Pricescope Presidential Poll

[Todd07]

I voted for Bush but can still enjoy good satire. Enjoy
--------

OUTSOURCING OF JOBS REACHES THE PRESIDENT

by Staff Reporter Melynda Jill

WASHINGTON (Oct 16) -- Congress today announced that the Office of President of the United States of America will be out- sourced to overseas interests as of October 30th, the end of this fiscal year.

The move is being made to save not only a significant portion of the President's $400,000 yearly salary, but also a record $521 billion in deficit expenditures and related overhead. "We believe this is a wise move financially. The cost savings should be significant," stated Congressman Thomas Reynolds (R-Wash). Reynolds, with the aid of the General Accounting Office (GAO), has studied outsourcing of American jobs extensively. "We cannot expect to remain competitive on the world stage with the current level of cash outlay," Reynolds noted.

Mr. Bush was informed by e-mail this morning of his termination.

Preparations for the job move have been underway for some time. Sanji Gurvinder Singh of Indus Teleservices, Mumbai, India will be assuming the Office of President of the United States as of October 1.

Mr. Singh was born in the United States while his parents were vacationing at Niagara Falls, thus making him eligible for the position. He will receive a salary of $320.00 (US) per month, but with no Health coverage or other benefits. It is believed that Mr. Singh will be Able to handle his job responsibilities without support staff. Due to the time difference between the US and India, he will be working primarily at night, when few offices of the US Government will be open.

"Working nights will allow me to keep my day job at the American Express call center, "stated Mr. Singh in an exclusive interview. "I am excited about this position. I always hoped I would be President someday."

A Congressional Spokesperson noted that while Mr. Singh may not be Fully aware of all the issues involved in the office of President, this Should not be a problem. Mr. Singh will rely upon a script tree that will enable him to respond effectively to most topics of concern. Using this tree, he can address common concerns without having to understand the underlying issues at all. "We know these scripting tools work," stated the Spokesperson. "Mr. Bush has used them successfully for years."

Mr. Bush will receive health coverage, expenses, and salary until his final day of employment. Following a two week waiting period, he will be eligible for $240.00 per week unemployment for 13 weeks. Unfortunately, he will not be eligible for Medicaid as his unemployment benefits will exceed the allowed limit.

Mr. Bush has been provided the outplacement services of Manpower, Inc. to help him write a resume and prepare for his upcoming job transition. According to Manpower, Mr. Bush may have difficulties in securing a New position due to limited practical work experience. One possibility is reenlistment in the Army National Guard. Should he choose this option, he would likely be stationed in Iraq, a country he has visited. "I've been there, I know all about Iraq ," said Mr. Bush, who gained invaluable knowledge of the country in a visit to the Baghdad Airport nonsmoking terminal and gift shop.

Sources in Baghdad and Falluja say Mr. Bush would receive a warm reception from local Iraquis. They have asked to be provided with details of his arrival so that they might arrange an appropriate welcome..

 

[jenwill]

Date: 11/3/2004 5:21:20 PM
Author: Feydakin

Date: 11/3/2004 5:13

4 PM
Author: AGBF
I cannot ''get out of the stadium'' nor can many others-some of whom are victims of the US, like Iraqi civilians. Somehow I just don''t think if I shout, ''Stop the world; I want to get off!'' that it is going to stop its revolution around the sun. The United States, as the sole remaining superpower, can reach anywhere. The whole world is its ''stadium'', if you will.

Deborah

Deb

You''ve said several times now that you are no able to leave, even if you wanted to.. I''m curious as to why that is.. You can tell me it''s noone of my business, but I am genuinly curious what is keeping you from doing the things you want to do, or maybe just might want to do..

Steve

I am not Deb, but I think she addressed this with her statement that as the US is the only remaining ''Superpower'', the whole world is the stadium. There really is nowhere to go that the US does not have potential influence over. If you follow that perhaps there was someone that disagreed with US policy and moved to Iraq, well that person left the US, but was not out of the sphere of being directly affected by the US.

I am not saying I want to move anywhere else- this is my home, just wish the ruling party of my home had at least a semblance of a glimmer of a hint of supporting ANYTHING I believe in.

I also do not subscribe to the get out of the stadium..or even more the ''if you are not with us you are against us'' refrain from Mr. Bush. Which my FH says ad nauseum to anything I say that does not agree with what he wants...down to what movie to see.

