[Stradlater]

For months I have been in the minority: the swing voter; the undecided.

Honestly, I'm not crazy about either Bush or Kerry, and thoroughly thinking about either candidate led me to not wanted to vote. I really don't think that the next four years with Bush or Kerry will be the difference between night and day, so I, unfortunately, was thinking about letting the chips fall where they may. I'm just sick of all of this.

However, the Republican Party's platform, suggesting constitutional reforms (life-at-conception and anti-gay-marriage amendments), slightly pushes me towards Kerry's campaign (very slightly, because the likelihood of passing such amendments is slim).

Really, though, the next four years don't bother me. I can withstand another Bush term. The real issue, however, is the longer-term. Several supreme court justices are nearing closer and closer to an age that will necessitate retirement. I honestly don't think Bush will make very wise decisions in appointing new justices, and it could set back social freedoms for decades to come.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
For months I have been in the minority: the swing voter; the undecided.

Honestly, I'm not crazy about either Bush or Kerry, and thoroughly thinking about either candidate led me to not wanted to vote. I really don't think that the next four years with Bush or Kerry will be the difference between night and day, so I, unfortunately, was thinking about letting the chips fall where they may. I'm just sick of all of this.

However, the Republican Party's platform, suggesting constitutional reforms (life-at-conception and anti-gay-marriage amendments), slightly pushes me towards Kerry's campaign (very slightly, because the likelihood of passing such amendments is slim).

Really, though, the next four years don't bother me. I can withstand another Bush term. The real issue, however, is the longer-term. Several supreme court justices are nearing closer and closer to an age that will necessitate retirement. I honestly don't think Bush will make very wise decisions in appointing new justices, and it could set back social freedoms for decades to come.

If that abortion and gay marriage are the only two issues pushing you towards Kerry, perhaps you should consider other issues like the military.

Some VERY important military decisions, that will define how the US military operates, will be made during the next Presidnecy. Bush and Kerry have two completely different visions.

My opinion, if you want a military prepared to defend this nation, vote for bush. If you want a military prepared to fight for the UN and provide humanitarian aid, vote for Kerry. I am over generalizing, but there is a lot at stake when it comes to the military.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,130541,00.html

[RonnieoftheRose]

Prevention is better than the cure. Something the Republicans will never know. They've cut back funding on AIDS, family planning and a whole host of other preventitive programs. Not to mention they've always incited terrorism rather than prevented it. And I'm not going to bother debating that point. The mentality they have is that the cure is more profitable than the prevention of a problem. It's called exploitation.

Meanwhile I'm getting calls from some guy in Asia working for a cellphone company. He tells me T-Mobile has a special offer and asks for my credit card details. Says his name is James. I ask him what his mother tongue is. He tells me. Then I curse him in his own language.

Economic imperialism means Iraqi jobs go to foreigners, which makes Iraqis helpless and angry, especially since it's their resources being taken away. American and European jobs are also going to foreigners who should reject them and create their own industries. But no, economic imperialism means they must buy our products and work for cheap.

Vote for a change. Kerry doesn't want jobs outsourced as much as Bush.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by dcolton:
If that abortion and gay marriage are the only two issues pushing you towards Kerry, perhaps you should consider other issues like the military.

They're not the issues (they're just things that don't belong in the Constitution); they're extremely small pushes. The issue would be the appointment of ultra-conservative supreme court justices.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Prevention is better than the cure. Something the Republicans will never know. They've cut back funding on AIDS, family planning and a whole host of other preventitive programs. Not to mention they've always incited terrorism rather than prevented it. And I'm not going to bother debating that point. The mentality they have is that the cure is more profitable than the prevention of a problem. It's called exploitation.

You're kidding, of course-

The Clinton administration promised to spend money in South Africa to combat AIDS, and failed to uphold that promise with even a single dollar. They sure did appreciate the photo op, though.

The Bush administration promised to spend money in South Africa to combat AIDS, and has spent and will spend a total of $15 BILLION USD over the next five years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030709-35.html

You see, it's called keeping one's word and doing the humanitarian thing, and then not using it for political gain when running for re-election. It's called 'letting actions speak for themselves, rather than trumpeting them from the campaign stop.'

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The Bush administration promised to spend money in South Africa to combat AIDS, and has spent and will spend a total of $15 BILLION USD over the next five years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...030709-35.html

You see, it's called keeping one's word and doing the humanitarian thing, and then not using it for political gain when running for re-election. It's called 'letting actions speak for themselves, rather than trumpeting them from the campaign stop.'

