Politics and Dressing

[Jenny]

Hi everyone,

Aw, what the heck!!! I have started a thread in so long, I am starting to feel like one of the fossils on the forum. :p So I thought I would pick a topic of a completely different sort (at least for me). (And with apologies to our non-U.S. members.)

As the presidential race kicks into ever higher gear, I was wondering if there is an appropriate political slant to our mutual interest. After thinking about it, I think there definitely is. I am greatly concerned over President Bush's endorsement of a federal constitutional amendment which would ban marriages between people of the same sex. I am concerned over this for several reasons. First, to me this appears to be political pandering of the highest degree. With all of the truly serious issues facing our nation, for the president to select this issue seems highly suspect except as a means to motivate his religious right base. That's political pandering, not leadership. Second, even Vice-president Cheney, who is far from a liberal on social issues, has a gay daughter and does not support this amendment. Third, to use our Constitution to endorse a form of discrimination is contrary to everything our nation stands for. Our Constitution has always been used to unite our country, not divide us. Fourth, I think the President's position indicates an intolerant attitude towards alternative lifestyles. We are a large and diverse country with diverse values and customs. We should not be condemning lifestyle choices that harm no one. Lastly, I think any time two people fall in love and want to commit to each other through a marriage ceremony that is good for society. It promotes stability and mutual personal responsibility. Did you know the first two people going through a marriage ceremony in San Fransisco were lesbians who had been together over 50 years? It is good for society to recognize and encourage these types of relationships.

Should President Bush's position on the gay marriage amendment be the basis for deciding how to vote for president? I don't know. I do know it has entered into my thinking. I don't want the fundamental document of my country to reflect intolerance of people based on who they love.

Jenny (climbing off her soapbox, making sure her skirt doesn't catch)

(I may have been quiet but that doesn't mean I haven't been thinking!!)

[Chandra Marie]

Hi,it's been a while for me also, life without internet is like stepping out fully dressed and realizing your keys are locked inside, ONLY WORSE. Thank god its back. Anyway Like Jenny I feel same sex marrige is not something that needs this much attention, after all it's not hurting anyone. Aside from that I am a diehard Republican and Bush supporter.

[Deborah757]

I have to agree with the previous post. I will vote for Bush with no hesitation. I don't particularly agree with the marriage ammendment but the overiding issue of the day is the ongoing war against those who would destroy us. The democrats offer nothing new and seem naive in their beliefs that the rest of the world can fix the problem.

Deborah

[clarissa3d]

Well I have to stand next to the soap box to say {leaning my elboe on the box} that I have seen many stands such as the same sex marriage thing take a bad spin after it was passed. I aggree with jenny that I am very concerned of what could come out of this. I have started sending letters to my congressmen about issues that I feel a great concern for. {now sitting on the soap box} I am putting together a letter about my concerns of mistreatment of CD/TV/TS etc. people. I have stated in other threads a little of my deep hearted feelings for our community. I would like to see a better (more possitive) light on the "gender bender group". It turns my stomach when I hear of girls getting beat or ridiculed in public. I got so much of that from my ext wife who never even once attempted to try to understand {standing up on the soap box}.
I do not want to see anyone in this great country where I have lived my whole life and have lived through the racial discrimination and to this day see my freinds dealing with small pockets of racial discrimination. Granted now it is better than 30 years or 40 years ago.

The gay/lesbian movement that had and still have terrible times. I work with a gay basher at work and at times I literally fight my self NOT to tell him that he is surounded by gays lesbians and crossdressers. instead I have turned him into the HR department.

Now climbing off the soap box
{damn did not watch and tore my dress)

I will post my letter when completed.

[Amelie]

Very well put Clarissa. While I don't want to talk about Bush or Kerry, I will say this. A lot of CDs should be thankfulfor the activism of gays and lesbians. For all the advancement they make CDs ride along getting better treatment. CDs are not as vocal as the gays, but benifit from their victories against bias. I know there are gay CDs(me), but I refer to most CDs being straight. If the gay drag queens of Stonewall, didn't riot and fight for their rights, where would the straight CDs of today go out. Most CDs go to gay bars. I know this is a minor issue compared to terrorism and war, but to some it is an issue none the less. If it wasn't for gay activism, I don't think we would even be allowed in the closet, much less coming out of it. We should stand together and fight any bias that comes along, for if gays are attacked, how long will it be before straight CDs are too.
Love Amelie

[Rachel Ann]

Yes, my respect goes to those Gays and Lesbians who trailblazed for us all - just as racial minorities and GGs fought from the 60s on.

I do think that the time is coming when TGs will have to start fighting our own fight instead of being subsumed in to the GLB universe. It's not that we are in opposition, just that our issues are often different. And it is also a long way from CD to TS on the spectrum!

Of course, *I* am hardly about to be the first to stick my neck out! I did my "out in the streets" stuff when I was young.

As far as Kerry vs. Bush, I won't touch that one with a ten foot pole in a setting like this!

[NewShy21NJmtf]

Let me begin by saying that I don't expect anyone to agree with me or disagree. I'm simply stating my opinion. Bush's intolerance is only one of many reasons I will be voting Kerry in this upcoming election. I will spare the rest of them, as this forum may not be the best place for that type of discussion.

Stephanie

[Tristen Cox]

Hi everyone,

Aw, what the heck!!! I have started a thread in so long, I am starting to feel like one of the fossils on the forum. :p So I thought I would pick a topic of a completely different sort (at least for me). (And with apologies to our non-U.S. members.)

As the presidential race kicks into ever higher gear, I was wondering if there is an appropriate political slant to our mutual interest. After thinking about it, I think there definitely is. I am greatly concerned over President Bush's endorsement of a federal constitutional amendment which would ban marriages between people of the same sex. I am concerned over this for several reasons. First, to me this appears to be political pandering of the highest degree. With all of the truly serious issues facing our nation, for the president to select this issue seems highly suspect except as a means to motivate his religious right base. That's political pandering, not leadership. Second, even Vice-president Cheney, who is far from a liberal on social issues, has a gay daughter and does not support this amendment. Third, to use our Constitution to endorse a form of discrimination is contrary to everything our nation stands for. Our Constitution has always been used to unite our country, not divide us. Fourth, I think the President's position indicates an intolerant attitude towards alternative lifestyles. We are a large and diverse country with diverse values and customs. We should not be condemning lifestyle choices that harm no one. Lastly, I think any time two people fall in love and want to commit to each other through a marriage ceremony that is good for society. It promotes stability and mutual personal responsibility. Did you know the first two people going through a marriage ceremony in San Fransisco were lesbians who had been together over 50 years? It is good for society to recognize and encourage these types of relationships.

Should President Bush's position on the gay marriage amendment be the basis for deciding how to vote for president? I don't know. I do know it has entered into my thinking. I don't want the fundamental document of my country to reflect intolerance of people based on who they love.

Jenny (climbing off her soapbox, making sure her skirt doesn't catch)

(I may have been quiet but that doesn't mean I haven't been thinking!!)

You nailed it pretty good Jenny. Of course this should reflect how you vote.
Like you said it "harms no one". Why in the hell do we keep separating our own country in useless ways......
:confused:

[Felicity]

I support the ban. I hope those already reading continues to hear my viewpoint.

First of all, government should have never become involved with marriage. For all of history, it is a religious union between a man and a woman. Government getting involved with marriage is a violation of the so called separation of church and state.

To get technical, in law, we go by definitions in law dictionaries. Newer college dictionaries removed the "man and woman" part, but it is still in legal dictionaries. I own a Black's Law Dictionary, and looked it up in others.

Another technical issue would be people saying it is not equal rights. It doesn't meet the tests. A gay man can still marry a woman, a lesbian can still marry a man.

I live in Portland Oregon, where the county commissioners illegally conspired to make same sex marriages happen in Oregon. Even though I call Portland "The Capitol of the North-Left Coast," petitions were filed for removal of the county chair, and I believe that will be on this Novembers ballot. When govenment officials openly defy the will of the people and state statute, it makes this cause even harder for open minded people to consider.

I am primarily conservative in politics, but would be condsidered liberal in many ways. I am Independent, neither democrat or republican. I will reluctantly vote for Bush. Kerry is no option for me as he is a total fool. I am surprised that anyone who votes responsible (finding enough fact) would consider Kerry.

Most anyone who I have ever heard talk of the issue who is opposed to same sex marrige have no problems calling them a "civil union." I am in that class too. Afterall, a marriage is also a civil union. Most marriage licences say something like "A Union between a Man and a Woman." To have all the legal rights of a marrige can be given this way. Anyone who knows geometry knows that a square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not (usually not) a square. That is how this issue should be applied. Allow marrige to specify it is always between a man and woman, like a square has equal sides.

Many people who belive in the religeous aspect of marriage will do all they can to prevent it from being called a marriage. They feel it cheapens their marriage.

Jenny, you said:


"First, to me this appears to be political pandering of the highest degree. With all of the truly serious issues facing our nation, for the president to select this issue seems highly suspect except as a means to motivate his religious right base. That's political pandering, not leadership."

Well, I have to disagree. When some states started the same sex marriages, there was a tremendous outcry of letters and phone calls to our legislators. The political pandering is being done on the side supporting it. Multnomah County Commissioners and the gay rights groups here are a prime example. Secret meetings with 4 of the 5 commissioners leaving Lonnie Roberts out completely, no public hearings, then just voting on it. We woke up one day and it happened! No warning!


"Second, even Vice-president Cheney, who is far from a liberal on social issues, has a gay daughter and does not support this amendment."

And he has said that is his opinion and he will follow the administrations actions.


"Third, to use our Constitution to endorse a form of discrimination is contrary to everything our nation stands for. Our Constitution has always been used to unite our country, not divide us."

This is not discrimination. It does not meet the legal tests. Keep pushing the issue and you will devide people. Again, a gay man can marry a woman and a lesbian can marry a man.


"Fourth, I think the President's position indicates an intolerant attitude towards alternative lifestyles. We are a large and diverse country with diverse values and customs. We should not be condemning lifestyle choices that harm no one."

Aren't you reading into something that's not there? The outcry was so tremendous from people like me who do not support same sex marriage. I think you should consider that Bush is carrying out the will of the people.


"Lastly, I think any time two people fall in love and want to commit to each other through a marriage ceremony that is good for society. It promotes stability and mutual personal responsibility. Did you know the first two people going through a marriage ceremony in San Fransisco were lesbians who had been together over 50 years? It is good for society to recognize and encourage these types of relationships."

The fact they were together that long without marriage I think should be proof marriage doesn't matter for a stable relationship.



"Should President Bush's position on the gay marriage amendment be the basis for deciding how to vote for president? I don't know. I do know it has entered into my thinking. I don't want the fundamental document of my country to reflect intolerance of people based on who they love."

I would hope not. Besides, shouldn't we settle the issue once in for all by putting it to a national vote? It has to pass congress and be ratified by the states. In reality, any politition who tries to stop the people from voting on a constitutional amendment should be removed from office. We are a democracy, aren't we?

Something that you didn't mention. One primary reason some people are fighting for the same sex marriage is for the monitary and propery rights. Even married people in some states have trouble with a death if a will isn't made. Legal papers can be drawn for a number of things except perhaps medical insurances and tax purposes. Again, I think you will find that state by state, you can easily pass laws to allow civil unions. Besides, take things one step at a time. That doesn't mean it has to end there. Let people get used to the idea, then go a step farther.

In that reguard, the activist groups may have messed things up. If they took things one step at a time, we wouldn't be attempting a constitutional amendment now.

[Alayna]

Like you said it "harms no one". Why in the hell do we keep separating our own country in useless ways......
:confused:
The issue of gay marraige, abortion, gun control all have one thing in common...They can't be solved because the arguments people make for or against them are largely moral. I think Bush is making such an issue out of this now because it takes away from more important issues. It's such a good way to divide the country up, it could almost be standard strategy of a party's campaign. Of course this doesn't mean I don't agree with you Jenny: I think this is also a blatant attempt to strengthen the "religious right", and also shows what a terrible bigot Bush is. Although, and I'm always careful to mention this, most of this policy I doubt is coming from Bush. He has proven time and time again that he doesn't understand the impact of his actions, nor does he even want to make important decisions, preferring to leave them to his advisors. Personally, I think most of these bigoted policies and anti-civil rights laws (Patriot Act II, TIA act, Homeland Security) are purely the work of Ashcroft. Unfortunately, I am voting for Kerry... I think he's just another "business as usual" democrat who won't actually try to make life better for the average person in this country. However, there is one key reason why I vote for him - and I wear it on my car's bumper. (sorry Bush supporters):

[Felicity]

I like the way you put the Kerry thing in: "Business as usual democrat" You are so right.

I see you understand politics better than most. I too am sceptical of many of the Bush policies. I however believe Bush to be of good charactor. He also doesn't change his position every 5 days like Kerry. I cannot vote for a man like Kerry. He lacks any real ethics. He takes a poll and talks what ever way the wind is blowing.

I can get into some leangthy political debating, but I doubt many here want any part of it in these forums. I put enough in my other post in this thread.

[Felicity]

Before you vote for Kerry, look at these. They are not doctored.

1) Kerry's 1971 Testomony to congress (transcript):
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Kerry_1971_Testimony.pdf

2) Swift Boat Vetrans Affadavits:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf

[Alayna]

[QUOTE=Felicity] I however believe Bush to be of good charactor. He also doesn't change his position every 5 days like Kerry. I cannot vote for a man like Kerry. He lacks any real ethics. He takes a poll and talks what ever way the wind is blowing.
QUOTE]

I believe Bush believes he is of good character, and I totally agree about Kerry. But I think Bush needs to be out mainly because of his social welfare and foreign policy decisions. Now we have the super-rich getting hyper-rich (with the ridiculously poor getting intolerably poor), less spending on what is already a joke of an education and healthcare system, a national deficit that could actually bankrupt the country, and........THE WHOLE WORLD IS PISSED AT HIM! The only one's who aren't are Tony Blair and the countries who are in the U.S's pocket. FYI, more people around the world protested the Iraq war than Vietnam! Even if he ends up right about Iraq, tax-cuts, etc..., he cannot lead this country any longer because the rest of the world can't tolerate him any longer. This shouldn't mean much, but when you are leader of the economically and (especially) militarily most powerful state in the world, you can't just do what you want and keep a "my way or the highway" kind of attitude - at least not if you're trying to avoid the image of a tyrannical empire.

Also just to be clear, I don't understand politics any better than anyone else - what I do understand is history and that its most important lessons are being totally ignored.

[Alayna]

I would hope not. Besides, shouldn't we settle the issue once in for all by putting it to a national vote? It has to pass congress and be ratified by the states. In reality, any politition who tries to stop the people from voting on a constitutional amendment should be removed from office. We are a democracy, aren't we
I agree, we should put it to a vote - a majority rules, non-electoral, not tampered with vote. Isn't it strange that the people arguing for this ban aren't also trying to get drive-through weddings in Vegas banned? What about the insane amount of divorces as well? Shouldn't these anti-gay marraige supporters be going after those issues too? I only ask because most of these people are arguing for the sanctity of marraige and how pure of an institution it is. A drunken drive-through wedding after a good night at the Craps table doesn't exactly fit the bill. This is totally a gay rights issue, plain and simple. No matter how many achievements the gay/TG/CD community will and have made, there won't ever be enough - The buffer against intolerance needs to be as big as possible because there will always be Matthew Shephard - style incidents out there. Look at black rights - they have so many victories they've almost got equality - but there will always be the KKK terrorizing as much as they can.

Lets not get hung up on the legal/constitutional arguments here - we'll just end up in circles (which always happens when an argument is taken this way). More importantly, aren't we a free and liberal society? Be thankful that your Vegas wedding isn't so sanctified and pure - otherwise you wouldn't be able to get a divorce so easily and would be stuck living in probably the dumbest compulsive decision of your life! Also, if get away from this legalspeak altogether, we'd see our country for what it is. For example: Technically, we are a democracy. In the most simple and vague terms, we vote our leaders into office. On the other hand, if what we have is the way democracy is supposed to be, the ancient Greeks would totally deny they had anything to do with the concept! The rest of the world knows it, and jokes about it. We are anything but democratic. It's amazing how much deceit you can hide in a web of semantic and legal loopholes....anyone read 1984?

[Felicity]

You are so right about things like the Vegas drive thru's and other things you your post. Some things should be totally free for people to do as they please. However, again, I believe marriage should have never been taken over by government rules. Funny, I'm not even that religeous.

When we try to put intolerance in it's place, remember that fighting back by conventional means will not completely solve the problems. More sensible people who are intolerant need to be exposed for the ignorance they have. Make them think. There are several ways of wording things to expose ignorance without name calling. When it comes to the more radical, like those who practice 'Jihad'... They simply need to be exterminated.

Ever think what a muslum who believes in Jihad would to to a CD community?

Talk about religeous intolerance....

[MistyCD]

As an outsourced American, who saw his job disappear to India 2 months after dubya took office, I have not been able to find another job in Info Tech. Don't believe the stories of the govt creating record number of jobs, it's BS. Look at the figures, over 2 million jobs were lost with dubya in office during his first 3 years. Maybe your job is next!!!!!
How many of you lost your health care, if you are like me, with a minimum wage job and having to pay neary $2000 a month for it. Yes I said $2000 a month for basic health care!!!! Did you also know that there are over 50 million Americans without any health care!!!! But dubya wants to give free health care to the Iraqis!!!!!

Suppose dubya decides to run for a 3rd term or even a 4th.... don't belive it, Roosevelt did.

As for all those hoping to step out and go to a movie, maybe you should go and see Fahrenheit 911.



I will be voting for John Kerry. My wife who is a republican also is disgusted with dubya and is rooting for kerry as well.

[Chandra Marie]

Suppose dubya decides to run for a 3rd term or even a 4th.... don't belive it, Roosevelt did.
Last time I checked There was a two term limit (Thank God or Clinton would still be screwing things up).

[genevieve_ohara]

We all know that neither candidate gives a damn about us and our needs. If there were a list of 50000 priorities...the TG/CD community would rank about 49999.

That's why we need each other. Can't rely on poll-*****s for anything.

[Amelie]

We all know that neither candidate gives a damn about us and our needs. If there were a list of 50000 priorities...the TG/CD community would rank about 49999.

That's why we need each other. Can't rely on poll-*****s for anything.

Exactly!! Well said!!! I totaly agree Genevieve.

Love Amelie

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Die hard democrat with a socialist bent! Couldn't change me if you started feeding us to the lions. I will push my liberal agenda til the day I die and not one moment less!! This country's head is full of bullshit and hate. I want that changed.

*starts pouring a cement foundation for her soapbox*

*damn! broke a nail!*

hugs
kew

[Alayna]

When it comes to the more radical, like those who practice 'Jihad'... They simply need to be exterminated.

Ever think what a muslum who believes in Jihad would to to a CD community?

Talk about religeous intolerance....
!!!!!???? Since when is the need to "exterminate" an entire group for their beliefs considered tolerant? Last I heard, it was called genocide! "Jihad" doesn't mean what I think you think it means. Simply put, it means a holy struggle. Most Muslims are peaceful, and while their social society isn't as liberal as a western-style democracy, they have other benefits that we wouldn't even consider. For example, have you noticed how deeply spiritual they are? I'm talking real religious experience - not some fake yahoo at a modern Christian church waving his hand in the air to some BS church band with an electric guitar. This is because their whole society is saturated with religion - political, government, social, everything. We chose separation of church and state, and ended up on a different path. Neither path is right or wrong, but works for each of its people. There are no religions more alike than Islam and Christianity - If you want to understand Muslims, try and understand Christians. They're more alike than you can believe.

>>BTW, as for different people, different paths: its that exact reason why we shouldn't poke our nose into other peoples' business!!!! Democracy (at least U.S. democracy) in the Middle East??!!! The concept is totally foreign to them and it's not our place to push our beliefs on them, especially when they don't want us to... THAT'S CALLED FASCISM! Their society has been messed up enough by western involvment since Britain and France started bribing Ottoman leaders in WW1 - stop screwing with these people and maybe they won't hate us so much! >>

The Jihad that extremist terrorists practice is not even close to the norm, just as Christian abortion clinic bombers are not the norm for that religion. Everything has its moderates and its extremists - be careful what you watch/read/listen to in the news (especially American news) because it all has an agenda.

I'm sorry you've been one more of the millions of people to suffer from Bush's actions, sandal lover... Even free healthcare in Iraq means something different to us than it does to Bush unfortunately. I'd be careful about Michael Moore, though. On the one hand, he is the only popular leftist view that Americans have to combat the right, so his (somewhat) extremist views at least balance out the conservative and religious extremism going on in America right now. But, he has a tendancy to contradict himself, and show only one side of the story, which I think hurts his arguments. Don't get me wrong though, I love the guy:D .

Also, Chandra: what exactly did Clinton screw up? By the time his term was up, he balanced the budget (albeit in a time of huge economic prosperity), developed healthcare by leaps and bounds with his wife, and made more ground in the Israeli/palestinian conflict than anyone since Carter with the Oslo II accord. Oh yeah, and he got a blow-job from someone other than his wife - I guess he's a morally bankrupt piece of shit.
I'm tired of people bashing Clinton for this whole Monica lewinsky thing. Yes, he did an immoral act. Yes, he lied about it and got caught. Yes, he made himself look like a fool. But since when is all of that any of our business!!?? His political antics are important, not his home life. What if Kennedy were caught in the open like Clinton? By these standards he would be the worst president we've ever had!!! I'm not saying Clinton was a good president, but he certainly wasn't bad.

For the last 20-30 years, I think a president can't be measured by how good he is, but by how much damage he causes. I hate to say it, but that's the state of politics in the U.S. (why? we don't vote!!! a country's leaders reflect it's public!). By that measure, Clinton was okay (not great), but by that standard Bush is the worst president this country has ever seen.

