who will u vote for in Nov.? | Page 6 | Golden Skate

who will u vote for in Nov.?

who gets your vote in nov.?

  • Bush

    Votes: 23 21.5%
  • Kerry

    Votes: 77 72.0%
  • Nader

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • other

    Votes: 5 4.7%

  • Total voters
    107

pipsqueak

Rinkside
Joined
Nov 24, 2003
You go Girl!

go on with your bad self DorisP. I agree.

I've tried and tried to figure out the difference betw Democrats and Republicans, esp in those years where people say that there's "no difference" betw them and it makes it hard to vote. I've finally figured it out by what's happened to me in my adult working life, and by looking back through history in the 1900's:

Republicans think that if you take care of big business, it will take care of the people.

Democrats think that if you take care of people, they will take care of business.

Which do you think serves this country best? Which do you think is REALLY working according to "plan". I live in California: big business electric co.screwed my bulb into the ground last year and then went off to their own private island into new bazillion dollar houses for the CEO's, leaving employees behind jobless, pensionless, broken. How come Halburton, Cheney's business interest, got an uncontested government contract to send MRE's to our troops in Iraq for 29.95 EACH ? I say we stop all that hogwash immediately and let local elected governments "consult" with the Feds before contracts are awarded. I bet the city council of, say, Garden City Kansas would send back notes saying that they would arrange for the downtown Army/Navy shop to send THREE meals/ day, postage and all, to each soldier for less than 30 bucks a day. Don't EVEN get me started on how the Republicans changed the way we elect presidents in this country. I will never forgive them for NOT allowing the election to proceed according to the balance of powers in the Constitution. It SHOULD have gone to the the House of Representatives. Bush would probably have been "appointed" anyway. But, he and his team have now set a prescident for the Supreme Court---a politically appointed board---to fiddle with elections infinitely. I will never forget even to my dying day that Chief Justice Scalia--a Republican appointee--said in defense of the court's decision that "the Constitution does NOT guarantee suffrage" meaning that, he believes that Constitutionally, your vote NEVER needs to be counted. It is the "luxury" of the court that ANY vote is counted. How's THAT for checks and balances?
 

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Mathman said:
:) 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.
Mathman, what about Bush's faith-based initiative? While I believe it violates the spirit of the constitution, technically there is nothing in the plan to contradict the 1st ammendment. As Joe Liberman said 4 years ago (prompting me to start yelling at my car radio) "Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

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!
ITA. Though I have to say on a very personal note that I was extremely proud of my whole family -- when we came to this country, even my 70+ year old grandfather spent a lot of time trying to learn English. He was unfortunately too old to really learn it, but it sure wasn't for the lack of trying -- he'd spend days with his textbooks.

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.
All depends on how you look at it. Take Meagan Law for example. According to the Federal Governement, all states need to implement it because it protects potential victims' rights. However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court says that Meagan Law violates the state constitution as it doesn't respect the right of those who are done paying their debt to society.

But when Uncle Sam called, George Bush stayed home. Dick Chaney stayed home. John Kerry served.
Mathman, how did you feel when Bush Sr. (who has an excellent service record) was running against Clinton (a draft dodger, no less)? While I agree that Kerry's service record speaks highly of him, I wouldn't hold not serving against either Bush or Cheaney.

sk8fanconvert said:
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.
Only 1 thing for you to do for you -- move to the best state in the nation, MASSACHUSETTS! On the serious note, though, I wish your husband all the best and a speedy recovery.
 
Last edited:

DJStuCrew

Rinkside
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Ptichka said:
Mathman, what about Bush's faith-based initiative? While I believe it violates the spirit of the constitution, technically there is nothing in the plan to contradict the 1st ammendment. As Joe Liberman said 4 years ago (prompting me to start yelling at my car radio) "Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

The First Amendment is an admonishment of government to remain neutral on all matters of religion. That means FROM as well as OF.

“Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole of the American people which declared that their Legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state” - Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802.

From the author of the First Amendment:

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the endless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." - President James Madison

Funneling OUR tax dollars to any CHURCH is precisely a clear violation of church / state separation!
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Ptichka said:
Mathman, what about Bush's faith-based initiative? While I believe it violates the spirit of the constitution, technically there is nothing in the plan to contradict the 1st ammendment. As Joe Liberman said 4 years ago (prompting me to start yelling at my car radio) "Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
I agree with the quotes from Jefferson and Madison that DJStuCrew posted just above.

Take the issue of prayer in public schools (and for that matter, at the openings of sessions of Congress and the Supreme Court). Jesus spoke on this matter, saying (Matthew 6:5-6),

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they be seen of men."

"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray unto the Father which is in secret."

Though I have to say on a very personal note that I was extremely proud of my whole family -- when we came to this country, even my 70+ year old grandfather spent a lot of time trying to learn English. He was unfortunately too old to really learn it, but it sure wasn't for the lack of trying -- he'd spend days with his textbooks.
This is exactly why I think we do not need a law establishing an official national language. I think that immigrants will see, as they always have, the advantage of learning the language spoken in their new country, without having it forced down their throats by government edict.

