Deeply concerned for the future

STSinNYC · Jul 29, 2004

Hi friends. Tried to dialogue on an AOL chat room tonight about the electon. Virtually no one was listening to anyone else. Mostly nasty attacks on the candidates and on other forum posters. Very mean stuff, little real thinking.

How will wise policies be formed, sustained and evolved in this atmosphere? If Kerry wins, he'll face a Republican Congress whose supporters will be angry. If Bush wins, the Democrats will be out of their minds.

I'm 46, this is the worst I have ever seen. I was too young to be aware of the 1964 campaign.

I'm a strong Bush supporter, so are our entire family. But I don't hate Kerry. I don't think he's an evil liberal. I just don't agree with some of his critical policy views and I think Bush is the better choice.

Far too few people are really weighing this enormously important choice with wisdom.

Pablo · Jul 29, 2004

All you can do is remain calm and rational. It's difficult to control other's emotions, to say the least.

AOL? Just avoid that world.

I, too, worry about Kerry's possible justice nominations....

Pablo · Jul 29, 2004

Don't let the whackjobs get you down..........

T-Keith · Jul 29, 2004

I agree most people are voting out of hatred(perhaps based on false information) not out of support of a candidate.

-T

labman · Jul 29, 2004

I do go back to the 64 campaign, and do not remember ever seeing the level of hatred and lies in a campaign that I am seeing now. The press never mistreated Nixon the way they are treating Bush. I think many irresponsible people loved having Clinton setting the standards for personal responsibility. They can't stand George Bush and his basic decency, and will do anything to get rid of him. That Kerry stands for nothing, only makes him more attractive to them.

The attackumentries are entirely new. Hollywood always was liberal, but never produced campaign features before.

Perhaps the Republicans should have scheduled their convention at the proposed Yucca Mountain storage facility. Between the Islamic and protester terrorists, it isn't going to be pretty.

[ July 30, 2004, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: labman ]

keith · Jul 29, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by labman:
Perhaps the Republicans should have scheduled their convention at the proposed Yucca Mountain storage facility. Between the Islamic and protester terrorists, it isn't going to be pretty.

You got very little info out of Boston about the caged "concentration camps" that they set up for the protestors.

No fear, our unbiased "mainstream" press will be sure to discover them in NYC.

Keith.

GROUCHO MARX · Jul 29, 2004

'64 will be a lesson in decency and decorum compared to what we are about to witness.

Al · Jul 29, 2004

I'm pretty much of a conservative but politics on both sides has become insane since both political parties have figured out how torob the U.S. treasury to buy votes and fatten up their friends at the same time. This has lead to ignoring the critical issues of the day..The main one being the failure to protect our boards and to allow the hoards of illegals to stream in. This is draining our resources andcosting jobs. Also it is strengthing the hands of the illegal coalition at the expense of the country.

And don't forget a lot of this hatred was started by the Republicans on the Whitewater/Ken Starr Politiical Witch Hunt. And then Clinton proded the Republicans into action with the Impeachment attempt (which was deserved) In a way the Dems are paying back.

keith · Jul 29, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Al:
And don't forget a lot of this hatred was started by the Republicans on the Whitewater/Ken Starr Politiical Witch Hunt. And then Clinton proded the Republicans into action with the Impeachment attempt (which was deserved) In a way the Dems are paying back.

What we see today is entirely due to the 2000 election. Even though every recount has Bush winning, the democrats are still sore. Al Gore Jr. could have been the gracious loser and stuck to his word not to contest the election (as was done in other close elections in 2000). We got another view into the character of Al Gore Jr. when he endorsed Howard Dean and didn't tell Joe Lieberman. He was proud to talk about his mother in law taking dog medicine because that was all she could afford. If you were a multi-millionaire, would you treat your family like that? The guy has some serious issues! Selfish doesn't even begin to cover it.

JFKerry may as well change his name to Not Bush Kerry. I talk to plenty of democrats that don't like Kerry but will vote for him anyway because he is Not Bush.

Keith.

JohnStra · Jul 29, 2004

I'm fascinated by the way certain candidates polarize people. I'm a conservative, but I don't dislike Kerry. No matter how it's spun, he did go to Vietnam voluntairily and he deserves credit for that. I won't vote for him because his senate voting record clearly indicates the directions he would take the nation as president. Now Gore, on the other hand, I dislike to the extreme. So I guess I can see how many dems feel such over the top hatred for Bush. As I said, it's fascinating.

The Dummy · Jul 29, 2004

Hey, here's a thought. Vote a one hole ballot for the party of your choice based on your notion of which party will do the most for either you or our country or both and not necessarily in any particular order other than what is important to you. The elected pres is mostly the smoke blower and the congress, heaven forbid, should make the laws etc. according to the constitution. Voting in this manner will solve the problem of what works best for us as individuals. Don't vote for Bush. Vote a one hole Republican ballot and give him the congress so that he can make or break one way or the other. Or give do the one hole for the Democrats and give them the tools needed to do the same thing. I believe that there are enough folks with common sense in either party to keep which ever smoke blower that is elected in line. After all, they are all Americans. ....O, well, it's just a thought.

George

eljefino · Jul 29, 2004

The thing with the "one hole" philosophy is how efficient it is. Some like a republican congress and dem pres or vice versa.