[Olesha]

Girls
I'm English and don't have a vote. I am staggered, however, by those of you who seem intent of voting for Bush. He opposes something as innoxuous as gay marriages, which harm no one other than religious fanatics. How do you think he feels about CDs? He may be consistent, but that is a sign of his intolerance. I know little about Kerry who could also be as intolerant, but for the fact he is not opposed to abortion which is a step in the right direction I believe. PLease Please Please don't re-elect him. We have all of humanity to think of.
Olesha
PS. At least Kerry speaks reasonable ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Felicity]

Wow.. I that's not quite what i meant. Why do people choose to read meaning into words and statements that are not there?

When I said those who practice Jihad, I meant those who are doing the terrorism. Those who are killing inncoent children. People like the once creating genocide in Sudan, People like those who killed the children in.. oh how is it spelled, a former soviet country.

I'm talking about the suicide bombers and other terrorists. They are on a "Holy War" and death is the only way to stop them. Jihad means Holy War...

[Felicity]

I too last a good gob in 2001. I don't blame Bush for it. Bush actually has lottle control over the economy. Look in the constitution what hois powers consist of. If you want to hold someone responsible for the economy, go the the lawmakers. Your elected representatives and senators who have no term limits.

As for Farenheit 911, Michael Moore puts facts together in ways to change the truth. Ever see the ending credits on Bowling for Colombine? He calls his company "Propaganda Productions" or something like that. I'll bet he's laughing to the bank how he is scamming people.

Don't vote for Kerry, please. If anyone will change the war on terror to another Viet Nam, he will.

[NewShy21NJmtf]

Ok, I don't want to sound like a cheerleader here, but I will. I had many things to add to this thread about why I'm not voting Bush, why I had no problem with Clinton, and to the discussion on Islam, but Ally hit everything I wanted to say right on the head. It would be a waste of time for me to re-write her posts. The only thing that I will add is one of the reasons, other than the fact that he's not Bush, that I will be voting Kerry this November. I am studying engineering, and I have always been very interested in technology, energy, and the environment (hence my chosen profession). Kerry is proposing very reasonable and innovative initiatives in the advancement of technology and renewable energy. I can't say I believe he'll keep his promises, but I can say he has a much better chance of being where I would like our president to be on this issue than an oil tycoon from Texas. This issue seems to pale in comparison to national security, Iraq, and gay rights, but those of you worried about the economy, education or healthcare should be extremely concerned with electing a president who will advance the growth of technology in this country.

Stephanie

[Bernadina]

This hasn't a lot to do with cross dressing, except for "girls" already in the military, but do all the Bush supporters know about this little gem.


*********************
Subject: Mandatory Draft for June, '05

Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26)
starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone
should know about. This literally effects everyone
since we all have or know children that will have to
go if this bill passes. There is pending legislation
in the house and senate (companion bills: S89 and HR
163) which will time the program's initiation so the
draft can begin as early as spring, 2005, just after
the 2004 presidential election. The administration is
quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while
the public's attention is on the elections, so our
action on this is needed immediately. Details and
links follow.

This plan, among other things, eliminates higher
education as a shelter and includes women in the
draft. Also, crossing into Canada has already been
made very difficult.

Actions:

Please send this on to all the parents and teachers
you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents,
godparents. . . And let your children know - - it's
their future, and they can be a powerful voice for
change!

This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in
detail at this


website: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Just enter in "HR 163" and click search and will
bring up the bill for you to read. It is less than two
pages long.

If this bill passes, it will include all men and ALL
WOMEN from ages 18 - 26 in a draft for military
action. In addition, college will no longer be an
option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing
an agreement with the Canada which will no longer
permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft to stay
within it's borders. This bill also includes the
extension of military service for all those that are
currently active. If you go to the select service web
site and read their 2004 FYI Goals you will see that
the reasoning for this is to increase the size of the
military in case of terrorism. This is a critical
piece of legislation, this will effect our
undergraduates, our children and our grandchildren.

Please take the time to write your congressman and
let them know how you feel about this legislation.

www.house.gov

www.senate.gov

Please also write to your representatives and ask
them why they aren't telling their constituents about
these bills and write to newspapers and other media
outlets to ask them why they're not covering this
important story.

The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004
selective service system budget to prepare for a
military draft that could start as early as June 15,
2005. Selective service must report to Bush on March
31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for
decades, is ready for activation.

Please see www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view
the Selective Service System annual performance plan,
fiscal year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to
fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070
appeals board slots nationwide.

Though this is an unpopular election year topic,
military experts and influential members of congress
are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a
"long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan (and
permanent state of war on terrorism) proves accurate,
the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.


www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default
.asp entitled the Universal National service Act of
2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring
that all young persons (age 18-26) in the United
States, including women, perform a period of military
service or a period of civilian service in furtherance
of the national defense and homeland security, and for
other purposes." These active bills currently sit in
the committee on armed services. Dodging the draft
will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam
era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December,
2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border
declaration," which could be used to keep would-be
draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of
foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland
Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves
a 30 point plan which implements, among other things,
a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and
departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the
draft more equitable along gender and class lines also
eliminates higher education as a shelter.

Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service
until the end of their current semester. Seniors would
have until the end of the academic year.

What to do:

Tell your friends, Contact your legislators and ask
them to oppose these bills.

Alternate access site - contact info for your elected
reps:

http://www.firstgov.org

[Felicity]

Bush41/Clinton/Bush43/Skerry. My other post about Jihad threaded wrong and should hace been here unless this threads wrong too.

I figured I had to say this too. I can see why people blame Bush for the economy, but it is wrong to blame the sitting president for actions beyond his control. The economic indicators already changed directions in late 1998. Things like the the Y2K scare kept it alive for several months after 2000 came and went.

We have a big problem with drade deficits. That's not any one presidents fault. The whole government machine seems to keep it going.

During Bush(41's) presidency, the cold war ended due to pressure from Regans policies. SAC (Stratigic Air Command) and several other military units were then slated to go away. The Military is one of the few places a sitting president has any power to use. The Bush administration started a 5 year military reduction. I was part of it. I was given nearly $30k to get out, sort of like an early retirement. Bush was never given credid for reducing the military that extended to Clinton's term. Clinton stole the credid.

Clinton made a mistake that someday may lead to a nuclear disaster. He let Jimmy Carter negotiate with North Korea. Nuclear reactor designs were given that breed enriched nuclear material. This is why we have nukes in N. Korea today. Thanx allot Clintoon...

Clinton never had any budget surplus. These are all accounting tricks. The last budget surplus we had was 1969 when Nixon was in office. Don't believe me, research the annual national debt figures. If we had a surplus, the debt would have gone down.

Why do people think that people who oppose Clinton do so because of the sex scandles. That is just a highly publicised thing and has no merit for his job. It is funny to laugh and make fun of the guy over, but has nothing to do with why many people didlike him.

Clinton actually reduced the forces also, by an extra two units. A bad move since the military was already being cut. Where he really went wrong was in the CIA cuts. The intelligence community now says it needs at least 5 years to rebuild and train to sufficent levels. Maybe we wouldn't have had 911 if Clinton didn't slash the CIA and other intellegences....

Bush 43 is a liberal republicans... at least too liberal for me. However, I do not find fault in his actions toward the war on terrorism. Again, look at the powers granted to a president. The military is the primary one. I believe he has an administration that handles things very well for him. The only guy I don't like in his cabinet is his economic advisor. At least the policies hace to start in congress.

The Bush/Kerry military thing.

Bush joined the Nation Guard in 1968 if I remember right. He has almost 400 hours flying time in a jet. After 3-4 years of probably full time guard duty, he moved to another city and was supporting political a campaign. The Kerry camp would have you belive this is the only time Bush was in the NG. The new unit Bush was near didn't have the jets he was qualified on. That is why his hours diminished, why he didn't need an annual medical, and all other issues the democrats try to accuse Bush of. At anytime, if Bush was needed, he still could have been called for active duty. I had these facts somewhere with hours, dates, etc, but not sure where they are. But I have seen them.

Kerry only severd 4 months and some days. His 3 purple hearts are 'Bandaide purple hearts' and he even lied to get one of the other medals. Read here for the facts: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf .

Kerry then went on to lie about the events in Viet Nam. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Kerry_1971_Testimony.pdf Even our enemy of the time tell us that it helped them. Today, Kerry is running on his war record. Why doesn't he run on his last 20+ years in congess? Why doesn't he allow the full release of his records? Bush did.

When it comes to credit/blame for a president... make sure it is right. Most the things we attribute credit or blame for a president is in the hands of congress, not the president.

Elect your congress(wo)man or senator by issues that effect you, but elect the president for national security and foreign relations.

[Felicity]

You said:


Iam studying engineering, and I have always been very interested in technology, energy, and the environment (hence my chosen profession). Kerry is proposing very reasonable and innovative initiatives in the advancement of technology and renewable energy. I can't say I believe he'll keep his promises, but I can say he has a much better chance of being where I would like our president to be on this issue than an oil tycoon from Texas.

What most people don't realize is as soon as action is being taken in congress that is positive, Kerry says he will propose it. I'll bet if you researched Bills in congress, this is already in the works.

Kerry also proposed increasing military special units... after bush is maing it happen in congress.

This is a political game. Nothing lost if Kerry loses, but if we wins the election, he will take credit for Bush's efforts. I hope Bush brings these out in the debate.

By the way, did you know Bush uses things like solar an wind power on his ranch?

[Elinor]

I would not vote for Bush. Clinton was a fool but I like him. JFK was perhaps even worse than Clinton. {Thought with his penis}

Sadam was evil but had nothing to do with 7/11.

Wrong to go to war now wrong to leave till things are more peacefull.

Bush has made things worse, even the middle east had simpathy with the USA Bush has throw it all away.

Why the hell people get into such a fuss over who you leave money/stuff to I never understand. I could not give a toss if someone was married or not to same or diferent gender.

The IRA were evil, how many people in the USA gave money to norad which went to buy the means to kill people? Are all americans then evil?

Don't throw stones sisters.

Nothing more to add!

[Julie]

There isn't a single political party that I support everything about them. And there isn't a president I solely blame or credit for anything that happens under their administration.

Bush was handed 9/11, he didn't create it, eight years of doing nothing did. During Clinton's administration there were no less than 12 unanswered attacks on the United States. Clinton loathed the military. He would use high ranking officials as caddys for him and his buddies. He humiliated them intentionally. As Commander in Chief he should have been leading rather than abusing them.

For those who think that Clinton's escapades should be ignored here's the impact from his "that isn't sex" excuse. The nurse at my wife's OB/GY office told her there was an epidemic of oral herpes at a local high school. This nurse counseled and treated many of the girls there. When she asked why they were engaging in oral sex they each answered the same, "It isn't sex". If you think the President's private life doesn't matter, try being one of the parents who has to argue with their kids about what is morally acceptable. When they come back with "The President says..." you quickly find out it does matter. At least Kennedy kept his forays out of the public eye.

While I won't say invading Iraq was the right thing to do, now that is has been done I'm happy for the Iraqi people. I see and hear stories of the Iraqi people happily enjoying freedom some never knew. I don't pay any attention to the news because they're all about selling their story. What I do listen to is the soldiers and the family of Iraqis who say things you don't hear in the media. Stories like watching the women of Iraq, backs bent from years of heavy lifting, walking on the street for the first time unburdened by heavy loads, women going to school for the first time, Iraqis telling the horror stories of Saddam and how thankful they are the US freed them.

What many people don't know is the President, be it Bush or Clinton or anyone else, does not get all the information they need to make the right choice. They are surrounded by people who sometimes are afraid to tell everything fearing for their job. It's a sad fact and it leaves our President in a bad light sometimes. It seems this is something that will never change.

Another fact many don't know is it takes about three years for an action by a president to have a full effect. The economy that started it's downward spiral in Sept of 2000 would have put Gore in the same position as Bush. Neither should be blamed.

While Clinton was in office we had the highest non-war tax rates this country has ever seen. Anyone could have balanced the budget with that. And since we were enjoying high employment, he saw fit to take even more out of our pockets. Every intelligent economist will tell you lower taxes helps the economy because the money left in the hands of US citizens ends up back on the street creating more jobs. By overtaxing us Clinton helped put us in a three year recession.

Clinton was a Democrat. Democrats are supposed to support union labor. Union labor certainly supports them, in a big way. So when NAFTA was on the table being discussed the labor unions fought staunchly against it. It will send jobs overseas and hurt the working American, they said. Well what happened? Clinton not only signed the bill he supported it and helped it's passage. Now Bush is being blamed for jobs going overseas.


Read "Dereliction of Duty". It was written by the guy who carried the "atomic football", that's the name for the briefcase that is used to authorize launching of nuclear weapons. The man carrying that has to be within arms reach of the president at all times. Read how Clinton lost the launch codes! They could have fallen into enemy hands and we would have been toast. Read how a commander overseas was desperately trying to get authorization to launch an attach that would have captured Bin Laden but Clinton was too busy hob-nobbing with golf pros to be bothered. Read how our soldiers went to a bloody death when he told them to go into battle even though the military commanders said it was suicide. Read the book, it's frightening what this man did.

There's a lot more to say but when I compare Bush and Clinton it's a no brainer. The worst president this country ever had was Bill Clinton, bar none.

[Felicity]

Don't worry about HR 163, it will never see the light of day. It is a democrat trick so they can say things like "unnamed sources say a bill is proposed in congress for implementing the draft." I love it, this is backfiring on them.

Conservative circles have known and been laughing about this stupid attempt for months. Look a the names on the bill:

Mr. RANGEL Democrat 15th district New York
Mr. MCDERMOTT Democrat 7th district Washington
Mr. CONYERS Democrat 14th district Mishigan
Mr. LEWIS Democrat 5th district Georgia
Mr. STARK Democrat 13th district California
Mr. ABERCROMBIE Democrat 1st district Hawaii

Everyone in the Bush administration will tell you they do not want a draft. Almost everyone who joined the military and stay in will tell you they don't want to work with people forced to be there. Military recruters get more applications than they can take. If we need more troops, the military will lower the standards before implementing the draft. Do you have any idea how many applicants they turn down? I don't have numbers but I hear its rather large.

About the link you posted on the Selective Service. that doesn't mean the draft will occur either. Don't we still have a requirement for all males to register for the draft at the age of 18? It is typical for government to say they want 100% manning on allocated poitions in a fiscal plan. It is typical for them to always ask for more.

Your link to the Home School Legal Defense article no longer exists. Perhaps they had serious errors in it and removed it?

[Felicity]

I cannot duspute a thing you said

except that maybe Carter was worse than Clinton...

Both, very likable guys. But, I want someone with balls to be president. Someone who tackles a problems and stays on course like Bush does. The 'gallop poll' wind would blow Kerry all over the place.

There are several things I dislike about Bush's policies, however, it will be a mistake not to re-elect him.

[Deborah757]

In reply to those who think that it was wrong to go to war because Sadam had nothing to do with 9-11.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not two wars. They are two campaigns in the same war. The objective of the war is to eliminate the Islamic Jihadists' base of support. There are many countries in the Middle East that support the Jihadists. Primary among them are Syria and Iran. Quite apart from destroying Sadam (who did support Islamic terrorism) and his WMD capability (proven to be based upon bad intelligence) our presence in Iraq puts us into a strategic position to invade Syria and Iran if they do not cease their Jihadist support.

If this is the case why didn't we just invade Iran or Syria first and leave Sadam alone? Either of those two cases would have been too hard. Direct invasion of Iran would be very costly due to their large fundamentalist army and the nature of their mountainous terrain. We had no place to stage our forces for an invasion into Syria except Israel. For obvious reasons this would have been a bad idea. Invasion and defeat of Iraq was the obvious course of action left.

This Iraqi campaign is working. We have eliminated Iraq's support to terrorism. Syria is slowly coming around and according to news this week is trying desperately to send Iraqi scientists out of their country into Iran. Even Libya has renounced its nuclear program.

We are winning in Iraq. We are daily eliminating large numbers of Jihadists that would otherwise be free to wreak their havoc elsewhere. We are slowly (not as quickly as we would like) establishing a democracy there that will benefit the Iraqi people and lead to increased stability in the region. And we are establishing ourselves in the heart of the hornets’ nest where we can continue our influence as long as is necessary to defeat the Jihadists.

Even the Iranian situation is not as bleak as it first appears. Just this week there was a huge pro-democracy demonstration in the country. In the best case the people of Iran will overthrow their Islamic government and establish something more suitable for the modern world. In the worst case we control both Iraq and Afghanistan and can militarily intervene on our terms. They attacked us first. Just as in WW2, we will end this on our terms.

Social positions of the two parties aside, the overriding concern at this time is winning this war. I believe Bush has a clear vision and understands the “big picture”. Kerry does not. No, I am not a "knee jerk" conservative. I strongly supported Clinton's intervention in Kosovo after seeing first hand what was happening there.

Deborah

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Olesha what does " innoxuous" mean? I have a good vocab but this one elludes me.

And Julie M. I love ya grrly but yer breaking my heart. Wow, way more conservatives here than me thought.

*pulls her granny skirt on, since the conservatives have banned the mini*
*sits in the corner*

hugs
kew

[Deborah757]

Wow, way more conservatives here than me thought.

*pulls her granny skirt on, since the conservatives have banned the mini*
*sits in the corner*

hugs
kew

Not all of us have banned the mini. :) It looks good on a lot of girls, although unfortunately not on me. :mad:

We can disagree politically and still be friends.

Deborah

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Not all of us have banned the mini. :) It looks good on a lot of girls, although unfortunately not on me. :mad:

We can disagree politically and still be friends.

Deborah

Oh hugs to all! My skirt and petticoat are in bunches but I'm a tough ole broad who embraces other's regardless of their political or religious persuasions. Though I'm a bit sad but more suprised when I run into conservative CD's/TG's. It's the same reaction I feel when I run into fundementalist, conservative christian social workers. The question that goes off in me head is "why" and "YOU?"

*reaches up under her long granny skirt to unbundle her petticoat*

hugs
kew

[LaurenAnne]

I find arguing politics online is a futile exercise. As such, I will reserve my opinions on the matter other than to say that if Bush wins, I will be moving to France. That being said, I have respect for anyone willing to express a *well informed* opinion, regardless if I agree w/ it or not.

I don't know if this has been addressed, but I recall reading a rather lengthy article concerning the demographics of U.S. hetero male crossdressers. If I'm remembering correctly, it described an overwhelming majority of them as identifying themselves as "conservative" or "republican". While I have some personal theories as to why this might be so, I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you think, assuming this information is sound.

[Bernadina]

In reply to those who think that it was wrong to go to war because Sadam had nothing to do with 9-11.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not two wars. They are two campaigns in the same war. The objective of the war is to eliminate the Islamic Jihadists' base of support. There are many countries in the Middle East that support the Jihadists. Primary among them are Syria and Iran. Quite apart from destroying Sadam (who did support Islamic terrorism) and his WMD capability (proven to be based upon bad intelligence) our presence in Iraq puts us into a strategic position to invade Syria and Iran if they do not cease their Jihadist support.

snip, snip...

Deborah
I wonder how many have heard the saying, "Follow the money, follow the money".

I wonder why Bush waited to invade Iraq until after Sadam stopped supporting the US $ and insisted on Euro's for Iraq's Oil?

Might also explain why Europe didn't support the invasion.

And while we are at it, try to think about who or what group might stand to make significant financial gains from the 9/11 incidents? And who might have been the real instigators?

"Follow the money, follow the money..."

[Deborah757]

Might also explain why Europe didn't support the invasion.

That is only true if you exclude Great Britain, Italy, Spain (until recently), Poland, and other Eastern European countries from Europe.

Deborah

[AnnaMaria]

I have to say that I have read good arguments for both sides, But the issue for me is wheather or not the government should be involved with marriage in the first place. And I say that they should stay out of the religious realm all together. As for the issue of gays and lesbians, well I have to say that I had a long discussion with my wife and mother over the weekend about it and I have come to the decission that what other people do is not my concern.
I have spent a lot of time in the bible while I was growing up and I keep coming back to the same reference in the New Testiment that has Jesus saying that the only laws that we are suppose to abide by are "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me". So who are we to say that what someone else feels is wrong? Of sourse if everyone loved everyone else then we would have no reason for politicians because there would be no problems between nations. And that would never do because there is to much money at stake for that to be allowed.
So the big question is: How should that transgender community react to what has become one of the biggest issues since the war started. If we don't support the GLB community then they will not support us. And things will simply get worse for everyone. And if we do then we will be looked down upon by the rest of society because we must be gay as well and that is why we want to dress as the opposite sex.
No matter what we do we are going to be outcast by someone. And as I see it if we do nothing then we are simply perpetuating the whole idea that everyone should take care of themselves and to hell with the rest of the world. Which is a big part of the problem in todays society in the first place.

[Bernadina]

That is only true if you exclude Great Britain, Italy, Spain (until recently), Poland, and other Eastern European countries from Europe.

Deborah
Good point. Also interesting to note that Great Britain, who was the major US partner in the Iraq campaign, is not a Euro currency country. Nor is Poland or most of the Eastern European countries.

[Deborah757]

Good point. Also interesting to note that Great Britain, who was the major US partner in the Iraq campaign, is not a Euro currency country. Nor is Poland or most of the Eastern European countries.

Ok, I don't have a response for this. I will agree though that France had a good reason for not supporting us since they were selling weapons to Iraq until as late as three months before we invaded.


And while we are at it, try to think about who or what group might stand to make significant financial gains from the 9/11 incidents? And who might have been the real instigators?