In fact, the only group of immigrants to North America who did not eventually learn the native languages of the people to whose country they came, were the English-speakers and the Quebecois.

All depends on how you look at it. Take Meagan Law for example. According to the Federal Governement, all states need to implement it because it protects potential victims' rights. However, the Massachusetts Supreme Court says that Meagan Law violates the state constitution as it doesn't respect the right of those who are done paying their debt to society.
I think this is exactly what the debate should focus on: In each instance, what level of government can best protect the rights of the people. Again, the term "states' rights" is one I don't like because to me it seems like it is saying that state governments have rights. Governments, in my opinion, do not have rights. They have duties. "Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," and all that.

The last time states rights was a big issue in U.S. politics was during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Southern politicians touted "states rights" as justification for Jim Crow laws that denied black citizens the right to vote, to receive public services, etc. In this instance, I heartily approved of federal legislation such as the voting rights act of 1964 that addressed this issue nationwide.

But on some other issues, like education, I think the states can do a better job. I am not an ideologue on this subject.

Mathman, how did you feel when Bush Sr. (who has an excellent service record) was running against Clinton (a draft dodger, no less)? While I agree that Kerry's service record speaks highly of him, I wouldn't hold not serving against either Bush or Cheaney.
What I don't like is the hypocrisy. President Bush is basing his legacy on being a war-time president, like Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt. If there is no war handy to make him look big, he'll start one (in Iraq). Cheny is even worse. He portrays himself as a mighty warrior, but it is other people who pay the price for his delusions of grandeur.

JMO.
 
Last edited:

DJStuCrew

Rinkside
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
sashasbeau said:
IMO, The only reason people are going to vote for Kerry is because they don`t want Bush

(In my best "Dr. Phil" voice) Ya think???

I don't really care for either one of 'em. Heard a great quote the other day: "If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil." Know who said that? MY candidate! See http://www.lp.org.
 

bronxgirl

Medalist
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
The truth of the matter is the victor will still be either Bush or Kerry. Nader can't win, he can only stop Kerry from winning in crucial states. Minor party candidates
haven't won in a national election in the US since I can't remember when, so if Bush wins your state by a few votes, and you think he is not "the lesser of the two evils", I hope you're prepared to live with the consequences for the rest of us.
 

DJStuCrew

Rinkside
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Nope -- not buyin' it. Sorry. If people had the ballz to vote their conscience, we might be able to do something other than whine about the two party system. They whine, but support it anyway with their votes. You vote for your favorite, uber-rich Skull-N-Bones alumnist. I'll vote for someone I believe in. Then, when Kush or Berry gets the country into one nasty mess or another, I can say, "Not my fault!" How many Iraqs, sell-outs and sex scandals will it take to wake people up???
 

Piel

On Edge
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
The Libertarian Party offers a positive alternative to the failed welfare state. We offer a vision of a society based on work, individual responsibility, and private charity. It is a society based on opportunity and genuine compassion It is a society built on liberty.

Then, when Kush or Berry gets the country into one nasty mess or another, I can say, "Not my fault!" How many Iraqs, sell-outs and sex scandals will it take to wake people up???

Genuine Compassion - Not My fault....... Hmm...to answer Dr. Phil "That's NOT working for me!" For some reason I would like to start seeing the genuine compassion BEFORE all of the safety nets are removed because Ifor now I am certainly not feeling it .

IIRC prior to welfare and social security we had those lovely, compassionate institutions known as begging, starvation, no health care. In my elementary school in 1962 there was a very poor famliy that lived in a shack on the side of a hill. One of the 'genuinely compassionate mothers" of one of the wealthier students brought a huge box of 'private charity" for the poor family to school one day. This woman stood in front of the classroom pulling one thing after another out of the box which contained, used clothing, non perishable food items, and cleaning supplies putting on a show and tell of what she was giving to the poor, unfortunate family. The highlight of her performance and the items of which she seemed the most proud of herself for bringing were individual boxes of cereal of different varieties. The look on the face of the child from the family the items were intended for for was absolute mortification....even for a second grader that child knew it was being treated differently than the other children in the classroom. No child should ever have to go through something like that.
 

DJStuCrew

Rinkside
Joined
Aug 5, 2003
Piel said:
Genuine Compassion - Not My fault....... Hmm...to answer Dr. Phil "That's NOT working for me!" For some reason I would like to start seeing the genuine compassion BEFORE all of the safety nets are removed because Ifor now I am certainly not feeling it .

IIRC prior to welfare and social security we had those lovely, compassionate institutions known as begging, starvation, no health care. In my elementary school in 1962 there was a very poor famliy that lived in a shack on the side of a hill. One of the 'genuinely compassionate mothers" of one of the wealthier students brought a huge box of 'private charity" for the poor family to school one day. This woman stood in front of the classroom pulling one thing after another out of the box which contained, used clothing, non perishable food items, and cleaning supplies putting on a show and tell of what she was giving to the poor, unfortunate family. The highlight of her performance and the items of which she seemed the most proud of herself for bringing were individual boxes of cereal of different varieties. The look on the face of the child from the family the items were intended for for was absolute mortification....even for a second grader that child knew it was being treated differently than the other children in the classroom. No child should ever have to go through something like that.