I have heard the allegation that the money is not so much new spending as a shuffling around so that they spending has different names. I have also heard that they're trying to attach strings to the money concerning condoms and/or abortions, which would make the $15 billion rather moot. Not to mention the stink over the cost of aids drugs (in other words, Bush may be expecting all of this money to come right back to one of the industries that supports him heavily - the pharmaceutical industry).

I have not verified any of this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

BlackGriffen

[Spliffdaddy]

Translation:

"I need more time to spin this sucker - but in the meantime (so Dubya doesn't look good), here's some derogatory rumors, ulterior motives, and conspiracy theories that may or not have any basis in fact..."

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Translation:

"I need more time to spin this sucker - but in the meantime (so Dubya doesn't look good), here's some derogatory rumors, ulterior motives, and conspiracy theories that may or not have any basis in fact..."

Bzzzt, wrong, but thank you for playing.

Translation:
"I don't have time to look into this right now, but you may want to look some of this up for yourself to check."

BG

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Translation:

"I need more time to spin this sucker - but in the meantime (so Dubya doesn't look good), here's some derogatory rumors, ulterior motives, and conspiracy theories that may or not have any basis in fact..."

Hey now, at least he admitted that he wasn't 100% positive as compared to a certain few who would make up facts and present it as truth.

PS IIRC, we have discussed this before and the issue comes down to Bush's approach to combatting AIDS. Basically put, Bush's way is the wrong way because gay advocates say so.

[greenamp]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
For months I have been in the minority: the swing voter; the undecided.

Honestly, I'm not crazy about either Bush or Kerry, and thoroughly thinking about either candidate led me to not wanted to vote. I really don't think that the next four years with Bush or Kerry will be the difference between night and day, so I, unfortunately, was thinking about letting the chips fall where they may. I'm just sick of all of this.

However, the Republican Party's platform, suggesting constitutional reforms (life-at-conception and anti-gay-marriage amendments), slightly pushes me towards Kerry's campaign (very slightly, because the likelihood of passing such amendments is slim).

Really, though, the next four years don't bother me. I can withstand another Bush term. The real issue, however, is the longer-term. Several supreme court justices are nearing closer and closer to an age that will necessitate retirement. I honestly don't think Bush will make very wise decisions in appointing new justices, and it could set back social freedoms for decades to come.

In the words of the Pearl Jam song, "you can't be neutral on a moving train."

[greenamp]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I have heard the allegation that the money is not so much new spending as a shuffling around so that they spending has different names. I have also heard that they're trying to attach strings to the money concerning condoms and/or abortions, which would make the $15 billion rather moot. Not to mention the stink over the cost of aids drugs (in other words, Bush may be expecting all of this money to come right back to one of the industries that supports him heavily - the pharmaceutical industry).

I have not verified any of this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

BlackGriffen

So you admit to not knowing whether or not your statement was factual?

And you still posted it?

[Jansar]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I have heard the allegation that the money is not so much new spending as a shuffling around so that they spending has different names. I have also heard that they're trying to attach strings to the money concerning condoms and/or abortions, which would make the $15 billion rather moot. Not to mention the stink over the cost of aids drugs (in other words, Bush may be expecting all of this money to come right back to one of the industries that supports him heavily - the pharmaceutical industry).

I have not verified any of this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

BlackGriffen

I also heard that this post is completely false and absurd. Thank you, Michael Moore.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by greenamp:
So you admit to not knowing whether or not your statement was factual?

And you still posted it?

Just trying to give people an idea of where to look to find out more information that would make the picture less than rosy if true.

If I were trying to lie, or play partisan, I wouldn't have admitted that the information may not be true. The allegations definitely don't originate from me, but they come from a source that: A) I can't link to, and B) is definitely partisan so I take it with a grain of salt.

Some people would rather just be @sses about it than bother to check what I suggest. Oh, well.

BlackGriffen

[greenamp]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Just trying to give people an idea of where to look to find out more information that would make the picture less than rosy if true.

If I were trying to lie, or play partisan, I wouldn't have admitted that the information may not be true. The allegations definitely don't originate from me, but they come from a source that: A) I can't link to, and B) is definitely partisan so I take it with a grain of salt.

