How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 2nd Presidential Debate   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

2nd Presidential Debate

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


50 posted 10-12-2004 04:28 PM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

Though I don't agree with you....I do appreciate your input....Guess being an old soldier and a gambler that bets on what I think is working, or has a better chance of working, I have to stick with my candidate...but do understand both sides and the reasoning....
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


51 posted 10-12-2004 05:42 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Well, Buzz, that's why I keep trying to steer folks to the facts... because then we could get past all the mudslinging and we'd see exactly where Kerry is exaggerating, prevaricating, and distorting, and where Bush is misquoting, hyperbolizing, and misunderestimating -- then -- we could get into what the actual issues are instead of Bush went on vacation 66% of the time he was in office or Kerry missed 70% of the Foreign Intelligence Meeting BS.  (Which, both are true -- they just don't advance the debate folks).

Then we could look at Kerry's record and discover that he's a DEMOCRAT.  And that Bush is a REPUBLICAN.  Although -- those two distinctions have become somewhat obscure.

The differences between these two candidates are clear though:

If you think:

The war in Iraq was a good idea in spite of the fact that there were no WMD's
That cutting taxes and running up deficits are good ideas
That the Medicare prescription drug coverage was a good plan
That the way to reduce the cost of healthcare is putting caps on punitive damages in medical malpractice suits
That No Child Left Behind is a successful education program
That the economy is in great shape
That we're doing a good enough job with Homeland Security
That Bush has the right plan for dealing with Nuclear Weapons proliferation

Then VOTE FOR BUSH

If you think:

The war on Islamist Fascism requires an irreproachable reputation with our allies and better cooperation and respect around the globe

That we can't keep cutting taxes until they reach zero and that people who have done well have a unique responsibility to the government that has provided the infrastructure and institutions that have made that possible

That we can do better with healthcare and taking the catastrophic illness cases out of the system so that individuals and employers aren't burdened with the cost, reforming the tort system so that lawyers have to certify their cases before a review board before filing a medical malpractice suit, enabling Medicare to actually negotiate the price of prescription drugs and bulk buy if necessary to bring down the cost for seniors, and enabling persons access to affordable insurance is the solution to our healthcare problems

That No Child Left Behind has some real opportunities for improvement both in fund distribution and in operation and objectives

That the economy has sputtered along and people are under-employed and too many manufacturing jobs have been off-shored (under Bush and Clinton)

That Homeland Security has some serious deficits

That Kerry has a better plan to bring loose nukes under control in Russia and a better chance at containing the threats in Iran and North Korea

Then VOTE FOR KERRY

Or -- here's a novel idea -- we could actually discuss the merits of these issues instead of discussing and repeating the talking points of the campaigns or 527 groups.  

But, I have to disagree on one point Buzz -- Cheney has been running the country if you listen closely enough to the language he used in the debate.  Which originally I wouldn't have had a problem with -- when Bush added him to the ticket my thought was 'whew, a grown-up', but, he's pushed us into some pretty risky endeavors in my opinion.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


52 posted 10-12-2004 09:47 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

If you want someone whom you know will maintain a strong military stand against the terrorists, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who can't quite seem to communicate to the people what he believes a strong stand against terrorism actually looks like (some think he will pull the troops out, some think he will have them stay and finish the job) but thinks he can maintain that stand, whatever that stand actually means, and do a better job in Iraq plus bring our 'allies' on-board (despite the 'allies' statements to the contrary) as he calls Iraq 'the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who will maintain the multilateral pressure on N. Korea, since the bilateral dealings, advocated by Kerry, proved to be so disastrous under Clinton, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who has said he will give nuclear fuel to Iran to test their true intentions (and Iran thinks that's a swell idea!), vote for Kerry.

(Anyone here have any question as to Iran's intentions?)

If you want someone who cares more about the interests of the United States than being popular with a couple of 'allies' who stabbed us in the back for their own monetary self-interests, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who can't seem to discern who our true allies are if his life (and ours) depended on it, judging by his obsession with pleasing those who turned against us, and by his slurs against those who have helped us ("the coalition of the bribed"), vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who is for a strong defense, a strong military, and a strong intelligence system, and someone who will fund them, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who will, judging by his 20 year Senate record, cut funding for defense, military, and intelligence, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who sees the terrorists as the actual threat to our lives and liberty that they are, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who would like to return us to the days of dealing with them as mere criminals, to be dealt with in our criminal system, after they blow us up, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who can just come out and say that he is either for or against something that he actually is for or against, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who says he is against partial-birth abortion, but he voted against the ban because two clauses were missing, 'except for the saving of the life of the mother' (not necessary, doctor's already are allowed to perform abortions if the mother's life is in danger), and 'the health of the mother, according to the strictest test of health'(undefined by anyone and so vague as to render the ban null and void). Now, does anyone believe that a smart lawyer like Kerry doesn't know these things? The truth is, he's not against partial-birth abortion, despite the fact that he said he is against it and despite his posturing that he 'feels where those values that raised that question are coming from, and deeply respects them'. If that sort of double-talk is acceptable to you, then vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who refuses to allow U.S. citizens to be subjected to the authority of a 'world' criminal court, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who would sign away your citizenship protections to a global authority by signing on the dotted line, vote for Kerry.

