 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Oct 00 - 03:07 PM I seriously believe that if you could get rid of all the economic and other pressures on women to have abortions which they do not want - needing jobs, losing jobs, poverty, the devaluing of looking after children as if it was a second best to paid employment, all that stuff - the numbers would go down considerably.
On the other hand if you keep all those pressures the way they are, and just made abortion illegal, the numbers would probably stay much the same. If you made the pressures worse by benefit cuts and that, the numbers would rise.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: John Hardly Date: 10 Oct 00 - 03:52 PM Bartholemew, Your statement is quite eloquent--even brilliant in its observation of where public sentiment lies. Curious though that, in this thread within a thread, you blanketly assert that Bush lacks what it takes in your opinion--though He's one who has taken a middle ground/compromise. Unlike Gore whose position IS all or nothing--any abortion anytime--even late term, Bush says 1.He is anti abortion but sees it as a states issue. 2. He believes in exceptions for rape or incest victims. So who's the compromiser/consensus builder? For my part in the "blanket statement" department, I don't see how Gore is a "good man" as you assert. Why is he NOT an opportunist? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 10 Oct 00 - 04:10 PM They both suck. Spaw for King!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 10 Oct 00 - 07:11 PM John H. - thanks for the kind words. My problem with Bush is that I don't believe him. My impression is that his abortion stance is just something he learned from his position paper. My problem with Gore(on this and other issues)is that I think he has been reduced to an easily digested sound bite. I personally don't believe that abortion is an appropriate issue for a political campaign. It lends itself to empty rhetoric and posturing. As for Gore being an opportunist, his entire life has been politics and public service. Again, I don't know him. But he's been working in the public sector for ever; he has a past that is easily researched. On the whole he has performed pretty well.IMHO |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 10 Oct 00 - 07:31 PM Well, Bartholomew, you and I agree on one thing at least (though I'll put it in a bit different way) Al Gore has been at the public trough for a lot of years. I wonder if he could make it in the private sector? Oh, that's right, I forgot, he's a tobacco farmer, isnt he? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: John Hardly Date: 10 Oct 00 - 08:04 PM Bartholemew,>br> Again, well said. I don't disagree so much with what you say as how you direct it. Gore is demonstrably dishonest but it's Bush you distrust on instinct. Isn't the reason Gore is so easily "digested to a sound bite" due to the wide career-long vasillations he's made in his life--he needs sound bites as an avoidance of (rather than a clarification) what he's done/said? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 10 Oct 00 - 08:12 PM there is an organization called Vote smart. there we can get the truth about an issue or a candidate. We will not get the truth from either of the candidates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 10 Oct 00 - 10:21 PM Kendall: It just occurred to me, YOU are a cynic! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: GUEST,steal a little and they throw you in jail Date: 10 Oct 00 - 10:45 PM steal alot and they make you king Thanks Mr. Zimmerman |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: InOBU Date: 11 Oct 00 - 07:39 AM Dear Sings Irish SOngs... Here is an Irish song for you... I lived in Ireland when both birth control and abortion were banned. Each time I hear about a return to the criminalization of abortion here in the US, I think about the case of a thriteen year old girl, who died alone in the rain, at night, in a roadside grotto shrine to Mary, because she had no options to deal with her unplanned pregnancy. That incident in Mayo, was far to common here as well once. When wieghing the options as bad as they may be, for others, remember, it is they who bear the life long consiquencies, and the choices are eaisier for us to make for another... unwanted pregnancy and abortion will always be a fact of life, criminalised or not, and criminalizing abortion only makes victems of the women involved, and does not "save babies". Let anyone who wants to return to the back room abortions think of their own daughters, because it wont happen in other peoples houses no matter how "christian" you think you family is. It is the nice girls who often get in the worst trouble. I just despare when I see the suport of your point of view by the acts of terror agaisnt doctors, and am sick that our nation has sunk to this low. Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 11 Oct 00 - 08:39 AM you mean it doesnt disappear when we sweep it under the rug? Bummer! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Frankham Date: 11 Oct 00 - 10:40 AM John, if Bush is anti-abortion he can hardly be called a compromiser. This is an extreme position. The only reason he passes it on to the states is that he doesn't want to have to deal with the issue. That's not compromise, that's avoidance. As to the evaluation of each man's character, the only real information we have to go on is what 1. the media tells us, 2. the partisan parties tell us, 3. the tabloids and the spin doctors tell us and 4. the hunches that each individual feels about the person they see on TV. I think you have to look at what they do. No one really knows who they are so that assessment is irrelevant. Look at their voting record, their actions in their life as far as we can tell about them, the conditions one finds oneself in under a Republican or a Democratic administration and vote accordingly. I'll say this. As a musician, I've always done better under a Democratic president. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Jed at Work Date: 11 Oct 00 - 10:57 AM This NRA member, like many many many in America, is pro choice! Neither George W or any other Republican has the power to end that choice - even if they really wanted to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Jed at Work Date: 11 Oct 00 - 10:58 AM Ooops! That should be neither nor ... sorry got caught up in my arguement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 11 Oct 00 - 11:41 AM I say again..if you want the truth go to Vote smart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: John Hardly Date: 11 Oct 00 - 12:13 PM Frank, Not to be obstinate, but I illustrated Bush's compromise beyond making it a state's issue--He makes allowance for rape or incest. I disagree that Pro-choice is a compromise--as opposed to...? Kendall,
Don't you assume that Vote smart has an agenda too? (just as Frank pointed out--it's still filtered news). Good illustration of this kind of advocacy reporting in the name of getting at the truth--After the VP debates on NBC Lisa Myers had(s) a regular segment "The Truth Squad" which is suppose to sort through and find the true/false in the debator's statements. In trying to "balance" the reporting on the tax reduction issue she claimed that Cheney's assertion that a Bush tax cut would be for everyone was untrue because everyone would still have to pay SS. I can see nothing other than advocacy that would make her claim Cheney was lying--that issue has NEVER been about SS. She then pointed out that 25 million more would not have a tax cut but "failed" to mention that this is because they pay no tax in the first place. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 11 Oct 00 - 12:51 PM Yes, John, I picked up on that in the Lisa Meyer's report too. You're not shocked, though, are you? Frank, I don't think Bush is avoiding the abortion issue by referring it to the states. One of the basic beliefs of republicans is that the states should be making many decisions for U. S. citizens rather than the federal government. The question of abortion, in his opinion, is one of them. As I have stated before, I am pro-choice, though I vote republican. I just wish abortion had never become a political issue in the first place. And Jed, I know where you are coming from on the NRA thing, but what the heck does NRA have to do with abortion? The original poster never answered my question. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 11 Oct 00 - 01:38 PM So, where do YOU go for the truth? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Oct 00 - 01:47 PM I'd have thought being "pro-choice" wold be quite consistent with backing the pro-gun lobby. Just as anyone saying they are "pro-life" ought to be anti-gun as a matter of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 11 Oct 00 - 02:46 PM Mebbe so, McGrath of Harlow, but I still don't see the connection. Kendall: You might try the Limbaugh Newsletter **Giggle Giggle** **Snort snort** DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: kendall Date: 11 Oct 00 - 02:58 PM Sure Doug..if you believe that fat head, you also believe there will be a Richard Simmons Jr.!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 11 Oct 00 - 02:59 PM After my last post, I began to wonder over the fact that the major party candidates in this election are both members of America's political class. Both are from families who (regardless of the source of their personal wealth) have essentially made politics their business. This disturbs me. As I understand it the founding fathers wanted to keep the governing in the hands of non-professionals; a gentleman farmer would complete a term of service in government and go back to conducting his private business, while his neighbor took his turn at performing his public duty. We have come a long way from that. Governing is a profession in itself. Except when applied to opportunists, whose leap into the public arena generally comes after failing in the private sector, let's forget the