I'm not really sure what this implies but i have seen no credible evidence, nor do I believe, that 9/11 was conducted by any other than the Jihadists who admitted to it.


. . .

I agree with everything you said. Too bad there is not one candidate with all the things I believe. I have heard it said that the only person you will agree with on everything is yourself. :)


I'm remembering correctly, it described an overwhelming majority of them as identifying themselves as "conservative" or "republican". While I have some personal theories as to why this might be so, I'm interested in hearing what the rest of you think, assuming this information is sound.

Although I have never read that it is an interesting observation if true. Probably it would be a good subject for someones dissertation. I can't speak for anyone else because I don't know anyone like me (TS/CD) "in real life". I suppose I am conservative because I was raised that way and spent 24 years in the Army. Also, I have thought about modern conservative and liberal stances and outside of many GBLT issues I disagree with nearly everything the liberal wing of the democratic party stands for.

You are right though that arguing politics (or any other strong belief) online is a futile exercise. Same when face to face although I enjoy it as long as it is done in a respectful manner. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all the answers and may be able to learn something from somebody elses viewpoint.

Deborah

[Felicity]

I Wish I was as good at bringing facts to light as you have done. Well put.

[Deborah757]

If you hang around some of the "gun" forums you pick up all sorts of good arguments for everything. And lest they be accused of being "GBLT" unfriendly they have frequent postings by members of the Pink Pistols, http://www.pinkpistols.com/ , the GBLT gun rights organization. Their motto, "Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed". With few exceptions they are welcomed in the forums.

Deborah

[Julie]

And Julie M. I love ya grrly but yer breaking my heart. Wow, way more conservatives here than me thought.
hugs
kew
Aw Kewt, I didn't mean to break your heart but I did mean to say Bill Clinton was less than what I would call a good president.

But I really don't care how you feel politically, I still think you are the greatest! (picture Jackie Gleason giving a kiss to Alice)

[Alayna]

In the long run, this doesn't mean a whole lot. But can we please not refer to extremist, fundamentalist terrorists as "Jihadists? The following from this website:

http://members.aol.com/koran114/jihad.htm

The word Jihad translated into English does not mean "Holy War" as people in the media ignorantly state repeatedly. In the text of the entire Koran, the word "Holy War" cannot be found. These are concocted words, invented by people who want to deliberately convey a certain image of Islam. Usually the people who use the term "Holy War" are quite ignorant of Islam. The word Jihad in Arabic means "struggle". Jihad as the Koran makes clear, is struggle in the way of God with oneself, and one's possessions.

Islam only allows a war of defense and not an offense. In the case of war, the attack is "only" to be directed against those who are attack you and only to the extent of the initial aggression, not to exceed it. If the enemy kills your civilians even then you are not supposed to kill their civilians. Only those who attack you are to be attacked.

"Fight in the way of God against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Indeed God does not love transgressors (Koran 2:192-193)."
If the people you are fighting ask for peace, the Koran states that Muslims have an obligation to accept the peace and fight no more:

"..So if they hold aloof from you and wage not war against you and offer you peace. God allows you no way against them (KORAN 4:90)."

The Koran is very lenient even towards prisoners of war (i.e those who are fighting against you and get captured):

"And if any of the idolaters seeks of you protection, grant him (her) protection till he
hears the words of God, then convey him to his place of security. That is because they are a folk who know not..(KORAN 9:6-8)."

Sometimes, warfare is a necessity for the cause of justice and to remove oppression and as such it is very good and noble:

"Warfae is ordained for you though it is hateful for you. Yet it may happen that you will hate a thing even though it is good for you and love a thing that is bad for you. God knows, you do not know (KORAN 2:216)."

[samanthajay]

im like this there are some conservitives that has a few libreil veiws. and vicevesa. im a republican and a conservitive. is bush the problem or is it people that work for him. as for kerry. i see nothing that makes me want to vote for him. nor do i want to see bush make a few more mistakes. yes the gay weddings is a big subject i think. i hang out with gay and bi people all the time. as for iraq i think its great that sadam is out of power but i think we did it to soon. we should have made sure afganistan was a little more taken care of first. as for clinton he left a bad taste in my mouth. most of my freinds say clinton was great but i see no moral support for kids while he was there. he made it ok to lie(although alot of polititons do it) he made it ok to say that "i didn't inhale". he made it ok to cheat on your wife and saying oral pleasier from another woman was not sex. arn't we supposed to tell are kids its bad to lie, its bad to do drugs period, you shouldn't cheat on the one your supposed to be in love with, and blow jobs is a type of sex. i didn't need sex when i was a teen ager. i still don't know who to vote for but in two mounths one of the two better say somthing just and then do it. and thats my stand. jesse vantura 4 pres 2008 :D

[Alayna]

One thing I must agree with is that the current economic problems aren't Bush's fault - The tech bubble and ordinary investors are. Through the 90's the economy exploded with prosperity which was mainly measured by the stock market's performance. I think at one time the DOW broke 10,000 and the Nasdaq 4,000. This was mostly from companies like Yahoo, that had a lot of revenue from advertising, but no product or material assets. So when the natural business cycle took over and the economy went into its regular decline mode, these companies were exposed for what they were really worth, and crashed. Reacting to this, regular Joe investors who put a ton of money into these now devalued stocks panicked and caused the decline to get really bad and almost ground the economy to a halt. Lesson to be learned? Don't put so much faith in the stock market.

As for the draft, I think it's only fair that women be included in the draft. I believe in equality and all that goes with it. Now I don't believe that college students should be included. It's hard to leave school only to come back a year, 2, 3 later. I've done it, and you lose quite a bit of ground that you gained. Many students might not even come back. Now on the other hand it will probably never come to that because we already have a vast military (largest in the world), and it's almost all volunteer right now. However, this is how our freedoms are being erased. Most of the laws passed recently don't affect us personally, unless we are doing something illegal that falls under their scope. But that doesn't mean that laws designed to limit our personal liberties should be taken lightly - remember the frog and the boiling pot of water?

One thing I've noticed about many of the pro Bush, pro military, and pro low-taxes arguments is that they fail to realize (or mention) that these policies are nothing more than reactions and temporary fixes. They don't add to world progress or human civilization, but instead just keep what are simply bad decisions afloat:
Julie, I agree that Clinton's high tax policies hurt our economy (although we were nearing recession time anyway) and took money out of our pockets. But lets remember that comparatively the U.S. has the lowest taxes of any modern nation in the world. What does that mean? We have more money in our pockets, but we also have no social welfare. We can all here afford to pay doctor bills and visit the dentist, but we can also afford to buy computers and cars and such - were middle to upper class. What about the majority of people in this country that can barely eat, let alone take care of their cavities and doctor check-ups? They can't - they don't have access to healthcare that in a society as modern as ours should be a basic right. And education? We're getting dumber by the day as a country because we don't fund public schools. I know I'm hinting at a socialist society, but that is where I believe we need to go. Sure 50% taxes would take a lot of spending cash away in the short-run, but in the long run we won't have to pay copays, insurance premiums, etc. And best of all, everyone benefits - not just the middle class to ultra wealthy.

Also, Clinton was definitely an airhead, not as much as Bush, but definitely an airhead. The main difference, at least for me, lies in the fact that he actively worked on ending problems in this country, and actively worked on reducing world conflict. Bush has done nothing but drag our economy through the mud with reckless spending and drag the world through the blood by taking a militarist stance on all world conflicts. This isn't such a huge issue if we were just another country, but we're not. Simply put we are the most powerful country in the world and we are acting selfishly and are not willing to use our power to better the world....I see no American Union...do you?

Dina - Hell yeah, follow the money.

Felicity and Deborah - We have always had leaders with balls and we always have to end things on our own terms - that's precisely the problem. Now we have no choice but to keep going down that road, or revolutionize our values and ideals as a State. We've spent the last 60 years contributing to the Middle East unrest by funding Israel's military (which happens to the the 3rd largest in the world) and either intervening militarily when the M.E. has made it clear they don't want us to, or backing out of our promises and duties. The Kurds know all too well how seriously they can take a promise from the U.S. It's our fault that Saddam gassed Halabja and it's our fault that he continued to terrorize Kurds despite the no-fly zone. Wanna know how he got around that? The no-fly zone purposely didn't include rotor-equipped aircraft - so he just took choppers and gunned them down as they ran.
As for Afghanistan, the place is a mess. We have no interest in rebuilding what we destroyed. We have a long and sad history of blowing up countries we don't like, and then making the impoverished people who have no experience in running a government, let alone building one from scratch, to fend for themselves. Either that or we let another country like Germany or U.N. forces clean up our mess, all the while making it seem like they agree with our actions because they're "helping" with the nation-building. The only reason we've stayed in Iraq is because the world's eye is fixed on us, and we are wholly dependent on foreign oil.

I know many of my arguments are moralist, I'm a moralist by nature. But the actions of the U.S. since the start of the Cold War have done little to improve the world. You could say we ended Communism which broke up the U.S.S.R, but I argue that Capitalism (at least how we practice it) is just as bad. Good idea, poor execution. Even More aggravating is that since that time, everything we have done as a country has been selfish. I know that most actions are selfish in some way or another, but we would rather exploit someone rather than help them because we get more benefit by hurting than helping...Hey, it's just business. I know some of my arguments are impractical at best - socialism cannot work in the U.S. - but if we're not going to better ourselves as individuals, as a nation and as a species what the hell are we doing here then? Why bother doing anything at all? What is the point of even getting out of bed in the morning?

*steps off soapbox*

[BiOpi]

I support the ban. I hope those already reading continues to hear my viewpoint.

There is already a law (the Defense of Marriage Act) on the federal level. There is no need for a constitutional amendment. Also, the Constitution was written to defend rights. Not to subtract them.

[BiOpi]

Girls
I'm English and don't have a vote. I am staggered, however, by those of you who seem intent of voting for Bush. He opposes something as innoxuous as gay marriages, which harm no one other than religious fanatics. How do you think he feels about CDs? He may be consistent, but that is a sign of his intolerance. I know little about Kerry who could also be as intolerant, but for the fact he is not opposed to abortion which is a step in the right direction I believe. PLease Please Please don't re-elect him. We have all of humanity to think of.
Olesha
PS. At least Kerry speaks reasonable ENGLISH!

Exactly. With him opposing gay marriage because it "threatens marriage" and is "condemned by major religions" (which is not true as he never considered Buddhism apparently); he would have no compunctions about treading on the rights of other groups.

[BiOpi]

Olesha what does " innoxuous" mean? I have a good vocab but this one elludes me.
kew

I think that was meant to be 'innocuous'.

[Felicity]

Thank you very much for that posting and site. I stand corrected on my use of Jihad...

I welcome any new knowledge that is correct to better understand this world we live in. I did have the entire english traslation of the Koran befor I had a hard drive failure. I also lost precious information to back up claims I make here and now rely mostly on my memory, which if flawed at times.

Thanks again for the correction. As for the defense part, I have read some of those passages before. The Koran only advocates killing in defense.

[Felicity]

As I have said before, I am mostly conservative. The closest affiliation I am is Libertarian. However, I watched their national convention and their political machine turned my stomach.

I would guess that most people in this forum fit closest to the Liberterian party like myself. I like to listen to Neil Boortz and Tony Snow on the radio:

http://boortz.com/

http://www.foxnews.com/tonysnow/

Neil is a Libertarian and Tony is a conservative, but very down to earth.

Oh... gotta share an optical illusion with you all from the Niel Boortz site...

[samanthajay]

well if ya stop staring at the chicks ass long enough of course you could see it :D

[Felicity]

I wish it was that simple. The problem is, our court systems are now being used as tools to work around laws. Activist groups, lawyers twisting tested cases, etc. It is possible to convincing judges constitutional rights are beings infringed upon, or prior cases unrelated have merit by how they were ruled. That is why it is needed in the constitution since it is our highest law.

Three or four cities, mine included, have performed many same sex marriages. Allot of good the defensive act did there.

Another concern is that states that wish not recognize same sex marriages. Currently states are bound to recognize marriges issued by other states. This throws out the argument of letting each state decide.

[Deborah757]

But can we please not refer to extremist, fundamentalist terrorists as "Jihadists?

The terrorist call themselves jihadists. Perhaps many of today's muslims believe in the definition of Jihad as you have written. However, there is another view that the muslims themselves define.

"In his book, “ Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography” the Azhar scholar, Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti wrote the following: “The Holy War (Islamic Jihad), as it is known in Islamic Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them. This is the phase in which the meaning of Holy war has taken its final form. Thus the apostle of God said: ' I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in Allah and his messages…..(page 134, 7th edition) ”. "

More is on this subject at http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/SKM/jihad.htm . When muslim scholors write this stuff and the terrorists themselves call themselves Jihadists, I have no problem referring to them with that label.

Deborah

[BiOpi]

Liberal lawyers twisting law? The law is mutable. Hence the reason and purpose of judges in the first place (and the reason for the supreme court). Just say it for what it is, you don't want it to happen and blaming it on "liberal laywers twisting law" is an excuse. If people didn't want it in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue now, would it?

(full response removed)

[DonnaD]

That pic reminds me that I need to get a coat of wax on my boat before I store it for the winter.


Donna.

[samanthajay]

That pic reminds me that I need to get a coat of wax on my boat before I store it for the winter.


Donna.
wax your boat or wax your gg? :D

[DonnaD]

LOL!


No, the boat!


Donna

[Felicity]

Biopi, why edit your response?

When I first read this a few hours ago, I didn't have time to respond, and now it's different, but I remember some of what's removed.

Bio... you said "If people didn't want it in the first place, it wouldn't be an issue now, would it?"

Good question... Apparently they do not know what marriage means. The whole point people like me has is of protecting the meaning of marriage.

Yes, I consider myself closest to a libertarian, but hold no party affiliation. Even any party affiliations doesn't automatically assume everyone believes 100% the same. If so, all democrats would be athiests, support abortions, and want higher taxes, etc. All republicans would want lower taxes, no abortions, and be christians, etc.

You attempted to trap me into a stereotype when saying my support of a same sex marriage ban violates my libertarian views. isn't that being a bit prejudice?

As for the lawyers, they are just hired guns. The better they shoot, the more they get paid. These activist groups can buy some pretty good lawyers and grease politicians hand, like happened in my county. I am disgusted at the whole mafia style process that occured here. The judges... I wonder what they must be thinking or how much they must be getting paid to make some of the decisions they do. Ralph Nader is denied a place on the Oregon Ballot because our Secretary of State didn't want him on, and made unwritten rules that invalidated the process to get Nader on the ballot, then the Oregon Supreme Court agreed! Talk about corruption in law... Corruption like this in the legal system is why we are more determined than ever to get a constitutional amendment defining marriage as only between one man and one woman.

And the labels we use become twisted as well. What some call a ban against same sex marriage to others is a defensive marriage act.

Defensive marriage act... Why do we have marriage. In all of history, in all cultures, marriage is the union between a man and a women, sanctioned by their religeon, and meant to be unbroken to create a stable family unit. A marriage is suppose to be consumated and assumed the consumation will create children. Sometimes, a couple cannot have childern and sometimes they choose not to. Historically, until recent times, a marriage was always a religeous function and always betweem opposite sexes only. The day we allow same sex marriges in society is the day we spit in the faces of the people who hold marriage as dear as it is meant to be.

Another anology besides the square and rectangle that I used earlier.

You have a Corvette, and it is a sportscar. Someone drives besides you in a Escort and wants a sports car too. He insist on calling his car a sports car. You know it isn't, but he insists. You know the world has gone mad when everyone starts calling the escort a sportscar. It's a car but it's not a sportscar. What does that do to the perception of the Corvette? Depends on who you ask, doesn't it. You may think this is a silly example but too many people in the world find it appauling to redefine marriage.

Why do people want same sex marriage? Why must we fight over changing the definition of a word. Fight for somthing that will have little resistance like calling it a civil union with all government recognized rights a marriage has. I will vote for passage of such a measure. I will however fight to keep the meaning of such a sacred word like marriage unchanged.

Back to the lawyers again. I can't help but wonder if they never thought same sex marriages would get as far as it has. They may have just been feeding on the steady income from the interest groups, and may still want the fight to go on for all their working days..

[Amelie]

Felicity, that anology about the sports car is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The correct anology would be- Hetro's are allowed to get drivers licenses and drive, while gays for who they are can not get these same licenses to drive. If anyone is against the Gov't being involved in any marriages, then why haven't we heard from these people before gays wanted to marry, I didn't hear a big out cry against about gov't involvemnent in marriage years ago. This is not a fight over a word, this is a civil rights issue.
I will give reasons. If a gay is arrested, his/her partner must testify against her/him, a married couple the spouse does not have to testify against the spouse. Wills made between two gay patners can be challenge by the families and have been won by the families of the dead gay spouse. Gay partners can not make emergency medical decisions, state laws say family mambers must decide, no matter how long the gay couple have been together. The family, by law can also exclude the gay partner from the hospital, and if he dies the family,by law can have the partner removed and barred from the funeral. If two gay men buy property together and one dies, the family of the deceased can sell the property at a loss, leaving a debt for the remaining partner. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue.
I don't understand why there is a big outcry against gay marriage. Yes Historicaly marriage was for people of opposite sexes, and historicaly freedom was just for the white man, it wasn't till the 60's that blacks gained in civil rights. Marraige is a religuos function, OK What religion? Christianity? Christianity can be thrown in the dust bin where it belongs. Other beliefs have marriage as part of their beliefs, even pagens get married. This is not about religion or a word(marriage) it's about basic rights. I take great offence to some, even to have a thread about, what is thought of gay marriage, you never here people asking gays what we think about the things hetros are allowed to do. I know there are anti-gay idiots out there but I didn't think I would see them here in a CD forum. CDs of all people should know what it is like not to have the freedoms others have. Just look at this forum at all the cowards who are afraid of society, not showing their pictures. These people should not be going against other peoples rights when they feel scared to post a picture, their afraid because they know the bigots like themselves will destroy there life, like they want to destroy gay's lives. I post on other forums, mainly goth forums, and their is no questioning what gays want to do, they all feel it is their right to do what they want. The main difference between this site and the goth sites are they are a bunch of young people who are not afraid to live, while here it is mostly old men with old ideas.
Amelie

[Idress4fun]

Ok Girls,

I agree with everyone's comment. We will not solve this issue today or in our lifetime.

Ladies, WE "all" are entitled to express our thoughts and opinions as Americans.

And, as Americans, we should respect each other with the understanding that we "all" are going to dissagree one way or another. Most importantly, respect each others differences and move on.

Peace and lots of love to all you Ladies, ;)

Anna Maria
PS. Yes, I am a little older (40's), please do not remind me. :mad:
PSS. Did anyone see a picture of a boat?

[Amelie]

Sorry,, but I do not have to respect other ideas when they impede on my freedom. If the country was made up of a majority of fanatical muslum type, would you allow them to trample your freedom. Would you accept there actions as thoughts and opinions. The same thing. if the religous right was to stop CD from exsisting, would you call that their opinions, It is not an opinion when one group can stop another group from having the same rights. Is it just opinion when the KKK spouts hatred and trys to stop others from living. Would it be an opinion if gays tryed to make a law requiering all hatros to get psyciatrc treatment because their behavior is so strange to us. NO, When you try to stop some people from having the same rights as others, then it is not an opinion but an action, And I do not respect that opinion or that person.
Amelie

PS bad spelling I meant hetros

[Julie]

PS. Yes, I am a little older (40's), please do not remind me. :mad:
PSS. Did anyone see a picture of a boat?
Anna Maria,

Well aren't you a sight for sore eyes! Your quote, "Be beautiful and act your age", well you certainly have the beautiful part down pat. As far as acting your age, I have a hard time doing that. How does one act 53 anyway:rolleyes: ?


https://home.comcast.net/~julimarie/images/emoticons/soapbox.gif
I hate politics and dislike what most politicians do. They have turned their job from doing what's good for those they represent into doing whatever it takes to get votes. Very few have the backbone to stand up for their convictions. So for the most part I stay out political discussions because personal interpretation plays such a huge part in these types of discussions (although I have no problem speaking my mind about Clinton).

If I go back to Politics and Dressing what I see is the politicians won't do a damn thing for us unless we amass the numbers that will make them fear being re-elected.

Women's groups have gained a substantial voice by doing this but then they represent more than half the voting population. GBLT folks can't even come close to those numbers but gay groups have made substantial headway by being vocal. That's what we need to do but how can we when we fear discovery? When I see faceless photos of members I ask myself, "If they don't have the courage to present themselves to their peers, how can we ever expect them to help us in a political cause?

I was hesitant to put my picture on the internet. I was hesitant to build a website featuring my femme self. But I felt compelled. I knew I would never experience freedom unless I took some risk. Freedom does not come without a price. But the freedom I have experienced so far has been worth whatever price I have paid.

Forums like this can be instrumental in helping those who fear persecution because they know there's a huge number of us out there and here we can gain strength from the group. But we need to continue building that personal strength. We need to gain confidence and not be ashamed of who we are. We need to stop letting society make us believe there's something wrong with us. We need to KNOW we are decent, kind, productive members of that society and those who look down on us are the ones who need help opening their myopic minds.

We need to educate society about just exactly who and what we are. They have to stop seeing us as drag queens. They have to stop seeing us as perverts. They have to stop thinking we are trying to attract a man when we dress.

They need to know our minds and bodies are in conflict. They need to know this was not a choice. They need to know this can't be "cured". They need to know we are kind loving human beings who simply want freedom of expression without persecution.

None of that can be accomplished when we are too ashamed to come out of the closet. If we are ashamed then how do you expect society to act?

https://home.comcast.net/~julimarie/images/emoticons/rant.gif


Stand tall. Stand Proud. Be a TG!