If you, like Bush, believe in the absolute sovereignty of the Unites States of America, vote for Bush.

If you, like Kerry, a self-declared internationalist, have more of an 'internationalist' ideology, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who has roughly 90% of the support of the troops who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who has roughly 10% of the support of the troops who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, vote for Kerry.

If you don't want to see the return of the draft, vote for Bush.

If you want to see the draft possibly become necessary due to a probable mass exodus from the all-volunteer armed services system by the majority of troops who have no trust in, or respect for the Senator, vote for Kerry.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


53 posted 10-12-2004 10:15 PM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

.
TexUS
Member
since 03-20-2003
Posts 228


54 posted 10-12-2004 11:17 PM       View Profile for TexUS   Email TexUS   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TexUS

Yeah-what Denise said (so eloquently, I might add!)


Great post!  
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


55 posted 10-13-2004 12:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


56 posted 10-13-2004 01:08 AM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Denise, some of your one way or the other positions you put I find to be quite unfair.

Take the draft, for instance.

I've seen some consistent Indymedia polls show that among young Americans ages 18-27 that about half believe a draft will be renewed under Bush, while only about an eighth believe it'll happen under Kerry, with about a tenth believing either man will renew it and the others believing there will be no draft or have no opinion.

That basically tells me though there looms the thought that Kerry is capable of renewing the draft, it is much more likely in young Americans minds under Bush.

The fact is, the draft rumors affect young Americans like myself most of all, and so its unfair for yourself to make a shot in the dark or night and day opinion that under Bush there will be no draft, under Kerry maybe.

*****

Secondly, on your who "sees the terrorists as the actual threat to our lives and liberty that they are" and "return us to the days of dealing with them as mere criminals" comparison, that is quite unfair to say also.

Kerry clearly said the other day that, sure, terrorism will always be a concern one way or another, but we shouldn't let the fear of terrorism invade our minds every second of every minute of every day. He said that in his experience of public service, you can never fully outlaw prostitution or gambling, but you can find ways to limit it and keep it from interferring with peoples lives.

The Bush campaign has distorted what he said to make it seem like he's directly comparing terrorism to prostitution and gambling, or that he doesn't care about the issue of terrorism at all. The truth is, and I defend what he said myself, that there is too much fear in our society and we should make terrorism a issue, but not something we have to be afraid of every day that the Bush campaign is doing otherwise.

*****

Thirdly, the whole "absolute sovereignty" and "internationalist" comparison is also unfair.

If it was really true that Kerry does not believe in the absolute sovereignty of the United States, then Bush would already be the clear winner of this election by a landslide. Then we wouldn't have over half of Americans believe America is heading in the wrong direction.

This isn't the case, and I believe we must confront the fact that the ideal view of our nation's role differs, but not simply by one drawn line.

*****

Finally, while I acknowledge that the U.S military have a majority support for Bush, there are pockets of Kerry supporters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I have learned on Indymedia that Bush actually has 78% of the military vote right now. It's commanding, no question about that, but it's not exactly like the 90% figure you suggested. I've heard that dissent is on the rise in Iraq and I think Kerry can very wel, pull more than 10% of the military vote.

*****

My final point is that I do have my bias here and there, as nothing is going to encourage me to vote for Bush now because what he has done is against my morals. It's the same thing for millions of other voters on both sides of the fence this election season.

Even if Bush declares war on the Palestinians or Kerry announces raising taxes by 20%, I think few will let go of their position. It's this polarized.

I have made my case in why I'm voting Kerry and pointed out part of Bush's record, and that's that. But I don't want to start making night-and-day statements in the field of "If you...vote Bush" and "If you...vote Kerry" because I find that type of labeling unfair. After all, many so-called "security moms" are keeping an open mind. Many are leaning Bush, no question about that, but many security moms are also leaning Kerry right now, and consider the same questions or thoughts that you provided above.

I've personally found time and time again in the past, from the fear of aliens or monsters from classic sci-fi movies actually coming to life and invading the real world in the 1950s, to the fear of communism, to the fear that inspired the war on drugs, to Y2K, etc. that fear so easily dominates our lives and one simple blurb can shake up a whole community.