Look at the senior drug benefit; that was gridlocked for years because they couldn't agree on how much it would be.

The Dummy · Jul 29, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by eljefino:
The thing with the "one hole" philosophy is how efficient it is. Some like a republican congress and dem pres or vice versa.

Look at the senior drug benefit; that was gridlocked for years because they couldn't agree on how much it would be.

That's my point. I believe that gridlock does not come from within one party but from disagreements between the two parties. I believe that only thing about a near equal party representation in the congress or a one party congressional majority with the other party holding the White House is that this gives both parties the opening to blame the other party for any undesirable content contained in a bill or for not passing a particular bill at at all. With a legislative/executive majority, there is no question where the blame lays and if there is blame to lay, that can be rectified in the next election.

All of this by the way is my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it.

George

Matt89 · Jul 29, 2004

quote:

The so called values that he has and the things he supports(gay civil unions-marriage) in my opinion will only hasten the end of time.

If you have strong faith, is this a bad thing? As long as you've got a seat on the bus what difference does it make what time it leaves?

I've got ONE question for anybody who considers themself to be Christian: would Jesus have started the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Seriously, a President with real morals and values would have asked WWJD, 'turned the other cheek' after 9/11 and tried to achieve peace by busting out the loaves and fishes, right? What am I missing here?

If Jesus himself were running for President on a "Love thy Neighbor" platform we wouldn't elect him. So if we're hastening the end of time maybe that's a bonus.

STSinNYC · Jul 29, 2004

Sadly, wars are a fact of life.

Matt89, with respect, I don't think your question works. It's not about whether Jesus would have started wars. It's about what we do in the light of His revelation and atoning work.

We live in a world under the influence of sin and death. We will have to defend ourselves from attack even when it requires killing other people. The Bible does not proscribe war in the absolute; there is such a thing as just war. See the wars of Israel in Judges and the Books of Samuel. See also how Saul failed to follow the commands he was given in the war against the Amalekites. WW2 was necessary. The issue is whether a war is being fought for the right purposes. I believe we are fighting for just purposes - freedom, caring for the needs of oppressed peoples- in the Middle East.

We love our neighbor by caring for them, as Americans do spending billions of dollars privately and publicly in relief and other life-improving works all over the world. But the people who hate us and are trying to kill us will not respond to being fed and acred for. Sadly, we will have to fight them.

All wars are tragic, there is no such thing as a good war. But some wars are necessary. We should pray that they end as soon as possible, with the least damage and death, and that we come in and bring healing love afterwards.

labman · Jul 30, 2004

As a Christian, I have big issues with the war in Iraq. I try to follow Jesus' example, and I have never found a verse in the Bible where he lifted up his hand against another man.* However I think it is out of line to attack Bush's values over the war in Iraq.

'' When he continued to deceive the weapons inspectors, I had a decision to make: to hope for the best and to trust the word of a madman and a tyrant, or remember the lessons of September the 11th and defend our country.'' G. Bush**

Yes Bush is a sinner. Perhaps the war is wrong. Jesus will not be on the ballot. Neither will anyone else with values even approaching George Bush. Do we want a man that is defending America, or to go back to the party of sex, power, money, use what ever you have, any way you can to get more?

*Before referring me to the cleansing of the temple, go back and read it carefully.

**No, no direct link to 911 has been found, but Bush was thinking about the next one.

MolaKule · Jul 30, 2004

quote:

They have a quiet "class destinction" component that makes those of any "means" want to grab the first available lifeboat to their shores (Quick!! Get on the band wagon before the low lifes steal your money!!! Get here to the safety of our protection for your little gold mine!).

It must be quiet I haven't heard or seen it.

If you are referring to Republicans as a group trying to keep money in people's pockets rather the politicians pockets, yes, I agree. Both Libertarians and Republicans recognize that small business employs people. People on welfare never hire people nor contribute to the tax base.

The Leftist Socialists (otherwise known as Dems) are pro-welfare state, large government controlling and taxing everything and everyone, weak national security, anti-family, and anti-religion, and anti-patriots.

Whoops sorry, that's just the Democratic platform and voting record, but don't let that influence your judgement in November.

Matt89 · Jul 30, 2004

quote:

But the people who hate us and are trying to kill us will not respond to being fed and acred for

Have we ever tried? I mean at a 'macro' level?

I know it's not our job to fix the world, but in the end it might end up being easier to lift everybody up closer to where we are than continually having to smack them down.

rgl · Jul 30, 2004

quote:

it might end up being easier to lift everybody up closer to where we are than continually having to smack them down.

This is impossible in the real world because of a catch 22 situation. If the problem countries were run by benevolent, honest governments there would be no need to give aid. Since the vast majority of the countries with problems have governments that are despotic and corrupt, a large amount of the aid disappears or is squandered on "prestige" projects. Look at Zaire or whatever it is called today. Often the government does not want you to aid their people (or a large portion thereof) so it can have them enslaved or dependent. You can get rid of the government, but then that's what we did in Iraq.

Matt89 · Jul 30, 2004

rgl;

Yeah, that IS the worst part. I remember the whole "starving Ethiopians" of the '80s...displaced by war etc.

Of course it's all happening again in Sudan. Maybe we need another bunch of random rock stars to sing "We are the World"...

Deeply concerned for the future

Similar threads