[Chandra Marie]

I find arguing politics online is a futile exercise. As such, I will reserve my opinions on the matter other than to say that if Bush wins, I will be moving to France.
Why wait, Just like I feel all the other whiners should do, if you can't stand behind your country thru both good and bad, get the hell out. WE DON'T NEED YOU HERE. Just take your fairweather loyalty and go.:mad:

[Amelie]

Julie I agree totally with you. NO politician is any good, that's why I never mentioned them in my post. I just think what gays have done, have also benifited the CDs, yet now when the gays want their rights, some Cds are against this. AS Spock would say where's the logic in that. Why should gays allow hetro CDs into their night clubs when some of them are against gay marriage? They will still allow Cds to come to their clubs because they understand what hate is. It is not an opinion to be against gay marriage, it is a form of hate. I hear a lot of crying on this site of how society is so unfair to CDs, yet when gays want the right to marry, all of a sudden you become this society you complain about.

Julie,,, being old is not a physical thing but a mental state. Like my friend Lorna said growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional.

If man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live- Martin Luther King

Amelie

[KewTnCurvy GG]

Amelie, grrl, I totally support what you are saying here! And though I'm not CD or gay I would die for someone's right to be. I believe passionately in personal freedom. And I'm not being fatalistic or a martyr, I equally believe and am passionate about one's right to live as they see fit. It's the freedom to "LIVE" as one's true/genuine self that makes me feel if someone or thing tried to take it away, I'd be willing to die to defend that right. Make sense grrls?

hugs
kew

[Idress4fun]

Quote: Well aren't you a sight for sore eyes! Your quote, "Be beautiful and act your age", well you certainly have the beautiful part down pat. As far as acting your age, I have a hard time doing that. How does one act 53 anyway?



Julie, When I get to 53, I will let you know...

Anna Maria
PS. Thank you for the compliments, You are very attractive, too.

[Idress4fun]

[QUOTE=Amelie]Sorry,, but I do not have to respect other ideas when they impede on my freedom.

Amelie /QUOTE]

Amelie,

Do not be sorry, it is your character....

Please let me know when the fanatical muslum type or any foe is taking your freedom, forcefully. I will be right behind you, armed to the teeth. BTW, I am a bad shot and I am not responsible for the outcome. :) :D

Anna Maria

[Julie]

Amelie has been spot on all during this thread, the Gay Movement over here have just this week celebrated 40 years of campaigning.

In that time they've come a long way and broken down many barriers, even so there are still too many bigots out there and the campaiging will continue. Us as Cross Dressers owe these campaigners a great deal, this forum certainly is not the place for aiming critism at them.

Julietta (Julie)

[Amelie]

Thanks Julietta, you are a wonderful person.

I just want to appologize to some of the girls here. I ranted about "cowards" not showing their photos. I did not mean this to the girls here, where this might cause a problem. I said it to those who would not want me to have the same rights as others. There are a lot of nice girls here and showing a photo or not is their choice, but when someone becomes vocal against my rights, then at least they should show themselves.
So,, I'm sorry if some of the girls here read that wrong.
Love Amelie

[KewTnCurvy GG]

You're so thoughtful, Amelie, you simply amaze me grrly! :)

hugs
kew

[Felicity]

Felicity, that anology about the sports car is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The correct anology would be- Hetro's are allowed to get drivers licenses and drive, while gays for who they are can not get these same licenses to drive.
Yes, I realized it was silly when I started putting it together. However, I thought there might be some good laughs from it. By the way, there are different claases of drivers licenses..

If anyone is against the Gov't being involved in any marriages, then why haven't we heard from these people before gays wanted to marry, I didn't hear a big out cry against about gov't involvemnent in marriage years ago.
I'm sure some people did get upset at the time, but only a small percentage. In the time period our government started issuing marriage licenses, people had more trust in it. We were a new nation based on freedom. Nobody then in their wildest dreams thought the institution of marriage would ever need protecting.

This is not a fight over a word, this is a civil rights issue.
I will give reasons. If a gay is arrested, his/her partner must testify against her/him, a married couple the spouse does not have to testify against the spouse. Wills made between two gay patners can be challenge by the families and have been won by the families of the dead gay spouse. Gay partners can not make emergency medical decisions, state laws say family mambers must decide, no matter how long the gay couple have been together. The family, by law can also exclude the gay partner from the hospital, and if he dies the family,by law can have the partner removed and barred from the funeral. If two gay men buy property together and one dies, the family of the deceased can sell the property at a loss, leaving a debt for the remaining partner. Gay marriage is a civil rights issue.
Don't call it a civil rights issue. You will have a large part of the black community turn against you. Gays have not suffered anything like the long struggle blacks have in our history.

First of all, family members can challenge and win property in wills already for married couple. The laws vary by state.

Now the rest of your concerns are totally valid. I bet everyone in this forum agree they need to be fixed, including myself. However, you do not need to redefine the word 'Marriage' to fix it. It would be a breeze to apply other legislation giving gay couples 100% equal rights in the law. Again, back to the lawyers. They don't want to fix it this way. They are afraid their job and easy money will be finished once the primary concerns are fixed.


I don't understand why there is a big outcry against gay marriage. Yes Historicaly marriage was for people of opposite sexes, and historicaly freedom was just for the white man, it wasn't till the 60's that blacks gained in civil rights. Marraige is a religuos function, OK What religion? Christianity? Christianity can be thrown in the dust bin where it belongs. Other beliefs have marriage as part of their beliefs, even pagens get married. This is not about religion or a word(marriage) it's about basic rights.
But it is about religion. Marriage is the religious permission for a couple to get together and people of faith want to keep it that way. I have to side for the religious aspect here. It's not just Christians and pagans. You would be hard to find a society that doesn't mix marriage and religion. I'm sure some exist, but the vast majority of cultures across our planet have religion as the driving force for marriage.

I take great offence to some, even to have a thread about, what is thought of gay marriage, you never here people asking gays what we think about the things hetros are allowed to do.
That's a different battle and I'm not sure that you are talking about anyway. It could be so many different things.

I know there are anti-gay idiots out there but I didn't think I would see them here in a CD forum. CDs of all people should know what it is like not to have the freedoms others have. Just look at this forum at all the cowards who are afraid of society, not showing their pictures. These people should not be going against other peoples rights when they feel scared to post a picture, their afraid because they know the bigots like themselves will destroy there life, like they want to destroy gay's lives.
Some things just aren't socially accepted. Live with it and try to change it, but live with it. People used to settle their differences with duels. Those actions are now illegal. Would you say then that our right to duel has been taken away? Societies in a democracy should and do have a say in where they draw their acceptable boundaries. One of the European countries (Sweden?) has allowed same-sex-marriages for a while now. Look at the reports of how their society is degrading. I'm not implying that the gays are degrading it, rather that those who held marriage to a higher standard no longer have see it as a cornerstone of their relationship.

As for being scared about pics. There are several reasons why people don't have pics. It seems to be you are jumping to conclusions.

I post on other forums, mainly goth forums, and their is no questioning what gays want to do, they all feel it is their right to do what they want. The main difference between this site and the goth sites are they are a bunch of young people who are not afraid to live, while here it is mostly old men with old ideas.
Amelie
How many of them advocate pedophilia? Do you support that too? If they feel they can do all they want, then how does this issue stand? Is it right?

[Amelie]

There are pedophiles in the straight world and the gay. there are supporters in both camps, I do not support pedophiles. A 15 year old came to this site, I was against him being here because i thought it was not right. Speaking of pedophiles, that sacred institution called the catholic church is a haven for pedophiles, yet all the bible thumpers seem to close their eyes to it.
Amelie

[Amelie]

Felicity, You say the instution of marrage needs protecting. Protected from what? What will gays do to destroy marriage?

It is a civil rights issue, it's not the same as for blacks, and it is not the same for handicapped people, but it is a civil rights issue. When someone,s rights are abused it is a civil rights issue. I don't care what the black community thinks, it's only of concern to the gay community. You said historically marraige was between a man and a woman, and I was making the point it was also historicaly to have slaves and keep the black man down. Just because it was done historicaly, we don't continue it today. I was not comparing gays to blacks i was just saying you can't say it was done in the past we should continue it today.
You even say it would be a breeze to give to apply legislation giving gay couples 100% equal rights in the law. So by your own admission you say that right now gays do not have 100% equal rights, that my friend makes it a civil rights issue.

Marraigeprobably did come from a religous ceromony, so does that mean aetheists can't get married are they destroying the institution. If the word marriage has a religous meaning why are aetheists allowed to get married. Because marraige might have come from a religous ceremony but today the meaning has changed to fit living today. Atheits were probably not allowed to get married (historicaly) then why can't it change so gays can get married.


Sweden decaying???? What are you talking about??? Have you ever been to a big city in the US. Go to Detriot and then tell me about decaying societys and it's not the gays who are responsible, it is mainly heterosexuals who are destroying the cities. Gay areas of the US are some of the safest, try walking in drag in West Virginia and tell me if it's safe, That is the deffinition of a decaying society, a society that would rather beat you up than let you live the life you want.

As far as pics go,,, Yes there are reasons people do not post pics, the main reason is the bigots of the world would destroy them. I'm not jumping to conclusions, many here say they are afraid to post pics, but you did not give a reason why you didn't. You must know why you don't post a pic.

Until you post a pic, I have ended this rant
Amelie

[JoannaDees]

Old "men" with old ideas??? B-b-b-but, I thought we were old ladies with different ideas? I'm sooooo confused now. :D

[Felicity]

Amelia, it is obvious we will not change each other’s mind. We can at least agree to disagree. Therefore, this may be some last words from be on the subject. I haven’t decided yet, but I’m growing tired of the same subject. As me questions and I will respond.

Again, fight for equal legal rights in the name of a Civil Union, or some other title and I will be behind you 100%, but please leave the institution of marriage alone. I find it hard to believe that this issue would fail in elections if presented. Again, I’ll bet the people lining their pockets in this cause believe they will be out of an income source if they go for equal legal rights under the name of a Civil Union. They know they will be employed longer fighting for same sex marriage, which is likely to never pass. Meanwhile, the gay and lesbian community still is not benefiting from tax breaks, health insurances, etc. Be smart and fight for these things first. Let society get used to these things, and then go the next step.

In truth, I believe granting same sex marriages will not cause any direct harm. I don’t remember seeing any valid arguments it would either. It may, however, have indirect problems. It is too hard to predict what may occur, but it would be from society reaction rather than direct actions. Again, I am also against changing the definition of the word marriage. I seldom look at any situation without looking at the ramifications. This is not the right time to be so forceful of such an issue on today’s society.

We have a large segment of our society that already is dismayed by what has happened to the sanctity of marriage. Same sex marriage is another assault on their beliefs. Before government started assaulting marriage, it was difficult to get divorced. Marriage is meant to be for life. Most, maybe all states have no-fault divorces now, and are easily granted. People today don’t need to ask themselves if want to spend the rest of their lives with someone because divorce is too easy. So few marriages today are starting out with commitment. Marriage just doesn’t mean what it used to. The institution of marriage is already broken and needs to become a sacred vow again. I’m one of the ones that would like to see it get back on track. Granting same sex marriages is a step backward to fix the problems. Who knows, maybe a Civil Union would be used for opposite sexes as well and marriage can be put on track again?

You appear to have allot of energy on this issue Emelia. Try focusing it on the Civil Union aspect and see what you can accomplish.

Oh… about the pic… You going to buy me a digital camera? Just joking. One day I will post one. Maybe in my Stormy Leather Octavia corset? You like black leather, right?

[BiOpi]

Thanks Julietta, you are a wonderful person.

I just want to appologize to some of the girls here. I ranted about "cowards" not showing their photos. I did not mean this to the girls here, where this might cause a problem. I said it to those who would not want me to have the same rights as others. There are a lot of nice girls here and showing a photo or not is their choice, but when someone becomes vocal against my rights, then at least they should show themselves.
So,, I'm sorry if some of the girls here read that wrong.
Love Amelie

Thanks Amelie and Kewt, it's nice to feel like you have friends on your side

[BiOpi]

How many of them advocate pedophilia? Do you support that too? If they feel they can do all they want, then how does this issue stand? Is it right?

You are showing your prejudice here. Why don't you consult with a professional from the APA or AMA.

[BiOpi]

Biopi, why edit your response?

I changed it because it's futile to try to argue/debate/otherwise convince people with your attitudes. Any further discussion was going to make me lose my temper and make me lose my focus and my manners.

[BiOpi]

Felicity, You say the instution of marrage needs protecting. Protected from what? What will gays do to destroy marriage?

I think it's funny that some people see that a population comprising less somewhere around 5-10% of the population threatening an institution that's being enjoyed by people like Britney Spears and her husband of 48 hours.

[Felicity]

My attitude?

Please explain. I am actually very understanding. You also mentioned my prejudices showing? I also have some solid convictions and I think among my posts in this thread I explained them. Purhaps it is surprising to many that crossdressers can also be conservative politically?

Go ahead and private post to me if you wanna let that temper go a bit. I will not hold it against you. I am actually pleasantly surprised that everyone posting here has maintained their composure so well. Besides, we are both Pisces...

[Amelie]

I changed it because it's futile to try to argue/debate/otherwise convince people with your attitudes. Any further discussion was going to make me lose my temper and make me lose my focus and my manners.

BiOpi..You are right. I think we should let it rest and continue with the fun parts of this site. Don't lose your temper, it is not worth it, just have fun with the rest of the threads. Let this thread die in the cyber-space.
Love Amelie

[Alayna]

Geez! I'm gone for a day and already 3 pages behind!!!

Felicity, I didn't think your analogy is stupid at all. I totally got the point you were making, but let me offer another analogy: A Corvette owner might get angry by someone cheapening the ideal of his car by calling their Escort the same...But, there are many people out there who think that Corvettes are out-dated and overrated.

I have to agree with Amelie on most of this, but it is clear that we're now to the point where everyone is right to some degree and everyone is wrong to some degree. That's the problem with ideals. Mine are no different, except in perspective.

For me it doesn't matter if some people are against this for religious reasons, or for preserving the ideal of a word and institution, or even for keeping it because to change it would cause harm to society. Societies change and so does everything within them. Just as language evolves over time, so does a society's values. Yes, I would say the majority of people want to preserve essentially our ideal of marriage - including gays - because a "civil union" is not the same in our minds, in our language, in our legal system, and in our idealism. Society is not a large grouping of people doing their own thing, it's the place we live in, but mentally and emotionally instead of physically.

Essentially "society" is "family" on the grandest of scales. It has evolved (grown) to the point where it is no longer frowned upon, and even illegal to love a member of the same sex. So, if in practice and in our mindset of what is accepted we have evolved, why should we not evolve our language (and therefore our legal language) to coincide?

[Alayna]

Oh, and Julie? THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU! Because you started this forum, I have gotten worlds of confidence about myself - and that's not limited to just dressing. As if to drive the point home, as I gingerly type from wet nail polish, I'm getting ready to go get a makeover and photosession! It'll be the first time seeing myself fully dressed, wig and all!


We don't have to go about changing society through conventional means. We're doing it right here and now with each post. Round of applause for Julie!:cool:

[Julie]

There are pedophiles in the straight world and the gay. there are supporters in both camps, I do not support pedophiles. A 15 year old came to this site, I was against him being here because i thought it was not right. Speaking of pedophiles, that sacred institution called the catholic church is a haven for pedophiles, yet all the bible thumpers seem to close their eyes to it.
Amelie

A good point Amelie, let's not forget that a good proportion of these paedophiles that have been caught in recent years have been vicars, preachers etc. So much for the sanctity of the Church.

Being an Evolutionist and not a Creationalist I just can't stand something that has only been in existence a mere 6000 years approimately, life has evolved over millions of years and these new kids on the block should stop imposing themselves onto people.

Even today in Spain the Church are trying to stop the Government making some positive moves in regard to gay marriage, I hop these links work.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1314733,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,2763,1318031,00.html

Love Julietta (Julie)

[Alayna]

I'm probably dead wrong on this - it seems like it's too easy a solution - but could all the problems we're talking about here all just boil down to fundamentalism? Isn't it possible that the Bible is just full of metaphors and stories? It doesn't really need to go over 4 billion years of evolution to make its point about the beginning. Therefore, God created heaven and Earth - end of that story, now lets move on to how you should live a moral and decent life. Seems to me that's the whole point of religion - since they all preach the same moral message. It's not to get to the afterlife, which to me seems more like a bribe for those who need an incentive to live decently.

Taken this way, there should be no contradiction between science which is considered by many as undisputed fact, and religion which is considered undisputed truth by just as many.

I doesn't seem that hard to me to apply this concept to other areas of life - marriage is a sacred institution, but it doesn't have to exclude others because it's a rigid idealogy within a pliable society.

Of course, it's easy for me to solve all the world's problems behind a veil of idealism and a computer, but I still think that this is what it takes to solve the problems of the world (not that I'm saying it's easy or even possible to do that). I like to think of a line from the band "Death Cab For Cutie" which is actually about what a disgusting and decrepit city L.A. is. Their message is still the same though - "We are not perfect, but we should try"

Am I just out of touch with reality?

[Felicity]

When Moses was talking with God, he said his people wanted to know how the earth and life was created. God went into a long story about the Big Bang, how the universe expanded, how the gasses cooled, how atoms randomly created amino acids, proteins, etc. and then by random chance formed all the life, as we know it.

Moses replied to God, “But they will never believe that.”

God replied, “Well then tell them something they will believe.”

[Felicity]

I won’t disagree, and I’m probably one of the members that you thought might? Don’t be shy, you can say yes if so. Besides, it takes allot for anyone to get to me.

I will only say that maybe they are not the greatest threat. Perhaps you overstated? But YES! They seem like the Anti-Christ to me…

I flat out don’t like today’s “Organized Religion.” The power these so-called religious leaders hold violates parts of religion I hold dear.

I believe there is truth in most the religions on this earth. Where does truth stand while all through history the storied were edited by man? Besides, written history does not follow the life of mankind. I believe the term Gnostic (don’t confuse with agnostic) applies best to me, unless I am using it wrong. Anyway, I believe the truth of the higher spiritual plane is scattered between several religions.

I have done countless hours of research using a “Strong’s Exhaustive Concordanance of the Bible.” Wow… is the King James translation of the Torah full of horse manure… A few examples I found. In the first several books of the Bible, the word translated into GOD (in the first several books of the bible, later the general meaning changes… different translater) is a word that merely means something better than mankind, and a plural not singular form. We would be a god to the people of those times…. It does not indicate a singular almighty god. Then the story of creation; Adam translates to Mankind and Eve to Lifebringer. It is not until the story of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able that the Chaldean word used indicates a person rather than a race. Also, don’t forget, Cain took a wife after he was cast out. There had to be other humans on earth. And…. Something I think the King James editors missed is in Genesis 6, right before the Flood:

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
6:2 That the sons of God saw the Daughters of men that were fair; and took them wives of all which they chose.
6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Again, “God” is more like a higher being, and is plural form in the original Chadean. The word Lord however, generally meant an individual from the group of gods. I won’t pretend to completely understand these four paragraphs, but they definitely are against what most church leaders teach about a single god, and indicate that these ‘gods’ procreated with our women. Also, the chadean word here for giant means ‘great person’ not a giant like we think of being 8 ft or more… Makes me wonder if legends like Merlin, Atlantis, etc. were real, and of these so called giants? Besides, who built the pyramids?

One of the reasons why I believe there is spiritual truth behind religion is best found in a book called “The Signature of God.” I just spent a few minutes looking for the book to find the author and ISBN number, but didn’t find it. If someone really wants that information, let me know, and I will find where I misplaced it. This books lays out evidence that the Torah is really a divine gift from at least a higher intelligence than we have achieved on this earth in our society.

Well, I think I said enough for now?

[Jenny]

Hi everyone,

Whoops!!! Make a single little observation and world war III breaks out. Didn't mean to get everybody upset. It is kind of an interesting mix of opinions though.

As near as I can tell, Kewty and I should get married and adopt Amelie and BiOpi, with Erica as our next door neighbor. (Don't mean to leave out anyone from our happy family.)

I know how I am going to vote though. The gay marriage issue is only one of many factors entering into my thinking (and I won't go into any others on this forum.)

My only decision is: how am I going to be dressed when I go to vote?

xoxo

Jenny (ducking down behind her soapbox) :p

[Felicity]

HR 163 failed to pass in the House of Representatives 10/5/04. Only 2 democrats voted for it and 186 democrats voted against it. Not a single republican voted for it. The final vote was 2 to 402. See roll call #494 http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2004/roll494.xml

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Reinstate draft bill (identified by CRS)

SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED:
Universal National Service Act of 2003

OFFICIAL TITLE AS INTRODUCED:
To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

As I pointed out earlier, this was just a democrat dirty trick. This has been known for months and discussed in various conservative talk radio programs. This Bill was started to scare the public. An attempt to make the pubic believe Bush would restart the Draft. It did attract allot of media attention. Just goes to prove the Alphabet News Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc.) are in bed with the democrats. Let’s not forget Dan Rather’s story using forged documents against Bush. This is further proof that the Alphabet News Networks bend the truth to get Kerry elected.

The republicans seem to be slow at stopping the tricks played on them, however, a republican brought this to the floor to put a stop to the rumors. Mr. Rangel, the sponsor of the Bill protested bringing to a vote so soon. He wanted to delay the vot till after the election, and allow the rumor to discredit Bush. He even voted NO for his own Bill when the votes were taken. The sponsor and all the cosponsors are democrats. When the bill came to a vote, only one of the 14 co-sponsors voted YES. The two Yes votes were Rep Stark, 13th district California and Rep Murtha, 12th district Pennsylvania.