I find myself that terrorism is no exception to this ongoing list, and believe the best way to resolve it is to find alternative, pacifist solutions and try and understand the psyche of these terrorists. I believe war terrorizes whole communities, and only incites or influences terrorism. I think we need to get to the pulverone, the history of terrorism, what events may have influenced the proliferation of terrorist instinct.

In that respect, I was indeed saddened by what happened September 11th, and it was clearly an act of terrorism by al-Qaeda. Even so, I believe though terrorism should be a concern, I feel the greater conflict is the obsession with fear and violence and using war as a foreign policy option.

We should be focusing on building communities, living our lives so that terrorism is not always the talk of the town at water coolers and corner cafes, educating the public of the details without leaping to conclusions, give some space so those who have lived through the tragedies in Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and Sudan can provide their input and we can begin to understand where these instincts of fear and violence come from and develop solutions to calm this terrorist conflict, through listening and understanding.

I think making these "either this or that" statements, or following stereotypes like the Bush campaign is using to make "liberal" sound like a dirty word, or the constant use of labels, that's exactly what is dividing communities. I am a liberal independent voting Democrat this November, and I am critical of many Republicans in this Administration, but I have some conservative Republican friends and believe there are many wonderful Republicans and conservatives who have done great things for America. My grandparents are conservatives. We disagree and debate strongly often on issues like stem cell research and gay marriage, but my grandparents are two of the people in the world I love most of all and respect their opinions. I don't believe in saying "conservative" or "Republican" is a dirty word just as I don't think "liberal" is a dirty word, a word that continues to be tackled on and on in opposition.

We have every right to have our political bias, but using it as a wedge or a pizza slicer is wrong in my mind.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


57 posted 10-13-2004 07:30 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
If you want someone whom you know will maintain a strong military stand against the terrorists, vote for Bush.


If you want someone to fight the terrorists who can actually see the major threats at that time, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who ultimately doesn't care about what's right or wrong or whether somehthing works or doesn't (Anybody remember Star Wars?), vote for Bush.

quote:
If you want someone who can't quite seem to communicate to the people what he believes a strong stand against terrorism actually looks like (some think he will pull the troops out, some think he will have them stay and finish the job) but thinks he can maintain that stand, whatever that stand actually means, and do a better job in Iraq plus bring our 'allies' on-board (despite the 'allies' statements to the contrary) as he calls Iraq 'the wrong war, at the wrong time, in the wrong place, vote for Kerry.


If you want someone who can't communicate the truth, vote for Bush.

If you want someone, who is very clear that he will stay in Iraq, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you want someone who will maintain the multilateral pressure on N. Korea, since the bilateral dealings, advocated by Kerry, proved to be so disastrous under Clinton, vote for Bush.


Except everybody else in that multi-lateral group wants bi-lateral talks. The major problems with N. Korea have stemmed from this adminstration's refusal to talk.

If you want someone who doesn't have a clue on the North Korean situation, vote for Bush.

quote:
If you want someone who has said he will give nuclear fuel to Iran to test their true intentions (and Iran thinks that's a swell idea!), vote for Kerry.

(Anyone here have any question as to Iran's intentions?)


Huh?

Gee, one would think this would be the first one on your list if you actually thought it was true.

quote:
want someone who cares more about the interests of the United States than being popular with a couple of 'allies' who stabbed us in the back for their own monetary self-interests, vote for Bush.


Do you even know what internationalism is? On of the advantages of it is that it actually works. Ask W's Dad.

quote:
If you want someone who can't seem to discern who our true allies are if his life (and ours) depended on it, judging by his obsession with pleasing those who turned against us, and by his slurs against those who have helped us ("the coalition of the bribed"), vote for Kerry.


Yeah, true allies like Spain? Poland? Hungary?

quote:
If you want someone who is for a strong defense, a strong military, and a strong intelligence system, and someone who will fund them, vote for Bush.


Now, who is he going to do that and cut the budget in half?

quote:
If you want someone who will, judging by his 20 year Senate record, cut funding for defense, military, and intelligence, vote for Kerry.


Or do you want somebody who spends billions of dollars on things that don't work?

If you want someone who sees the terrorists as the actual threat to our lives and liberty that they are, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you want someone who would like to return us to the days of dealing with them as mere criminals, to be dealt with in our criminal system, after they blow us up, vote for Kerry.


What exactly is a mere criminal?

quote:
If you want someone who can just come out and say that he is either for or against something that he actually is for or against, vote for Bush.


