't the few things initially wrong with it, but what they initially got right! Certainly there will be additions and adjustments to our Constitution to adapt to a changing world, but that doesn't render the entire document plastic. You don't dismantle the foundation to your home when adding a dormer or sun room! The divisions of government, the vested, inalienable rights of The People and the limitations of the powers of government need to remain firmly intact or America will no longer be America. And you're correct in one sense; Bush hasn't been a good custodian of our Constitution.
But he and his Republicans are indeed status quo. He made campaign promises and later sold-out those depending on him to carry them out. He cherry picks those part of the Constitution he supports and shreds those parts he finds inconvenient. We saw all this under the Clinton administration and will surely see it under Kerry. Kerry is a long-time Senator, and is therefore responsible, in part, for the current state of affairs. Jr. George is simply carrying on what his father started, and the neo-cons are, and have been, behind them. Status quo, status quo, status quo -- with only slight differences. Do I think one is worse? I sure do! But I don't see Kerry as the savior of the country. I see Badnarik as being much closer to the American ideal than either of the two main candidates. Take the time to read the platform statement of all three parties. Heck, toss-in the Greens and the American Communist Party (who recently endorsed John Kerry) to boot! Which statements sound more like our Constitution?
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Sorry, but I disagree on the Constitution making America unique. Read through the French Constitution. Here is the first sentence of its definition of President: "The President of the Republic shall see that the Constitution is observed." So we're not unique there either.
Did YOU happen to read the French Constitution???
Reading through it will leave you with little doubt that ours is unique. Many countries have such a document, but there are fundamental differences. The first one I see is this:
"The Government shall determine and conduct the policy of the nation."
No such thing as "government by the people, for the people" there. "Y'all shut up -- WE will decide what's best for you."
I also saw nothing equivalent to our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to our Constitution. In France, as in many countries, your rights may be defended or denied at the whim of government. Personally, France is one of the few other countries I'd ever consider living in, but as long as there's a constitutional republic such as ours, it will always be a second best IMO. All that aside, I think we've gone way off-topic!
Reading through it will leave you with little doubt that ours is unique. Many countries have such a document, but there are fundamental differences. The first one I see is this:
"The Government shall determine and conduct the policy of the nation."
No such thing as "government by the people, for the people" there. "Y'all shut up -- WE will decide what's best for you."
I also saw nothing equivalent to our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to our Constitution. In France, as in many countries, your rights may be defended or denied at the whim of government. Personally, France is one of the few other countries I'd ever consider living in, but as long as there's a constitutional republic such as ours, it will always be a second best IMO. All that aside, I think we've gone way off-topic!
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2003
Disclaimer: I am in no way saying that French system is somehow perfect; the reasons I sited its constitution as opposed to many others was because it's relatively plain-spoken
Some exerpts fromt it:
Some exerpts fromt it:
- France is an indivisible, secular, democratic, and social Republic. It ensures the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction as to origin, race, or religion. It respects all beliefs.
- Its principle is government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
- Article 3 [Electoral Rights]
(1) National sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendums.
(2) No section of the people, nor any individual, may abrogate to themselves or to him or herself the exercise thereof.
(3) Suffrage may be direct or indirect under the terms stipulated by the Constitution. It shall always be universal, equal, and secret.
(4) All French citizens of both sexes who have attained their majority and enjoy civil and political rights may vote under the conditions determined by law.
I do wish we'd used the word "secular" in our First Amendment. Less ambiguous. I also like the "both sexes" wording. Lastly, there is also wording that declares French to be the official language. (Do we ever need something like THAT here!!!) Yea, some good stuff. Now all they need are the equivalents of our 2nd through 10th amendments and it would be perfect!
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2003
I have to say that I approached this thread with trepidation. I can only stand so much of right-wing politics before my head starts threatening to explode. That being said, I think this is one of the most thoughtful discussions of politics I've ever encountered on the internet. Kudos to all of the participants for maintaining some level of decorum even when things get heated.
Mostly, I would just say, Amen Dorispulaski!! Another BIG reason for me to vote for John Kerry (and therefore oust George Bush) is here: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf
It is the house committee on government reform minority report on politics and science in the Bush administration. As someone working in HIV/AIDS prevention, and a behavioral scientist, I find it extremely distressing.
A few other points:
I can't understand RealtorGal and her stance on Iraq- to me the evidence just doesn't add up. It was incredibly irresponsible for Bush-Cheney-Rummy-Wolfowitz to be gunning for Iraq on Sept 12. In the process we have alienated our allies and lost the upper hand in the war on terror.
Tonichelle, you sound to me like an intelligent and very precocious young woman who is also quite sheltered. I hope that you will continue to engage in debate and also learn to listen to people who have different experiences than you. While I disagree with you at almost every turn, I have to smile as you describe standardized tests- as an exceptionally smart (i.e., good test taker- if only all success in life were based on bubble tests!) teenager, I always found it difficult to understand how people could score so low. But people have very different experiences and backgrounds. I was fortunate to have a mother who read to me often; I also lucked into being placed in accelerated learning classes in 3rd grade. Those opportunities, and many others, are simply not universally available.
I'll sign off with a little personal story: as I'm writing to you, my 'husband' of 11 years is in bed recuperating from surgery. We spend thousands more every year to insure him, as he is not eligible to be on my insurance, and I cannot use my sick leave to care for him, based solely on his gender. Extending those benefits to me and mine does not harm anyone else's relationship in the least, except in the small minds that perceive a slight.
