 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued
|
|
|
Subject: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: mousethief Date: 06 Oct 00 - 02:59 PM Continuation of this thread. Actually, Spaw, frivolous constitutional amendments are not entirely a thing of the distant past. Recall the flag-burning thing not too many years ago.
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 00 - 03:06 PM Aw geez MT.........(shudder).........I forgot how scary some of them could be! Now I'll never get to sleep tonight............... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 00 - 04:50 PM Maybe if I stick this up again, Kendall and Doug will notice it. Probably not, but there's always prayer. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 06 Oct 00 - 04:55 PM stick what up spaw? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 06 Oct 00 - 05:01 PM I believe I did give credit (albiet grudgingly) to the republicans who voted for the 19th. But, it WAS a democrat who was in the white house at the time. Anyway...thats one. As the "invincible knight" said in Monty Python and the holy grail, we'll call that a draw. Now, social security, minimum wage, 40 hour work week, workmans comp. medicare, medicaid the ERA, the Clean air act etc. what have you got on those Doug? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 06 Oct 00 - 05:25 PM Yeah, stick what up, Spaw? No Kendall, I done wore myself out researching SS. No more energy left. I doubt anything I dug up would change any minds anyway (particularly yours). I'm not absolutely sure, but I really don't think you care much for Republicans anyway. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: mousethief Date: 06 Oct 00 - 05:29 PM Since Spaw appears to be AFK, I'll answer for him. He meant if he refreshed this thread, it would pop back up to the top of the list of threads (and then Kendall and DougR might see it and start posting in this thread instead of the old one). That's what he meant by "stick this up again." Pretty close, Spaw?
Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: catspaw49 Date: 06 Oct 00 - 06:19 PM Yes Alex, thank you, that IS what I meant...........although with Kendall and Doug a few other things do come to mind. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: katlaughing Date: 06 Oct 00 - 11:17 PM Actually, Kendall said the 19th Amendment was signed into law in 1919. In my Encyclopedia of American History - Sixth Edition edited by Richard B. Morris and published by Harper & Row, it says the amendment was signed/passed into law/came into being on "26 Aug. 1920." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 06 Oct 00 - 11:41 PM My history says it was FIRST signed by Wilson, as a bill, in 1919..THEN passed the following year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 06 Oct 00 - 11:43 PM I have a lady friend who, whenever she wants to change the subject, she will indicate so, and one of us will say, "Isn't it awful what they did to Marie Antoinette?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 06 Oct 00 - 11:51 PM Yes, Kendall, but look at the publication date of your resource material. 1916, right? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: katlaughing Date: 06 Oct 00 - 11:53 PM "Isn't it awful what they did to Marie Antionette?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 07 Oct 00 - 12:14 AM Yes, kat, but evidently she had such a good time while she was around. Dougr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: katlaughing Date: 07 Oct 00 - 12:37 AM Do you think she really had her cake and ate it, too, though, DougeRdarlin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 07 Oct 00 - 01:25 AM Actually, she never said that at all. The mob had to demonize her before they could in good concience kill her. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 07 Oct 00 - 01:46 AM kat, Kendall, I love you both (but don't read anything into that Kendall) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 07 Oct 00 - 09:24 AM dont worry Doug, I'm straight, but, not narrow! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Oct 00 - 09:38 AM I dunno' Kendall........You look pretty scrawny to me. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: katlaughing Date: 07 Oct 00 - 09:45 AM Love you, too, DougeR, but how 'bout them Mets? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: BDtheQB Date: 07 Oct 00 - 11:05 AM okay, I have read all that has been written.. it has taken me aback and some time as well. I think that everyone has a grasp of reality on this subject and most have posted nicely thought out responses. I am interested in what the "foreigners" have said about our situation here and to me that is the most interesting of all the posts. Now, my comments(briefly) Nader- a good bureaucrat.. boring person.. maybe asexual Gore- ditto except the last Bush- not even effective in Texas Buchanan- Not an option for humans.. My probable choice. Boring, competent, unexciting Nader.. but my vote will be for Gore. To have the shrub would be unacceptable.. this is of course in my humble opinion.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Big Mick Date: 07 Oct 00 - 12:26 PM I have pretty well stayed out of these type threads because of my relationship with the Gore/Lieberman organization. Reading your posts gives me a great feel for where things are at. Great snapshot of what is really in folks minds. Just an aside for you folks about Cheney. Remember, as you investigate how you will vote that what one is speaks louder than what one says s/he is. Cheney indicated that his success in private enterprise had nothing to do with the Government. Investigate the tax breaks and government contracts that his company received. 'Nuff said. Welfare and a helping hand is apparently only a sin when given to the least among us. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 07 Oct 00 - 01:23 PM Mick: Wouldn't for a minute argue with you about the accruracy of your statement, but I believe even a Gore/Lieberman supporter would have to admit that Cheney's one-line regarding that subject, and the one following was funny. No? Well, I laughed anyway. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Oct 00 - 01:28 PM Mick, you are right and while I do hate Cheney's politics, the VP debate (there's a thread) was a breath of fresh air. Both men at least acted as pros with real answers in the allotted time and not a lot of "bobbbin' an weavin'"......From the sound of things on the news, I'm not the only one who felt that way. I'm hoping your boy took note of how relaxed each of them were the other night. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Frankham Date: 07 Oct 00 - 02:19 PM It's funny how the expectations of the public about the show-biz aspects of electing the president have little to do with the actual qualifications of a president to govern. I think that maybe it's a boring job. It requires being an executive (a chief one at that) and filtering through and often throwing cold water on wild imaginative ideas. I think in this that Clinton did quite well despite his scandals. He did something right for the country and with help from many others , he did lead. What he was able to do in the face of a hostile Congress was somewhat remarkable in my book. He wasn't afraid to approach unpopular issues, such as confronting the gun, tobacco and insurance lobbies, the prejudice against gays in the military and to take a strong and effective position in Bosnia and in the Middle East. My point? These are probably on a day-to-day level pretty boring jobssucn as reading stats and numbers, talking about the same thing over and over to many people, following up on details that are never as interesting as the initial ideas themselves. But it seems to me that this is what a good executive does. Bush has a record of being a poor businessman. ( One day the Silverado Savings and Loan debacle will make itself known.) Cheney seems to be better as a CEO. Gore seems to have a clear foreign policy (not isolationist). He speaks like a school-marm.Do we need an orator or an efficient chief executive and statesman? I remember that Reagan spoke quite well (the Great Communicator) and look what happened during those years. I found the Leiberman-Cheney debate more interesting because it brought out the issues clearly. It lacked the fiery substance of Lincoln-Douglas debate but at least it might have educated a few people. Nader makes the most sense to me though he has the least chance of getting elected. I think we should find the dullest speaking,un-showbiz-like person aith the ability to be the most effecient chief executive to run the country even if his shirt tail hangs out or he speaks through his nose or with a voice like Donald Duck or photographs like a member of the Podunk Board of Education. Or maybe we should have a folk singer in the White House and the whole country could really go to hell. Frank
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Oct 00 - 05:26 PM I still think that sumo wrestling would be a better way of organising this kind of confrontation. "I'm no pushover" snarled the candidate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Big Mick Date: 09 Oct 00 - 08:29 AM Yes, DougR, I laughed out loud at that line and the response to going into private industry. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Oct 00 - 10:04 AM (Sigh....) Why would anyone vote for either Bush or Gore? Just a rhetorical question, folks, you don't have to answer it. Little Hawk (in non-Democrat, non-Republican Canada) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 09 Oct 00 - 10:16 AM Why? because no one else can possibly win. we pick the lesser of two evils thats all. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Mbo Date: 09 Oct 00 - 12:35 PM Question is, why are you voting for evil? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 09 Oct 00 - 01:01 PM figure of speech son. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: SingsIrish Songs Date: 09 Oct 00 - 05:49 PM Not to create a huge debate or anything... I don't get into politics much....but it truly sickens me that Partial Birth Abortions were made legal this past summer...For the chance to get that overturned I'm voting Republican all the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: katlaughing Date: 09 Oct 00 - 06:13 PM Do that, Mary, and you could say goodbye to any rights a woman has over her body. I don't advocate late-term abortions, but I also do not advocate control over what women can do with their bodies. Last time we elected a president, less than 40% of elgible voters participated. That was the lowest it had been since 1924; before that, the lowest had been in 1824. I think it is sad and pathetic that not enough people take advantage of this very fundemental right of citizenship. I understand that a large percentage of young people from 18-24 esp. feel that elections have no effect over their lives. There are any number of reasons pointed out as to why this might be including political immaturity. I also heard that voter turnout has steadily declined in the past century because politicians did what they could to make it difficult to vote. Whatever the reasons, I cannot fathom the desire to not vote. If everyone who is elgible woudl vote we might actually see a real representation of a majority of the people. Now wouldn't that be something? kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Wavestar Date: 09 Oct 00 - 06:19 PM Sadly, kat, it would appear that the true majority of the people would still be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, and never get what we really want. I know, I know, vote Nader... but then again, I don't want him either. Apparently we're voting for evil, Mbo, because good didn't show up for the race. -J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 09 Oct 00 - 06:40 PM Aw come on you guys! None of the candidates are evil! You may not like them, but what is evil about them? Because they don't espouse your particilar point of view? I certainly wouldn't characterize that as evil (misled, misinfomed, misdirected, mistaken maybe) but not evil. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Oct 00 - 06:52 PM I never really understand that bit about "control over what women can do with their bodies", as if it ended the argument, because there's so many controls on what anybody can do with their own bodies in any case. Driving a car for example,to quote one which isn't too contentious.