Some people would rather just be @sses about it than bother to check what I suggest. Oh, well.

BlackGriffen

I dunno man. Making such a strong statement and then closing it with "I don't know if it's true" is kinda odd.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by greenamp:
I dunno man. Making such a strong statement and then closing it with "I don't know if it's true" is kinda odd.

None of the statement was strong. Let me isolate all of the "weasel words" I used to make absolutely clear how not strong it was:

I have heard the allegation [...] I have also heard [...]([...]Bush may be expecting[...])
I have not verified any of this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

There were only two parts I didn't attach caveats to. First, in regards to the row over the cost of aids drugs, because I know that such a row does exist. And second, that the pharma industry is providing heavy support to Bush and the Republican party. That, too, is a fact.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Translation:

"I need more time to spin this sucker - but in the meantime (so Dubya doesn't look good), here's some derogatory rumors, ulterior motives, and conspiracy theories that may or not have any basis in fact..."

Basically what this forum is made up of.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
The real issue, however, is the longer-term. Several supreme court justices are nearing closer and closer to an age that will necessitate retirement. I honestly don't think Bush will make very wise decisions in appointing new justices, and it could set back social freedoms for decades to come.

Bingo!!!

[Zimphire]

Several supreme court justices are nearing closer and closer to an age that will necessitate retirement. I honestly think Bush will make very wise decisions in appointing new justices, and it could set back social decay for decades to come.

[itai195]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Vote for a change. Kerry doesn't want jobs outsourced as much as Bush.

I don't really buy that. Kerry seems very lukewarm toward this issue, he won't be much different from Bush.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Several supreme court justices are nearing closer and closer to an age that will necessitate retirement. I honestly think Bush will make very wise decisions in appointing new justices, and it could set back social decay for decades to come.

Social acceptance is, for the most part, progress. Stagnation and reversal is often decay.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Social acceptance is, for the most part, progress.

Depends on what is being "accepted"

Not all socially accepted actions are progress or benefit society.

Too many people on the left think "If it's change, it HAS to be good"

That isn't only the case.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Too many people on the left think "If it's change, it HAS to be good"

That isn't only the case.

And too many conservatives think that change is always a bad thing...what's your point?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I have heard the allegation that the money is not so much new spending as a shuffling around so that they spending has different names. I have also heard that they're trying to attach strings to the money concerning condoms and/or abortions, which would make the $15 billion rather moot. Not to mention the stink over the cost of aids drugs (in other words, Bush may be expecting all of this money to come right back to one of the industries that supports him heavily - the pharmaceutical industry).

I have not verified any of this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.

BlackGriffen

Time to remove some of those weasel words:
From the NYT (archived excerpt here, looks like an Op-Ed piece):

Mr. Bush's other foreign aid initiative, announced in his State of the Union address, is $10 billion in new money to fight AIDS in Africa and the Caribbean over five years. But his budget falls short of that promise. He is proposing only a $550 million increase over the global AIDS money in this year's spending bill now in Congress. Since the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria would be an effective channel for the aid, there is no excuse for the initiative's leisurely start. Mr. Bush's 2004 budget for the Global Fund, $200 million, actually cuts in half what Congress is likely to do in 2003. Mr. Bush has also found part of the money for his AIDS programs by cutting nearly $500 million from child health, including vaccine programs. Child survival is the biggest loser in the foreign aid budget — a scandalous way to finance AIDS initiatives. With the budget dominated by defense spending and huge tax cuts for the wealthy, the White House should not be forcing the babies of Africa to pay for their parents' AIDS drugs.

That's the shifting funds bit. More info is available, form other sources, through the above link.

Next, the strings:

WASHINGTON (WOMENSENEWS)--Women's rights advocates are condemning President George W. Bush for using his promised AIDS relief package to expand the so-called global gag rule.
[...]
In a briefing with reporters earlier this month, administration officials indicated Bush planned to extend the global gag rule to those eligible to receive funds from the $15 billion package he unveiled last month in his State of the Union address. The gag rule, often called the "Mexico City policy," bars distribution of U.S. family planning funds to clinics in other countries that provide abortion or abortion counseling or lobby for change in abortion policies.
[...]

The links are clearly partisan, but I'm only concerned with the statements of fact, not their analysis.

So, let's turn to the Beeb:
One (2004/7/12):

[...]
The Bush administration advocates sexual abstinence as the best way to stop the disease spreading.