If you want someone who can actually lead instead of being led, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you want someone who says he is against partial-birth abortion, but he voted against the ban because two clauses were missing, 'except for the saving of the life of the mother' (not necessary, doctor's already are allowed to perform abortions if the mother's life is in danger), and 'the health of the mother, according to the strictest test of health'(undefined by anyone and so vague as to render the ban null and void). Now, does anyone believe that a smart lawyer like Kerry doesn't know these things? The truth is, he's not against partial-birth abortion, despite the fact that he said he is against it and despite his posturing that he 'feels where those values that raised that question are coming from, and deeply respects them'. If that sort of double-talk is acceptable to you, then vote for Kerry.


If you can understand the difference between being personally against something and yet believe that is still should be legal, vote for Kerry.

If you don't understand that, go back to govt. 101 and LISTEN this time.

quote:
If you want someone who refuses to allow U.S. citizens to be subjected to the authority of a 'world' criminal court, vote for Bush.


If you believe international law and stability are in America's best interests, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you want someone who would sign away your citizenship protections to a global authority by signing on the dotted line, vote for Kerry.


If you want someone who is already chipping away at your citizenship protections, vote for Bush.

If you, like Bush, believe in the absolute sovereignty of the Unites States of America, vote for Kerry.

quote:
If you, like Kerry, a self-declared internationalist, have more of an 'internationalist' ideology, vote for Kerry.


If you believe that America should lead an international coalition, vote for Kerry.

If you want someone who can screw up international coalitions when everything is in his favor, vote for Bush.

quote:
If you want someone who has roughly 90% of the support of the troops who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, vote for Bush.

If you want someone who has roughly 10% of the support of the troops who are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, vote for Kerry.

If you don't want to see the return of the draft, vote for Bush.

If you want to see the draft possibly become necessary due to a probable mass exodus from the all-volunteer armed services system by the majority of troops who have no trust in, or respect for the Senator, vote for Kerry.


Wow, not much respect for American troops here, is there? Whatever happened to professionalism?


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


58 posted 10-13-2004 07:42 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Well said Brad
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


59 posted 10-13-2004 09:16 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Recently Cheney and President Bush declared that Iraq repaired its oil fields during the 90s, allowing Saddam Hussein to siphon funds from the Oil-for-Food program to fund an intended weapons program. But how was this possible? How was a program supervised by the U.N, exploited by Saddam?

Enter Denise, she'll tell you about the ''allies' who stabbed us in the back for their own monetary self-interests. And in fact, UN records show that equipment needed to fix those oil fields was purchased through companies in France.

But who were these companies? Well, interestingly enough, it seems that during Cheney's tenure as C.O. deals between Halliburton subsidiaries and Iraq were common. In fact, two of them were blocked by the US government because of direct conflicts with Oil-for-Food program regulations.

But companies like Halliburton don't get where they are without a little ingenuity, records show that they managed to get the deals done selling spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad from 1997 to 2000 through, you guessed it, French affiliates.

So if hypocrisy in government officials is your thing:

"I had a firm policy that we wouldn't do anything in Iraq, even arrangements that were supposedly legal. We've not done any business in Iraq since U.N. sanctions were imposed on Iraq in 1990, and I had a standing policy that I wouldn't do that."

~Dick Cheney - July 30, 2000 ABC-TV's This Week


Then vote for Bush and Co.
Toerag
Member Ascendant
since 07-29-99
Posts 5839
Ala bam a


60 posted 10-13-2004 10:01 AM       View Profile for Toerag   Email Toerag   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toerag

If you want someone who will 'maybe' do what they say they'll do.....flip a coin

If you want someone that CAN really do what they profess they'll do....flip a coin

If you think that either one of these candidates can really do what they say they're going to do without knowing the circumstances the future holds....You should be a fortune teller in Burbank California.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


61 posted 10-13-2004 03:29 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

Seriously, I think our views on the candidates are varied and I don't think we'll get anywhere on sensitive issues like terrorism this way.

My views, in fact, differ even from those of Brad on some issues. The whole "sees the terrorists as the actual threat to our lives and liberty that they are" and Kerry, for instance.

I hear some security moms say they're afraid Kerry will be more anti-war, send all our young men and women home and forget about fighting the war abroad, and that is why some are leaning more Bush.

However, there are many progressives who actually think otherwise. They think Kerry will continue to stay the course and fight the same war in Iraq and that is why they're finding their way to Cobb and Nader.

In my mind, I certainly hope the former theory is the case, but the point is I don't think we can just flat out say what will and will not happen should this and that occur under Bush and Kerry.

The whole "very clear that Kerry will stay in Iraq" too falls to the same mess here. In my mind, I certainly hope that's not the case, though I think it's likely we'll stay there for another four years or so. I do know Kerry has said should conditions settle in Iraq if elected, he'll begin taking our troops home slowly from Iraq, and his goal is to get them all out of Iraq by the end of his first term. It sounds like a mutual contract of trust to the people to me. I rather wish we could go home in the snap of a finger, but I feel confident hearing something like that in contrast to the "we'll stay there as long as we have to" rhetoric from the other party that there is an alternative and I am willing to go with that.