But surely for anyone who hates the whole idea of abortion, the crucial thing isn't which guy is more likely to change the legal structure against which abortion happens, but rather which guy is going to push policies which make it less likely that women are going to choose to have abortions, and issues like legality oar only one factor in that kind of decision...
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Wavestar Date: 09 Oct 00 - 06:55 PM Doug R- You're quite right, they aren't evil, any of them. but they aren't the kind of leaders or men I wish I could have a chance to vote in as my president. However, this makes them disappointing, not evil. -J |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 09 Oct 00 - 07:18 PM I SAID...and will say again..IT WAS A FIGURE OF SPEECH!! George W. is not evil. Just numb. Al Gore is not evil, just institutionalized. To you who bemoan the fact that we get to choose between only two people, get involved at the grass roots! By the time the die is cast with two people, it's too damn late. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Frankham Date: 09 Oct 00 - 09:41 PM The issue about "women having control over their own bodies" is about their right to decide whether an abortion on themselves is called for. This right can be easilly taken away by arbitrary decisions of men in the Congress and the Supreme Court. In other words, government control. Male govenrment control. The "right to curb firearms" on the other hand is considered by some a "bad" govenment intrusion. Many Republicans want it both ways. They're for government intrusion only as long as it supports their views. I would imagine that in Ireland, the Catholic Church lobbies for the ban against all abortion. It lobbies in the US to do the same. It's interesting how many anti-abortion advocates are members of the NRA. Some of them feel occasionally motivated to shoot people who don't agree with them. This, McGrath, is why it's a big issue in the States. Frank
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 09 Oct 00 - 10:21 PM And pray tell us, Frank, how does one determine how many NRA members are anti-abortion? Perhaps you have access to membership information that I do not have (I am not a member so I don't know if that question is on the membership application form or not.) Kendall is right! Get involved in the grass roots of whatever party you support if you don't like the candidates running. At this point there is nothing much that can be done about selection;that's been done for this go around, and wringing of hands and knashing of teeth won't change a thing. Staying away from the polls won't either! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: John Hardly Date: 10 Oct 00 - 12:30 AM I do believe women should have unabridgable rights to control their reproductive destiny--that's why I believe that rape and incest are capital crimes and should be punished in the way a given society punishes capital offences. Once a woman, by choice has created a new life, it seems logical that the burden of proof would fall to the ones wishing to terminate the life to prove that life as of less than equally human value. If so proven--then abort away! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: katlaughing Date: 10 Oct 00 - 01:09 AM Do you honestly believe that all women who seek abortions chose to create a new life? McGrath is right: the candidate who would work the most to eliminate the need for such a measure should be the one people vote for; until we have absolutely error-free birth control, there will always be women who did not choose to get pregnant, yet will because a condom/diaphragm/bc pill/whathaveyou failed, to say nothing of the women who get pregnant from rape. It may sound trite, but I still believe if men could get pregnant, we wouldn't ever have this discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: SingsIrish Songs Date: 10 Oct 00 - 01:38 AM I don't agree with any abortions. The female chose to have sex thus she should accept the results--disease, pregnancy, whatever. Life at any stage is far more important than whether or not is "cramping a woman's style"...and if a woman is financially unable to keep a child, there is adoption. If abortion were outlawed, the woman still has control over her body...and the right to choose--there are other choices. I know it is a touchy topic for lots of people or should I say women. But that's just the way I see it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: John Hardly Date: 10 Oct 00 - 01:38 AM I don't disagree. Just pointing out that that still doesn't answer the question of the value of the life taken. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: SingsIrish Songs Date: 10 Oct 00 - 02:07 AM There is a "100% error free birth control"--it is called Abstinence. Pregnancies due to rape could be very difficult to accept. (I cannot speak from personal experience, but had a close friend who was in that situation.) I can (almost) understand keeping abortion available for cases of rape and incest...but more strongly I believe all children are a blessing...whether healthy or severely handicapped, from rape or incest--it takes faith to see the blessing sometimes. But that is getting off the topic. I can't imagine the guilt some (many?) women have later on when they are haunted by that child they aborted...my friend went through a rough time trying to cope with her decision. I sometimes think there is more protection/concern for animals than unborn children. LOL--if men got pregnant, I think it would mean the end of the human race--don't think they could handle the nausea, discomfort, and pain. LOL But anyway--the debates about all this stuff is what makes the USA so interesting. Once the president is elected, all the "feuding" vanishes and we try to support the president and hope he does a good job.