Politics and Dressing

[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.


http://www.hslda.org/legislation/nat...03/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/...taffadavit.pdf .

Kerry then went on to lie about the events in Viet Nam. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/..._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:

[size=3]http://members.aol.com/koran114/jihad.htm[/size]
[size=3][/size]
[size=3]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)."
[/size]

[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

[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.