AssemblyBoard

Any useful valuable serious comments about the candidates and their agendas ??

Marcia :)

I am curious. Does anybody know why every single law passed by the previous Saddam Hussein regime has been rescinded in the "new" Iraq except one -

The law forbidding  laborers from becoming members of trade unions?

Does anyone know why the Bush adminstration behind closed doors, rammed through, wiithout congressional debate, demolition of a Department of Labor statute from the 30's that requires employers to pay time and a half to working stiffs like you and me when we go past a forty hour work week? - Cops, nurses, firemen, etc. etc.
Does anyone know why the Bush administration is so shamefully treating the men and women who are loosing limbs, livlihood and lives in that hell-hole he has plunged this nation into?
Too bad he does not have anyone giving him spiritual advice.  People like Rumsfeld have no idea what they are dealing with in a nation with the spiritual legacy of Babylon.
Please stand by...they are going to rue the day...


I feel so sorry for this country...what contempt politicians have for you voters!

If you think my questions imply any confidence in John Kerry you simply do not know what time it is... ;)

Verne

I see it like this:

Using the analogy of a locomotive heading straight to Hell, If Kerry wins, the train will be going 82 MPH, straight to Hell.  

Should Bush win, the train will arrive somewhat later, travelling at only 69 MPH.  That is the difference between the two.

On a personal note, I think Bush is a decent man, and is most likely a brother in Christ.  That doesn't mean I think he is a great president.

I have no such regard for Kerry, and am confident that he would also do a lousy job, perhaps even worse than Bush.

Brent

Bush would have my vote.

Kerry is scary. You vote him in on this platform and he may change it once he is elected. He is for illegal aliens having status ahead of those who apply to come in legally. He is for expanding stem cell research which scientists are sure to want fetus samples for use in that research. He is soft on abortion. He wants protectionist trade policies which historically causes less trade which stalls the economy result more unemployment. He wants more taxes on rich and companies who create the jobs which means more jobs offshore not fewer. He is for expanding health care but doesn't know that the US can not afford it. He wants Canadian drugs, oil, gas and water but not Canadian beef. He is unclear on how he could better handle terrorism. I don't think he knows and is only winging it till he is elected then he will have to make a decision. It is easy for him to criticize now but he will not be able to handle the heat if he is elected President.

In my opinion. But we will see. Women and youth are for Kerry. Visible minorities are for Kerry. Arts and Entertainment people are for Kerry and civil liberty people are for Kerry. Labour Unions are for Kerry.

Business and world leaders in the countries of Iraq, Iran, Russia, England, Australia and among religious leaders you have Evangelicals, Catholic Bishops, and spiritually conservative most everwhere are for Bush.

Verne,

This has been in the news for about a year now.  That's not a very high quality closed door, IMHO.

The reason it was done without congressional debate is that congress doesn't make the rules.  The overtime rules are federal statutes and can be changed by any president at any time.

Bush seems to have redifined the obsolete terms for different supervisors like "straw boss" out of the rules, so lots of low level white collar workers are howling.  Overtime rules were not intended to apply to bosses, only workers.  

The figures surrounding this are largely estimates.  The Bush people claimed that 1.3 million people who weren't elegible for overtime pay will now be eligible.   Other sources say it is "only" about 400,000.

Fountains of truth like Move-On.org and labor unions are trumpeting this as a great oppression by the rich ruling classes against the poor working man.  

The other side says it is a necessary reform to help small and middle sized businesses grow and generate jobs.

Regarding Bush "plunging" this nation into a hell hole....just who were those folks in congress that voted to authorize his actions? ::)

Not John Kerry, of course, he says he was voting for something else!!    :o

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Folks,

In the next four years it is possible that the president will make 1-3 appointments to the Supreme Court.

If a pro-life president is in office, there is a slim chance that the abortion issue will be de-federalized and returned to the states as it should be according to the Constititution.  Some states will outlaw it, so the numbers will decline.

If those appointments are made by a left-leaning secularist, ie, Kerry, we will probably have abortion continuing at current levels indefinitely.

We have slaughtered over 35 million innocent babies on the altar of Feminism since Roe versus Wade was decided.

We have lost 1000 soldiers in the Iraq situation.  We have lost 35,000,000 little babies in the abortion situation.

They died so that irresponsible adults would not have to be responsible for their actions.   I know, I know, what about rape, incest, etc.

A tiny percentage.  Almost all abortions are for birth control by adults, and many women have had three or more.

Pandering leftist politicians like Kerry, (and Clinton before him) declare they are for "a woman's right to choose"...but they don't fininsh the sentence.  It should end..."to murder her own baby."

I don't know about you...but I will vote my conscience on November 2.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Me too.

We know Kerry won't appoint a pro-life judge, but do you really think Bush will?

Remember his Dad appointing Souter?

I hate to say it, but I think W is too much of a politician to force a true conservative, pro-life judge on a divided senate.

He hasn't got any traction on his appointments so far, and he had 70% approval for over a year.  

I may vote for Bush, even though my conscience tells me not to....but I don't think we are going to see Roe V. Wade on the docket anytime soon.

BTW Tom,  you are most correct about abortion being a state issue.  Most pro-life folks want a federal ban, which in my opinion is an obstacle to reducing abortion.

If we throw it back to the states, I'll move to a state where it is illegal, as will many others.  This means less money for Planned Parenthood, which means less babies killed.

We certainly live in interesting times

Brent

Here's few reasons I'll be voting for Bush:

1.  Kerry has not explained why he should be president with enough detail.  He hasn't shown where the money will come from to finance the health plan after 20% is paid for by extra-taxing the rich; his response to tort reform is void, except that two lawyers are on his ticket.

2.  Some things I know about Kerry are: his plan for cleaning up Iraq appears dangerous because premature troop withdraw will yield an unstable vacuum, not to mention high oil prices; and his plan for taxing corporations and businesses is unsettling because the unemployment rate will significantly increase.

However, I would vote for Kerry if he and his wife donate all their billion+ dollars and other assets to the federal government, and give me their powerboat, and perhaps one of the five suvs parked at their Sun Valley mansion.