Mostly, I would just say, Amen Dorispulaski!! Another BIG reason for me to vote for John Kerry (and therefore oust George Bush) is here: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf
It is the house committee on government reform minority report on politics and science in the Bush administration. As someone working in HIV/AIDS prevention, and a behavioral scientist, I find it extremely distressing.
A few other points:
I can't understand RealtorGal and her stance on Iraq- to me the evidence just doesn't add up. It was incredibly irresponsible for Bush-Cheney-Rummy-Wolfowitz to be gunning for Iraq on Sept 12. In the process we have alienated our allies and lost the upper hand in the war on terror.
Tonichelle, you sound to me like an intelligent and very precocious young woman who is also quite sheltered. I hope that you will continue to engage in debate and also learn to listen to people who have different experiences than you. While I disagree with you at almost every turn, I have to smile as you describe standardized tests- as an exceptionally smart (i.e., good test taker- if only all success in life were based on bubble tests!) teenager, I always found it difficult to understand how people could score so low. But people have very different experiences and backgrounds. I was fortunate to have a mother who read to me often; I also lucked into being placed in accelerated learning classes in 3rd grade. Those opportunities, and many others, are simply not universally available.
I'll sign off with a little personal story: as I'm writing to you, my 'husband' of 11 years is in bed recuperating from surgery. We spend thousands more every year to insure him, as he is not eligible to be on my insurance, and I cannot use my sick leave to care for him, based solely on his gender. Extending those benefits to me and mine does not harm anyone else's relationship in the least, except in the small minds that perceive a slight.
Bush's hamfisted foreign policy and his cluelessness as to how the minorities and other powerless people feel compel me toward Kerry. Nader is a gadfly who has no business in politics. Bush is a racist and a loser who has never been sucessful unless his father has helped him. Get him OUT of the White House. I am a veteran myself, and I support the troops, but Bush is just sending them over for no reason at all other than to protect the interests of his toadies and old-boy connections. He doesn't care about anyone who isn't a straight white conservative Christian Male with money. And he never really won the first election anyway. Get him out of there, somebody, someone, anywhere.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
DJStuCrew said:I do wish we'd used the word "secular" in our First Amendment. Less ambiguous. I also like the "both sexes" wording. Lastly, there is also wording that declares French to be the official language. (Do we ever need something like THAT here!!!) Yea, some good stuff. Now all they need are the equivalents of our 2nd through 10th amendments and it would be perfect!
About "secular," I think the wording of the first amendment -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" -- is pretty explicit in its statement that the government is secular. While the next part -- "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- makes it equally clear that the people can be religious or not as they choose.I do not, however, think that we need a constitutional amendment to tell us what language we have to speak. Speak what you want. Say what you want. This is America!
Similarly, I am always puzzled by arguments in favor of "states' rights." States don't have rights. People have rights. Governments, at whatever level, exist to prortect those rights.
If I were running John Kerry's campaign, what I would be hitting on is: Talk's cheap. It's easy to talk about the importance of national security. It is even easier to send other people to protect it. But when Uncle Sam called, George Bush stayed home. Dick Chaney stayed home. John Kerry served.
JMO.
Mathman
Last edited:
When I write to my pen-pals in France and Russia, I'm often astounded at their fluency in English. I'm also embarassed by the fact that, in many other countries, an English speaker can "get by" because enough people have learned English, yet here in America, no such importance is placed on communicating with others.
While I don't support a suppression of other language here in America -- in fact, I'd like to see more foreign language classes in K-12 and beyond -- I think a declaration of a "national language" is in order. It would put potential immigrants on notice that English is what they need to know, and would clear some pretty murky legal waters right now in some states.
As for "state's rights," I believe that they surpass those of the federal government. The state is the local unit of government under which you live, and it's state law that most effects you personally. Various states have different issues. For instance, only states like Michigan, Ohio and Illinois have anything to say about the Great Lakes. What do the feds know that we don't on this subject? Similarly, Michigan might have little to say about the management of land in the deserts of Nevada, since Michigan HAS no deserts. There's a million little issues like this from state to state. Also, if you read the Constitution and Federalist Papers, you'll see why the state is actually supposed to be the primary unit of government, with the Federal government subservient to them. That's why states have representatives in Washington, but Washington has no representatives in the states.
And you're right about one thing; it's the PEOPLE who are supposed to have the power. Our representatives are NOT our leaders, nor is the President. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and should be reminded of this every once in a while. I tend to send a BIG reminder in November!
While I don't support a suppression of other language here in America -- in fact, I'd like to see more foreign language classes in K-12 and beyond -- I think a declaration of a "national language" is in order. It would put potential immigrants on notice that English is what they need to know, and would clear some pretty murky legal waters right now in some states.
As for "state's rights," I believe that they surpass those of the federal government. The state is the local unit of government under which you live, and it's state law that most effects you personally. Various states have different issues. For instance, only states like Michigan, Ohio and Illinois have anything to say about the Great Lakes. What do the feds know that we don't on this subject? Similarly, Michigan might have little to say about the management of land in the deserts of Nevada, since Michigan HAS no deserts. There's a million little issues like this from state to state. Also, if you read the Constitution and Federalist Papers, you'll see why the state is actually supposed to be the primary unit of government, with the Federal government subservient to them. That's why states have representatives in Washington, but Washington has no representatives in the states.
And you're right about one thing; it's the PEOPLE who are supposed to have the power. Our representatives are NOT our leaders, nor is the President. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS, and should be reminded of this every once in a while. I tend to send a BIG reminder in November!