Only a matter of how things get implemented. It's easy to criticize that which has not been tried. Look a little deeper and lose the cliches.
 

Piel

On Edge
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
And exactly how would you implement your compassionate charity? Like it or not there are always going to be folks who for some reason or the other cannot take care of themselves. A truly compassionate person would want those people to have all of their needs met too and for them to be able to maintain a little dignity in the process. Here in WV our churches are having a hard time meeting payroll, are having to eliminate youth ministers, and after school programs....they can certainly not afford to take over these programs. If the government is not there to help those who can't make it on their own they usually end up going without. A lot of families can't even manage to have enough in savings for their own rainy days much less be able to give to those who have even less than they do. So if not government sponsored programs where is this compassionate charity going to come from? I've got it.....when the rich have to pay less taxes because there are no goverment programs to help the poor they will suddenly develop a conscience and help out those who can't do for themselves. Right, that is until let's see......"Well, I could go for the top of the line Mercedes, but no I'm feeling compassionate so I will help the poor instead. Then again I do deserve the nicer car, the poor will still be around the next time I get a bonus, i'Il be compassionate then.............." I am not willing to leave the well being of a part of our society up to the whims of a group that up until now have not demonstrated their willingness to take care of those less fortunate than themselves...
 
Last edited:

Ptichka

Forum translator
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 28, 2003
Piel, I would even take it one step further. In order to reduce poverty for our children's generation, we have to invest NOW. It is far easier to give one a check than it is to teach that person to earn it themselves. The Republicans always talk about how they are the ones who want people to take care of themselves; what their programs lack, however, is the funding. Teaching someone to be competitive in the marketplace takes time and money; lots of money.

The only way to really attack the problem is to invest in education starting from pre-K. Today, a poor mother who is off to work is often forced to leave her children in very sub-standard child care facilities. Those kids then do not get the skills they need to excel in school later on. Let me give one example: preschool age children in poor families spend more time in front of the TV; consequently, their eyes are not trained to focus on a page the way looking at pictures in a children's book does; when those kids then go on to school, teachers have very tough time teaching them to read partly because those kids' eyes don't know how to look at a book page. This is only one example. IMO, a progressive government is one that does not try save pennies today just to have to spend hundreds of dollars in the future.
 

Piel

On Edge
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Thers was a girl in my Girl Scout troop who was in eighth grade named R. She spends about a third of the year in the pshyciatric hospital for various disorders. The mother also has three younger children ages 6, 7 , and 8. when the younger child reached school age the mother had to go to work. She is certified to work as a respiratory therapist but can only get a job as needed which means usually midnight shift and not enough hours to earn a living. Since she doesn't need daycare for the kids on any regular basis none is available when she does need it. She takes what hours she can get at a little family owned restaurant that means three different buses each way and if she has the later shift no bus home. Because of R's age and behaviour probelms she is not welcome at day care when it is available. R had to drop out of GS because she now is responsible for watching the younger kids or if the mom can get child care for them R goes to work with Mom so that Mom doesn't have to walk home from work alone at midnight on school nights plus she makes a few bucks helping to bus tables. Are fifty million laws being broken, you bet! What is the solutiion?
 
Last edited:

Piel

On Edge
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
No it isn't. That's why we need Kerry in there :D . It would be wonderful if everyone could be self supporting but that will never happen. There are always going to be those who cannot make it on their own for whatever reasons.. As a human being I feel that it is my duty to look out for those who can't take care of themselves. As a country we should want to take care of our fellow citizens. I realize that not everyone feels that way. The best way for those who have to help those who have not is through government programs. Even with all of their faults it is the fairest way for those who have the most (through taxation) to reach everyone who needs it (by way of government programs). Leave it up to churches and individuals and those that would choose to help will put conditions on who receives assistance. Government run programs are far from perfect but are still the best solution.
 

Grgranny

Da' Spellin' Homegirl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
It's so hard to know the best ways of handling these things. I know my daughter and I are really thankful that Medicare and Social Security pay what they do but since she also gets state help, she gets too much to be able to receive food stamps or any other help, even though her income isn't near enough to pay for her expenses. Since most of it is alternative medicine they don't help with that either and I end up having to help her out a lot. And there isn't much left to help that much more. She's tried a lot of things but nobody will pay any more. And she sure isn't able to work. On her good days she can walk around by holding on to things but on her bad days she can't even use her walker and has to crawl. :cry:
 

Piel

On Edge
Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Grgranny, I feel so bad for your daughter. She continues to be in my prayers. Our health care system must be changed so that everyone can recieve the medical care they need. I don't understand how those who keep putting up the road blocks can live with themselves :mad: :mad: :mad: . It is bad enough to be sick but then to have to practically beg and fight for medical care is just more than anyone shoukld have to do. As a country we should be ashamed.
 
Top