 

A principled position Tom and I respect it.
If I were to make a decision based on a single critical issue as a Christian, that would be it.
It is also the reason I think it does not matter whom we put in office.
Our hands are already deeply stained wiith innocent blood.
Tom's 35M figure may well be a quite conservative one...
Do forgive us Lord Jesus...    :'(


I like Brent's position. I think a case can be made that one of the reasons unrighteousness prevails is that somehow we Christians are not being salt and light the way we ought to.
In remarkable study after study, pollsters have shown that there is little fundamental difference between the way self-proclaimed Christians view the world, and more importantly, make decisions, and those who do not confess Jesus Christ as Lord.
When it comes to faithfulness to one husband or wife for example, there is absolutely no distinction today between Christians and non-Christians. There are many actually in ministry who have had multiple marriages.  While I understand that there are many who are not at fault in their situation, the church has all but abandoned this Godly standard. We now commonly have people in places of leadership who do not represent God's ideal in the marital relationship, yet lack both the wisdom and humility to disqualify themselves from leadership. The standard of elders being the husband of one wife for example is intended to make the choice clear for the church. The literal sense is " a one-woman kind of man". Geftakys would never have qualified around men of stature. No wonder the church has lowered its standards! We think we can play semantic games with the clear teaching of Scripture and suffer no  spiritual consequences for our presumption and disobedience.
It is so great to be in a place of fellowship where you can look at the Biblical standard for elders and then look at the men in responsibility and go - Yep! They  qualify!
We are more precisely defined culturally, than we are Biblically. My family and I have recently had to make a hard decision in this regard. Only a true love for Christ and sincere desire to please Him alone can enable us to do that which goes against the natural grain.
In many ways, as much as we protest and lament the darkness, we do little to dispel it. How many of us would really be willing to sacrifice comfort and convenience to move to a state where abortion was illegal? I think Brent's statement strikes at the heart of why we anymore have so little influence on our society....

Verne
p.s Tom M how did you do on that paper?  :)

I just got done listening to Bill Moyers interview Greg Thielman, a State Department intelligence analyst and I cannot ever remember feelig this sad and despondent about politics.
Generally I could care less. Bush claims to be a Christian and I felt I had a stake...
I am sad about the way they have prostituted my fellow West Indian Colin Powell and completely destroyed the man's credibility and integrity.
I am sad about the way they are forcing Rice, the National Security Advisor, to go on the campaign trail and repeat that which is provably false regarding the administraton's use of intelligence information prior to the Iraq invasion.
I am going to make a prediction.
If George W Bush is indeed a child of God, his jusgement will be his re-election to the office of the presidency and the forcible acknowledgement of what  now appears to be extremely serious breaches of integrity and truthfulness n his discharge of that office.
We need to pray for God's mercy on this man and his handlers.  :'(
Verne

p.s. I remember how completely incensed I was when Harry Belafonte called Colin Powell a "house nigger"...who would have thunk it...?
If the Lord Jesus Christ is not your Master, somebody will eventually make you a harlot...men included...
Makes you wonder what you own "price" is does it not?

INTEGRITY IS EVERYTHING!
Especially for us believers.
...that we would truly know what it means to suffer the loss of ALL things...!!

Our friends in Europe were extremely interested in getting Montse and my perspective on Bush's decision to invade Iraq.
Bush is viewed with particular contempt in Spain as the folk there thought he was lying from the outset.
They tossed Aznar and his cronies out of office for the same offence when they took a page out of Bush's book and tried to blame ETA for those train explosions.
 I Remember how, on the strength of my confidence in Powell's integrity, that I strongly argued in favor of the invasion and the likelihood of Saddam's link to Al Qaeda. It seems as if I am going to have to eat a little crow with some of my friends in Barcelona.
Put some long ears on me and call me JACK-ASS... :)
That is obviously how Rumsfeld, Bush and that crowd views the voters in this country.

Verne,

If you are correct about Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice allowing themselves to be "forced" to publicly lie about something they supposedly know is not true, why should you feel sorry for them?

"They" are making these poor victims go around an lie to everyone.  Hmmmmm.   ::)

How do they do it?  

Could it be possible that they actually have some personal integrety and believe in what they are doing?

If they don't believe it, they are scoundrels.  You talk as if they were innocent victims of the evil "they."  People without any options, who just can't help what the evil "they" is/are doing to them.  

Thomas Maddux

"--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Tom Maddux on October 27, 2004, 11:27:56 pm
Folks,

In the next four years it is possible that the president will make 1-3 appointments to the Supreme Court.

If a pro-life president is in office, there is a slim chance that the abortion issue will be de-federalized and returned to the states as it should be according to the Constititution.  Some states will outlaw it, so the numbers will decline.

If those appointments are made by a left-leaning secularist, ie, Kerry, we will probably have abortion continuing at current levels indefinitely.

We have slaughtered over 35 million innocent babies on the altar of Feminism since Roe versus Wade was decided.

We have lost 1000 soldiers in the Iraq situation.  We have lost 35,000,000 little babies in the abortion situation.

They died so that irresponsible adults would not have to be responsible for their actions.  I know, I know, what about rape, incest, etc.

A tiny percentage.  Almost all abortions are for birth control by adults, and many women have had three or more.

Pandering leftist politicians like Kerry, (and Clinton before him) declare they are for "a woman's right to choose"...but they don't fininsh the sentence.  It should end..."to murder her own baby."

I don't know about you...but I will vote my conscience on November 2.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux


 
 

A principled position Tom and I respect it.
If I were to make a decision based on a single critical issue as a Christian, that would be it.
It is also the reason I think it does not matter whom we put in office.
Our hands are already deeply stained wiith innocent blood.
Tom's 35M figure may well be a quite conservative one...
Do forgive us Lord Jesus...    



When you say "if I were to make a decision based on a single critical issue as a Christian..."