Name Party State/district Date Signed Vote

Sponsor:
Rep Rangel, Charles B. D [NY-15] (introduced 1/7/2003) NO

Cosponsors:
Rep Abercrombie, Neil D [HI-1] signed 1/7/2003 No
Rep Brown, Corrine D [FL-3] signed 1/28/2003 no vote
Rep Christensen, Donna M. D [VI] signed 5/19/2004 N/A
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy D [MO-1] signed 1/28/2003 No
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. D [MI-14] signed 1/7/2003 No
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. D [MD-7] signed 1/28/2003 No
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. D [FL-23] signed 1/28/2003 No
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. D [IL-2] signed 7/21/2004 No
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila D [TX-18] signed 1/28/2003 No
Rep Lewis, John D [GA-5] signed 1/7/2003 No
Rep McDermott, Jim D [WA-7] signed 1/7/2003 No
Rep Moran, James P. D [VA-8] signed 1/28/2003 No
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete D [CA-13] signed 1/7/2003 Yes
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. D [NY-12] signed 1/28/2003 No
Rep Norton, Eleanor Holmes D [DC] - 1/28/2003(withdrawn - 6/21/2004) N/A

[Alayna]

As I pointed out earlier, this was just a democrat dirty trick. This has been known for months and discussed in various conservative talk radio programs. This Bill was started to scare the public. An attempt to make the pubic believe Bush would restart the Draft. It did attract allot of media attention. Just goes to prove the Alphabet News Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, etc.) are in bed with the democrats. Let’s not forget Dan Rather’s story using forged documents against Bush. This is further proof that the Alphabet News Networks bend the truth to get Kerry elected.

The republicans seem to be slow at stopping the tricks played on them, however, a republican brought this to the floor to put a stop to the rumors. Mr. Rangel, the sponsor of the Bill protested bringing to a vote so soon. He wanted to delay the vot till after the election, and allow the rumor to discredit Bush. He even voted NO for his own Bill when the votes were taken. The sponsor and all the cosponsors are democrats. When the bill came to a vote, only one of the 14 co-sponsors voted YES. The two Yes votes were Rep Stark, 13th district California and Rep Murtha, 12th district Pennsylvania.

Actually, I think they're in bed with their shareholders. The alphabets and 24/7 news networks (except FOXNEWS) are all about the cash, and for one underlying reason: shareholders! Average Joe, investment houses, high-volume buyers, etc...They're all evil! When someone owns a stock, they want to see the price go up, up, up. Companies are under serious pressure to keep that trend. Even companies that matured 50 years ago are still under pressure not to turn a profit, but to increase their profit (or sometimes sales) margins every quarter!!! Is it fair that Coca Cola is expected to sell more and more Coke each fiscal quarter than the previous? No, but they are and that's why we see what seems to us as really dumb product ideas (remember New Coke?). The company is over 100 years old! Sounds like a pretty solid product to me - be thankful to own a bluechip that pays dividends!!

For news networks it's the same story. Violence and fear and sensationalism SELL! plain and simple. 2 (3?) years ago the whole country was freaked out about child abductions. Everyone remembers Elizabeth Smart, right? Well, nobody at the news networks wanted people to know that actually that summer child abductions were lower than previous years (and NOT because of "increased awareness" about the problem). The only one I can't hold to this is FOXNEWS: They are so politically biased that nothing could sway them from portraying an obviously conservative viewpoint. They might as well have an elephant for a logo. And (sorry if this offends) Bill O'Reilly is a sick ****! Not as much as Rush Limbaugh, but pretty close. But Limbaugh is a phenomenon of his own - how can anyone stay on the air after saying "all Muslims are terrorists"????? Rush Limbaugh can for some reason.......

[Felicity]

Alayna, for the most part I agree with you. In the major news media however, I see a definate liberal bias. They attack republicans as much as they can get away with using slim evidence, but go easy on democrats until they can't ignore the facts. In mid May this year, there was a fashion meeting of sorts that Alexandrea Kerry was at. She was in a see-thru dress. If Bush's daughter was caught in exactly the same circumstance, you would hear about it for weeks in the news. That is just one of several things that really ticked me off about the media. Fox may have a conservative bias, but they seem mostly to the middle to me. I think they try, however, since conservatives tend to watch fox for a better understanding of the truth, it would stand to reason for fox to lean to the right. Fox at least doesn't use flimsy evidence for their stories. Even if they pick stories toward the right, at least they are reporting the truth. When it comes to the news, the truth is what we should all demand.

[JoannaDees]

Felicity, did you go to the 50K person Kerry political rally in Portland? Hot day that day!

[Alayna]

To be honest I think the only way we can get unbiased news is to not even pay attention to American news. CBC/BBC (to a point) and a lot of the translated news on NWI are a good place to start. The only American TV I trust is PBS - Jim Lehrer and Charlie Rose are pretty good.

I'm even an avid reader of the Nation from time to time, and I can't help but notice the way-left bias of that periodical. THe problem with media is that it all has to be taken with a grain of salt

[Deborah757]

Bill O'Reilly is a sick ****! Not as much as Rush Limbaugh, but pretty close. But Limbaugh is a phenomenon of his own - how can anyone stay on the air after saying "all Muslims are terrorists"????? Rush Limbaugh can for some reason.......

As a conservative I can agree with you there. O'Reilly is a "know it all" who is wrong much of the time and Limbaugh is a pompous a**. One thing I found about the news from experience is that the reporters in the field generally report what they see fairly accurately. However, once it gets to the newsrooms and commentators it gets distorted beyond all recognition. This holds true for all the networks.

Deborah

[siobhan]

Omigod, how can anyone of right mind support Bush. Democrat or Republican, you must see that he represents wealth and corporate America. He has a wire in his ear at the debates, so they can feed him responses. He has no thought of his own, no mind, no heart. He is a puppet, an idiot! Chauncey Gardiner in "Being There" was brighter then Bush. His agenda is not America, it is the profit of the wealthy. Just look at the statistics. How many jobs gone, how many programs cut, how much divisive b-lls--t introduced? There is no real political issue on gay marriage, it is simply a Republican diversion to suck in the frightened and weak minded.

[CindyT]

Well, I see we have a hot one here, maybe I shouldn't express my personal thoughts but I thought I would share a link that a friend sent me.
I must warn you all though, there is an adult oriented picture that (maybe?) expressess the authors opinion.... sort of funny!

http://groups.msn.com/Delicious101/_whatsnew.msnw

[BiOpi]

that's an interesting way to express an opinion :-)

[Glenda]

When individuals from both parties were elected and worked together to find the best solutions for ALL Americans. We don't have two political parties anymore. We have two political machines which do everything in their power to ensure the other doesn't survive. Politics in America is sick. I now wonder if practically every one in a standard religion votes Republican because it is the "Moral Majority?" There is so much more at stake. I am an Independent. Always have been, always will be. But too much of the country is too polarized. It has never been perfect, but the way it is today is OUT OF CONTROL!!!! In my humble opinion, of course.

[Alayna]

Omigod, how can anyone of right mind support Bush. Democrat or Republican, you must see that he represents wealth and corporate America. He has a wire in his ear at the debates, so they can feed him responses. He has no thought of his own, no mind, no heart. He is a puppet, an idiot! Chauncey Gardiner in "Being There" was brighter then Bush. His agenda is not America, it is the profit of the wealthy. Just look at the statistics. How many jobs gone, how many programs cut, how much divisive b-lls--t introduced? There is no real political issue on gay marriage, it is simply a Republican diversion to suck in the frightened and weak minded.
Thank you thank you thank you!:D

Same thing with gun control and abortion - moral arguments, no clear right and wrong. But they're great for dividing the country because everyone can have an opinion on them.

And Deb, you're totally right - the reporters themselves are very trustworthy in my opinion. They're held accountable by their colleagues and many of them report the same stories - so if one reporter always skews things, It'll be obvious because all the other reporters say something else. Perfect example of checks and balances. I trust the Reuters reporters for sure, and even many of the U.S. reporters.

The problem is that in the U.S. we don't have a free and liberal media no matter what people say - it's more a propaganda machine and a very effective way to manipulate the people. A reporter's story could be sold to 100 different news networks, but all those networks more often than not are owned by a single conglamerate. Ted Turner, Clear Channel, Time Warner - those are the entities that really run this country. The natural checks and balances have been wiped out because of consolidation of power and wealth.
The Commies were right - Capitalism is a morally flawed system that rewards greed, not hard work and innovation. Social Democracy all the way baby!

And Felicity I don't disagree about the media's liberal bias, just the reasons behind it. It's much more scandalous (and more likely to get more viewers) for the daughter of the president - especially a conservative, religious president - to be caught in something like that. The daughter of a liberal presidential candidate is not going to be as big a deal. If this isn't the golden rule of American broadcasting, it should be: Sensationalism Sells!! Can anybody give another explanation as to why we turn out in droves for bullshit movies like Charlie's Angels 2?

We like war, devastation, and disaster - all people do whether they admit it or not. By "like" I mean it captures our attention and imaginations. The only problem is that Americans are hopelessly addicted to these things. This is a problem of culture for us which is bad enough (why do people watch and record episodes of "Fear Factor" every week?:confused: ).

What makes this addiction extremely dangerous is that we've been fed a steady diet of fear since WW2. The Cold War did so much damage to American society that it won't be fully understood for decades if not centuries. We're only comfortable when we're afraid of something. If you don't believe it, turn on your local 10:00 news any night of the week. "Up next a local resident contracts a rare disease from his faucet. Is your drinking water safe? Find out how check your faucets for Ebola virus after the commercial break - it could save your life!" Does that sound familiar to anybody? Our need for fear and sensationalism somehow overrides our need to use basic common sense!
By the way, does anybody notice how the answer comes "after the break"? We consume like crazy when we're scared shitless - pretty good marketing technique, eh? We're scared for our lives, but a new Chevy will distract us enough to make us feel at ease. Sick, sick, sick, sick....

[Felicity]

You talking about the one at Tom McCall park? No... flat out no. I have no wish to go to a Kerry function.

I don't think 50k people were there. Inflated numbers. I'm not sure but wasn't a realistic estimate about 17k?

[Sara Kat]

Omigod, how can anyone of right mind support Bush. Democrat or Republican, you must see that he represents wealth and corporate America. He has a wire in his ear at the debates, so they can feed him responses. He has no thought of his own, no mind, no heart. He is a puppet, an idiot! Chauncey Gardiner in "Being There" was brighter then Bush. His agenda is not America, it is the profit of the wealthy.
How can anyone of right mind believe any of this? Do us all a favor and check your kook-fringe insanity at the door. Instead, why don't you try approaching the discussion rationally instead of ranting and raving like a lunatic?


There is no real political issue on gay marriage, it is simply a Republican diversion to suck in the frightened and weak minded.
What are your sources on this?

[Deborah757]

How can anyone of right mind believe any of this? Do us all a favor and check your kook-fringe insanity at the door. Instead, why don't you try approaching the discussion rationally instead of ranting and raving like a lunatic?

Yeah, what she said. I hesitated initially to respond to this because its nearly impossible to respond rationally to an ad hominem attack.

Deborah

[Danielle1960]

Gay marriage? I've changed my mind so many times but I've decided a few things. If we don't successfully prosicute this war it really don't matter. That for me is the main issue of this election. I say this even after loosing my job because of a down turned economy, I"m now currently employeed and stepping back up the ladder to my former employement status. If eliminating this threat (terrorism)or gaining real control of it required me to give it all up I probably would do that too. After all I can replace everything I have with newer better stuff.

As far as the gay marriage issue I feel sorry for that comunity in that they are being snookered by the lawyer lobby. After all once an official stamp goes on (marriage) lawyers are then involved to break it appart. Of course they don't provide services for free so I feel this is why there is such an issue. As far as civil unions. I think if the state wants to issue a lisence great and that should be enough for the insurance and probate issues. Leave marriage to the churches. After all there are plenty out there who will marry a couple right now.

Ooops didn't mean to write a novel. I like this subject. I'll vote for Bush because although I have some issue with his domestic spending I think he is doing a great job at Terror war so far.

I hope everyone does vote regardless of how they vote. After retiring from the military I feel the most important freedom we have is voting.
Love ya all
Danielle

[siobhan]

All right, sorry if I offended anyone. It was a bit of a rant, okay it was a rant. I agree with all of those who said the important thing is to seek information, make your best choice and VOTE.

It's just with all of the ills facing this nation, from the war in Irac to lost jobs; it seems so divisive and unproductive to focus on pseudo moral issues. Gay marriages do not threaten traditional marriages. The issue it seems to me is civil union. Gay couples should enjoy the same rights as straight couples. Still, that this should become a election issue seems somewhat questionable. Is this really what we need to slug it out over. Almost 10,000 Americans have been killed or maimed in Iraq. Still, we will need to send many more (and Cheney says he would do the same thing all over again), although there are no WMDs and no link to Bin Laden. What are the true moral issues? Sanctioning gay marriage is not a life or death decision. Deciding which candidate will choose our naton's course over the next four years may be.

[Alayna]

How can anyone of right mind believe any of this? Do us all a favor and check your kook-fringe insanity at the door. Instead, why don't you try approaching the discussion rationally instead of ranting and raving like a lunatic
Why don't you offer a challenge to Biopi's comments instead of lashing out and insulting her?:confused: I agree with her remarks about Bush, and I think everyone here has a right to express their opinion without some reactionary backlash - regardless of their position. It seems to me that Biopi is simply expressing a larger frustration that many (if not all) of us who don't support Bush feel. Comments like this only make you look ignorant and unaware of the issues you're discussing - and I know that's not the case because I've read your posts which usually bring up excellent points and are well written.

[BiOpi]

Why don't you offer a challenge to Biopi's comments instead of ...

What? What did I do? :D

[Alayna]

What? What did I do? :D
Oops! Looks like I switched your names in my head - what I meant was Siobhan.:rolleyes: Sorry;)!

[Chandra Marie]

All right, sorry if I offended anyone. It was a bit of a rant, okay it was a rant. I agree with all of those who said the important thing is to seek information, make your best choice and VOTE.

There it is, VOTE. My aunt is a die hard Clinton/Kerry supporter, will argue with anything from the political right just to argue and the then after all that opts not to VOTE. I take pride as an american in casting my VOTE but to those of you here (you know who you are) that dont intend on VOTING, quit your whining and keep your oppinions to yourself (thats for both sides). As for this being the fourm for this, maybe not. I don't think we will change on anothers minds so lets get back to the topics, Pedicure anyone:D .

Handing the soapbox to the next in line.

[babe4life]

Chandra, my turn on the soap box! :D

Go VOTE! I can say that as a South African, since my vote counts sweet blow all in our elections because as far as I am concerned they are rigged anyway, but I still do it so I can complain when the government mucks up because I didn't vote for them! :D

Now, Chandra, were you offering to do the pedicure or receive it? Will the soapbox do as a makeshift seat? LOL. The soapbox is all mine I tell ya! It makes for a brilliant carry-all in the boot of the car ;)

Love,
Vicky

[Felicity]

Gay marriages do not threaten traditional marriages. The issue it seems to me is civil union. Gay couples should enjoy the same rights as straight couples. Still, that this should become a election issue seems somewhat questionable. Is this really what we need to slug it out over.
I’ll agree with giving the same legal rights, just look at other posts of mine.



Almost 10,000 Americans have been killed or maimed in Iraq. Still, we will need to send many more (and Cheney says he would do the same thing all over again), although there are no WMDs and no link to Bin Laden.
The 10,000 figure may be accurate. Recently, US deaths passed 1000 and I think the wounded figure is over 30K. 9K maimed might be accurate, I don’t know. I wish I could recall all facts I hear. Did you know that a poll shows 80% of the soldiers supporting Bush? Many believe that poll was attempting low numbers and that the number should be closer to 90%. The soldiers must believe in Bush for the numbers to be 80%, and they are in the war, not listening to the news. When you hear a soldier talk about the war that hove come back, many say the news is not reflecting it accurately.

Anyone who looked at more sources than just the alphabet news networks knows that WMD was just one of several reasons we went in Iraq. The WMD was the main issue the UN was concerned with. Except of the veto actions of France, Germany, and Russia, the vote would have been to go in by the UN as well. The recent report coming out of Iraq shows these three countries between them recieved 52% of the “Oil for Food” money in kickbacks from Saddam. They were in bed with Saddam.

You are wrong about the links between Saddam and Bin Laden. The Bush administration has always maintained the two had ties. The media then tries to say Saddam had ties to 911, which was never said by Bush’s administration. Careful about these political games. As for WMD, it appears maybe Saddam no longer had viable WMD. However, he claimed to in an apparent threat against his neighbors. He dug his own grave in the lack of cooperation for the years since the Gulf War.



What are the true moral issues? Sanctioning gay marriage is not a life or death decision. Deciding which candidate will choose our naton's course over the next four years may be.

Agreed, but it is public pressure why the Bush administration got into the issue. It is because of counties and cities like my own violating current law to issue marriages why things are on the path they are now.

Siobhan, Let me ask you something. Do you honestly believe Kerry will wield the power of the US forces in an effective manner, or will he Flip-Flop them to death? Support our troops… Reelect Bush. Kerry will make it a political war and it will become another Viet-Nam. If he removes our troops before the job is over, we doom a whole nation into despair. If you really followed Kerry, you know he is a hypocrite and a liar. You cannot believe a thing he says. He is just putting his finger in the wind, and talking with whet best fits the group and polling data say. It is irresponsible to allow a man like that to hold power.

Four good sources/sites:
Tony Snow: http://www.foxnews.com/tonysnow/
Neil Boortz: http://boortz.com/
Drudge Report: http://www.drudgereport.com/
Fact Check: http://www.factcheck.org/

Tony Snow is a conservative, but not an arrogant jerk like Rush Limbaugh. He has a radio program I listen to, starts at 2 PM in Portland OR on 750 KXL. He is also on Fox News. I don't get Fox anymore. Being laid off from work, cable is one thing I let go.

Fact Check is a site that attemts to accurately reflect facts. They are a I am told they are a liberal biased site. I have not looked enough at their material to form an opinion yet. I hear they do stick to the facts. I looked a bit more while composing this, and really like the info.

The Drudge report is a variety of facts and links. Check it out sometime.
Neil Boortz is a Libertarian. This is a real intelligent man to listen to. I seldom get a chance to listen to him on radio, the signal is very weak where I live.

From the Neil Boortz homepage:

ALWAYS REMEMBER:
Don't believe anything you read on this web page, or, for that matter, anything you hear on The Neal Boortz Show, unless it is consistent with what you already know to be true, or unless you have taken the time to research the matter to prove its accuracy to your satisfaction. This is known as "doing your homework."


NEWSFLASH... Just now, as composing... Mt St. Helens is oozing magma...
cool... I live near her.

[BiOpi]

Well since your throwing Bush links out there I thought I'd add one
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MKY/is_9_27/ai_108881880

Finally something I agree with the pope on! ;)

That is TOTALLY AWESOME!! :D

[Danielle1960]

Well I think it is great for everyone to express there opinions. I takes a bit (alot) of courage to put your feelings and understandings out there. If everyone in the country would vote based on research to the level most here seem to have done we would be a better country. As for the candidates they all have faults and some actually have something good going for them. As a retired member of the armed services I feel that my time has been worth every minute as long as we all go vote.

Danielle :)

[siobhan]

Thank you to those who defended me and my right to express an opinion. I love this sight and all of you, even those who disagree. you are all very sweet.

I work in an office where I daily speak with family members of those in Iraq or soon going. They are so worried for the safety of their loved ones. It is heartbreaking. The pictures of men weeping for their lives before they are beheaded is more than I can bear.

I know that some of you may disagree but I think that this president is an arrogant isolationist. I believe that Kerry is a diplomat and will garner support abroad. This nation cannot get out of this thing alone, without destabilizing the entire region. Solutions will take brains and tact. Bush has neither.

For those who agree or disagree with my position, there are truly life and death decisions being made on November 2. Educate yourself, search your mind and heart, and vote. I hope that everyone watches the debate tonight.

Love you all,
Siobhan

[Deborah757]

I am also a retired member of the armed services and still work within the Dep't of Defense. I completely understand the worry of family members whose loved ones are going in harms way. I have been there with my family members worrying about my safety. However I know for a fact that those in all services who are going "over there" feel that they are doing a great thing in giving so far, the people of two countries a chance at freedom such as we enjoy. We are winning and if some other countries don't want to go along, so what. The right thing is not always popular, as we in this community should well understand. The people of Afghanistan, one of the most backwards countries in the world, had a free election this week, and the poeple in Iraq will have a free election in January. If we followed the poular dictates of continental Europe both countries would still be living under brutal dictatorships where mass graves of 300,000 such as we have uncovered in Iraq are the norm.
Read the news. The Army of Iraq, with us in support, is now leading the way in eliminating the foreign jihadists that are the "real" destabilizing influence in the region.
The people in our armed forces with first hand experience in what is actually happening favor Goerge Bush over Kerry with a four to one margin. If they thought their lives were being wasted do you think they would feel this way?
In the end I agree with Danielle that it is great we can all disagree in a friendly manner without fear. :) That is what our service men and women, under George Bush, are trying to give to the people in that region.
And Erica, I enjoyed the article about the anti-christ. I am still trying to figure out if it was a real article or satire. :D

Deborah

[Alayna]

Did you know that a poll shows 80% of the soldiers supporting Bush? Many believe that poll was attempting low numbers and that the number should be closer to 90%. The soldiers must believe in Bush for the numbers to be 80%, and they are in the war, not listening to the news. When you hear a soldier talk about the war that hove come back, many say the news is not reflecting it accurately.Before I get into this let me just say I don't mean to offend anyone, especially soldiers, former soldiers, and families of soldiers. I've spent a lot of time studying war and how people react to wartime experiences. I will never know what that kind of experience is like, but I know enough to hold such people in the highest of respect.