And let's face it also. Each side has their own idea of what the "truth" or lying is.

I believe that the current administration has lied so many times, and the current GOP lies more than any other party in my opinion, but I also accept and live with the fact that those on the other side of the political spectrum think otherwise; they believe the liberals are the ones who lie more often. I believe the Democrats lie too, Nader has lied. The fact is, we have a huge lacking of truth-telling in our culture, and I believe each party is corrupted with lies.

I do believe there is a distinction between being more open and frank to the American people, like not being behind closed doors all the time and being secretive in manner like I think the Bush Administration has been, but I feel that politicians are the least likely people you can ever trust in any case and are the most likely to lie to you.

In the end, I think as always we should discuss these viewpoints, but we shouldn't make bumper sticker slogans out out of all of these "if you or if you don't" theories. It could send out wrong information.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


62 posted 10-13-2004 08:47 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Speaking of bumper stickers, Noah, this truck was in front of me today and I snapped the photo. Interesting connection between the license plate and sticker, no?  

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


63 posted 10-13-2004 11:09 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel



Yes, Balladeer, I understand very much that in this polarized state we're now in, there are indeed many veterans who are in support with Bush and for this war. I don't deny that.

Here in Oregon, I have visited a couple local community centers and rescue missions, which provide refuge and health for a number of veterans. Many of them I've spent time and heard their stories and comforted them to assure them they're not alone are for Kerry and believe this war is wrong.

Suprisingly enough, when promoting the huge anti-war rally that was a huge success October 3rd two weeks beforehand, I even stopped by the American Legion, and though I had my doubts about them being interested in at least promoting it, they took the poster and put it right up on their front window immediately. Four days later I was walking down Alberta Street from the Portland Saturday Market and saw it was still up there. That's symbolic to me, and really means something, it means there are those who have been in harms way, who have experienced the horrors of war, who still endure these aches and memories ever so often, and want to see it to it this doesn't happen...never again.

In that respect, it takes all kinds to build communities. We are America, and I respect the opinions of these other veterans and won't punish them for their differing views, even if they run against my moral anti-war positioning. For we rely on the diversity of our opinions and if we find a common ground I'm sure we'll find solutions and begin to close in this polarizing gap between each other.

I respect you sharing your bumper sticker moment, and in return, I'll present one offering of my own:



Sincerely,
Noah Eaton

"You'll find something that's enough to keep you
But if the bright lights don't receive you
You should turn yourself around and come back home" MB20

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


64 posted 10-13-2004 11:28 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

That's an excellent sticker, Noah, and no one wishes it were true more than I.

Thanks for sharing
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


65 posted 10-14-2004 01:00 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
That's symbolic to me, and really means something, it means there are those who have been in harms way, who have experienced the horrors of war, who still endure these aches and memories ever so often, and want to see it to it this doesn't happen...never again.

That might well be true, Noah. I'd like to think, however, that even if they personally disagreed with your cause, any veteran who has fought for your freedom to disagree with the government would still applaud your efforts.

We shouldn't have to believe you're right in order to believe you have the right to be heard.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


66 posted 10-15-2004 12:04 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I don’t think I’m being unfair, Noah. I’m just contrasting what I have been able to decipher from the two candidates stands on the issues that I believe are important issues in this election.

quote:
I've seen some consistent Indymedia polls show that among young Americans ages 18-27 that about half believe a draft will be renewed under Bush, while only about an eighth believe it'll happen under Kerry, with about a tenth believing either man will renew it and the others believing there will be no draft or have no opinion.

That basically tells me though there looms the thought that Kerry is capable of renewing the draft, it is much more likely in young Americans minds under Bush.



A poll is just an indicator of what people are thinking, Noah. It doesn’t mean that because they are thinking one way or another that it must be true, or that it makes something so. With all the Democratic driven draft hype lately, it doesn’t surprise me that young Americans have been influenced into thinking Bush will most likely bring back the draft. I’d be surprised if they thought differently, actually. But again, what they have been conditioned into thinking doesn’t make it true.
quote:
Thirdly, the whole "absolute sovereignty" and "internationalist" comparison is also unfair.


If it was really true that Kerry does not believe in the absolute sovereignty of the United States, then Bush would already be the clear winner of this election by a landslide. Then we wouldn't have over half of Americans believe America is heading in the wrong direction.

This isn't the case, and I believe we must confront the fact that the ideal view of our nation's role differs, but not simply by one drawn line.


Unfortunately it’s true, Noah.  Sovereign means independent, self-governing, free from external control. The opposite of sovereign is externally controlled, ruled by another, subservient. The internationalist ideology is not compatible with sovereignty, and never will be, no matter how well they attempt to present it as the most enlightened and civilized way of government.  Sovereignty is relinquished in the internationalist ideology because they are opposing ideologies.