Many scientists and activists, however, favour encouraging the use of condoms.

The US donates more funds to fight HIV than any other country, and is to spend $15bn over five years, but has strict rules on how the funds must be managed.
[...]
Steven Sinding, director general of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, told the BBC the Bush administration faced "enormous pressure" to play down the importance of condoms from its "own right wing".

The administration has a stipulation that 30% of US anti-Aids funds go through faith-based organisations.

"That means that upwards of 30% of money will go to organisations which actively denigrate condoms, or that don't advocate them," Mr Sinding said.
[...]

Two (same date):

[...]
It may be the most expensive effort ever mounted by a government to fight Aids internationally, but the $15bn programme comes with strings attached - notably in diverting a third of the funds to faith based groups which preach abstinence.
[...]
The Bush Aids fund does however also make provision for the distribution of condoms.

While some liberal Democrats fought against the abstinence-only approach when the fund was approved by Congress last year, many were satisfied that the legislation acknowledged that condoms had a role to play in preventing disease.
[...]

Three (2003/1/30)

A $15bn scheme to fight HIV and Aids will include the distribution of condoms and generic drugs, in two big changes to US policy.
[...]

Four (2002/6/25)

The United States is to call for new measures to make it easier for poor countries to get hold of cheap anti-Aids drugs.

In a proposal, due to be lodged at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on Tuesday, it will call for patenting rules to be relaxed when a country faces a public health crisis.
[...]

Well, I'm happy that my original information about the drug row is out of date. I admit that, there, I was wrong, FWIW.

I was right, though, that the aids funding has strings attached and that Bush robbed Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.

BlackGriffen

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
And too many conservatives think that change is always a bad thing...what's your point?

If that was the case, there would be NO change when the right is in control. That is not the case.

"If it's not broke, don't fix it" comes to mind though.

Liberals constantly want to fix things that simply aren't broke. For the cause of change!

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
If that was the case, there would be NO change when the right is in control. That is not the case.

"If it's not broke, don't fix it" comes to mind though.

Liberals constantly want to fix things that simply aren't broke. For the cause of change!

Your car's engine has been recalled because engines of that model have been randomly exploding. But your car isn't broke now so why fix it?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by RonnieoftheRose:
Vote for a change. Kerry doesn't want jobs outsourced as much as Bush.

Remind me if Kerry voted for NAFTA or not. And whether Heinz has outsourced any jobs since 2000. Or if Kerry even has a real plan to prevent such outsourcing (other than stomping his feet and penalizing companies who do such things.) And also remind me how raising the cost of doing business (because that's what keeping certain jobs in the US really does) effects the economy.

Thanks...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Your car's engine has been recalled because engines of that model have been randomly exploding. But your car isn't broke now so why fix it?

Wow, you totally missed my point.

Way to go.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Wow, you totally missed my point.

Way to go.

No; your "point" is just generalized nonsense.

[PacHead]

I don't really see how anybody could be undecided, if they follow what's going on, but if somebody wants to "begin to lean towards Kerry", then by all means feel free, but I find this thread to be prety much baloney.

Stradlater is not leaning towards anybody. He has probably always been pro-Kerry and anti-Bush, or else an "undecided" person wouldn't be saying "im leaning and you should too". A pretty silly, and disingenious tactic.

But hey, vote for Kerry dude if ya want. It won't make any difference really, I just find it cheap that somebody who is just starting to "lean" now, is attempting to influence others also. Just admit it dude. You are a Kerry supporter. I don't buy into your "I'm beginning to lean" crap.

(EDIT) - I've been following this forum for awhile, and it is pretty clear what most people here are. I had Stradlater pegged as a Pro-Kerry dude ages ago. It's fairly obvious by reading his prior posts.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
No; your "point" is just generalized nonsense.

I was generalizing the Left's attitude indeed. Nonsense? Their track record speaks for themselves.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Liberals constantly want to fix things that simply aren't broke. For the cause of change!

Example?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I don't really see how anybody could be undecided, if they follow what's going on, but if somebody wants to "begin to lean towards Kerry", then by all means feel free, but I find this thread to be prety much baloney.

Stradlater is not leaning towards anybody. He has probably always been pro-Kerry and anti-Bush, or else an "undecided" person wouldn't be saying "im leaning and you should too". A pretty silly, and disingenious tactic.