That said, consider that most of the people going into the army, including a large amount of recruits are young people. At age 18, most everyone is extremely idealistic and impressionable during these important formative years. In addition to the lack of life experience, many of them have only a high school degree or less - many (I believe - this is speculation) are in it for the Mont. GI bill.

Now in basic training the idea is to break down individual egos and rebuild each person into an effective member in a unit. This way everyone is on the same page and there are less screw-ups. It also makes for an ideal situation for special talents and leadership to emerge, as they are stressful conditions. (please add to this or correct me if you've been in the military).

Now if you take these impressionable kids, completely break down their egos and individuality (civilian individuality I believe is different from soldier), you can tell them pretty much any ideology you want. Some may not believe in it, some may reject it, but the majority want to believe it. They want to believe that this thing they've put so much of their life into is a worthy and noble cause. I believe the same goes for wartime. Would you be able to kill for a cause that you think is not only wrong, but immoral as well?


Anyone who looked at more sources than just the alphabet news networks knows that WMD was just one of several reasons we went in Iraq. The WMD was the main issue the UN was concerned with. Except of the veto actions of France, Germany, and Russia, the vote would have been to go in by the UN as well. The recent report coming out of Iraq shows these three countries between them recieved 52% of the “Oil for Food” money in kickbacks from Saddam. They were in bed with Saddam.

You are wrong about the links between Saddam and Bin Laden. The Bush administration has always maintained the two had ties. The media then tries to say Saddam had ties to 911, which was never said by Bush’s administration. Careful about these political games. As for WMD, it appears maybe Saddam no longer had viable WMD. However, he claimed to in an apparent threat against his neighbors. He dug his own grave in the lack of cooperation for the years since the Gulf War. Why on Earth would Bin Laden want to work with Saddam?! Bin Laden is a strict fundamentalist Muslim who believes so wholeheartedly in Koran doctrine that he takes its word literally. Saddam pretends to believe in Islam so he can easily control people and expand his materialist empire. The man's hero is Stalin!!! Stalin believed that religion is wrong, and that the only truth is the State (hence Sovietism)

And as for WMD? The UN picked that one as a material, literal blockade. You can't enforce laws by ideology alone, you have to have something concrete. The UN and all 9 of the permanent members of the security council voted against war. Sure, the official "on paper" reason was for WMD, but they knew just as the world knew that it was imperitive to stand up to the U.S.'s bullying and strongarming. We can debate the real and imagined reasons for the war on Iraq but one thing stands above all that: The U.S. has continually exercised its will on the world, regardless of world opinion.

To those who weren't caught up in the menial details it was obvious that the U.S. was going into Iraq not to end a brutal dictatorship or spread democracy, but to expand it's influence over the world. Iraq was different for the world because the U.S. crossed the line from being an economic and trade empire, to being the kind the world has always feared - the kind that sends it's troops to force its will. Whether or not we believe it, the world sees the U.S. as a power and money hungry empire, bent on serving its own needs and not the world's. It's the UN's job to prevent that sort of thing.

[Alayna]

If we followed the poular dictates of continental Europe both countries would still be living under brutal dictatorships where mass graves of 300,000 such as we have uncovered in Iraq are the norm.
Read the news.
Where were we during Rwanda???? Not in Rwanda that's for sure. And how can you insult the efforts of Europe? Take 2 countries that are "backward": Iraq and Turkey. We all know of Iraq's wealth of oil, and Turkey is THE Islamic powerhouse in economics. We all know of Saddam's exploits over his own people, particularly the Kurds. Turkey's record with the Kurds is far more brutal and lengthy than Saddam's - the repression there is so bad, that it has at various times since 1923 been a capital crime to speak Kurdish. How does the U.S. deal with such matters?.....BOMB THEM. How does Europe (particularly the EU) deal with such matters? Invite them into the most prosperous and progressive union mankind has ever seen, but give them conditions to do it.

Turkey was not invited in this last round that expanded the EU by 10 member states (Poland, Czech Republic, the Baltic states). It has however softened its stance on the Kurds and has abolished the death penalty. From a human rights standpoint, Turkey is still a horrible example of how to lead a country, but it's a start.

Lead by example, and others will follow. Lead by force and you will only meet resistence.

[Tristen Cox]

Alayna I love it when you type. Such things come from such pretty fingers too :D Good posts!

[JoannaDees]

I look at my son and daughters, and I see young people that could someday be drafted into war if things escalate and continue, and I DON'T LIKE IT!

Here is my solution. Get out now. Offer humanitarian aid. If we are shot doing that, we leave. These countries must govern themselves, and control themselves. We've f*$%(# up going in there, and there is no out. It's like business, it's not working and take your lumps. Force the UN to be what it claims to be! Make all the other countries step up to the plate! No, we cannot let a Saddam or what's his name in the Balkans have free reign to commit genocide (same with Rwanda and now the Sudan), but we have to stop being the police force of the world ... it's time for all to step up to the plate. Yes, I know we didn't go into Rwanda and are not going into Sudan ... because of oil. The world economy is oil based, deal with it.

Dammit, I wasn't going to embroil myself in this thread.

And another thing, there really are absolute truths in this world. I don't want to hear about "who's to say, who's to judge"! The Taliban WERE WRONG! Saddam WAS WRONG! The Arab minority in the SUDAN are WRONG! Absolute truths! I admire GW for going into Iraq, but I do not admire him for staying in a country that has no backbone to help the fight for freedom, to rid themselves of the AK toting funamentalists.

Another thing, Bush squandered, SQUANDERED, the global good will for the USA due to 9/11. He should have concentrated on Afghanistan, pressure Pakistan (what a joke they are!) to find Bin Laden and all the terrorist camps. Should have let the UN deal with Iraq ... or not ... what a bunch of inept, impotent fools. We should have STOPPED the no-fly zone, let Sadaam gas the Kurds, force the WORLD to deal with it! At least forced the world to deal with the regret and embarassment of letting it happen. GRRRR. I'm tired of the USA being the police force of the world!

Yes, we are the wealthiest, strongest country in the world. Why is that? Because it works! And don't tell me any other country, socialist or whatever, would not love to have global power. If you say otherwise, I say BS. Maybe you personally, don't get me wrong, I don't want it ... but only because it's not absolute. If I was dictator of the Universe, there would certainly be consequences for dastardly behavior ... and the USA would not be exempt either.

And another thing! If I was dictator of the Universe .......... PRETTY CLOTHES FOR ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Alayna]

It's not so much the amount of power that's the problem, but how it's used. Capitalism has brought us extreme wealth and power because it is an extreme ideology. It rewards economic gains with economic gains. Basically, it rewards the collection of capital with more capital. That kind of system is naturally one that consolidates wealth - and wealth is power.

But it doesn't reward morality. In fact it rewards immorality and cruelty with capital. That's why Communists hated Capitalism. Of course the problem with Communism is that it depended solely on the honor system to work. That, and of course that if everybody were truly equal, then it would truly be an anarchy (somebody has to run government, and those people automatically have power and become "more equal").

True Socialism on the other hand is THE way to the future. By nature it is a moderate system that doesn't adhere to extremes. Social Democracy is the style of government that thrives in Scandanavia - which is not consequently the area with the world's highest standard of living. Democratic Socialism rewards competition and innovation among businesses, AND provides for the entire country regardless of wealth. So what ends up is a stable system that's not prone to ridiculously huge economic highs and lows, and allows everyone in the system access to basic comforts and advances that should now be legal rights in a world as advanced as ours.

The only downside (if you see it as a downside) is high taxes - at least 50%. But I'd be willing to do that if I knew that all my medical bills and insurance were free, AND so was everyone elses no matter how poor they are.

And if I were elected dictator of the universe - watch out!!! I'd do everything in my power to enforce what I believe is right. Basically, everyone must live as socialists, everyone must accept alternative lifestyles, etc..........Even though my intentions are good, that doesn't mean they're not fascist. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Period.

[JoannaDees]

Oh Alayna, you cannot be "elected" dictator of the universe, it has to be just given ... or taken by a bloody uprising! Besides, I'M dictator of the universe, and there will be no televised debates!!!!!!!!! First, let's talk about schools and education ........

[jessicadiane]

I would like to know how we went from politics and dressing to where we are now.I feel like we are in the middle of CNN's Crossfire :)

[Chandra Marie]

Since my last post I have come a long way from my "to each his/her own" attitude, now I'm hovering around "Grow the hell up you immature Kerry freaks". Let me explain. I woke up this morning to find 3 Bush/Cheney yard signs gone (value $45.00 each) the front and side window on my Thunderbird smashed (waiting for a call back from the glass shot, guessing around 5 or 6 hundred) and the front window of my wife's white 2000 monte carlo smashed (also waiting for the call back but guessing 3 to 4 hundred), The reason I mention it was white was the red "VOTE KERRY" spray paint on the side. Well now I see the light, I'm glad someone took the time to show me how very wrong I was before I threw my vote away on the 2nd. Seriously, do these losers think they have changed my mind? No, only streanthed my resolve. Damn I sick of the left wing, wacko, bunny hugging, welfare baby's thinking it's OK to destroy someone else's property to make their point.

P.S. I DO support logging, I DO support drilling A.N.W.A.R. (lived most of my life in Alaska by the way) and I Do support my President.

P.P.S. Just for the record I don't vote party lines, I voting for a democrat for Govener of Montana.
If I sound a little wound up, I am. This has gone to far. My opinion does not matter to you, your opinion does not matter to me, We should listen to the candidates and make our own choices without spreading all this "love" and go vote.........quietly.

Stepping off the soap box again so I can go drop our cars off at the glass doctor.:mad:

[Olesha]

American Girls
Save the world.
VOTE KERRY
From an Englishwoman

[Chandra Marie]

American Girls
Save the world.
VOTE KERRY
From an EnglishwomanMy normally sunny mood is soured today, the last thing America needs it political advice from A) the people who still have a monarchy and B) who lost the war a couple of hundred years ago. Yes, I am still pissy, Got a call from the glass shop so the total cost caused by the Kerry Squad.

Yard Signs $135.00
Thunderbird glass $618.23
Monte Carlo glass $377.47
Paint removal & Buff $45.00
New Yard Signs $135.00
------------------------------
Total cost $1310.70

So yeah, screw Kerry and his moron followers. I'm sorry if I have offended any of you, but Im offended at what happend, thats money out of my pocket and I haven't been influenced to change my vote. So please forgive me being so bold as to catagorize.:mad:

[biddy]

Jenny,we,v just been through elections here in Oz.Can,t possibly imagine how Bush could be against any marriage.Afterall he's been in bed daily and publicly with Blair & our P.M.John Howard since he became President.

[Felicity]

The Kerry supporters include the worsed that our society has to offer. For them to pick Skerry and hate Bush so much means Bush is doing something right.

[clarissa3d]

must say it looks to have gone down the path of a voting stand off.

[Deborah757]

True Socialism on the other hand is THE way to the future.

And therein lies the true difference between the two parties and is why we can never agree. Many of us believe in the merits of capitalism.

Deborah

[Felicity]

Just to let you know, I was in the army for more than a decade myself. I have experience to go my on my feelings.


Before I get into this let me just say I don't mean to offend anyone, especially soldiers, former soldiers, and families of soldiers. I've spent a lot of time studying war and how people react to wartime experiences. I will never know what that kind of experience is like, but I know enough to hold such people in the highest of respect.

Well, I believe the best historical examples that fits the current war in Iraq will be Desert Storm. Nothing else can compare in regards to military capability and reasons why soldiers enlist. Compare any war that soldiers were drafted, and you spoil the historical data for peoples reaction.



That said, consider that most of the people going into the army, including a large amount of recruits are young people. At age 18, most everyone is extremely idealistic and impressionable during these important formative years. In addition to the lack of life experience, many of them have only a high school degree or less - many (I believe - this is speculation) are in it for the Mont. GI bill.

Yes, most are 18 when they join. Some 17 with parental permission. None of then have less than a High School education because the military has that as one of it’s minimum standards. Dropouts cannot get in unless the get a GED or go back to HS first. This is one of several reasons the draft will not happen. As I said before, The military can lower the standards first if recruitment falls short. As for idealistic? What is wrong with expanding on that in positive ways. I gained experience in the Army that I wouldn’t trade for anything. The people going to the Army for the schooling is a fair percentage. However, things like pell grants pay 100% of college so that cannot be used as an excuse.

Soldiers joining the military are completely aware before they join that they may be called for action. The crybabies who turn around and say things like “I never thought it would happen when I was in” are few and should just be let go with an “Other than Honorable Discharge.” Let them decide on having that record over fulfilling their commitment.

Also, the bulk of the military is comprised of people who have reenlisted at last once. This means they found meaning in their first 2 to 4 years of service. Those called up from reserve or nation guard units are primarily people who got out of the full time military before the 20 year point and wanted to stay in for a pension and/or to continue to serve our country.


Now in basic training the idea is to break down individual egos and rebuild each person into an effective member in a unit. This way everyone is on the same page and there are less screw-ups. It also makes for an ideal situation for special talents and leadership to emerge, as they are stressful conditions. (please add to this or correct me if you've been in the military).

Now if you take these impressionable kids, completely break down their egos and individuality (civilian individuality I believe is different from soldier), you can tell them pretty much any ideology you want. Some may not believe in it, some may reject it, but the majority want to believe it. They want to believe that this thing they've put so much of their life into is a worthy and noble cause. I believe the same goes for wartime. Would you be able to kill for a cause that you think is not only wrong, but immoral as well?

Prior to the end of the draft, Basic Training was like you imply. People were not allowed to fail basic training except under few circumstances. Today’s military is not so rough. My basic training was a breeze for me, and anyone who is at least healthy. You get dogged a bit at times, but rather than breaking down someone’s ego, they simply do administrative separations if you do not comply. When I was in Basic Training, I would guess about 5% of the people were kicked out.

There is not anything in the military training that imposes mind control to the degree you imply. A person who could not think on his own to that degree would wash out. As for a soldiers moral compass, one finding he doesn’t believe in a war we are in would likely be made fun of by the other soldiers. If you want soldiers questioning decisions of their orders, just put in someone like sKerry. He will make it a political war rather than do what’s right. Just like Johnson did in Viet Nam.




Why on Earth would Bin Laden want to work with Saddam?! Bin Laden is a strict fundamentalist Muslim who believes so wholeheartedly in Koran doctrine that he takes its word literally. Saddam pretends to believe in Islam so he can easily control people and expand his materialist empire. The man's hero is Stalin!!! Stalin believed that religion is wrong, and that the only truth is the State (hence Sovietism)
I don’t remember the complete connection, but it had to do with the fact they are both terrorists. They both want to destroy Jewish and Christian ideals.You are right, and they didn’t even like each other. However, they did on occasion meet. Remember the saying “The enemy of my enemy is my allie?”




And as for WMD? The UN picked that one as a material, literal blockade. You can't enforce laws by ideology alone, you have to have something concrete. The UN and all 9 of the permanent members of the security council voted against war. Sure, the official "on paper" reason was for WMD, but they knew just as the world knew that it was imperitive to stand up to the U.S.'s bullying and strongarming.
If you look at who the main members are in the UN and look into their history, you can see they are a rather unethical group for the most part. I think you are right that some voted against us just because they don’t like what we can do. They are jealous.

The WMD was a real concern to us anyway, and the UN. When we left after Desert Storm, we knew of some of his inventory. Part of that inventory was 800 liters of Antrax. In the USA, we had antrax mailed several places. This is a possible Saddam/Bin Laden connection. Where did that Antrax come from? It was imerative to us that Saddam fully account for his weapons. He did not comply with the inspectors, and this time, we were not going to let him play games.


We can debate the real and imagined reasons for the war on Iraq but one thing stands above all that:

The U.S. has continually exercised its will on the world, regardless of world opinion.
YES! And we are proud of it! We will not be submissive to world opinion! At least we exercise our power on the side of morality. When WWII ended, we could have dominated Japan and Europe. Nobody could have stood against us. However, when the major fighting finished we helped rebuild both.

With all the power the USA has, we must vote in honorable people, even if we don’t believe in their views. There are now too many unethical politicians. What is they gain a majority? Not only our country, but the world will be doomed into WWIII. Protect the world, vote for Bush. Get the liberal liars out of office.



To those who weren't caught up in the menial details it was obvious that the U.S. was going into Iraq not to end a brutal dictatorship or spread democracy, but to expand it's influence over the world.
I’m sorry you believe that. Closer to your point is that having a democratized Islamic country in the middle of the others would show the others how freedom promotes a prosperous environment overall. That was a factor in the decision to go in. Ever since the Gulf War ended, and we pulled out, statagies were always on the drawing board because it was apparent we may have to slap Saddam again in some future point. Seveal years of planning and scenarios took place.


Iraq was different for the world because the U.S. crossed the line from being an economic and trade empire, to being the kind the world has always feared - the kind that sends it's troops to force its will. Whether or not we believe it, the world sees the U.S. as a power and money hungry empire, bent on serving its own needs and not the world's. It's the UN's job to prevent that sort of thing.
Wow, how did you extrapolate that?

Throughout the more modern history of the USA, we have never attacked anyone without a good cause. We have some dirty things in our past when it comes to the Indians, Mexicans and Slavery. However, these were values our forefathers brought with them that we, as a nation eventually grew out of. People who see us as a money hungry empire are missing two points that defy that idea. First of all, our trade agreements. We continue to make trade agreements were we have a trade deficit. Most people may not realize this, but this helps other countries grow their economy, at our expense. Second of all, Capitalism is for the most part, a good thing. All people do is take pop-shots at the times it gets abused. Capitalism is why we are so prosperous compare to other countries that are a Monarchy, Dictatorship, Socialistic, or whatever else. We are the envy of the world, an that prompts jealousy and anger.

The UN? You want a corrupted organization to dictate our actions? Not as long as I breath! It’s bad enough that we have organized crime in the government levels or my state. Hopefully, Bradberry and his kind will be voted out in 3 weeks. I think enough Oregonians have seen his corruption by now to do so.

[Tristen Cox]

OK I heard something today that I thought was rather funny:

We feel that all Americans should support the candidate of their choice. To show that support we would like to encourage all Kerry supporters to drive durring the day with their head lights on and all bush supporters to drive at night with their head lights off... :eek:


Well I thought it was funny ;)

LOL!
:D

[eleventhdr]

Oh Yeah Right on as they used to say once upon a time!.

[Alayna]

JoannaDeesOh Alayna, you cannot be "elected" dictator of the universe, it has to be just given ... or taken by a bloody uprising!

Hitler was elected;) maybe I should have been more clear in that if I were to seize government I wouldn't be living out my ideals. Of course once in power, I'd immediately start consolidating (of course that's assuming I'd know what I was doing which is unlikely:D )

And Chandra, I'm sorry for what happened to you. What those people did is cowardly and they were obviously not there to get you to vote for Kerry. I hate to see such ignorance forced upon good people, especially when it comes from people who share some of my opinions. I hope you're able to get your life in order quickly and with as little pain as possible. Those people might have been Kerry supporters, but that doesn't mean that all of us who are anti-Bush are pro-Kerry. I think the man's another lap dog who won't do any good for this country...But he's not Bush, and that is better than anything right now - gotta take the lesser of two evils.

Also, there's no need to take pot shots at the British, especially concerning the distant past:rolleyes: . That's like calling the French a bunch of weaklings who surrender at a moment's notice because of WW2 (anyone who understands what happened in WW1 understands why they were out so quickly)

If anybody knows our situation in America, it's Britain. They've had one of the most successful empires in history and were not without their share of brutality...They can teach us a lot about not repeating history's mistakes.

FelicityThe Kerry supporters include the worsed that our society has to offer. For them to pick Skerry and hate Bush so much means Bush is doing something right.




How do you figure? By that do you mean democrats who have no money? I know you're not that shallow. And where do you get the idea that if people hate Bush so much that he must be doing something right? How cn you prove something like that. I'm not speaking for everyone here, but I hate Bush because he has no regard for diplomacy, wants to end public education, lowers taxes (but only for the upper echelons of our society), rockets our national deficit to the stratosphere, wastes our time and soldiers' lives on an unnecessary and unpopular war, makes policy on religious grounds, restricts civil rights, sees everything in black and white, has no regard for the environment, prefers to kill rather than talk, promotes fear in America, fights wars on concepts that by definition cannot be won..........................I can keep going if you'd like


And therein lies the true difference between the two parties and is why we can never agree. Many of us believe in the merits of capitalism. I believe in the merits of Capitalism too. I also like to eat steak, but you can't stay alive by eating steak breakfast, lunch, and dinner everyday for your entire life. I think all modern concepts of government and philosophy, as well as older ones have merit, but for god's sake, show some moderation!!


Wow, how did you extrapolate that?

Throughout the more modern history of the USA, we have never attacked anyone without a good cause.You really need to catch up on your American history. Do yourself a favor and read a book that wasn't written in America, or by an American. I'm not saying read Kim Jong Il's "history of the U.S.", but definitely go for an objective source.


We continue to make trade agreements were we have a trade deficit. Most people may not realize this, but this helps other countries grow their economy, at our expense.
We have a trade deficit with Nigeria - we donate wheat to supplement their food supply which is a dwindling resource in an arid country....At least that's what the government has us believe. The truth is we dump off excess wheat on them because we produce too much simply for the sake of farmers who live off huge subsidies. That wheat is much more convenient for the average Nigerian, so much so that they now prefer wheat bread to their natural diet. Also, because of this extra food they've been able to be less careful about their harvesting of the local supply and have overdone it....Now they must depend on these subsidies to survive and thus are another country in the pocket of the U.S....But we're helping them:rolleyes: give me a break.