Let's say there was a political candidate that you agreed with on every single issue.  He had a "vision" for the country you wholeheartedly supported, was a man of personal integrety and honesty, loyal to his wife and his friends, altogether admirable except for ONE thing:

He wanted to abolish the free press.  For our good, of course.

Would you vote for him?  Or would this issue be so important that it overrode all other considerations.

To me, abortion is such an issue.  Although I am a Republican right now, I never voted for Pete Wilson after he showed his true colors on this issue.  

I voted for Ahnold the Governator in the recall election, on the basis that: a. he could actually get elected, and b. he was a fiscal conservative.

But governors of states have no power to regulate abortion, so it wasn't a big issue.  

I would never, under any circumstances, vote for him for president.

Presidents appoint Supreme Court justices.  Supreme Court justices, right now, rule the country!

I will not do anything to give a man so base and evil as to support the legalized butchering of millions of babies into such a powerful place.

I don't see how any Christian could.

Thomas Maddux

Bush and his advisors have demonstrated that they are fallible.  Through the ages God has used fallible men to accomplish His purpose.

Maybe God heard the cry of the Iraqi people and used this situation to deliver them from their tyrant dictator?  So, then fallible Bush and his advisors would actually be doing God's will in liberating Iraq.

God bless,
Marcia

Interesting.

I had a great discussion with the director of a Pro-life pregnancy/adoption center a few days ago.

She also voted for Arnold, despite his pro-choice stance.  It seems that many pro-life people, Christians especially, are willing to set aside their principles at certain times.  In fact, I would even go so far as to generalize that for most,  the principle that abortion=murder is more of a preference than a principle, as Tom points out by stating in one paragraph that Christians shouldn't vote for anyone pro-choice, yet he voted for Arnold, because he wasn't president.

Did you stop to think about the fact that Arnold is probably going to run for president someday?  (If the constitution can be ammended)

There was another fiscal conservative running in the recall election who is staunchly pro-choice, {on edit, I mean PRO_LIFE!!!] Tom McClintok. (SP)  Had all the pro-life conservatives voted on principle, rather than practicality, perhaps he would have been the new governor.  I don't know.

Here's another interesting thing with regard to the soft, convenient stance that many pro-lifeer's take.  The Chicken Pox vaccine is cultured in tissue from aborted fetuses (or babies as I like to call them).

Given this fact, I would venture a guess that the majority of Christian, Pro-life people obtained and administered this vaccine to their children.  Sure, many did it out of ignorance, but I know quite a few who fell back on the logic of,  "Well, the tissue is going to be there anyway, why not get something good out of it?"  These people really think they are going to make abortion illegal?  I bet if this became common knowledge, they'd still use the vaccine.  Some principle.

How principled a pro-life voter are all of us?  Do we have principles, holding life to be sacred, or do we have a preference?

I examined my beliefs on this topic recently, and determined that I really don't have pro-life principles, in the sense that I don't want to overturn Roe v. Wade, or make a federal ban on abortion.

I think it should be left up to the states as to whether abortion, prostitution, gambling, etc. are legal.  

I would like a choice, on my tax form, as to whether I want a percentage of my taxes to go to Planned Parenthood, or an adoption agency.  As it stands now, Planned Parenthood is being financed by people who think abortion is murder.  I think we should have a choice.

So, when it comes right down to it,  I am actually Pro-Choice.  

I would like to choose not to fund infanticide,  and I would also like to choose to live in a state where infanticide as illegal.  What they do in other states is their choice.  That is my principle.

I didn't vote for Arnold, based on his stand on on abortion, among other things.

Anyway, I don't mean this as an attack, nor is it focused on any person in particular.  I just found it interesting that Tom said something that reminded me of something I had been musing over for some time now.

Brent

Brent,

     Thanks for some excellent thoughts.  I am interested, though, in why you would like to see conscientious people ban abortion within their states, but not on a national scale.  I understand the matter of stats' rights, but if people actually migrated to states according to such standards, wouldn't such an issue ultimately prove as divisive to the union as slavery once did?  Not that we're likely to see such things happen, but how do you think it would play out in such a case?

al

Brent,

Arnold Schwarzeneger's chances of getting the constitution amended so he can run for president are about as good as my chances of getting George Geftakys to apologize to everyone he has robbed and then returning their money.

In other words, there is no chance at all.

I did consider this.  I just don't think it could happen, so it wasn't an issue.  He might, however, get to the senate.  But I doubt if he would oppose a supreme court appointment on the abortion issue alone.

I think Tom McClintock is a fine man.  He is probably the best expert on the state budget there is.

But in an election for governor, he is unelectable.  Every time he tries to leave his current level of government, he loses.

Thomas Maddux

People can go to Nevada right now, and own and shoot fully automatic weapons in the morning,  visit a prostitute in the early afternoon, and gamble and booze it up into the wee hours.---not that I know all this from first hand experience!  If this doesn't appeal to you, live in Utah, where you can do no such thing, and the beer is all low alchohol!---I do know this from first hand experience.

If the people of Texas or Georgia wanted to ban abortion in their state, those wanting them would have to take a trip to another state, or to another country, just like the Mormons do when they want to gamble.  They go to another state.

If we are going to legislate moral laws, then we should be consistent.  Abortion(murder) is punishable by death according to the law....so is adultery.  Why are we not up in arms about these things, and pushing for a federal ban on them?(perhaps some are)

I like the idea of freedom.  I want the freedom to discriminate against someone based on sexual orientation, religion and what I perceive their morals to be.  I don't want to hire a homosexual to work in my office, neither do I want to be forced to fund abortion, as I am now.  I want the freedom to do otherwise, even if it harms me.  I want the freedom to be my own idiot.

I like the idea of a Christian state, where there is no abortion, and homosexuals are not treated as a married couple.  I would like to see vagrancy laws enacted, and enforced etc.

With a federal ban on things, we aren't really free, the same as a federal mandate for Planned Parenthood, or public education.  It's just wrong to make this a federal issue.

However, the way the constitution was originally written, the states had rights.

I would choose to live in one state, and you might choose to live in another, based upon the laws.  Abortions could be legal in California, and against the law in Texas.  That's the way it should be.