But hey, vote for Kerry dude if ya want. It won't make any difference really, I just find it cheap that somebody who is just starting to "lean" now, is attempting to influence others also. Just admit it dude. You are a Kerry supporter. I don't buy into your "I'm beginning to lean" crap.

That's what I was thinking too. He's not "leaning" and never was. Just another load of baloney from the Left.

"For months I have been in the minority: the swing voter; the undecided."

Yeah, right, like you're not one of the more vocal liberal elements on the this forum. Nice try though.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by MacNStein:


Yeah, right, like you're not one of the more vocal liberal elements on the this forum. Nice try though.

Yep, just read his prior posts. There isn't a chance in hell that he would be voting for Bush. People should just cut the crap.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I was generalizing the Left's attitude indeed. Nonsense? Their track record speaks for themselves.

Back up the bullshit.

[RAILhead]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Several supreme court justices are nearing closer and closer to an age that will necessitate retirement. I honestly think Bush will make very wise decisions in appointing new justices, and it could set back social decay for decades to come.

I second that.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Yep, just read his prior posts. There isn't a chance in hell that he would be voting for Bush. People should just cut the crap.

I wouldn't vote for him based on social issues, no. But before, I didn't really care to vote for Kerry, either.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yeah, right, like you're not one of the more vocal liberal elements on the this forum. Nice try though.

I'm not a democrat, I'm independent. I associate myself with leftist views on some social issues, but with a grain of salt and usually a slightly differing opinion. Pretty much Liberarian Right; thanks for asking.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
And too many conservatives think that change is always a bad thing...what's your point?

The problem is not that the appointments will be of conservative justices (e.g. souter is quite good), but rather they will most likely be christian idealogs bent on weaving their ideas of social values into american society (e.g. scalia, thomas). That's the friggin problem.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by deedar:
The problem is not that the appointments will be of conservative justices (e.g. souter is quite good), but rather they will most likely be christian idealogs bent on weaving their ideas of social values into american society (e.g. scalia, thomas). That's the friggin problem.

Exactly, that post of mine was just to address the inanity of what is Zimph.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
Example?

Changing the definition of Marriage.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Exactly, that post of mine was just to address the inanity of what is Zimph.

The thread was inane from the first post Strad. So was this last post of yours.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Changing the definition of Marriage.

You're driving me crazy. It's like you're 95% of the way toward having a coherent position on that issue.

[deedar]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
Exactly, that post of mine was just to address the inanity of what is Zimph.

Understood. My post was just a general statement, not really directed towards you.

"...inanity of what is Zimph"

Nice phraseology

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by itai195:
You're driving me crazy. It's like you're 95% of the way toward having a coherent position on that issue.

What kind of response was that?

You asked me to show an example. I did.

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The thread was inane from the first post Strad.

I think it's valid. Singular religions have no place in a government with citizens of many different religions. I fear for our country if Bush appoints any justices.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I think it's valid. Singular religions have no place in a government with citizens of many different religions. I fear for our country if Bush appoints any justices.

Are you suggesting that we should have religious tests for appointments to the Supreme Court? There is a slight constitutional problem with that.

. . . and all Executive and Judicial Officers, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation,to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

U.S. Constitution, Art VI (emphasis added).

[Stradlater]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you suggesting that we should have religious tests for appointments to the Supreme Court?

No, I'm suggesting that George W. will heavily consider the religious attitudes of the justices he would appoint.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
No, I'm suggesting that George W. will heavily consider the religious attitudes of the justices he would appoint.

Define religious attitudes. The show me why those aren't allowed in government, and how excluding them isn't a violation of Art. VI.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Stradlater:
I think it's valid. Singular religions have no place in a government with citizens of many different religions. I fear for our country if Bush appoints any justices.

Becuase you KNOW they'll just "zip" right through the appointment process. Or, did you forget we have an almost 50/50 split in the House and Senate?

[boots]

I don't know, guys. The issue of SCOTUS judges is really a crap-shoot regardless of who's doing the appointments. If we went on the "intent" of the appointment, both O'Conner and Suter are big disappointments. It's funny how the newly appointed justices often have minds of their own once they are free from the routine politics. Bush could very easily appoint a staunchly conservative judge who ends up being rather moderate to liberal once on the bench. Kerry could appoint a flaming liberal only to find a moderate to conservative justice.

I don't buy the fear mongering around this particular issue.