If that thought process were correct, then we (the USA) are one of the worst world offenders. We have only to look at WWI and WWII to see that the world has fought wars for real reasons- being invaded and killed, that we ignored because it wasn''t ''our'' problem.

We only entered WWI after 3 years of battle, and then only due to Germany attacking not once (sinking the Lusitania and killing 138 Americans in the process) but more. Only after Germany re-upped its u-boat attacks on allies and NEUTRAL (read US) ships, did we join. Yes, we turned the tide, but while France lost 1.3 MILLION people, we lost just over 100,000.

WWII was more of the same- we avoided until directly attacked- no problem with seeing our friends and allies attacked and dying...and selling them equipment to fight with, as long as we were not attacked, we were safe.

If France joined us now in Iraq and turned the tides we would still sneer at them for not joining in the beginning. They did not join because the reasons we stated for going to war hadn''t been proven, and have now been proven to be false. I know you have no love of your former country, but I do not feel that they have been all that bad in this situation.

There is nowhere to go to get out of the reach of the US, plus this is where my family is, so I am staying. Just wish that our representing gov''t was more centrist, as they stated they were in the last election- so that I could feel that 48% of the country had a voice.

 

[jenwill]

Date: 11/3/2004 4:58:45 PM
Author: goldengirl
To all who commented on my rather quiet voice:

I apologize for not being a more active participant in the conversation, but the truth is I''m still very young, inexperienced and unknowledgable about politics and the parts of history in question. I take pride in my ability to hold an intelligent conversation but I feel pathetically outgunned by the group here; thus I held my tongue and tried to learn, instead.

GoldenGirl- don''t apologize for being quiet, but also don''t fear entering the fray of discussion. It is always good to hear other people''s points, and while on both sides it can get a little rough, it just helps one to realize that they really do believe in what they believe in.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/3/2004 5:21:20 PM
Author: Feydakin

Date: 11/3/2004 5:13

4 PM

Author: AGBF

I cannot 'get out of the stadium' nor can many others-some of whom are victims of the US, like Iraqi civilians. Somehow I just don't think if I shout, 'Stop the world; I want to get off!' that it is going to stop its revolution around the sun. The United States, as the sole remaining superpower, can reach anywhere. The whole world is its 'stadium', if you will.


Deborah

Deb


You've said several times now that you are no able to leave, even if you wanted to..I'm curious as to why that is..

Steve,

Jenwill (although she isn't I) explained exactly what I meant when I wrote that I "couldn't get out of the stadium" even though I do not always want to "root for the team". That is what I was writing about in the posting you quoted above.

First, I have a *right* to be in the stadium, regardless of which team I prefer, if the stadium is the US and the teams are pro-war and anti-war.

Second, I have no way *out* of the stadium since the reach of the US is long. Its policies affect people everywhere in the world.

I lived through the war in Vietman, which I bitterly opposed, and people would tell any of us who opposed the role of the US to "love it or leave it". One can take a "love it or leave it" attitude if one is not an American and feels no responsibility for the state of American society or what the US does in the world. Pro-war demonstartors tried to make me, and people like me, feel less entitled to be Americans than the warmongers. I won't accept that role. I can love my country and try to improve it, just as I can love my child and try to correct what I feel are her shortcomings.

If you are asking why I felt I couldn't leave when I was so upset this morning and feeling I *should* leave, the answer is different. Let me know if you want an answer to that one .

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

It was I who quoted you even outside of PS. Hubby even fondly refered to the "goldengirls" wild card. I have read a number of your posts. They are always thoughtful. Experience is just that. But, a good gut, heart & the ability to express oneself on how they feel is a gift that experience could never trump. Funny, you even endear me more. You shouldn''t be dismissive about your experience. But, the fact that you like to listen (albeit just listen) says volumes.

You verbalized a group that I couldn''t quite put my finger on. And, in the end, proved to be the wisest of all.

That said, I''m so disappointed that the youth didn''t turn out. Why be overwhelmed? In life, you just have to pick one.

To all who commented on my rather quiet voice:

I apologize for not being a more active participant in the conversation, but the truth is I''m still very young, inexperienced and unknowledgable about politics and the parts of history in question. I take pride in my ability to hold an intelligent conversation but I feel pathetically outgunned by the group here; thus I held my tongue and tried to learn, instead.

 

[fire&ice]

Deb, I''m tired having just traveled to our other life. I mean home.