We will not be submissive to world opinion.
That is precisely what is wrong with us - we look at the world in that way. It's not that we refuse to be submissive to what the world thinks about us. The world is all we have, and is all we can count on for the rest of our existence. It's the modern world now, we're globalized and a large part is truly civilized. After decolonization in the 1960's, the idea of grabbing land for power disappeared forever from the spotlight, and empire no longer was acceptable. Now the focus in the world is to move past selfish behavior and realize that we make it what it is, and if we screw it up we have nothing else. The leaders of the world's most developed countries are all trying to evolve past this "might makes right" attitude which always ends up in the same cycle of revolution followed by small noble beginnings, followed by lots of power and wealth, followed by greed and corruption, followed by revolution. History has repeated itself enough times for these countries to get it....and then there's the U.S. - too young to have experienced many of these hardships even once, let alone multiply it. If the world is a family, then these countries are the "parents" who have seen enough in their lives to have grown wise. The U.S. is the incorrigable child who can only say "GIMME GIMME GIMME, MINE MINE MINE!" The only problem is that we have the power of the parents. And lets not forget, we DID dominate Japan and Europe. Read John Dower's "Embracing Defeat" for a good look into the all-encompassing censorship and thought control over the Japanese during reconstruction. By the way, that book isn't some "leftist rant"...It DID win a Pulitzer.

I can't argue with what you say about the military - I believe what you say, and for the most part stand corrected. Just one thing though:

It's not mind-control........It's nationalism - just as effective and much easier to regulate.

This is long enough, and my points have pretty much been made, but I have one more thing: If you truly believe the U.N. can be so easily corrupted by a few diplomats from countries with shady histories........well, what can I say? Vote for Bush, you obviously see the world differently. The U.N. is the most important body EVER created, even more so than the E.U. We don't see it as important because we have money, power, and the largest military in the world. There are 191 official States in the world, most of which the U.S. couldn't give a shit about unless we can profit from them and/or exploit them somehow. For most of those countries, the U.N. is the only recourse they have against bullies like us. Sure, it's far from perfect - but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And Erica? Well put!! Somehow you can say in 2 sentences what takes me 2 pages of blathering on to say.

[Chandra Marie]

That's like calling the French a bunch of weaklings who surrender at a moment's notice because of WW2 (anyone who understands what happened in WW1 understands why they were out so quickly).First, lets not get me started on the French. Thats a whole nother argument.


wastes our time and soldiers' lives on an unnecessary and unpopular war, Just because a war is "unpopular" (most I assume are) does not by any means make it "unnecessary". After 9/11 what do you feel the proper response would have been. Just say to the terrorists "please don't do that again or we will be very angry"? IMHO if Kerry gets elected we will be seen as a weak unwilling to defend ourselves country ripe for more attacks.


has no regard for the environment, He realizes that we need to be less Dependant on forien oil.


prefers to kill rather than talk, Yeah right, like Al Quida was open to negotiations before leveling the WTC.


fights wars on concepts that by definition cannot be wonIt was a show of force, it was nessesary to in order to show we would not roll over like a whipped puppy and cower in the corner.






I can't argue with what you say about the military - I believe what you say, and for the most part stand corrected. Just one thing though:

It's not mind-control........It's nationalism - just as effective and much easier to regulate.My father was Navy as was his brother, 2 cousins in the Air Force, I'm ex U.S.M.C. And i have a daughter in the Navy and one going to join after high school. Am I scared for my daughter? Yes. Do I think she should be in this war? Yes, if she is in the military she needs to go where she is needed. Do I wish I was still active and over there? HELL YES.

And one other thing, the comment about the British was not a "pot shot" It was a dead on hit.

[Felicity]

The Kerry supporters include the worsed that our society has to offer. For them to pick Skerry and hate Bush so much means Bush is doing something right.
How do you figure? By that do you mean democrats who have no money? I know you're not that shallow. And where do you get the idea that if people hate Bush so much that he must be doing something right? How cn you prove something like that. I'm not speaking for everyone here, but I hate Bush because he has no regard for diplomacy, wants to end public education, lowers taxes (but only for the upper echelons of our society), rockets our national deficit to the stratosphere, wastes our time and soldiers' lives on an unnecessary and unpopular war, makes policy on religious grounds, restricts civil rights, sees everything in black and white, has no regard for the environment, prefers to kill rather than talk, promotes fear in America, fights wars on concepts that by definition cannot be won..........................I can keep going if you'd like

Read my statement again... I said "INCLUDE!" I in no way implied it was a large number. I said this basically because of Chandra’s experiences and the things happening in my state, Oregon. The Oregon Department of Transportation here is removing Bush/Cheney signs over something like 2x3 feet that can be seen from the highways, and conveniently missing the large Kerry/Edwards signs. Sure, the law only allows a certain maximum size, but they are purposely leaving the democrat signs. Isn’t the law suppose to be applied equally? On top of that, our Secretary of State is a Kerry supporter and has found a way to remove Nader from the ballot, and I hear Cheney isn’t on the Oregon ballot either. Now get this… He is also allowing the elections office to ‘enhance’ the votes on the ballots… Oregon is full of liberal corruption… Criminals hate people like Bush and manage to shed their hatred to their flock of sheep. I would like to see someone give me a point by point reason why they hate Bush. Follow through to the root issue and expose the truth.


You really need to catch up on your American history. Do yourself a favor and read a book that wasn't written in America, or by an American. I'm not saying read Kim Jong Il's "history of the U.S.", but definitely go for an objective source.


How can someone not in America understand and write better history that someone in America? I don’t claim to know all of US history, but your statement implies that there are only biased sources here. Please school me, give me a solid source you consider to be accurate.


We have a trade deficit with Nigeria - we donate wheat to supplement their food supply which is a dwindling resource in an arid country....At least that's what the government has us believe. The truth is we dump off excess wheat on them because we produce too much simply for the sake of farmers who live off huge subsidies. That wheat is much more convenient for the average Nigerian, so much so that they now prefer wheat bread to their natural diet. Also, because of this extra food they've been able to be less careful about their harvesting of the local supply and have overdone it....Now they must depend on these subsidies to survive and thus are another country in the pocket of the U.S....But we're helping them:rolleyes: give me a break.
Remember that there are several factors involved you your statements. I see you have a healthy skepticism about out government. Believe it or not, I do too. My state is one that benefits from the wheat situation. There are several farm subsidies besides wheat. The primary intent was to insure a steady supply and not have farmers go out of business. Farmers will not stop growing because of market losses in fluctuating time. This however gets abused and the abuses need to be stopped.

I don’t know the facts behind Nigeria but I assume it is one of the African countries that would have countless deaths from famine without help. Are they in our pocket? What have we demanded of them? What do they have to offer? It appears this is a cynical claim. Could it be actual humanitarian help? We actually have a good side to us. Site me some facts if you can.


That is precisely what is wrong with us - we look at the world in that way. It's not that we refuse to be submissive to what the world thinks about us.
I assume you mean my statement that we will not be submissive?

The world is all we have, and is all we can count on for the rest of our existence. It's the modern world now, we're globalized and a large part is truly civilized. After decolonization in the 1960's, the idea of grabbing land for power disappeared forever from the spotlight, and empire no longer was acceptable.
Did Saddam know that when he took Kuwait? Should we ignore the needs of the helpless just so we are a good neighbor? Should we wait until we have more attacks before we take action against known threats?


Now the focus in the world is to move past selfish behavior and realize that we make it what it is, and if we screw it up we have nothing else.
Selfish… don’t make me laugh… Except for some political and corporate greed, we are the least selfish of all nations. Our trade agreements benefit other countries over ours and every time we try to balance them, somebody cries foul! Our polititions have negotiated bad trade agreenments and we will be paying for decades to come in job losses and reduced tax revenues here.

The leaders of the world's most developed countries are all trying to evolve past this "might makes right" attitude which always ends up in the same cycle of revolution followed by small noble beginnings, followed by lots of power and wealth, followed by greed and corruption, followed by revolution.
It doesn’t always happen that way, but would you contend that we would be safe if we disarmed? I agree might is not always right, however, without a strong defense capability we would be doomed by predators. Without using our might to help our friends, we are just a paper tiger. The UN didn’t enforce the dozen or so resolutions concerning Iraq, so we did! Why do people refuse to see all the nuances in this issue. Are Bush haters so blind they fail to see the truth, or just hate Bush more than the truth?

A good quote: “Evil thrives when good does nothing”


History has repeated itself enough times for these countries to get it....and then there's the U.S. - too young to have experienced many of these hardships even once, let alone multiply it. If the world is a family, then these countries are the "parents" who have seen enough in their lives to have grown wise.
Seems to me that our leaders look at the same world history, but have a active view rather than a passive view. I myself believe it better to be active!!!

The U.S. is the incorrigable child who can only say "GIMME GIMME GIMME, MINE MINE MINE!" The only problem is that we have the power of the parents.
And bad parents at that, at least the liberals. Liberal politicians are always pandering to the desires of the crybaby voters without regard to impact. Tax hikes on the rich, free this and that, regulations, etc. Conservative politicians believe in removing the layers of government that restrict our freedoms, and expanding the free market Supply and Demand aspects. This may be our single largest problem not only at home, but in the world view. Policies continue to change according to the mix of conservative and liberal politicians in power.

And lets not forget, we DID dominate Japan and Europe. Read John Dower's "Embracing Defeat" for a good look into the all-encompassing censorship and thought control over the Japanese during reconstruction. By the way, that book isn't some "leftist rant"...It DID win a Pulitzer.
Perhaps I used the wrong words. Yes, we occupied them like we are in Iraq today. However, we did not annex them as we could have. We stayed and yes, dominated them, till a stable government was in place. With our help, they are huge economic powers in the world today. Where would they be without the action we took?

Oh… Pulitzer means nothing to me as a reference for accuracy… How often are journalists accurate today that win it?


I can't argue with what you say about the military - I believe what you say, and for the most part stand corrected. Just one thing though:

It's not mind-control........It's nationalism - just as effective and much easier to regulate.

Are you saying it is wrong for our soldiers to be patriotic? Use a thesaurus and you see nationalism and patriotism are same.


This is long enough, and my points have pretty much been made, but I have one more thing:
I often get tired of these long sessions of posting too and don’t respond to as many as I would like to.

If you truly believe the U.N. can be so easily corrupted by a few diplomats from countries with shady histories........well, what can I say?
It is a proven fact that France, Germany and Russia were on the financial take from Saddam and why they refused to back us. You don’t see it on the alphabet news networks for two reasons. Bush hasn’t brought it up for diplomatic reasons. The major media sources are against Bush so they wont bring it up. Read the Duelfer report… grrrr… can’t find the link…

Vote for Bush, you obviously see the world differently. The U.N. is the most important body EVER created, even more so than the E.U. We don't see it as important because we have money, power, and the largest military in the world. There are 191 official States in the world, most of which the U.S. couldn't give a shit about unless we can profit from them and/or exploit them somehow. For most of those countries, the U.N. is the only recourse they have against bullies like us. Sure, it's far from perfect - but lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The reason the US doesn’t respect the UN is because of the level of corruption within it. We have too much corruption in the USA, but the in the UN, it is far too much for the UN to act in the worlds best interest.

As for Bush, he is too liberal for me. I will however vote for him based on:
1) He has proven himself as a capable Commander in Chief
2) He sticks to a stated position with few exceptions.
3) Kerry’s position changes more often than anyone can keep up with.
4) Kerry’s plans are poor and a worse diplomat. He claims he will build a coalition, but calls the current one “coalition of the coerced.” Do you think they respect him for that? I’m sure they take great offence to him belittling them.
5) I believe the 254 veterans who say how Kerry was in Viet Nam over the half dozen or less he has on his side. Kerry has no right to be our Commander in Chief. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf
6) Kerry cannot say much good on his 20+ years in government and is also named the most liberal senator… More liberal then Kennedy…

And I can continue with several more critical reasons.

[Felicity]

Good shooting... All Bullseyes!

[eleventhdr]

It is my friends very far worse then you can even ever fathom.!.

[Jerry]

Hi, all.

This is a tough topic for me because I am very politically active. But I'll throw out my perspective and let it fall where it may.

I'm a conservative because I believe in a market economy. It's clear the best standard of living has been created by innovation and personal motivation. Clearly, that must also be done with morality and a sense of conscience. I think, over all, historically, with the shining light of freedom and honest journalism, we've done that pretty well. I've known union presidents, office administrators, production managers, CEOs, attorneys, and politicians, and EVERY ONE wants what's right. Justice, healthy lifestyle, sustainability, and better conditions for the underprivilaged.

I have a distrust for too many of the "poor" and "unemployed" because I think too many are just lazy. Study hard. Work hard. And in the end you WILL overcome adversity and prosper. The Dems seem to just be pandering to that group for votes (power) on the basis of more freebies.

I'm agnositic, but I respect the "goodness" in religion. I just can't buy into any specific branch because in there you find the bias.

So, socialism doesn't work because someone has to be the director and power corrupts. Absolutely. I recognize our current governmental system is failing because of inertia to the "powerful". That must be overcome by a renewed honest accountability. Neither of the current candidates will give us that. But religion provides the moral foundation of right. All of that moves me to the republicans.

[Chandra Marie]

ummm has anyone seen any connection between 9/11 and Iraq?
And the answer is,,, NOPE!!! because there isn't one. How about a connection between Iraq and terrorism? NOPE no connection there either. Sorry...

Yes Saddam was an horrible person and killed many of his own people, used chemical weapons, and was a little Stalin but that doesn't give us the right to go bomb the shit out of them...

Won't go into the Kerry comments other than to say that his REAL military record is a hell of a lot better than that of Bush. (At least he did fight)
First off, Osama was in bed with Saddam via financal backing, second if Kerrys record speaks for itself, why then did he re-enact for film his swiftboat ordeal?






ericaleighton[/b]]Ya about like theCoalition was the last time some of there membership bombed an abortion clinic... then did he re-enact for film his swiftboat ordeal?
I agree there are some Christian right wing wack jobs as well, and they are prosecuted. So your logic says because bush is Christian He is resposable? What kind of thinking is that? I mean if we let the Christians run free after a terrorist act and only went after Al-Quida then you would have an argument, as it is you made my point....the guilty need to answer for the crimes.

[Tristen Cox]

It is my friends very far worse then you can even ever fathom.!.

couldn't agree here more..thanks Suzy

[Felicity]

Well said. We are on the same sheet of music.

[Felicity]

Erica, you took that statement to an extreem didn't you? I understood perfectly well. Jerry didn't say most, or all... he said too many! I too was laid of from a $6k/month tech job. I had one year I made 118K taxable. I just about gag evertime I hear a politician say he's not going to raise taxes on the poor because it always hit me, and hard.

He is 100% correct. We have too many people in society that rather than get off their duff and work hard, depend on others. Too often, that comes from my tax dollars and everyone else who pays taxes. Reasons like this are why some of us conservatives have become so distrustful of any and all liberal agendas.

[Felicity]

There is absolutely NO evidence of this at all. NO links of any kind between Saddam and Osama have ever been found.
I can't let that one go. You were right that there was no connection between Saddam and 911, however, he did have proven ties to Bin Laden. Find the 911 Report and do some key word searches.

[Felicity]

Won't go into the Kerry comments other than to say that his REAL military record is a hell of a lot better than that of Bush. (At least he did fight)

OK, he was in combat. However, Bushes contract with the NG would have likely placed him in combat if he failed fighter school.

I was looking for the flight hours and attendance records of Bush but didn’t find it. However, I found some real good stuff. Found some damaging things on Kerry’s record too and I dare anyone to prove it wrong!

John Kerry:

Well, for starters, there are 254 Swift Boat Veterans that disagree with Kerry’s accounts: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf

John Kerry has not signed the Standard Form 180 that would release about 100 pages of documents. The authority for Kerry’s military service release was Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. Kerry’s discharge document is dated February 16, 1978. Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483. This also allowed board to change the discharge status of former service members. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued. Medals are revoked for Dishonorable Discharges! See: http://www.nysun.com/article/3107 This is the real damaging one.

George Bush:

Although this is a GOP site, consider it may be true. Other sources concur that Bush had a good NG record. This is an account of a pilot that knows the history of the times: http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/guest/2004/jw_0920.shtml

Here is a link that gives a history of Bush’s military service. It points out that there were openings in the unit and Bush wasn’t given special treatment for enrolment, which is one of the critics complaints: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1070876/posts

I found this and thought it funny while looking for Bush’s hours of flying record: http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/andersen/andersen_046.htm


The democrats dirty trick department likes to use Brig. Gen. William Turnipseed’s quote that he never saw Bush. Look at what he really said:
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

[JoannaDees]

All irrelevant. All are politicians. All are vested with special interest money. It's just a matter of which special interest money is of interest to you. All politicians. Do you really think anybody has the power TO DO THE RIGHT THING? Only Alayna and myself are capable of that! Then we have to fight the power corrupts absolutely thing. Alayna, arm in arm, we fight the fight, zap the wicked, praise the just, blah, blah, blah .............

[Alayna]

Thank you Erica, I can't possibly reply to all of this myself!:D But some of the finer points:


Just because a war is "unpopular" (most I assume are) does not by any means make it "unnecessary". After 9/11 what do you feel the proper response would have been. Just say to the terrorists "please don't do that again or we will be very angry"? IMHO if Kerry gets elected we will be seen as a weak unwilling to defend ourselves country ripe for more attacks
Again, modern civilization! I'm not saying war is unnecessary, but we should explore every option possible before war - nobody say we already did that again...I will always think that we didn't and those who believe we did will probably continue to do so. Dead issue now.
This is the typical conservative black vs. white mindset. Just because I think our overbearing military presence is wrong, doesn't mean I think we should have a weak defense. Lets get real here: the U.S. has the largest military in the world - there are no close 2nds. We have propped up our economy by war in the past and continue to do so in the present. We also help our economy through military means in peacetime - Don't forget the contract we have with Sweden to sell them a shipment of the newly designed F-35 (a harrier-style jet with supersonic capabilities developed by Airbus). We thrive on war - It's what we're good at, it is American culture. In fact, war and our dependence on its economic value is the reason why we are in this situation in the first place!

I'm not trying to offend here - I too think what happened on 9/11 is wrong - but America deserved it more than any other country out there. DON'T start preaching to me about the "heroes" that died or all that crap - leave emotion out of this argument and stick to facts of "why" it happened(not that anyone here has gone there, but I'm trying to pre-empt the inevitable). And by the way, lets not misuse the word "hero". By calling the people who jumped to their deaths or fled in the streets in sheer terror heroes, you dishonor the firefighters and police officers and civilians who put their own lives at risk to save others. Christopher Reeve is not a hero! He fell off a horse and now lives life in a wheelchair. His accident is unfortunate and his recovery is inspiring, but he is not a hero! Again, I'm not saying people on this thread are doing this, but I get annoyed by this constant butchering of our language and wanted to bring this to attention in case it came up later on...

Here is the time to finally let this rant go......9/11 - GET OVER IT! There are a lot worse things that happened before and since that. Also, Pearl Harbor - GET OVER IT! The American Revolution - GET OVER IT! We've had so little happen to us that we hold on to these things like they're the most tragic or noble events in the world.


He realizes that we need to be less Dependant on forien oil
That has nothing to do with the environment.


It doesn’t always happen that way, but would you contend that we would be safe if we disarmed? I agree might is not always right, however, without a strong defense capability we would be doomed by predators. Without using our might to help our friends, we are just a paper tiger. The UN didn’t enforce the dozen or so resolutions concerning Iraq, so we did! Why do people refuse to see all the nuances in this issue. Are Bush haters so blind they fail to see the truth, or just hate Bush more than the truth?
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT. Every time! I'm sick of conservative policy-makers and supporters making all of their arguments based on the context they dictate, not on reality. Did the UN essentially ignore the 12 previous resolutions? Yes - during repeated outbreaks of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Rwanda, Kosovo, Somalia. There were a lot more important things going on in the world at the time, none of which (including Saddam) could be solved without placing them in the spotlight. But conveniently and quite suddenly after we'd finished blowing the crap out of Afghanistan (which we still have yet to make a sincere effort to fix) all of the sudden Iraq is the major issue according to the U.S. By the way - we did NOTHING when he gassed 3,000 Kurds at Halabja, nor the numerous other smaller gassings since then. If anything we supported him through our inaction and obvious loopholes in regulations (choppers - no-fly zone, remember?).

By the way, let me make clear that I'm not a liberal. I'm centrist, meaning I don't adhere to political ideologies. What's right is right, whether it comes from conservative, liberal, or other philosophies.


I have a distrust for too many of the "poor" and "unemployed" because I think too many are just lazy. Study hard. Work hard. And in the end you WILL overcome adversity and prosper. The Dems seem to just be pandering to that group for votes (power) on the basis of more freebies.
Laziness is inherent in human nature. rich, poor, we're all the same. Would you want to work in a degrading job that can't pay the bills because minimum wage is lower than living standards when you can get more from welfare (for example)? Our welfare system is screwed up, and only makes people dependent on it. Lots of things promote laziness when it comes to the human experience, but just because someone is poor it doesn't mean they are lazy. You think the immigrants of the early 20th century were lazy? I will say it again: America does not reward hard work. America rewards money. If you don't have it and work hard, you will be exploited by those who do. It's just an inherent flaw of our system. It could be sustainable and even acceptable to a degree if people were taken care of and we didn't have a billion other flaws in our system. Sorry Jerry, I'm not trying to spread the fire of this topic to you.;)

And Felicity, conservative tax cuts have been self-serving since Reagan or before. Bush's tax-cuts are nothing more than a thinly-veiled "trickle down theory". That administration has no regard for anyone but themselves and their peers. Why else would they want to cut the public education system altogether in favor of more-effective private schooling? Only rich people can afford private school. It's not enough that they're poor, we have to make them stupid too so they don't mind it. (I know - that's only a speculative rant, but it does follow their general theme of decision-making) We need to stop pretending the economy is in danger when it's in recession. It would be in danger if it didn't recede. That's exactly what happened when the tech bubble burst.