The sad thing is that probably the majority of those who believe that America is heading in the wrong direction don’t know that Kerry has an internationalist ideology. They haven’t done their research on Kerry. You’re right, I think if they did, Bush would win in a landslide. But in their quest to ‘vote against Bush’ they may very well end up voting for someone with whom they probably have as many, if not more, ideological differences with than they have with Bush.  It came as no surprise to me that Kerry advocated a ‘global test’ before we as a nation make decisions that we deem to be in our own best interests. Because to the internationalist, a nation’s own best interests are of a secondary importance, if deemed important at all, and must be subservient to what an external ruling authority deems is in the best interests of the ‘world at large’, as determined by that external ruling authority.  It also came as no surprise to me that Kerry advocates subjecting U.S. citizens to the authority of the world court. This is serious stuff that deserves your looking into further, Noah. If you value the sovereignty of your country and see it as a basic and necessary component in what it means to being free, which I think you do, don’t vote for someone who doesn’t share that ideology. You don’t have to vote for Kerry just because you don’t agree with Bush. Choose another candidate on the ballot that is more closely aligned with your ideologies.

quote:
What exactly is a mere criminal?


Well, Brad, in this context, I’d say it is someone who commits a crime against society but who isn’t a member of a worldwide terror organization that seeks political domination by blowing up or decapitating innocent men women and children around the globe.


quote:
Huh?

Gee, one would think this would be the first one on your list if you actually thought it was true.


I know it’s true, Brad. And Kerry admitted it in the second debate.


quote:
Yeah, true allies like Spain? Poland? Hungary?


Our true allies are all of the countries that helped us in whatever way they could.

quote:
If you want someone who can actually lead instead of being led, vote for Kerry.


Where is Kerry’s resume on leadership?
quote:
If you can understand the difference between being personally against something and yet believe that is still should be legal, vote for Kerry.


I can certainly understand it, Brad. As does Kerry, which he conveyed on the first question raised about the abortion issue in general. Kerry didn't just come out and say that though regarding partial-birth abortion.  He used excuses as the argument as to why he didn't sign the ban, excuses that don't hold up under scrutiny. To reduce the risk of losing the undecided voters who view the practice as barbaric, and in an attempt to falsely portray the President as misrepresenting Kerry’s stand on the issue, he gave poor excuses for his vote against the ban. If he were really against partial-birth abortion, he would have signed the ban because there really is no justifiable argument in defense of the practice and against the ban. If there is, he hasn’t shared it with us yet.  And I think the onus is on those who wish to perform the practice to justify why it shouldn’t be illegal, not the other way around.

quote:
If you believe international law and stability are in America's best interests, vote for Kerry.


Our own laws are perfectly sufficient to the best interests of  U.S. citizens.

quote:
If you believe that America should lead an international coalition, vote for Kerry.


The internationalists will decide who will be allowed to lead, and when, and where, and for what cause.


quote:
Wow, not much respect for American troops here, is there? Whatever happened to professionalism?



I have the utmost respect for them and their intelligence. And they are free to change their profession when their commitment to the military ends. That would not be unprofessional of them at all.


Raph, I’d have to hear Cheney’s side as well to get the whole picture on the Halliburton issue.  Do you know if anyone has asked him about this? And if so, what was his response?
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


67 posted 10-15-2004 12:47 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

quote:
Raph, I’d have to hear Cheney’s side as well to get the whole picture on the Halliburton issue.  Do you know if anyone has asked him about this? And if so, what was his response?


Yes you're right, it's important that someone ask these questions. Being a non-partisan these are things you should be asking as you focus on the vote.

That Halliburton attempted to deal with Iraq and was subsequently blocked by the government should be enough to anger most people.

But then, I suppose it's entirely possible that Halliburton and Cheney were completely unaware of their off shore subsidiaries selling Iraq the very same equipment.

Which still doesn't change the fact that Halliburton, under Cheney, had the intent of dealing with Iraq. It's something that should matter to a voter.

Shrugs
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


68 posted 10-15-2004 01:21 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Denise,

The opposing ideology of internationalism is unilateralism. Sovereignty is already implied in both. The question isn't whether a nation loses sovereignty but how it is used.

The challenge to sovereignty is imperialism. Now, do you really think the UN is going to invade America anytime soon?

Blue helmets on every corner?

Oh wait, I see, the Comintern was never disbanded, Al Queda is really a front for the Soviets (the politburo is still running things in secret), and all of this is really a communist plot.

Uh, can we get back to the real world?

There are real threats around here, let's deal with them.

