|
Post by bush2004 on Jun 2, 2004 1:23:49 GMT -5
Kerry is just as much of an i d i o t (spaced b/c of the auto censor) as Bush is. For the Bush-lovers, Kerry is just as good as Bush and would do the same fine quality work that Bush has done for the past 3.5 years. For the Bush-haters, Kerry is just as much of a screw up as Bush is. Kerry would drag America into just as much of a hellhole as Bush has done. The Republican and Democratic parties and their followers have stagnated into debating whether or not one party is better than the other and will fling mud at each other trying to dirty up the other's name. Well, what about actual issues?? Oh yeah, I forgot. They don't really matter compared to arguing about which political party is better. andy to say kerry is the same as bush is putting your head in the sand. kerry stands for something bush does not and bush stands for something kerry does not. what are those two things is at the center of this struggle.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Jun 4, 2004 22:57:02 GMT -5
Well, of course it’s “democracy” (actually, in the case of the U.S., a representative republic). My comment was in response to someone musing about Kerry’s poll numbers. And in reality, Kerry is not “[scoring] . . .high in the polls”. One would think, with the bad couple of months Bush has been having, that Kerry’s numbers would be much higher, but they’re not. Well, the numbers will most likely take more shape the closer to election time we come. But then again, maybe they won’t . . .
|
|
|
Post by botany on Jun 5, 2004 0:16:27 GMT -5
Just curious... those of you that will vote for president this November (or any other election) , how much of a factor will the candidate's religious affiliation, proclamation, invovlement, etc. be in your voting decision? In other words, if one candidate stresses that he/she is a "good Christian" and will promote "good Christian morals", are you more likely to vote for that person than the non-Christian/religious person who says that they will promote "good morals" (without mentioning religion)? How much do we want to mix religion and politics? I know for myself, I won't vote for proclaimed Christian/religious person who pushes religiously orientated issues. I'm more likely to vote for someone who has non-religious issues/agendas that would benefit the people. I acknowledge that religion can and does have good morals that they teach, and if I had a choice to live with people with religious orientated morals VS. people who have "bad" morals and are the trash/scum of society, then I'd rather choose the religious side. But, I believe that good morals/political agendas are not exclusive to religion, and that religion should not be mixed with politics. If a politician chooses to be religious, great. But, don't let the religion determine the politics. Conversely, don't let the politics determine the religion. Let them be free of each other. I don't care whether or not a candidate is Buddhist, a sun worshipper, Wiccan, Jew, etc. What I'm worried about is how they could potentially affect the human population if they were in office. Independent of what religion they are. andy
|
|
|
Post by botany on Jun 5, 2004 0:27:01 GMT -5
to say kerry is the same as bush is putting your head in the sand. kerry stands for something bush does not and bush stands for something kerry does not. what are those two things is at the center of this struggle. I say that Kerry and Bush are both stupid because they have both resorted to the distortion of facts about either side to use in their "mud flinging" campaign tactics. I hoped that Kerry would be smarter, but he has proved himself otherwise. When the candidates are ready to actually sit down and present and discuss issues that are relevant to the actual people of the U.S.A. and not to the whims of the people's bandwagon mentalities, then I'll be interested in hearing what they say. But when they start pointing out stupid, unimportant stuff, or distorting facts, I won't vote for either of them. Someone else will get my vote. andy
|
|