I think the sentiment was "America, Love it or Leave it" or "America, Right or Wrong"

Funny, it was my mom that was so conservative & I remember these bumper stickers on the back of her Volvo wagon. I hope you see the irony in both of these.

 

[Todd07]

Jen,
It reads to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

It sounds like you agree that the US entered WWI and WWII late. In effect we let a problem fester and get worse until we had no choice but to engage. You seem to take interventionist position with your tone that we should have done more sooner.

Your position on Iraq seems to be one non-intervention that conflicts.

I would argue that we've learned the lessons of two world wars and are being pre-emptive, albeit after some serious goading via the WTC attacks (two), embassy bombings, and attack on USS Cole.

Do you prefer our isolationist approach during WW 1 & 2 or our current approach of interventionism? I'm confused

 

[Nicrez]

Sorry to be so controversial but...My only question is why didn''t Alec Baldwin move to France?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/3/2004 7:10:53 PM
Author: Todd07

It sounds like you agree that the US entered WWI and WWII late. In effect we let a problem fester and get worse until we had no choice but to engage.

Whoa!!!! Let''s not oversimplify history, OK? Comparing World war I to World War II is complicated enough; let''s not act as if those two conflicts were synomymous and compare them to a third war, OK? I am already upset by the election. Don''t get the historian part of me excited! I''ll have palpitations!

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/3/2004 7:15:39 PM
Author: Nicrez
Sorry to be so controversial but...My only question is why didn''t Alec Baldwin move to France?

Cela m''est égal .

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/3/2004 8:44:36 PM
Author: Feydakin

Date: 11/3/2004 6:44:25 PM

Author: AGBF


If you are asking why I felt I couldn't leave when I was so upset this morning and feeling I *should* leave, the answer is different; Let me know if you want an answer to that one .


Deb

This would be what I was talking about.. The rest is open for a philosophical debate..

OK, Steve-

I'll give this one a whirl. I am very close to my parents who live in Connecticut and who are 84 (my father) and 86 (my mother). They are remarkably independent, but every year at least one has major surgery or a major illness. Sometimes my father has several surgeries in a year. (The man walks 4 miles briskly at 4

0 am every day before going to work, but he *has* had open heart surgery; two carotid endartarectomies; a gall bladder operation; an appendectomy [done AFTER the appendix was perforated and he was poisoned with peritonitis]; and neurosurgery for sciatica. My mother had a total hip replacement and last year was hospitalized with acute and life-threatening pancreatitis of unknown origin. It is I who see them through these surgeries as I am the only daughter. My brother, who is a good guy, lives two hours away from them and is married with two children. Like my husband, he goes to the hospital whenever someone must, but I am a major player.

I have a 12 year-old daughter whose happiness is more important to me than my own. I am not about to move her to another country just because *I* am unhappy.

I have a husband whose employment is vital to his self-image. He was unemployed for almost a year last year, at 53, then had a heart attack and angioplasty on two arteries. The job he obtained here in Virginia was the only one he could get in a year of constant looking. I am not about to force him to change countries for my sake. He is a fervent Republican and would only be relocating to please me, not because he shared my problems with the political climate in the US.

Finally, all my friends and extended family live in Connecticut.

Deborah

 

[jenwill]

Date: 11/3/2004 7:10:53 PM
Author: Todd07
Jen,
It reads to me like you want to have your cake and eat it too.

It sounds like you agree that the US entered WWI and WWII late. In effect we let a problem fester and get worse until we had no choice but to engage. You seem to take interventionist position with your tone that we should have done more sooner.

Your position on Iraq seems to be one non-intervention that conflicts.

I would argue that we''ve learned the lessons of two world wars and are being pre-emptive, albeit after some serious goading via the WTC attacks (two), embassy bombings, and attack on USS Cole.

Do you prefer our isolationist approach during WW 1 & 2 or our current approach of interventionism? I''m confused

Don''t like cake much, prefer pie. And like to be contrary, obviously.

As Deb said, the situations are more complicated than a discussion here can take, but was simply trying to show that:

1) People being angry at France for staying out of an arena that we HAD NOT proven was an immediate danger to the rest of the world is a little hypocritical- thay and the rest of the non-joiners and reluctant joiners had asked to wait until the UN investigation was comlete- *we* did not want to, *we* were sure we were right. So we laugh at them and deride all things french. Freedom Fries comes to mind.

2) In the WW''s even if we had not joined immediately (despite the fact that in WWII Hitler WAS invading our friendlies- didn''t just have ''weapons stockpiles that could be threatening''), we perhaps should have joined sooner than we did.

I am only trying to say that there should be a happy medium between being a total isolationist country that refuses to join until we are directly attacked, and becoming such an over-reaching country that we attack without the proper investigation into the scene we are jumping into.

If they had finished the investigation and found WMD''s- I would have been all for taking action.

Hey, I am over here in Europe defending what just happened to my colleagues who are not American. I don''t like the Presidents policies, I did not vote for him, but I am defending America and the way things work for us.

Like Deb, it is very difficult to be painted as ''un-American'' because I disagree with the poilicies of the current leading party. I am very American- the most American thing one can do is to question the Government and whether it is working for *you*.
When my Republican friends did not agree with Clinton, I NEVER said they should just go away if they didn''t like it. I wonder why my ''commie-pinko-liberalism'' (and I have had people actually say that) drives people to tell me to ''love it or leave it''. I love it, and love the fact that I can believe things that my government does not- just (im)patiently waiting for a day when at least a couple of my ''very liberal'' views might make it into the acceptance of the general populace.

 

[AGBF]

jenwill,

That was a really thoughtful posting...and not said just because I agree with it . I would be glad to start another thread on the causes of World War I (or even II) if anyone really wanted to discuss it. Before I became a social worker I studied history and the period I liked best was the inter-war period in Europe. I have not kept up with the literature in the field and some younger people could fill me in on new points of view in the field. If the topic is not controversial, though, I am not sure it will draw many participants .

When I was an undergraduate one of my professors did the unthinkable: assigned a work of fiction. (Or semi-fiction, at least.) "Nicholas and Alexandra". I found it fascinating...and it caused me to want to read more serious stuff about the period. But anything can set me off. The movie, "The Lion in Winter" propelled me into months of reading non-fiction about Eleanor of Acquitaine .

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

For some unknown left wing conspiracy, my other computer seems to only allow me to post up here. Please don''t read anything into it.

Precisely the way I feel about France, Steve. To add: I find it nearly humorous that some seem to think France didn''t want to be part of the Iraq war because of some altruistic reason. It was economics - pure & simple. They, as did Germany & Russia, had enormous contracts/trade w/ Iraq. All of which came to an end if we overthrew Sadaam.

That said, the same people that opposed this war would be the same people in outrage if we didn''t go in & Sadaam struck this nation. He repeatedly threatened us. He was not in compliance w/ resolution (?). He tried to assassinate G the first. He invaded Kuwait which he vowed to do again. In fact, defiantely he still claim it as his.

I don''t have the answer. Time truly will tell. This isn''t a short term thing. It''s a valuable piece of real estate. One that possible could stablize this region of world that is so viotile & the biggest threat to the US. Also, we could divorce ourselves from Saudi Arabia & the House of Saud. This is the neo conservative agenda and it''s not Bush''s. I''m not saying I subscribe to it; but, I''m looking to the long term.

Date: 11/4/2004 7:44

6 AM
Author: Feydakin
Jen,

From my POV, and that of most of the people I run with, we are not mad at France for not joining us, we are mad at France for working behind the scenes to derail our efforts.. With recent evidence that Many countries in Europe were taking money from Iraq before the war effort, I''m not surprised at that.. But, we aren''t mad that they didn''t help, we are mad that they decided to agressively try to obstruct us..

 

[fire&ice]

BTW, I was rather shocked at what this reporter goes on to say. I was watching either PBS or CBS (the only two stations we can get that had the news on last night). The Newsweek guy who was covering the Kerry road campaign went off on THK. He mentioned that behind the scenes she was high mantainence, took away energy from the campaign,a hypocrondriac, a no show on many events & a "liability".

But, I don't have issues with Hillary. She's competent to say the least. But, I do find her short sighted.

Another BTW, some blame the Clinton admin w/ the vaccine program being responsible for the flu vac shortage. I don't know how much truth, if any, there is to this. But, a very well read (non conservative agenda guy) collegue of hubby's said that the legislation regarding the vaccine program was a *direct* result of a large law suit settlement in NC. And, the person going after the drug co making the vaccine - non other than trial lawyer, John Edwards. Everyone knows how I feel about that idiot (being significantly closer to the issues). I certainly could believe it. But, I don't know if there is any truth to this. Anyone? EDITED to add: Dang, O.k. this turns out to be an urban legend. But, some blame does lie w/ the trial lawyers & lawsuits.

I applaud Laura Bush for her character, whether she ran a muti-million dollar corp or not, and I hate to concur but one can get a fairly good view of people from even the slightest reactions and comments, and I am no fan of THK... don't even get me started on Hillary....

 

[Todd07]

Date: 11/4/2004 3:17:35 AM
Author: jenwill

Don''t like cake much, prefer pie. And like to be contrary, obviously.

I "Love" being contrary, it''s fun in a forum like this!

I agree it''s a balancing act on when to take action. Unfortunately, what moves the masses over the edge to support action is about emotion rather than hard facts. The hard facts would have got us into WWI & WWII much earlier but we needed to feel threatened before the country would support intervention.

For Iraq, I feel our torance dropped significantly after the WTC atack. I think people forget the mood of the country back when this all started. I''m confident we would not have "invaded" Iraq without the WTC. Even though they are not tightly connected, Iraq did support terrorism (not WTC though) and our mood was to put countries on notice. I don''t like the way things unfolded but it''s reality. When you have force (policeman role) you sometimes feel forced to use it to prove it''s a threat. No one will agree that we chose the right time, just as with WWI & WW2.

Sadam gambled and lost. He pretended to have WMD to remain a threat to Iran while he had actually complied with UN requirements. The sad news is we are also paying the price for his gamble. If Sadam had wanted the world to know he had destroyed his WMD, the facts would have kept us out of Iraq. I expect then we would have found another venue to flex our policeman muscle.

Couple of random thoughts:
Lend Lease was not a profitable deal. It was a ruse to give supplies to our allies until the mood of the country supported open action. I believe we wrote off much of the debt from the program.

Our country only gave Bush a slight majority. I hope Bush recognizes his marginal position. Dems should not feel isolated with such a close race.

I''m hoping Obama performs well in the Senate and runs for President in 2012.

 

[fire&ice]

The hard facts would have got us into WWI & WWII much earlier but we needed to feel threatened before the country would support intervention.

Truth be, there are many pundints & Americans who believed FDR knew of the eminent attack on Pearl Harbor. Some believe he couldn''t position ships in time to do anything about it. Some believe he knew he wouldn''t not have the isolationist Americans support without something drastic. I''m not one who believes; but, I did support that position in a heated debate in high school. We nearly came to blows. 30 years later, I still debate the issue w/ one of my high school buddies. It''s really fascinating once you get into it.

Do some research on the issue. There is some beef to support the claim. For example, the best ships were out at sea. Planes were moved to a location they normally weren''t at. And, some eye witness telegraph operators accounts support such. But then, we LOVE a conspiracy theory.

My point, all war is hell. And, one never fights fair. Americans have always needed a catalyst to strike.

Cowboy, there is no doubt that we would not have invaded Iraq if 9/11 didn''t happen. Wolfowich says as much in the Newsweek article about him. Bush was not on board w/ the neo-conservative anything plan prior to 9/11.

Interesting point about Sadaam lying about WMD to decieve. But, I think he would have been lying to the world. And, there is some thought that the persons that were in charge of WMD lied to Sadaam to save themselves & families. By all accounts, though, Sadaam does not understand us. In ''91 he was under the impression we would do *nothing* if he invaded Kuwait. What was her name - April something - was blamed as the liason who supposedly relayed that in a bad translation.

 

[Maria D]

style="WIDTH: 92.87%; HEIGHT: 118px">Date: 11/4/2004 1:55:55 PM
Author: Todd07

Our country only gave Bush a slight majority. I hope Bush recognizes his marginal position. Dems should not feel isolated with such a close race.

I''m hoping Obama performs well in the Senate and runs for President in 2012.

Todd07, thanks for the satire on outsourcing!

While I agree with some of what you wrote about the "mood" of the country post 911, you''ve got to be kidding about Bush recognizing his "marginal position." In 2000 he didn''t even get the popular vote yet did not feel the need to be more centrist. Now that he earned the *majority*, he says voters gave him political capital which he intends to spend. I''m *not* attempting to argue the correctness of his position, just pointing it out.

So, who''d you have in mind for 2008?

 

[fire&ice]

Hey, I am over here in Europe defending what just happened to my colleagues who are not American. I don't like the Presidents policies, I did not vote for him, but I am defending America and the way things work for us.

I've always said. American to Americans are like family members to family members. We can b*tch and moan all we like amoungst this "family" - but woe be the outside NON family member who dumps on us. It's very hard to defend the way we work sometimes; but, I have also found that outsiders just don't understand us very well. Even with the Brits, though they speak our language, I know I am talking to someone in another country. Not that I think we put our best foot forward all the time. In fact, many times that foot ends up in our mouth.

 

[fire&ice]

So, who''d you have in mind for 2008?

Ask me in the late fall/early winter of 2007/2008. This country reacts in the here & now. We (and I use the collective ''we'') have the attention span of a nat. Back in March 2003, Bush was all but unbeatable w/ having 65% support.

But, if you were to ask me today, I''d say Hillary vs Rudi. Obama could be a VP choice. And, Rudi may be a VP choice w/ someone else on the Pres ticket. He says he''s not going to ba a cabinet member; but, I''m not so sure.

 

[Todd07]

Date: 11/4/2004 3:55:20 PM
Author: Maria D

So, who''d you have in mind for 2008?

I agree with F&I: Hillary vs. Rudi in 2008. However, Jeb Bush may try to slide in behind George on the 2008 ticket I think he got the brains in the family and is a very popluar govenor in FL (my understanding). He might do as a VP

I think Obama needs to prove himself in the Senate for 6+ yrs before he adds value on the ticket - 2012 or later for him.

 

[AGBF]

I don''t know who keeps bringing up Hillary Clinton. I am sure those people are Republicans. Putting her on a ticket would be suicide for the Democrats. She is widely *hated*!!! Everyone thinks what she does is worse than it is because she''s a woman and the women we *like* are First Ladies who are kind and gentle...not the ruthless ones that can compete with men!

 

[Todd07]

Regarding the news comment on THK, read the Newsweek article online.


How Bush Did It

Exclusive: A team of NEWSWEEK reporters unveils the untold fears, secret battles and private emotions behind a historic election
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6407226/site/newsweek/

 

[Rank Amateur]

While it is convenient to blame sexism, it is incorrect. The truth is that Hillary is on the wrong side of too many issues to be elected. She is a typical NE liberal, out of touch with the majority of America. The Coasters can''t see it, even though it is right in front of their faces. Look at the way all the non-traditional marriage proposals got shot down, yet look at which side of this issue the liberals are on. It is hopeless nationally under the current climate.

IF the Dems elect a more moderate central or southern-Stater they will have their best chance of winning. THe problem is that the rest of the party is not smart enough to realize this and will once again attempt to nominate someone like Kerry, or Dukakis, or Dean.

 

[Todd07]

 

[JCJD]

Can somebody explain to me why individuals in this country cannot be trusted to come to their own moral standings? I truly don''t understand why this is so, so please, only kind thoughtful answers.

Thanks

 

[Todd07]

JC, I doubt I understand your question. But here is a response.
"Moral Standing" or "values" are learned or shaped from our environment and are not inate. You could say, some people were taught better than others and some people just didn''t take to learning.

 

[JCJD]

Hi Todd. Thanks for the response.

I''m asking because I do not understand what the "morality and social" voters are trying to accomplish with their political idealogy. Do they expect that legislating morality will make people believe it or cause people to accept those morals into their personal lives by choice? Is this a realistic consequence of these proposed legislative actions? In other words, I do not understand the practical motivation behind these types of voters, and am wondering why this political agenda implicitly asserts that individuals cannot be trusted to form their own morals and these things must be legislated instead.

Hope this clears it up.

 

[Todd07]

JC,
I hear you but don't agree with you. Both candidates have their own moral or value agendas. Virtually all our laws have an underlying set of rules or values that we as a society agree to accept. When it matches yours, then it's just common sense but when it differs, it's a problem. When the morals/values/rules evolve it upsets the status quo and is more of a probelm

Personally, I believe in old Mormon practice of Polygamy and putting my children to work at the age of 8. I'm really pissed off that we now have laws limiting me to one legal wife and the hours my kids can work on my farm (and I have to pay more than room and board!) Childern should be allowed to work to support the family.

Damn social activists have put their moral values on me which I don't agree with!

Aren't mandating a minimum wage, healthcare, social security, gun control, equal rights, public education, etc. all forms of social morality imposed on our country because "individuals cannot be trusted to form their own morals and these things must be legislated instead."

 

[Todd07]

Feydakin,
Looks like Kerry really kicked butt among apartment dwellers if he got 48% of the vote from such small areas. Maybe high density housing is the root cause of becoming a democrat? I''d love to get paid to do research on the implications.