rhetoric about "feeding from the public trough". As much as we would like to return to "government by talented amateurs", that road has proven to go nowhere. Maybe I'm wrong about Nader. Maybe he is the amateur who can beat the pros. But I will not risk the next four years on a blind draw. And What about George Bush? What really drives him? Is there any idea in his bag o'ideas that is uniquely his? Does he have an agenda that is his personal vision? Or is he just a vessel that planners and strategists can fill up with trendy ideas and Republican cant? Again, I will not risk four years on a guy who I don't feel would even be in the game if not for his family name and his (dubious) personal charm. I think we have a lot clearer picture of what Gore will be as President than we do of George W. Gore will be similar to (although slightly better than) Clinton on most issues, but without the womanizing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Jed at Work Date: 11 Oct 00 - 03:36 PM Doug - there is no relation between NRA and the abortion/choice issue. I was just commenting on a previous accusation that NRA members would be inconsistent in their abortion stand. I think we are all seeking out the truth that we want to hear, and labeling the opposing points of view 'devious' or 'doubtful' With all due respect, Kendall I don't believe we will find a website that presents only the 'truth' - but I will chekc out the website you suggest. I hear the truth in what AlGore says, in what George W - and in the way Lisa Meyers presents the news, as well as the comments Rush Limbaugh makes. And I hear their points-of-view. I determine for myself what the truth is, based upon my experience and (presumably) wisdom. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Jim the Bart Date: 11 Oct 00 - 04:05 PM I don't think politics is my game. I get tired of defending the shabby positions of "my guy or gal" simply because he or she is "my guy or gal". I'm tired of rationalizing this, or explaining away that. And yet, what else can you do? You can't afford to just ignore the guys in the dark blue suits and red ties because what they say is eventually going to come back to you. Eventually, you have to pick a side to stand on, regardless of your distaste for the company you end up keeping. And you have to do that without "knowing what is True". The truth of life is always more complex than the truth of politics. Somehow, some way, you have to decide on some version of the truth that you can live with. Sort through what you read, hear, or see in as many different types of media as you can. And everybody has an agenda, from the candidates themselves to the guy who sells you a newspaper. Thank you all for not getting upset with me for my lengthy blabbering. But discussing this in this forum is part of my way of working this stuff out. You can't do this in the work place most of the time. And it's hard to find people who actually pay attention to what's going on and think about what could happen. Most people don't want to think about what's at stake. Regardless of who you support in this election, find out as much as you can before you make your choice. I keep seeing that scene from the last Indiana Jones movie, where (after the bad guy got disintegrated because "he chose poorly") the old guardian of the grail cup says "Choose wisely". I've said too much (haven't said enough - REM). I think I'll sit back and listen for a while. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 11 Oct 00 - 05:10 PM Yes, Jed, I knew what you were replying to. I had posted a question to the original poster earlier but didn't get a response. Evidently the poster believes that anyone who belongs to the NRA condones murder. To each his own. I don't believe there is any single place one can go to for unbiased reporting, either to the left or to the right. I agree with Jed, read and listen to several points of view and make up your own mind. One big problem in the U. S. in my opinion, is too many people rely on the TV pundits and newspaper reporters to tell them what they should believe. I believe the vast majority of the American media lean far, far left. I'm sure there are many who feel they lean just as far to the right. Bartholomew, it is precisely because I think I know the kind of president Al Gore would be that I would never vote for him. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Jed at Work Date: 11 Oct 00 - 05:38 PM I have watched for media bias this year, and I must say I've been impressed with the attempts at impartiality - or at least balance. NBC running Rush Limbaugh interviews without trying to destroy him, former Democratic Committee Chairman Tim Russert taking Gore task on Meet the Press, stand out in mind as examples of things I never thought I'd see. Limbaugh acquitted himself well, and presented valid reasoned points-of-view. It was obvious that Katy found the whole thing distasteful, but the Limbaugh should have no complaints about the Today show appearances, on the whole. And Gore is being held, however gently, to task for his gaffs. We'll see how it goes, as the time grows short. Sound like the gloves are coming off. But the press has, it seems to me, tried to present opposing points-of-view. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: Frankham Date: 11 Oct 00 - 06:01 PM McGrath, This is only if you agree with the anti-choice group that abortion is "murder". Then the pro-gun lobby would be consistent with pro-choice. But if you don't agree with that basic premise, then it's not. Whereas those who engage in murder of abortion doctors are possibly pro-gun since many of these atrocities have been accomplished by guns. There may be those, in fairness, who are anti-choice that are also anti-guns as the reverse but there also may be a connection particularly when the anti-gun issue and the anti-abortion issue are both supported more heavilly here in the States by the right wing. DougR, The republican penchant for suggesting that the states are more capable of making decisions then the Feds for issues like abortion IMHO is an attempt to pass the buck. The problem with "states rights" historically is that each state has it's internal beauracracy. Many states rival the Fed in this. There is the misconception that states know more what is right for their citizens than the federal government. Historically this is not borne out by such issus as voting rights, civil rights, slavery and women's suffrage. Add the abortion issue to the list. This may all be moot though because the American electorate apparently likes gridlock. As a result the fed government is never as powerful as many think. This may be due to the forsight of the Founding Fathers. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: DougR Date: 11 Oct 00 - 06:43 PM Frank, I respect your opinion but can't say I agree with your argument for the feds taking over things that could be handled by the states. State governments are much closer to the people than the fed is, and the fed, in my opinion, has got so large, and so powerful, that it feels we (the people) work for the government, and not the other way around. Just a difference in opinion. Jed, wish I could agree with you re the press. It sounds to me like the same old thing. Yes, I saw the Today show and thought Limbaugh did very well. You will note, however, that NBC felt compelled to to bring Paul Begalla on immediately after to represent the liberal point of view. It wasn't something they had to do because Limbaugh is not a politician they could have had Begalla on the next day, but I think they needed someone immediately to counteract Rush. I do agree that Tim Russert appears to stay as much as possible in the middle road and doesn't hesitate to roast either a republican or democratic candidate. Chris Matthews is the same way, I think (and he was AA to Tip O'Neil). I didn't realize Russert had been Chairman of the Democratic Party though. I did know that he was a democrat. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: katlaughing Date: 11 Oct 00 - 07:18 PM Well, you can read the positions of every candidate at this site: Issues2000, of course that's just what they each say or claim; |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Bush/Gore Round 1, continued From: John Hardly Date: 11 Oct 00 - 07:28 PM Bartholemew, I wish I could buy you a drink--your second to last post was so dead on. Even though I'm sure we don't agree on how those similar feelings about politics play out in the way we vote, we do at least see some of the same problems--and you do a beautiful job of characterizing them. Kendall, You asked what I think was THE question to ask in today's political atmosphere. Maybe you meant it as a throw-away question but "Where do you go for the truth" IS the question. In part I will say that, because I can't be expert on everything, I am at the mercy of information givers. One thing I do is assess who lies on things verifiable. If they lie in one area they are less trustWORTHY and I treat them as such. This is why I do find Limbaugh untrustworthy--not because he lies directly but because he will purposely use illogical methods to make his points. But to me, the DEATH of truth in politics is the illusion of impartiality the general media is allowed to perpetuate. Until the general public understands that Jim Lehrer is just as agenda-based as Limbaugh, the search for truth will always be thwarted. More than 9O% of the major media vote democrat--their right to do so--but to think they can also be objective in their interests, let alone their reporting, is absurd. They should not be limited in their ability to print what they want but full disclosure of how they vote would certainly neuter them! Finally, and I don't mean this arrogantly but as something of a challenge, I probably hear the liberal point of view--AS PRESENTED BY LIBERALS-- far more than the average liberal hears the conservative point of view FROM THE MOUTH OF CONSERVATIVES. For me the former is unavoidable--NPR, PBS, etc. For the latter you would have to search! John |