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 10 Oct 00 - 10:06 AM I've noticed with all those debates and protests of the "anti-choice" people, that the great majority of them are men, and past menopausal women. Very interesting.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: katlaughing Date: 10 Oct 00 - 11:22 AM If abortions were made illegal, again, we would go back to back-alley abortions with women dying and that is something I will always fight against. It amazes me how many people think they have the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Well, Mary, I see we totally disagree and I suspect it is something we should let go. kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: SingsIrish Songs Date: 10 Oct 00 - 01:54 PM Kat, It is great to talk with people with differing and even totally opposite views. There are always different ways to "see" a subject. And I want you to know, Kat, none of my posts in this thread were not written in a "heated" frame of mind. The issue of women seeking "unsafe" abortions (as did happen in the past) is certainly one that is a cause for concern. And perhaps a good reason for those writing the laws not to illegalize it completely (leaving religious beliefs/views out of it)... In the end it boils down to the individuals own conscience. As I said earlier, I would like to see the late term abortions eliminated--they are truly heinous--if only that form of abortion could be overturned, it would be a great blessing. That's it for me on this one as well. Mary |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 10 Oct 00 - 02:09 PM So they should allow these babies that have no brain to just be born, and then die on their own, right? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 10 Oct 00 - 02:53 PM Part of what is wrong with ourcandidates is a result of what is wrong with our political system. It's what is wrong with this discussion of our system. Of necessity, because brevity is critical in our society today, we toss out blanket statements, take bits of information out of context, post inuendo as fact, refute without proof, etc. This is not how you actually go about solving problems or reaching a consensus. And consensus is essential to achieving anything under our method of government. For example, on an issue like abortion, we oppose "right to life" with "a woman's right to chose", as if those are two ends of one spectrum. And we expect our candidates to stand at one end of that spectrum or another. No one running for office would dare say "let's have science determine the point where a fetus is viable and outlaw abortion after that point. Let's have real sex education that doesn't try to deny the sexual nature of the human being. Let's try to find an answer to this question on which we can all agree, rather than just throwing the word out there and expect a 'yea' or 'nay'". The average American would listen to no more than a word or two before slipping into a coma. The Catholic Church would re-state its iron clad rule against birth control. Pundits would parse every sentence looking for the juicy sound bites. And the opposition would try to ruin his character to undercut his position. The fight would rage on leaving the candidate in the dust. Like them or not, our candidates are willing to stand up there and attempt to represent and reflect us. We villify the ones we disagree with, ridicule the ones who mis-speak/become tedious/are too glib/or have bigger than acceptable ears. We crucify them for compromising on a position that we consider sacred and castigate them for keeping company with some "devil" we have identified. God help them if they show us their humanity. As much as I don't want George Bush for president, I would applaud him for running if I thought he really had a vision for how to help his country. Unfortunately, I think he's an opportunist who has bought the idea that he is electable. I believe that Al Gore is a good man whose vision is that good old Democratic-liberal one that his father passed down to him and that has gotten so badly abused over the past few years. I'm not sure that it can work anymore without a great deal of fixing, but I still feel it works better than what the Republicans have to offer. I think the solution lies in between - in that consensus that I mentioned before. None of the candidates can get elected running on that, but regardless of who gets elected that's where we'll end up. A though to the Nader fans. If Ralph does not win, who do you think is more likely to invite him to the White House for a chat? Who is more likely to listen when he speaks? And who is more likely to actually act on some of his ideas? You might be better off voting for that guy this time. Maybe four years from now you can get Ralph to replace him on the ticket. |