I'd live in a state with a strong Christian influence, but that might not appeal to others, in which case they could live somewhere else.  

We will never get rid of abortion, so we might as well have the freedom to make it illegal in one state, instead of a fanciful interpretation of the constitution a la Roe v Wade.

So, to wrap it up, we couldn't be more divided over the issue than we are at present.  Using your slavery analogy, we currently live in a country where slavery is a constitutional right for all, and the abolitionists are forced to subsidize slave purchases for those who want them.  Nothing could be more divisive!

Let them practice infanticide if they will, just don't make me pay for it!  The only answer I see to abortion is to let the states decide how it is going to be for them, same as gambling and prostitution.

Yep.  But what about voting one's conscience?

I voted for McClintock, because he reflected my views and principles.  I bet you like him better than Arnold as well.  If everyone voted their conscience, instead of wasting their vote on one of the 2 headliners, things might be quite different.

Brent

Tom while your argument sounds plausible enough, you and I both know (having bought the Geftakys lie for so many years) that that is not the way of human nature. If you think people who are politically accountable to others don't have to do things they strongly disagree with you don't know how the system works my friend.
There is not functioning brain in the cosmos that does not know that Colin Powell was stongly opposed to this invasion of Iraq. His loyalty superceded his conscience.
He is after all a military man, and knows both how to give and to take orders.
I listened to Powell's testimony before the UN and was struck that he was the only one in the administration who actually admitted that there was controversy over the idea that the Aluminum centrifuge tubes were intended to be used by Saddam in his nuclear program. We now know that every intellgence report dismissed this notion.
Rumsfeld knew it. Bush knew it. Rice knew it (although she denies this).
Powell solved his ethical dilemma by stating that all the experts agreed that the tubes
could be used, thereby making himself in my opinion nothing but a whore.
He knew his testimony would give the American people and the UN the exact opposite impression of what the intelligence actually suggested.
This was arouind the time he announced he would not be returning to serve in this adminstration.
I suspect the man has a conscience after all.
He is however, obviously loyal to a fault.
I do agree with you about one thing though and that is that it is completely stupid for me to go around feeling sorry for these folk....I will give that up immediately! :)

Verne

p.s. I am astonishded at your faith in politicians Tom. Do your really think that these folk will for a minute hesitate to lie to you when it suits their purpose?
The evidence that they did is conclusive in my view.

I think I am with you on this one Tom...
Brent is right that many Christians are hypocritical, not inconsistent, on this issue.
Verne

I understand what you are saying here and, for the most part, I see abortion as a central issue - after all, if the only fault of a candidate is that he beats his wife, would you still vote for him?  So also, if the only fault of a candidate is he supports infanticide, would you still vote for him?


However . . .

When  I read through posts on sites such as "Christians for Kerry", I understand a little of where they are coming from.  They argue that abortion is a bit of a non-issue - nothing is going to change no matter who is elected.  Further, they feel that Evangelical Christian has gotten too far into bed with the Right-Wing movement, emphasizing certain issues (abortion and homosexuality) and ignoring or minimizing others (poverty, the war, afforadable housing, environment).  

I certainly don't buy into all they are saying, but I think they do bring up a valid point.  Both the right and the left have their favorite moral issues which they hold out as superior and minimize others (very few Democrats, for instance, have the courage to say that we should care for the environment AND for the unborn and many on the right tend to see environmental issues as something for the "wacky environmentalists who hug trees").

All that to say, I don't think that Christians voting for Kerry are necessarily hypocritical.  I think in many cases there is simply a disagreement of which moral issues are the most important and relevant in this election.

Brent posed the question, "What about voting your conscience." Then there followed a hypocritical/inconsistant thread of argument.

That certainly is my conundrum in this election. I cannot vote my conscience for neither represents it. To vote for one is hypocritical and the other inconsistant. I could vote for a third party candidate, but then we'd have to start a discussion on tilting at windmills in American politics.

All I know at this point is I'm not voting for Barabara Boxer.

I firmly hold a few beliefs/assumptions about American politics:

1.)Republicrats are insincere, opportunistic, political players, who will do/say anything to get elected.  Once elected, their primary goal is to secure the future of the system and their future benefit from it.  This means payola to those who played along with their pandering.

2.)The vast majority of Americans view their political leaders with what can at best be described as skepticism.  Many distrust and outright despise their leaders for the things mentioned in  number one, above.

3.)The Two Party System is just that: 2 PARTIES Neither side wants to eliminate the other, neither side is serious about  winning once and for all, or shifting the majority view towards what is sensible.  First and foremost, both sides need eachother in order to put on the show every two years, and insure that each reaps the benefits of political office.  

You can't have a cage match, with smack-talking wrestlers unless there are two of them.  You have to have Stone Cold Steve Austin vs.  {another wrestler...I don't know who's hot currently}  In order for the phoney show to go on, you must have two actors play the part.  Afterwards, they go out and have a beer together and talk about investments and such.  

This is exactly what the politicians do

Am I cynical?  Those who actually believe one of these guys running for office will surely say so.  Certainly the other guy fits my description, but not our guy!  Nevertheless, I defy anyone to name one thing that George Bush has done to further the "conservative" agenda.  The 600.00 refund check is nothing.  I didn't even qualify for it....too high of an income.  I guess my kids don't count.

Conservatives are supposed to cut the size of government, and its intrusive regulations into our lives.  They are supposedly the opposite of "tax and spend."  Yet, Bush and the republican congress have spent more than any other congress, and have increased spending more than any other.  The republican house and senate, along with the republican president haven't come close to balancing the national checkbook.  they talk about reducing the size of government, but they have increased it dramatically, going so far as to create huge new departments and agencies.  Conservatives don't do this, do they?

As far as intrusion, Bush and the republican congress drafted the Patriot Act.  So far, it has been used for the "right" reasons...but soon, it will be used in far more nefarious ways.   If Kerry gets elected, look forward to him using the Patriot Act to harrass and punish his political enemies, and to punish the enemies of his supporters.  