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


69 posted 10-15-2004 06:25 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Our own laws are perfectly sufficient to the best interests of  U.S. citizens.

Why stop there, Denise? If you believe that much in sovereignty, then presumably you would also advocate state sovereignty. Ergo, the laws of Pennsylvania should be perfectly sufficient, unto themselves, to protect the best interests of Pennsylvanian citizens?

But, again, why stop there? If you have well conceived rules in your own house, shouldn't those be the only rules you ever have to follow? Each family, perhaps, should become its own sovereign entity, looking out for its own best interests. Who else, after all, really knows what is best for me and mine?

Of course, the reality of this world is that looking at "best interests" through too narrow a tunnel rarely results in anything beyond short-term gain. Today, it may well be in my best interests to steal from my neighbors or damn up a local river as it passes across my property. It might even be worth losing a few sons and brothers if, today, I am strong enough to protect my short-term best interests against any neighbors foolish enough to challenge me. But today is temporal, and so, too, is the balance of power. The Roman Empire protected its short-term best interests for hundreds of years, but ultimately it was at the expense of its long-term interests. It always is.

There are no best interests of Americans, Denise, any more than there can be best interests of Pennsylvanians or best interest of the Synders. You can fight for your family's best interest, or your state's best interests, or even your nation's best interests, and one is no more short-sighted than the other. Best interest is a web with an intricate weave, entwined not only through all of humanity, but also through all of time. Failure to recognize that is just a reflection of short-term greed.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


70 posted 10-15-2004 06:39 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I would vote for YOU, Ron.

sheesh.

I'm serious too.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


71 posted 10-16-2004 12:15 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I'll take that as a no then, Raph. I've honestly not had the time to investigate Halliburton, so I can't form a judgment on the subject, one way or the other.

Brad and Ron, yes, I do believe in state sovereignty and an extremely limited federal government. Maybe someday we will have that again, but I doubt it. Perhaps we should look to the states as an example as to how easy it is to lose sovereignty and how difficult, if not impossible, to regain it once it is lost.

No matter how you slice it, submitting U.S. citizens under the domain of international law, laws enacted by groups/countries outside of the U.S., is submitting them, and the country, to an external controlling force that will wield authority over them and that authority will be held and wielded by those whom the citizens did not elect, and it can't help but destroy our sovereignty. We would no longer be answerable only to the laws enacted by those whom we have elected to that purpose.

The very definition of sovereignty is freedom from outside controlling forces, autonomy, self-governing, etc. You can't have degrees of sovereignty. You either have it or you don't. You either fight to maintain it, or you relinquish it.

I think our Constitution clearly lays out our form of government with its checks and balances designed to limit corruption and tyranny. And as often as I've read it, I've never seen the clause that advocates submitting to the rule or authority of another country or outside entity. In fact, call me crazy if you wish, but the whole gist of the document seems to me to stand in opposition to what you are advocating.

We can certainly consider the best interests of other countries, and are sometimes even morally compelled, in my opinion, to do so by acting on their behalf. But never at the expense of our own liberty, never with the price tag of the loss of our sovereign rights. I don't consider that looking at our best interests through too narrow a lens. I think the founding fathers, most of whom had first hand experience with abuse of power by governing authorities, saw clearly the importance of creating a form of government for the protection of the people's rights from tyranny, from within and from without.  

There is a BIG difference in my mind between cooperation/working relationships with other countries/entities and submission to them.

And with all the real threats that we have to deal with today, and there are many, and they are very real, this is, in my opinion, the most important, because it threatens the very foundation of our form of government.  
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 11-18-2002
Posts 7451
the ass-end of space


72 posted 10-16-2004 04:30 AM       View Profile for Aenimal   Email Aenimal   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Aenimal

Yes i must have made it up Denise   Being a non-partisan who is equally scrutinizing both parties intent on truth, I'm sure you'll read through the articles included below. There are reasons Halliburton is under investigation Denise, hopefully those investigations become more extensive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35751-2001Jun22
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact
http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.23D.Cheney.Circumvented.htm
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Halliburton_Company
http://www.counterpunch.org/leopold03202003.html
   http://www.thedossier.ukonline.co.uk/Web%20Pages/WASHINGTON%20POST_US%20Firms%20Aiding%20Iraqi%20Oil%20Industry.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/24/80648.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3908753.stm
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


73 posted 10-16-2004 07:15 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
I do believe in state sovereignty and an extremely limited federal government.

According to your own words, Denise, you can't believe in both. "You can't have degrees of sovereignty," you said. "You either have it or you don't." Ergo, if you want state sovereignty, you have to be willing to completely abolish and eliminate any overriding authority. There can't BE a Federal government in your world.