The Kerry supporters include the worsed that our society has to offer. For them to pick Skerry and hate Bush so much means Bush is doing something right.
It doesn't matter whether you said "include" or "all" or anything. By that very statement you imply that the Bush camp has none of the worst our society has to offer. As far as the rest of it goes - no argument. Some Bush supporters use dirty underhanded tactics, especially when given an ounce of power, and some Kerry supporters use dirty underhanded tactics, especially when given an ounce of power. Some from both camps are totally honest. Nothing about campaigning or slandering, or the dishonesty of the candidates has changed. It's been this way since Nixon, and arguing this won't go anywhere. In fact I don't think any of the people on this thread who are anti-Bush are necessarily pro-Kerry. Many of us acknowledge and agree that Kerry is full of it, but that doesn't mean he's a worse choice than Bush (of course I could be wrong, but I'm not going through all these posts to double-check it)

Nigeria: they're were doing fine before our intervention. There are food shortages and surpluses and they have survived in the past because they knew their land - we happened to come in at a time of shortage claiming that they were on the brink of starvation. So in a way, yes we did force it on them. And we haven't demanded anything of them as far as I know, but we have to do something with this stuff that's going to waste otherwise. It's an easy solution to a possible problem (real or perceived) in the future. In short, we're covering our bases. Our policy-makers are deceitful, not stupid. In fact, their efficiency is what makes them so scary.
Farm subsidies: I'm sorry if farmers or people related to farmers don't like this....They are outdated. Food is too cheap to support so many people making a living off of it. If farming is all your family has known for 4 generations, well it's time to learn something new. Globalization has changed the world and you can't expect to ignore it forever without serious consequences to yourselves and your country. Farming is one of those things that needs to be nationalized - the private sector is eating a huge part of our budget needlessly. The same thing is happening in the EU: France is eating a huge part of the EU subsidies budget because they produce too much and do it in the private sector. It's like the whole Margaret Thatcher/coal miners thing. She was slandered and hated because she ended many jobs that people depended on to survive - but they were outdated and were doing harm to the overall good of society. Should a few coal-miners or farmers be allowed to refuse change when the rest of the country is forced to accept it? Especially when the rest of the country is being hurt by their selfish unwillingness to change?

As for Patriotism? It is the same as nationalism. If there is one political philosophy that got me started down this road from the beginning, it was nationalism. It is the WORST, most easily and frequently abused philosophy in modern history. Hitler used it, Stalin used it, Mao, Milosevic, Putin, Saddam, Israel/Palestine, the Japanese Empire, the Ottoman Empire, fatherland, motherland, homeland. and especially Bush!Nationalism is a bankrupt, manufactured (18th century British and French invention) philosophy that always does more harm than good. I gag when I see a big-ass pickup truck sporting 2 full-sized flags and "God bless America" stickers drive by.

I believe we should support our country, we should defend ourselves, we should prosper. We should not make decisions based on sentimental or emotional beliefs. The only good that could come of nationalism is what it was originally designed for - to make it easier to unify the country toward a common goal (much easier to identify with your nation/comrades/ethnicity than your king or political boundary lines). Unfortunately, we are not remotely capable of handling the immense responsibility that comes with that convenience. Think twice before you hang that flag outside your door. You may be doing it for noble reasons, like supporting a son or daughter in the military - but aren't there more noble (not to mention more creative and less sterile) ways to do that? Aren't you doing them a dishonor by just going along with whatever everyone else does?
Patriotism is wrong. God, I'm gonna get flamed on this one........

Here's your requested reading....many are books printed in America, some of them by Americans (well-travelled and studied nonetheless). It was unfair to comment that you have only read unbiased sources, but here's some history I feel you are missing. Also included are some political thought books....I'm not about to spend the time on a full bibliography, but the name should be enough to find them.

"Nasser's Egypt, Arab Nationalism, and the United Arab Republic" focuses on the 1950's and '60s mid-east
"The Middle East On the Eve of Modernity" from Islam's beginnings to the end of the 19th century
"Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam" commentary on the nature of Islam and the meaning of "Jihad" - post 9/11
"Discourse on Colonialism" - French author analyzes the decolonization movement as it happens (1955)
"Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World"
"A People Without A Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan" the entire history of the Kurds
"A History of the Modern Middle East" dry and factual history from the end of the Ottoman Empire - my mid-east history Bible!
"A World At Arms" the best and most inclusive history book on WW2. Be warned! Over 1000 pages
"Political Geography - 4th edition" must read!! everything you need to know about geopolitics - especially nationalism
"The Concept of the Political" German philosopher talks about the evils of liberalism. Written in Nazi Germany by Carl Schmitt (Not a Nazi, hated them more than Einstein) - difficult but rewarding read
"the Communist Manifesto" Karl Marx's classic
"After Such Knowledge, What Forgiveness? My Encounters With Kurdistan" American journalist goes into Iraq during '80s and '90s and talks with Kurds about their situation. Also interviews Mustafa Barzani - the most famous and politically significant Kurdish leader.



Also, to any anti-Bush people; remember that pic I posted of "NOT Bush/Cheney '04? Well, the Sticker Guy E-mailed me telling me the stickers were being printed and would be shipped soon. I ordered the minimum of 500 so that only really gives me a week + a few days to get rid of them. PM me and I'll send you as many as you want to pass out before the election comes.... Have to act fast since Nov. 2 is almost on us.

[Alayna]

All irrelevant. All are politicians. All are vested with special interest money. It's just a matter of which special interest money is of interest to you. All politicians. Do you really think anybody has the power TO DO THE RIGHT THING? Only Alayna and myself are capable of that! Then we have to fight the power corrupts absolutely thing. Alayna, arm in arm, we fight the fight, zap the wicked, praise the just, blah, blah, blah .............
right on sister:D - except that I'm not necessarily capable of doing the right thing. I can't claim I'd be any better morally if I were given a lot of power....We can't fight it. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - the only thing that is more certain is the inevitability of death:cool:. Otherwise I'd be all for the "perfect dictator" idea!

[Chandra Marie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chandra Marie
It doesn’t always happen that way, but would you contend that we would be safe if we disarmed? I agree might is not always right, however, without a strong defense capability we would be doomed by predators. Without using our might to help our friends, we are just a paper tiger. The UN didn’t enforce the dozen or so resolutions concerning Iraq, so we did! Why do people refuse to see all the nuances in this issue. Are Bush haters so blind they fail to see the truth, or just hate Bush more than the truth?


Nice to see you in the conversation, but get your sorces right or risk being as respected as dan Rather, I did NOT say what you quoted.

[Tristen Cox]

Girls I know this thread started on a different note. I hate to see you girls arguing. :( I will try to put some dressing back into the politics.

Who do you think would be more likely to crossdress Bush or Kerry?

[Julie]

It must be Bush, it's already been reported over here that he's wearing padding these days. :D


Julietta (Julie)

[Felicity]

That was my quote.

[csnmjr]

contact me erica now!!!!
plz

[Felicity]

Well, I'm not going to attemt to respond to that. My last long post wore me out. It appears to me you are a communist rather than a centrist. You want to 'commune' the goods that derive from the work of all into a pool and share it equally, right?

Well, that has proven not to work on large scales. In small like minded 'hippie' type communes, it works fine. Read this; It is the History of Thanksgiving: http://www.atrentino.com/ConningNov03.html

[Felicity]

Erica, you took that statement to an extreem didn't you? I understood perfectly well. Jerry didn't say most, or all... he said too many!

The important point here is that the implication was most...
It was this sweeping generality that I was pointing out.
Can we agree it becomes a matter of relevance and interpretation? I will continue with this below…


I'm truely sorry to hear about your job loss I hope that things have and will continue to improve for you and yours.
Thank you. It has been a real rough ride for me. However, I do not blame the Bush administration like many do. The year I made 118k taxable was a year I profited well in stocks. I followed the market and nobody has been able to convince me any of our economic issues were caused by Bush like so many like to contend. Leading indicators for the wise had the increasing markets on a deceleration around mid ’98. It was obvious by mid 1999. By this time, one thing that kept the market going was profiting on the Y2K scare, else it would have fallen sooner. Once we hit 2000 and no major issues, the market started dropping hard. I sold the last of my stocks in Apr 2000 for about 20% less than I would have had if I sold them in Jan 2000. I saw the lay offs coming, but … what could I do? And now, I would like to get back in the market, but don’t have enough to make it worth while.



He is 100% correct. We have too many people in society that rather than get off their duff and work hard, depend on others. Too often, that comes from my tax dollars and everyone else who pays taxes. Reasons like this are why some of us conservatives have become so distrustful of any and all liberal agendas.
Can't let this one go either. No he's not 100% correct and the implication that was made is that most are lazy which patently absurd. While I agree that even one person (I know there are many more than that) that refuses to work is too many. However this is a very small number of our poor. Would you deny help to the rest just because of the few that truely are a problem? .
I would contend that assuming it meant most to be a biased view from the start.

What would an acceptable number be for capable workers who prefer to remain on some type of welfare program? Some of us with a conservative view think one is too many. How many is acceptable to someone with a liberal viewpoint? 2%? 5%? 15%? 30%? 50%? What about 99%? Should 1% of the workers support the rest of us?

When do the unproductive people in our society who are capable of being productive become an issue? To say and do nothing about those who are lazy in that regard, then reward them with freebies promotes more social welfare. Properly designed welfare programs use schooling, work search help, childcare, and also give bus tickets. They do this in my state. However, too many people were actually helped and welfare workers started losing their jobs. If the people didn’t participate, they were dropped from welfare. They were the only people denied. Some were dropped and some actually became productive. Somewhere along the line they loosened the requirements and the welfare rolls increased again.

I know a couple individuals who are on welfare. They are both exotic dancers who make as much as $500 a night. Tips only, no employment record trail. They turn around and get free housing, food stamps, and cash from the state. All they have to do is have a baby every 3 years to stay on the rolls.


It's interesting that what you mention as reason for mistrust of "liberal agenda's" are the same as those I have for mistrust of "conservative agenda's". Actually I don't trust either one!!!! Plus I really don't like Kerry any better than I do Bush. However to quote a move line "but you don't know what you'll get - well I know what I've had!" .
Yes, and it was only one reason. I said “Reasons like this.” I was very vague. I break down political liberal agendas in a few categories. All end up increasing their voter base. They are always promoting one social program or another to lure people to vote for them. They pander to special interest groups and unions to get their votes. When you look at their voting record, which a very small percentage of people do, vs. their promises, they are seldom even attempted. Talk is cheap. The reality I see is if the liberals actually fix a problem, the people who voted for them no longer need them. Liberal politicians never want to fix the problems. They keep the issues alive for years.

You are right in not trusting the conservative either. Only a handful of them are good, and as a whole, our government is no longer for the people. However, there are positive things in the conservative agenda that are far better than the positive aspects of the liberal agenda. Conservatives want to reduce the legislation that is keeping our industries expensive compared to the rest of the world. I think we should simply disassemble our trade agreements until we are competitive. I get a sense that conservatives want us to keep as much of our tax dollars as we can to keep the economy going, but the liberals think they are being generous in what little they let us keep.

Wow… I can go on forever, but that’s enough for now.




Another thing I think is rather humorus is how much of an oxymoron the term conservative has become - sure haven't helped conserve much of anything but a political agenda ;). Our use of natural resources is at an all time high and there is nothing to help relieve this that is being supported. In fact any tax incentives for any alternatives have just been removed by the Bush administration... :(

I agree. Keep in mind that applies to liberal too. Know this. There are several in conservative circles who are not happy with Bush and many other republicans at all. It is not made an issue because Kerry is flat out skerry to many people, and it is more important to keep Bush in. It is rumored that there will be some serious housecleaning in the republican ranks after the elections. The 2006 elections should be very interesting. You may even see some republican attacks against others resulting in resignations, and seats to fill.

One more thing… everyone, please… Read the constitution, specifically presidential, representative, and senator powers before you vote this November. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdoxmainpg.html

[Alayna]

Chandra: sooooooorrrrrryyyy! It's not like I meant to misquote. Nor am I turning this in for my final grade - look at how much I had to cut n' paste on that. No need to throw so much attitude at a small typo. (sorry to you to Felicity:( )

I've about had enough of this, the arguments aren't going anywhere except circles. I'm tired of Bush's policies and morals being defended by how horrible a person "Skerry" is, and I have no reason to keep this up when after all this debate I'm being called a Communist (not to mention have it be made out as a bad thing). This just says to me that my words are not being read, especially after all the effort I've made to distinguish Communism and Socialism. Or maybe it's just that when the "Red Scare" bites someone, it holds on for good. Watch out! Canada is socialist, we'd better spread democracy and capitalism to them before they corrupt the world and make it an anarchic hell - you know, since Capitalism is God's gift to society. Give me a break. And just for the record, since when is all of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany and France (among lots of others) a small hippie-like commune? It was an effort of patience to go for so long on my last post, but now as I see that my arguments are just being dismissed and not addressed it's dried up...I pass the torch to you Erica since you seem to have a good fire of passion going anyway, but if you don't want it I totally understand;)

[Felicity]

My favorite talk radio personalities are Tony Snow and Laur Engram. For local programming, I like Lars Larson and Victoria Taft. Lars has recently gone nationwaide. www.larslarson.com

[Felicity]

It was in responce to Alayna's post, but now I'm not sure where I got that idea of her. I think where the Farm Subsidy part started. Looking back, I may have misunderstood her full meaning.

[Felicity]

I wasn't trying to engage in name calling of other members. If you feel I did, I’m sorry.

Kerry to many is scary. The only thing he stands for is what ever ideal appeals to the current polls taken, and stands against Bush.

I originally misunderstood your 'farming' section intent. I read it as you supporting collective farming, which is a form of communism, or socialism in increased regulations.

Communism is a part of our society more than people realize. Unions are a communistic idea. Unions were originally needed to protect people from unfair labor practices, but are outdated for today’s would. They are now a major threat to the health of our economy.

Socialism runs ramped also. The majority of our federal government spending is now engaged in social programs and social engineering. This has me, and others worried. Liberals (most democrats now) love social programs. They should be called Socialists instead of Liberal. Libertarians and Conservative oppose social program.

Now I am not one to absolutely oppose ideas that class as a socialistic or communistic value. Some things have merits in my view. I believe we should treat our seniors better than we do and I would choose to spend more on children in areas of health care.

What bothers me most about our system of government is that our freedoms are so vast that very few people anymore exercise them responsibly. Voting for example is so abused. I get so enraged that people vote their feelings or party without finding more fact than what they see on TV and newsprint. I would really like someone to find some FACT that has MERRIT so show why I should change my vote for Kerry rather than Bush. Nobody has been able to show me anything worth while about Kerry. I see absolutely no redeeming qualities in Kerry. Bush has many things I don’t like. I wish there was a viable candidate to vote for, rather than against.

That’s enough for now. Again, I’m sorry.

[Stephanie Brooks]

Erica,

He should really be in a dress!

[Felicity]

He hads my vote over Kerry, and is less scary. At least I know his agenda!

[Tristen Cox]

Erica,

He should really be in a dress!

LoL I agree... :D

[DeniseNY]

Hi ladies!

I have to run, so I can't get into very deep detail, so I'll keep it to ten words or less:

Bush is no good. Kerry is no better.

I'll elaborate later when there is more time.

[xsideburnsx]

I will be voting third party if it's on my ballot. I will not choose this lesser of the two evils nonsense. No matter who wins, the poorer/middle class people are the ones who get screwed in the end. Something about politicians coming from well off families who never had to work for anything in their lives just doesn't appeal to me as a common person. I know they don't have my best interests at heart. But yeah...if there isn't a person on the ballot that I don't atleast agree with 90 percent, I'm probably not voting this year.

[Julie]

This hasn't a lot to do with cross dressing, except for "girls" already in the military, but do all the Bush supporters know about this little gem.


*********************
Subject: Mandatory Draft for June, '05

Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26)
starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone
should know about. This literally effects everyone
since we all have or know children that will have to
go if this bill passes. There is pending legislation
in the house and senate (companion bills: S89 and HR
163) which will time the program's initiation so the
draft can begin as early as spring, 2005, just after
the 2004 presidential election. The administration is
quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while
the public's attention is on the elections, so our
action on this is needed immediately. Details and
links follow.

This plan, among other things, eliminates higher
education as a shelter and includes women in the
draft. Also, crossing into Canada has already been
made very difficult.

Actions:

Please send this on to all the parents and teachers
you know, and all the aunts and uncles, grandparents,
godparents. . . And let your children know - - it's
their future, and they can be a powerful voice for
change!

This legislation is called HR 163 and can be found in
detail at this


website: http://thomas.loc.gov/

Just enter in "HR 163" and click search and will
bring up the bill for you to read. It is less than two
pages long.

If this bill passes, it will include all men and ALL
WOMEN from ages 18 - 26 in a draft for military
action. In addition, college will no longer be an
option for avoiding the draft and they will be signing
an agreement with the Canada which will no longer
permit anyone attempting to dodge the draft to stay
within it's borders. This bill also includes the
extension of military service for all those that are
currently active. If you go to the select service web
site and read their 2004 FYI Goals you will see that
the reasoning for this is to increase the size of the
military in case of terrorism. This is a critical
piece of legislation, this will effect our
undergraduates, our children and our grandchildren.

Please take the time to write your congressman and
let them know how you feel about this legislation.

www.house.gov

www.senate.gov

Please also write to your representatives and ask
them why they aren't telling their constituents about
these bills and write to newspapers and other media
outlets to ask them why they're not covering this
important story.

The draft $28 million has been added to the 2004
selective service system budget to prepare for a
military draft that could start as early as June 15,
2005. Selective service must report to Bush on March
31, 2005 that the system, which has lain dormant for
decades, is ready for activation.

Please see www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view
the Selective Service System annual performance plan,
fiscal year 2004.

The Pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to
fill all 10,350 draft board positions and 11,070
appeals board slots nationwide.

Though this is an unpopular election year topic,
military experts and influential members of congress
are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's prediction of a
"long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan (and
permanent state of war on terrorism) proves accurate,
the U.S. may have no choice but to draft.


www.hslda.org/legislation/national/2003/s89/default
.asp entitled the Universal National service Act of
2003, "to provide for the common defense by requiring
that all young persons (age 18-26) in the United
States, including women, perform a period of military
service or a period of civilian service in furtherance
of the national defense and homeland security, and for
other purposes." These active bills currently sit in
the committee on armed services. Dodging the draft
will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam
era.

College and Canada will not be options. In December,
2001, Canada and the U.S. signed a "smart border
declaration," which could be used to keep would-be
draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of
foreign affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland
Security director, Tom Ridge, the declaration involves
a 30 point plan which implements, among other things,
a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and
departing each country. Reforms aimed at making the
draft more equitable along gender and class lines also
eliminates higher education as a shelter.

Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service
until the end of their current semester. Seniors would
have until the end of the academic year.

What to do:

Tell your friends, Contact your legislators and ask
them to oppose these bills.

Alternate access site - contact info for your elected
reps:

http://www.firstgov.org

Not sure how this ties in with Bernadina's post on 'The Draft' but this link was on a New York site today.

http://www.nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/133829/index.php

JJ

[Felicity]

Well, the idea of a draft is total BS. Don't get worked up about it. I was in the Army 11 years, and I cannot believe we would ever resort to a draft without having something as major as WWII happening. There are too many reasons why our current volunteer military is better than one using draftees.

If you find anyone credible saying there will be a draft, I would like to see it. There is allot of political noise about it just to make the current administration look bad.

[Sharon]

There are hundreds of bills making the rounds of Congress that have no hope of ever seeing the light of day, nor were many of them even intended to. It's all politics, being able to tell your constituents at election time that you either voted for or against something, or it was a pet project of a major donor the politico wanted to keep happy.

[Rachel Ann]

Felicity, there is the small matter of running out of troops. The reserves are about exhausted and everyone has already had their tours extended indefinitely. I see no way that they can get more without a draft.

Ironically, the shortfall in a recent month, 6,500 troops, was almost exactly equal to the number discharged for being gay (asked or told, I suppose).

Of course this time they would HAVE to include women. I bet they wouldn't send drafted women in to combat though, unless they volunteered for it.

[Sharon]

It would be political suicide for Congress to pass a new draft. More likely, they'll increase pay or improve other benefits in order to induce more volunteers.
Don't be surprised if you begin seeing advertisements on MTV bespeaking the wonders of joining the US military.

[Felicity]

If running out of troops were an issue, then they would lower the standards before using the draft. A draft would be a complete lowering of standards. Right now, there are allot of people who did not finish High School who might go in the service for employment. A High School equivalency is one of many requirements for joining.

A draft would cause far too many problems. They cold also call on soldiers like me who are older and not in any reserve status that might go too.

[Bernadina]

Felicity, there is the small matter of running out of troops. The reserves are about exhausted and everyone has already had their tours extended indefinitely. I see no way that they can get more without a draft.

Ironically, the shortfall in a recent month, 6,500 troops, was almost exactly equal to the number discharged for being gay (asked or told, I suppose).

Of course this time they would HAVE to include women. I bet they wouldn't send drafted women in to combat though, unless they volunteered for it.

Is that like saying, if they do start the draft again, and you can't run to Canada or use school as an excuse, just tell the draft board that you are gay?