President Bush held his hand on the Bible and swore before God to uphold the constitution.  Prior to that, he stated that campaign finance reform---McCain-Finegold----was unconstitutional.  Then, after swearing to uphold the constituion, he signed what he knew was an unconstitutional bill into law!?

I could go on and on.

I need not mention the stunning barrage of lies and treason being perpetrated by Kerry.  He is worse than Bush, except in one area:

Kerry has the courage to mount a viscious campaign of slander to bring the other guy down, while Bush hasn't the courage to oppose/expose him and defend himself.  I can only speculate as to why this is the case, and my speculation leads me to conclude that Bush hasn't the moral fiber or statesmanship to risk political capital by telling the truth: His opponent is a treasonous liar.

A man who won't say the hard thing, in order to avoid losing a tight political race is not my idea of a strong leader.

I could go on and on and on.  In doing so, the only conclusion that makes any sense is that american politics are a show, similiar to the WWF, in which the candidates are casted as the leading rolls, but the script writers and producers are behind the scenes calling the shots.

That's why I'm a third party guy.  I love republican rhetoric...I just never see it practised.

Jem, consider voting for Judge Jim Gray for Senate.  I have met him, and spoken with him at length...he's a great guy.  Was a republican until 2 years ago.

When I heard him speak, he fielded questions from all angles, and actually answered them without a script.  He could string more than two sentences together in a coherent manner, and he was consistent and logical in his answers.

Why is it that he can answer coherently, off the cuff, while Bush and Kerry need to have the questions submitted before hand, so their staff can craft "answers" that the candidates can regurgitate later?  How phoney can you get?  It's disgusting, and both sides are guilty of it.

The media is even worse.  In order to be successfull in media, you must kiss @$$ and report the way your editor/producer wants.  Favors, back-room deals, exclusives, leaks....all are part of a complicated dance of deception, smearing, salesmanship, spin and damage control.

I think americans would flock to a leader who had no staff, no handlers, and who stuck to a few simple principles. That is exactly who our founding fathers were, and they were able to ignite a revolution.  Where is Patrick Henry when we need him?

Sadly, the two party system is carefully designed to avoid exactly this.  The last thing either party needs is a Patrick Henry, or a Thomas Jefferson, someone who can talk straight and make sense,  it will ruin everything they have worked for.

I'll make all of you a wager:

If Bush wins, in four years nothing will have changed, and Roe v Wade will still be in place.  He won't appoint constructionist judges to the court, neither will he reduce or eliminate a single government program.

If Kerry wins, in four years nothing will have changed, and Roe v Wade will still be in place.  He won't appoint constructionist judges to the court, neither will he reduce or eliminate a single government program.

If what I say turns out to be true, who is wasting their vote?

Brent

My Fellow Americans! :)

  All that Brent has posted cannot be denied, but I think that possibly he is holding a standard for "voting his conscience that is impossible to achieve in a pluralistic secular society.

  We simply will never get a perfect candidate that can implement a perfect society.

  Having said all that I believe that Christians who vote can have an effect on a "government by the people" and that it does make a difference whom we vote for.

  I think that the two party system has worked better here than say a parlimentary styled government like England, where there are many different parties.  A multitude of little parties leads to no consensus in the governing process,  and/or all kinds of quaqmires.  

  Though I tend to Libertarian economic views, as a party they have only gained small support in the country, and so "voting my conscience" in this election will only lend support to the far left policies of the Democrats.

  Brent states that Bush's re-election will lead to no effective change because the two parties are basically owned by special interests and to some degree this is undeniably true.  Democracy in a pluralistic society is dependent on compromise in all of their decisions, a problem that dictatorships avoid  ;).

  The final four years afford Bush an ability to make changes that are more conservative because he will not be facing re-election this time.  Look for true conservatives appointed as judges, true fundamental changes in Soc. Sec., Income tax, and the like.

  Kerry will undoubtedly change laws that fall within the purview of presidential administrative law, such as "government sponsorship of abortion for military families."  True, he will be reisited by a Republican congress in his attempts to pass "Hillary Care", and raise taxes, but Bill Clinton will be made head of the United Nations and we will apply the "Global Test" when it comes to everything from Kyoto to defending this country against terrorism.

  Voting one's conscience, in an absolutely pure sense, is a standard of perfection that denies the facts that, though we are self governed, we still live in a fallen world.  Jesus admitted a kind of compromise when he stated, "render unto Ceasar the things that are his, etc."  

  If we hold off for perfection then we must wait for the return of Jesus and the establishment of His kingdom.  (Even so come quickly Lord Jesus!)  

  The Republican party is made up of many who would like to see the party be more conservative and if we leave that party for a small party our influence will be gone from it.

                        One Reporter's Opinion,  Mark C.  :)  

In Canada we have a 3+ party system, and a lot of votes get "wasted" as a result.

Interestingly enough, Canadian comedy shows portray Kerry for what he is, ie one who flip flops.  Except for the CBC, which is the FOX of Canada; they have to be 'politically' correct since Canada has a liberal government.

Kerry plans to implement embryionic stem cell research which will increase the 'abortion' rate.

Marcia

That would be great, but don't count on it.  In fact, I pretty much guarantee that this won't happen.


I disagree, although I certainly understand your argument.  In the short term, you are absolutely correct.  If all republicans (closet libertarians) voted libertarian, the Dems would win.

However, the fact that the conservative base deserted the party would do more in the arena of ideas than anything else.  In fact, it would reform the american political landscape, which would be a good thing.

We have become pragmatists, and take the most efficacious approach for the near term.  Consequently, we do nothing at all to return to the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Now, we are the home of those who long to be free from taxation and riduculous governmental control, and those who aren't brave enough to do anything about it but vote for the candidate who is less offensive towards what they really believe.

Case in point, there is a proposition on the California ballot that taxes the rich 10,000 for every million they earn, and gives it to mental health programs.  If you make less than a million, like I do, you don't pay this tax, only the rich get to pay.  This is so unfair to punish achievers by making them responsible for "mental health."  This kind of thing is going to be occuring in ever more eggregious ways in the future, if we simply lay in a supine position and hope to stem the tide with a politician who leans a little less to the left.