Ironically, in your world, Denise, you'd quickly find yourself no longer sitting at the top of the food chain. If Pennsylvania gets in the way of the best interests of the sovereign state of New York, they'll kick your butt big time. Really tick 'em off and you might just find yourself living in Philadelphia, NY. That's the natural consequence of a "might makes right" philosophy of rule -- sovereignty is a just a reflection of how strong you are today.

If you don't believe me, of course, you can always ask Saddam Hussein.

Presumably, Hussein believed in absolute sovereignty, too, and presumably you agreed with him that all those U.N. resolutions and mandates were unjustified intrusions on Iraqi's national sovereignty. I suspect Hussein felt if he gave in to those "outside controlling forces" you mentioned in your last post, he would be relinquishing his country's sovereignty. After all, "You either fight to maintain it, or you relinquish it," right? Hussein discovered, as would Pennsylvania, I suspect, that in the real world that's not actually an either/or, but rather a natural sequence. You fight to maintain it, and THEN you eventually relinquish it to someone stronger. Because history has proven, again and again, there is always someone stronger waiting around the corner.

You know, Denise, I intended to end this by declaring my surprise that you, of all people, would advocate the invasion of Iraq based only on Hussein's continued dismissal of U.N. demands. He was only doing, after all, what you would have the United States do. He was protecting his own best interests, behind a guise of absolute sovereignty. I feel like I should be surprised you have a problem with that?

But, I'm not. Any surprise I might have once felt at such inconsistencies has long since been buried beneath the greater incredulity that anyone could advocate the glowing paradox of absolute sovereignty. What you and Saddam Hussein really advocate, of course, is absolute sovereignty for yourselves, at the expense of everyone else. Even though it doesn't have an -est tacked onto to the end of it, absolute sovereignty is nonetheless a superlative like greatest or strongest or most powerful. There can be only one. Everyone else has to settle for slightly less.

Or, in the case of Iraq, a whole lot less.

Superlatives, by their very nature, don't last, Denise. There is no strongest or best, but only the strongest or best today. If we continue to construct a world in constant search for superlatives, we are going to eventually, inevitably, come up a little bit short. It happened to the Hebrews, the Greeks, the Romans, the Germans, and if you really think it won't ever happen to the Americans you just haven't been listening to the strident voice of history.

We can't afford to build a world of absolute sovereignty for our children's children, because short-term thinking is a poor foundation for long-term effects. The world we should be striving to build for posterity has to be one where absolute sovereignty cannot exist for anyone, a world where superlative exclusions like greatest and strongest and most powerful can be replaced with mutual inclusions like respect and tolerance and, yea, even love. Our children's children's world must be one that recognizes domination and submission aren't opposites, so much as they are the ebb and flow of the same horrible human flaw. You can't have one without the other, and the only opposite of both is cooperation.

We don't need to build bigger fences, Denise. We need to tear down the ones that have never, in 5,000 years of recorded history, ever worked beyond the short-term.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


74 posted 10-16-2004 11:38 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I've never suggested that you made anything up, Raph. I've just learned that in any situation there are usually two sides to an issue and that it can lead one to come to a wrong conclusion if you only hear one side of an issue. Thank you for the links. I'll check them out.  

Sovereign doesn't mean strongest or best, Ron. It means independent. Strongest or best, "might makes right" is a misunderstanding of the concept of sovereignty. We're talking about two differnt things.

Mutual regard and respect for the sovereign rights of others is required to make any alliance of various sovereign entities work. That the federal government has abused the limited powers enumerated to it by the states, to provide for the common defense, and to promote the general welfare, says more, I think, about the misuse of that entrustment, and how easily it can occur, than it does about the possibility of a successful voluntary alliance among sovereign entities, as envisioned by the founders. Any powers not specifically enumerated to the federal government by the states, according to the Constitution, reside, legitimately, with the states. But, it seems, politicians being what they are, we have what we have today.

What surprises me is that when it is seen how easily sovereignty can be manipulated and abused, as evidenced by the abuses that have occured here in our own history, that more people are not more apprehensive about enumerating powers to entities outside of our country. If history tells us anything, that entrustment will be abused.

As to your example of Pennsylvania and New York, I would think it follows suit that as in the case of individuals, one's rights legitimately end at the other fellow's nose, and vice-versa, and that any disagreements concerning conflicting interests should be worked out among the representatives, empowered by the people of those states, in an attempt to resolve any conflicting interests.

Saddam is a poor illustration, and cannot be spoken of in the same breath as legitimate leaders of independent sovereign nations. He was an illegitimate leader, as he neither represented nor defended anyone's rights or interests but his own personal tyrannical interests, and was not only a threat to the welfare of his own people but also to every other nation's welfare as well.

I would think that the differences between Saddam and myself should be pretty easy to see.  
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> 2nd Presidential Debate   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors