Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: politics

I believed in the United Nations, won a state essay prize of some United Nations Association while I was in HS. Had very high hopes for an organization which would dignify human rights and provide mechanisms for the elevation of the human condition.

What a farce! Instead, it is a club for the ruling classes of the most incredibly corrupt governments on earth, where they can all agree how terrible the United States is, and how much we owe them. The UN can appoint Syria to the chair of the Security Council, Somalia, Sudan and Libya to the human rights commission, and seriously discuss the problem of Jews using the blood of Moslem children to make Passover Matzoh and Purim cakes. The UN has become a debating society for despots and fools, a forum where France can lecture the United States about intervention in Iraq in order to protect France's siphoning of Billions of dollars in the UN's Food for Palaces program, and illegal weapons technology transfers to Iraq and Iran. That's what the UN now "stands for."

Yes, spiff, Bush's policy on stem cell research is moronic. We hope his war on terror does more violence to terrorists than to our constitution. Bush's policies intrude into personal choices of gender identity, he draws the line at gay-marriage, threatens a woman's right to choose. To say Bush is not the ideal candidate is an understatement.

That being said, these are dangerous times, we are under a relentless attack in a war of civilizations which we cannot negotiate, cannot appease and probably cannot win. Nevertheless, we are not given a choice as to whether to fight. Bush recognizes this. Kerry does not. Bush sees the world in black and white. Whether this is a function of a lack of intelligence or not, I think he's got it right. We got an ass-kicking cowboy just when we needed one.

Though a life-long democrat, this time around, I'm hitting for the other team.

2X6 - One word....AMEN!!!!! You truly get it.

I'm going to admit something that I rarely discuss...something that many might be surprised by. Four years ago, I stood there in the polling booth for a long time trying to figure out which man was better suited to be President. At that point in my life, I was well on my way in migration from the left to the middle, so Bush's fiscal and International policied appealed to me. However, many of his positions concerning social issues were very disturbing to me. So, I stood there trying to make this decision. In then end, I just couldn't vote for someone that advocated policies that infringed on certain people's rights, denied rights to others, and generally blurred the line between church and state. I put my mark next to Gore's name. My conscience truly wouldn't allow me to go the other way.

Now, it's four years later and my conscience will not allow me to vote based upon these issues. The ONLY issue right now needs to be the war on terror, because the handling of this situation over the next four years will ripple for years to come. Right now, my conscience will not allow me to endanger the lives of my family based upon social issues. The best I can hope for is that one of the candidate in the 2008 election really gets foreign policy, while maintaining a more libertarian stance on social issues.....Unfortunately, I'm not holding my breath.

Spiff-you hit the big bullets for an anti-Bush vote on the head. This administration doesn't understand that we can't achieve any sustainable peace with aggression.

The idea that this is a religous issue is ludicrous. These terrorists have as much to do with Islam as Bose does with good sound. I'm privileged to have a number of Muslims in my circle of friends. They were horrified with 9/11 and watch what goes on around the world "in the name of Islam" with dismay. They don't evangelize, put down women, or perform clitorectomies on their daughters. The idea that Islam is America's enemy is held by too many people in this country. This isn't a religous fight. We need to be extremely careful not to portray these terrorists as being the face of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Republican party has historically called for "less" government. Their platform, however, supports legislation against gay marriage and abortion. Basically legislating their version of morality. I've watched the Governor of our state and our state Senate do the same thing in Minnesota. They spent many days of the 2004 session arguing the gay marriage issue and at the end of the session had failed to pass a single meaningful piece of legislation. Health care, transportation, and even security issues got bypassed as these jokers tried to deny a group of American citizens equal rights and protection. That's the direction I see the conservative right wing of the Republican party leading us.

A challenge to you conservatives-give me 3 good reasons to vote for Bush and Cheney with anti-terrorism efforts excluded. Besides the security issues-what has this administration done to positively affect middle America. Has anyone in this forum seen a significant increase in their paychecks from the tax cut? Has anyone seen any improvement in anything other than the perception that we're somehow safer? I'm not saying that Kerry or anyone else can do better, I just don't understand all the support I'm hearing here for Bush. Those of you ridiculing Kerry's Senate record are right, he's weak. Please point out some strong points in Bush's record (other than he's tough on terror). He was a questionable businessman (check out his files with the Securities and Exchange Commission), pretty weak Governor, and certainly received no mandate with the 2000 electorate. If it wasn't for the Reagan/Bush era Supreme Court appointees, his road to the Oval Office would have been a bit tougher.

Just a hypothetical-what do the conservatives out there think will happen to this country if Bush isn't elected. Do you really think we'd see any major changes? Would a Kerry election really lead to Jihadic victory around the world? Bush can't decide if the war on terror can be won anyway, Monday it wasn't winnable, Tuesday it was. Flippity Flop indeed. I need a day off to listen to my Axioms.

turbodog- you mentioned listening to the RUSH interview of george w.. did you happen to catch sean hannity's show? he went down to times square to do his "man on the streets" segment, and interviewed some young kids that were involved with the anti-bush protests. he was asking them why they hated bush, and why they liked kerry, etc.. so then, he says to one kid, "how do you like kerrys running mate, stu ped..?" stu ped, stupid!! and the kid was like, "oh, yes he is a young up and comer.. i like what he has to say and he would make a great vice president".. blah, blah, blah.. ignorance is bliss. its scares me how such young, blindly led kids are the ones who will be pushing the buttons when i am an old man.

i am not a bush hater, and i am not a kerry supporter. i am actually still up in the air as to who i am voting for. as usual, the choice comes down to the "not the worse" candidate. just once i would like it to be about 'who is better', instead of 'how is least worse'....

bigjohn

I don't have specifics. I'm referring to the so-called CIA report, which said that the Iraqi's were working on WMDs. Nobody seems to know where it came from, but everyone knows it's not true. The President says he wasn't involved. I really didn't want to get into a debate, I'll just say someone in the administration is not telling the truth. I believe that someone is in the oval office.

So, let me see if I understand what you're saying -

1. there was a "so called CIA report"
2. the report found that "Iraqis were working on WMD"
3. No body knows where the CIA report came from
4. Everyone knows the report's conclusion is "not true"
5. Someone in the administration is lying
6. You believe that someone is in the oval office.

You think everyone agrees that Iraq was not working on WMD? I don't believe that. I don't think the survivors of the Iraqi poison gas (WMD) attacks on the Kurds believe it. I don't think the thousands of Iranian military veterans burned by poison gas believe it.

We have not found substantial stashes of WMD in Iraq. This is bad. It means either that Iraq destroyed its WMD which we all know they had (because they used them littleb) or that they are still stashed in Iraq, or that they were moved to another country, probably Syria.

Don't you agree, littleb, that if Saddam Hussein had permitted the UN inspectors unrestricted access to Iraqi sites (access to which they were entitled by the terms of the armistice of Gulf War I) there would not have been a war?

Why do you think Bush is lying about WMD when the intelligence services of the US, France, Russia, UK, and others all believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD and was developing worse?

In reply to:

---

someone in the administration is not telling the truth

---

someone??

they are politicians man.. NONE OF THEM ARE TELLING THE TRUTH!!!

regardless of your party line, you are foolin' yourself if you dont think you are being lied to on a daily basis. its sad but true.

bigjohn

Jorge writes:

In reply to:

---

The idea that this is a religous issue is ludicrous. These terrorists have as much to do with Islam as Bose does with good sound. I'm privileged to have a number of Muslims in my circle of friends. They were horrified with 9/11 and watch what goes on around the world "in the name of Islam" with dismay. They don't evangelize, put down women, or perform clitorectomies on their daughters. The idea that Islam is America's enemy is held by too many people in this country. This isn't a religous fight. We need to be extremely careful not to portray these terrorists as being the face of Islam. Nothing could be further from the truth.

---

I'm not saying there aren't many wonderful human beings who are Muslim. Without doubt, there are. However, it is clear that 'moderates' do not speak for Saudi Arabia which exports the Wahabi Fundamentalist Party Line, one which does espouse terror and hatred. Your friends may not have celebrated the success of the 9/11 attacks, but can you deny the great celebrations which spilled into the streets of so many Muslim countries? Do you think it was someone other than Jihadists who attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and tried to fly a plane into our Capitol or White House on 9/11, or who blew up the USS Cole, or the Khobar Towers, or our embassies in Africa, or who beheaded Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, the 12 Nepalese and so many others? Why is there a Jihad war all over the world? Jihad against Hindu and Sikh in Kashmir and India, Jihad against Buddhist in Thailand and Indonesia, Jihad against Christian in Indonesia, Philippines - all over the world, Jihad against Jews - all over the world. Where is the outcry from Muslims at this relentless murder and warfare? The outcry I've heard is one which attempts to blame these acts on others - "Muslims couldn't do that, suicide is prohibited by Islam," but at the same time "Martyrdom" is not. We have heard a great cry, "don't blame us," but no acknowledgment of responsibility for a culture at war with the rest of the world.

Now, maybe at the end of the day, this war, this Jihad war being waged against the West will have to be fought by moderates, like your friends, against the Jihadists, a civil war. Who do you think would win? Where do you think the center of gravity of Islam rests? With moderates or Jihadists? We certainly haven't heard much from the moderates, and what we have heard appears to have been for Western consumption - that is, a message of peace directed toward our media, a message of war at home.

Now, your friends have not been disfigured by clitorectomies, but do you deny that Islamic society is characterized by a brutal oppression of women, a systematic denial of human rights to women, or that some such societies do require that girls be mutilated by clitorectomies?

So why are we still doing business with the Saudi's? Easy, we need their oil. Will Bush ever come down hard on the Saudi's? No way, the Bush family has made millions dealing with the Saudi's. Spending the billions we have spent on war in the Mideast on alternative energy source development and cutting our dependence on foreign oil would go a long way to changing the worlds political climate. Do you think the Saudi government would support the terrorists if the U.S. could threaten to cut off the petro-dollars. Do you think that Bush or Cheney have any desire to cut our need for oil in any way? Check out their past businesses and see if you can find ties to oil.

Center of gravity? There are millions of Muslims in the world, a calculated few are managing to disrupt and terrorize. Before we had 9/11 we had Oklahoma City-no Islamic Jihad there, just a couple of white guys from Kansas. We face (and always have) security threats from many different sources. My point is that fighting a supposed global terrorist threat by bombing Iraq is crazy. When and if peace is achieved in Iraq, will it be sustainable? And at what cost of American lives and dollars? I said it before-the world is a better place without Saddam, but this President's rush to war in Iraq will do little to improve the security of our country.

"Basically legislating their version of morality."

As opposed to yours?

Spiff gave good reasons to vote for Kerry - if that is how you feel about those issues.
But, I would ask you young liberal folks to re-examine your personal beliefs. Why do you hold the positions you do? Did you learn the "truth" from your university professors? From the media? From discussions with your friends? Or is it just that the liberal view is so tres chic? If so, then you have a lot of work to do.

Why have the older conservative guys generally won out in this thread? Is it because they're stubborn asses? Or is it because their political positions have been formed by personal reflections over a long period of years, stemming from a coherent core philosophy - rather than learned quickly from an expert in a classroom or as a politically expedient response to some single issue? When you tie your political positions to a broad philosophy about life, your arguments will likely be better reasoned and more easily defended. IMO, the philosophical basis for the modern liberal POV is the belief that capitalism is unfair - in other words, its philosophical basis is Marx.

IMO, voting for Kerry - and Democrats in general - continues our slide toward socialism and the loss of personal responsibility and individual freedoms. Not freedoms like smoking crack and ripping babies out of your womb, but freedoms like property rights, self determination (as a country and as individuals), freedom to enjoy the fruits of your labor, and those freedoms specifically guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

As a Libertarian, I obviously have high regard for the rule of law as set forth in the Constitution - wanting strict and unwavering adherence to those principles regardless of "the changing times" - and a desire for personal freedom and individual accountability. Obviously, neither party has a candidate that fully embodies those principles, but I would sooner accept the socially conservative Republican than the socialist Democrat.

BTW, the educated position on abortion needs to be re-thought. With the advent of RU486 and widespread birth control availability in this country, there is no way abortions during the second trimester should be legal. It is barbaric, brutal, primitive, disgusting and simply wrong. Anyone who has seen an ultrasound of a 5 mo old fetus would have to agree, IMO.