If we deserted those who say they are for limited government, but who actually grow it with their programs and ideas, we put them on notice that they no longer have our support, and cannot go along with the left any more.  At some point, given the current trends in our society, we are going to be faced with some very serious choices.

You may think I'm alarmist or crazy, which is fine with me, but I see our current situation as being extremely critical.  Sadly, I don't see either candidate making the slightest difference in our overall decay.

If all of us truly voted our conscience, we would make a difference.  If we vote in a pragmatic way, rather than a principled way, we merely insure the status quo.

Brent

Hi Brent!

  It is great to have you back on the ol' BB.  I find your thinking very sharp, and as always challenging.

  Your right that it is "my hope" that Bush will feel free to bring in a more conservative agenda in a second term.  If he wins a squeaker than it is possible he doesn't feel like he has a mandate to make these changes.

  However, I don't know how you can "guarantee" that he won't take a more conservative stance.

  I don't know if the choice is "pragmatism vs. principle" as political change neccesitates some kind of group move and a single principled individual is basically powerless.  

  An example of this would be joining the Libetarian party.  I do not believe that all abortion should be legal, which is part of their platform, and so to join together with them I would have to set aside my principles in order to advance the rest of the goals of the party that I agree with.

  In other words, politics is always pragmatic, if it expects it's party to win elections.  A political movement must be comprised of a sizable group that can agree on a few basic principles.  Very imperfect, and that is why those who refuse to budge on all of their principles will be left out of power.

  Some of my principles I cannot sacrafice, such as abortion, and this is why Christians will have less and less influence on their government and eventually the Democrats will prevail; if not this  election then the next one with Hillary (ugh :P)

  Nothing can stop evil from growing in this World until Jesus comes to put a stop to it.

                                     God Bless,  Mark C.

You make some great points here Dave.  The notion of so many Chrisians that being Republican is synonymous with holiness is offensive.
Knowing what I know about George W Bush, I personally could not in good conscience vote to put him back in office. That is my own dillemma.
Zogby is reporting that the undecided voters seem to be breaking for Kerry.
It looks like Kerry will carry both Pensylvania and Florida. If he does, it is all over for Bush.
They are neck and neck at 48% in the popular vote and for an incumbent this is ominous.
Last year at this time Bush was ahead of Gore by two points.
George W. Bush in my view does not deserve a second term.
How ironic it would be if he repeats his dad's fate...
Verne

The Bill Moyers show is not known for objectivity.

But then, as Douglas Adams said,
"On no account should anyone capable of getting himself elected president be allowed to do the job."

This is news to me.  The fastest growing segment of the Libertarian party are homeschooling Christians.  I was not aware of any such platform.

Libertarians are against a federal ban, or a federal subsidy of abortion.   It should be up to the states, according to the constitution.

Nevertheless, supposedly the republicans have a ban on abortion as part of their platform.  This is true, at least on paper.

Now look back at who spoke at the last Republican convention:

Rudy G.----pro-choice
Arnold Schwarzzeneggar--pro-choice
Zell Miller---Pro-choice
John McCain---pro-choice (I'm not positive about this one, but pretty sure)

What's up with that?  

The reason I guarantee that Bush won't appoint constructionist judges is actually a simple logical conclusion based on what he has done.  

Hopefully, I'll be eating crow in four years,  I would really like that.

Libertarians aren't the "answer" either.  However, at least they want to leave me alone.  

Please read the 1996 and 2000 libertarian presidential candidate's position on abortion:

Abortion: I received the following email:

I have been a faithful libertarian for over 10 years, and happily voted for you. I only have one problem: the Libertarian position on abortion. Everything I have read by you and other Libertarians treats it as a woman's privacy issue.

If we are truly for life, liberty, etc. how can we not be firmly pro-life and protect the unborn?

A woman's right to privacy simply does not trump anyone's right to life.

Please help me understand.

Chris

I believe that, until science can prove that life begins at some point beyond conception, I must assume that abortion is the taking of a human life. Thus I am firmly opposed to abortion.

Knowing what government is and how it perverts whatever it promises to do, I am just as firmly opposed to any government program to stop abortion.

I hope those who believe abortion is wrong won't waste their time trying to get government at any level to reduce abortions. Government never delivers what you want. It doesn't protect adults on the streets. It doesn't protect children in the schools. Why should we think it will protect the unborn?

Government doesn't persuade; it forces. And that's why it can't bring about any lasting change you might want.

Its War on Poverty has expanded welfare in America. Its War on Drugs has escalated the use of drugs. Any government War on Abortion could easily lead within five years to men having abortions.

Every day we spend begging the government to stop abortion is a day wasted — a day that could have been spent doing something truly effective, such as . . .

• Working for less restrictive adoption laws.

• Encouraging private educational efforts to show young women the alternatives to abortion.

• Repealing the income tax so parents can spend more time with their children, teaching them values that will minimize teenage pregnancies.

• Repealing any law that encourages people to ignore the consequences of their actions.

As with any other problem, only a program of education and persuasion — undertaken voluntarily by individuals, not government — can work. I admire the people who work so hard to dissuade young women from rushing into abortions, who arrange adoptions for pregnant women who aren't ready to raise a child, who fight to undo the restrictive adoption laws, and who spend their own money to celebrate the lives of children who weren't aborted. These are efforts that make a true difference — unlike those of politicians who pose and preach and promise, and never deliver anything.

To me, abortion is a horror. But giving politicians the power to run your life, hoping they will stop abortions, isn't the way to end the horror. In fact, in one way or another, it's bound to make a bad thing worse.

To answer your question, this isn't an issue of a woman's right to privacy or anyone's right to life. It's an issue of how to achieve what you want — which is to minimize abortions. And government is never the way to achieve that.



Brent

Brent,

You posted this:


What?

1. Government always perverts what it promises to do.
 
Really?  Slavery isn't illegal?  We didn't win WWII?  Eisenhower never built the national highway system?  We never reached the moon?

Government isn't perfect, to be sure, and frequently fails to do all it tries to do.  But "always" is extreme....and just plain wrong.

2. Government shouldn't try to reduce crime, since in "always" fails.  Really?  

Since government hasn't stopped rape, murder, robbery or any other crime....therefore it shouldn't try to even limit them?

BTW, I'll tell you a little secret.  When goverment DID outlaw abortion, all through my younger years, it was rare.  Yes, there were illegal abortions, but not 1.5 million per year.  More like a few thousand.

3. The war on poverty has expanded wellfare.  True. But on the other hand the reforms the Republicans forced on Clinton has REDUCED federal wellfare payments by 60%.

4. The governments war on drugs has expanded the use of drugs.  Really?

All those federal agents are out there holding those poor lefties down and sticking needles into their arms, blowing coke up their noses, and lighting up their Maui Wowie for them.    

5. Within 5 years men will be having abortions.  Really?

Whoever wrote this is nuts, or is one of the guys the government agents are holding down.

Or, maybe he is just a typical Libertarian.

Thomas Maddux

Perhaps. As I said I listened.
I thought it was amazing how a veteran analyst of stature like Richard Clark all of a sudden became, according to the administration, this unstable and confused guy when he started to talk about the things he did...
Moyers lack of objectivity does not change facts.
The same goes for Michael Moore...
The question is how we interpret the information.
There is no question in my mind that the facts, regardless of who is reporting them, indicate that this administration deliberately misrepresented intelligence information to the American people in an attempt to sway public opinion to the support of invasion of the nation of Iraq.
It worked.
This does not make tham any less liars.
I suspect that it is this slowly dawning realization that is beginning to swing sentiment in the direction pollsters are seeing.
It would be a remarkable repeat of the Spanish election results.
Nobody likes being lied to by their government and they should rightly suffer the consequences of their folly.
I am sure Spain is quite happy to be out of Babylon...
Verne

I guess why I still have a hard time beliving the "Bush deliberately deceived the American people to go to war claim" is because everyone on capital hill had access to the same information that Bush had (including Kerry, Howard Dean, etc.) and the still they voted to go to war.  I do agree that the intelligence was flawed (as we later found out), but based upon the information available, the leaders made a united decision.  Kerry's psudo-justification of "well, I voted for the war but I thought we were going to talk about it for a while with the UN first" is lame.  He voted for the war along with Bush because they all believed at the time that it was the right thing to do.

The problem for Democrats is that this successful response to 9-11 made Bush a very popular guy.  How would they be able to win this next election so that they could appoint judges to preserve Roe vs. Wade?

The only way would be to demonize Bush.  Call it an unjust war.  Call it an unprovoked, preemptive strike.  Put the blame for the war on him and act like they had nothing to do with it.  By the sheer volume of repeating the claim over and over again, more and more people begin to believe it.

Their campaign from the beginning was based on little more than to bring Bush down.  "Someone else for president" and "win at any cost".  It just might work.

P.S.:  Kudos to Joseph Leberman who sacrificed his presidential shot by standing by his decision to go to war.  Man of integrity, methinks.

     It appears, from the poll on this thread, that if Bush loses the national election he can fall back and be president of the BB. ;D

     Comments on a couple of recent quotes:

by Brent:

     While I tend to share your assessment of Kerry's character (with exception of his "courage," which I attribute to simple expediency), I disagree with your speculation of Bush's reserve.  My guess is that his handlers convinced him that (1) any personal attack on Kerry would be siezed upon by the Dems and turned against him as being desperation tactics, and that (2) by maintaining silence about Kerry's person and character, Bush would be thought by many to be occupying the higher moral ground.

---

by Mark:

     True, Bush will not be facing re-election, but his party will still want the presidency, and will do everything they can to persuade him to play ball with their long-range goals "for the good of the party."  The man will have to truly emerge as a free moral agent to hope to accomplish anything personally.

---

BTW/FYI:

     The World Wildlife Federation sued the World Wrestling Fereration over the latter's use of the former's initials, "WWF," and won.  So now the wrestlers have to go by some other name.  My circus of choice is Ringling Bros., so I don't know what the actors-on-steroids call themselves these days...

al

Brent

Last week Bush changed his stance on gay marriage,  saying civil unions are ok if states approve.  Earlier this year he opened the border to truckers from south of the border, to the devestation of many US truckers.  He continually tries to show that there is no difference between religions, saying we all serve the same God and in his speeches making reference to "every church, mosque, synagouge, and temple", in fact the religious leader chosen to give the opening prayer to the Republican Convention was the first muslim chaplain, er iman, of the NYPD (can we say twilight zone?).

The sad thing is that despite these things, Bush is an infinitely better man and president than Kerry.  God help us.  
This year there is a liberal candidate and a socialist, globalist candidate.  No conservative candidates on the ticket :/

Supreme Court:  You want to talk true colors being shown, look no further than the ruling on sodomy.  6 of the 9 justices said that sodomy is perfectly ok with them and should not be illegal.  The three who withstood it were Thomas, Rehnquist, Scalia.  
The other six are going to hell, IMHO.

re: Abortion, it's a big racket now. Just like the AIDS racket, the cancer racket, you name it.  Neither legislators nor justices will ever put an end to it because they are bought and paid for like any cheap slut on 9th street.  Money and position are more important to them than the lives of innocents.  To hell with them.
Planned Parenthood and the ACLU should be broken up and their members imprisioned.

Arthur

PS, I also voted for McClintock.

Reagan did a lot to improve the economy by winning the cold war.
Clinton did a lot to reduce our quality of life by promoting corruption.
Such differences don't show up right away.  It takes time for consequences to develop.

As for Bush's war on terror, bad people seem to be very upset with him.
Even Bin Laden made an appearance just in time for Halloween to let us know his opinion.
Perhaps Bush is doing something right, considering who's unhappy with him.

---

About Libertarianism, I was thinking that it might be a good cover for reducing the power of government to the point where foreign interests could just walk in and take over the country.  In Pilgrim's Progress, Christian and Faithful are asked by merchants in Vanity Fair what they would buy.  They replied, "We would buy the truth."  Without government standards defending truth, even the government itself doesn't know whether a thing is true or not, and so the government itself cannot function and dies.

An example of this is rumors of Bush being on some kind of "medication".  How does the government know that this "medication" isn't some kind of mind control drug being used to partially control Bush's actions?  I claim that they don't know, because drug studies are now done by the drug companies instead of by the government.

Yes, he's doing something right.  However, he isn't doing enough and not doing what he is doing in a forceful enough manner.  That's my opinion.


Steven, you must not have taken the time to read what Libertarians stand for.

Libertarians believe strongly in our constitutional form of government.  The constitution plainly states that the federal government is to maintain armed forced for national defense.  Every libertarian I know, including the last 2 presidential candidates advocate a military force that can kick the living #E!! out of our enemies.  If you think for one second that libertarians want to weaken this countries national strength, or sell our freedom to foreign interests, you either:

1.)are totally ignorant of the Libertarian philosophy.......
2.)Believe what you heard someone say who is totally ignorant of the Libertarian philosophy or who wants to discredit it for some other reason.
3.)Haven't the mental capacity to understand words and meanings.

Since I know that you are extrememly capable of doing number 3, I can only conclude that you really don't know what you are saying.

George Washington is a classic Libertarian, as was Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and many others of the founders.  No, they didn't call themselves "Libertarians," but they talked and wrote about freedom and liberty, and were willing to fight and die for it.  If you think Washington was going to weaken the fledgling country he helped birth, then I can understand why you might think Libertarians might do the same.

You guys, many, if not most of you, really don't get it.  You have read my posts on Iraq, terrorism, etc.  After reading those, do you actually think I would advocate a weakening of our national defense?

Seriously, how much have any of you investigated the Libertarian ideals?  
Have you ever read a book by a great economist?
Have you ever read Supreme court opinions by John Jay?
Have you ever read the Federalist Papers?
When was the last time any of you read the Constitution of the United States?

I bet it's been never to quite a long time for all of you.

Shame on you for putting something down you know nothing about!

Brent

Of course I didn't mean that Kerry has courage.  You correctly read between the lines and understood exactly what I was saying; Kerry will do or say anything to gain the office.  His only principle is that he will sell his own soul, or anyone elses if only he can win.  

As for your observation regarding Bush and his handlers...I think you've got it.

This great leader and statesman is so brave that he listens to his handlers.
He also is such a gentleman that he will actually risk letting this country fall under the power of a lying scoundrel, rather than be seen to not be occupying the higher ground.  

I couldn't have made the argument more forcefully myself.  

Remember what I always teach my kids, which I learned in the Assembly:

"It's not what you actually do, or who you actually are that matters.  It's what other people think you are, or what you tell them you may have done that really counts.  It's who you look like that is important, not who you are."  :P

It is so important that Bush be seen as a non-desperate person who behaved in a more gentlemanly fashion when being faced with a man like Kerry. That is true character.....right?

How utterly sick.

I would have infinitely more respect for Bush if he kicked Kerry in the 'nads, than behaving as if Kerry is actually his equal.  The man is a treasonous Liar!  What is wrong with Bush for not coming right out and stating the truth?

Oh, that's right...his handlers.......

Brent

Well...looks like Bush.

Interesting comment from World Magazine blog www.worldmagblog.com (http://www.worldmagblog.com):  as of Nov 3,2 004 6:36 AM EST

The official big media electoral vote total is Bush 254, Kerry 252. That doesn't count Ohio, where Bush has a lead of 140,000 with 99% of precincts in, or New Mexico and Iowa, where Bush has leads of 11,000 and 15,500, respectively, with virtually all the precincts also in. Add those to the Bush total and he has 286 electoral votes, a comfortable majority.

Curiously, big media have had no trouble declaring Pennsylvania for Kerry, although that race is tighter than Ohio's; Wisconsin for Kerry, although his lead there is less than Bush's in Iowa; and New Hampshire for Kerry, although his lead there is less than Bush's in New Mexico. Note also that Bush won the popular vote by 3.6 million, a figure unimportant in comparison to the electoral college vote-- but remember in 2000 the fuss big media made about Gore receiving more popular vote than Bush?

Kerry conceded.  Bush won Ohio and the election.  Thanks, Al.  ;D

     Thanks be to God for His unspeakable gift.  Only by the grace of God through Jesus Christ can we begin to appreciate His sovereignty over all things, including the earthly politics of men.  Those politics being the morass that they are, we should take great comfort in knowing that our God reigns supreme.

     Cathy and I were blessed in that our wait to vote was only about an hour, all of which was spent indoors, away from the inclement weather.  In nearby Gambier, OH, the students and faculty of Kenyon College waited over ten hours, some not getting to vote until about 4AM, EST.  There were only two booths there, and the majority refused to settle for provisional paper ballots because they may have not been counted unless necessary to decide the election.

     Media exit polls indicate that about 25% of the midwest voters were Evangelical Christians, and that the number one priority in midwest voting was moral values.

     We all have much for which to be thankful today.  This would have been true regardless of the election's outcome, but as things now stand, we can be specific in adding that to the list.

God bless,
al

Al,

Speaking of God's sovereignty, one point I read was the fact that the court arogance in ordering gay marriage in Massachusetts caused a backlash at the polls that worked in Bush's favor.

-Dave

I wonder how Michael Moore is doing today.  Or Dave Mauldin.

     The unofficial word is that when Kerry conceded the election at about 10AM, Moore declared a hunger strike :-X.  Supposedly, it lasted until lunch. :P

 ;D

I heard he's teaching elementary film at a junior college now.

For the record, my post was clearly about deception and makes no mention of military force.  Brent's obfuscatory misrepresentation seems to suggest that he didn't like my post.  Spooky!

Huh? ???

Did I miss something?

Brent