Pricescope Presidential Poll

[JCJD]

Date: 11/4/2004 11:48

0 PM
Author: 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.'

Aaah, I see your point.... partially. I do find it interesting that the White House's male employees receive a higher wage than female employees at the same job... EQUAL rights, you say?

However, here's a snag to throw at you. The existing social practices that are not under "reform" by the conservative base, such as child labor laws, minimum wages, and the abolishment of slavery, these social laws were put into effect in order to stop suffering and establish basic human freedoms to those affected. Child labor laws ended the exploitation of young children by factories. Minimum wages guarantee all with a minimum-wage job financial access to the necessities of life. Slavery was abolished because it restricted basic human liberties and freedom from the slaves. All of these laws brought freedom to those affected. Applause.
Now, explain why preventing marriage between two people of the same sex brings freedom to those whose freedoms are being oppressed by the proposed law. Or rather, how does legalizing gay marriage restrict the freedoms and liberties of those whose freedoms are not being oppressed by this proposed law? Ever hear of separate but equal? Last I heard, it was deemed unconstitutional (Brown vs. Board of Education). And civil unions that have the same benefits as marriage but have a different title are separate but equal, are they not? Marriage is not what other people make of it. Marriage is what the married couple makes of it. I have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that answers these questions remotely. As a heterosexual Christian abstinent female, I have a hard time believing that God wants me to hate other people or judge them for their sexual orientation or the choices they make.

EDITED TO SAY: I feel the need to explain. I made that last statement because I feel that this conservative movement is not based on Christian morals and Christian love but hatred and judgement towards people who are different. My understanding of Jesus' life was that He was "a doctor for the ill", a person who loved and forgave peoples' sins. My faith and my moral standing comes from God's work in me, not from the laws of any country on earth. And if I don't fit into somebody's "Christian box" or "liberal box", then I'm glad. People need to open their eyes, embrace the diversity around them, and accept it for what it is - simply difference.

 

[Todd07]

I''m with you on gay marriage. We currently don''t allow it but both of us would like to impose a moral change that says gay marriage should be accepted when it historically has not.

Change is hard. As I recall, this all started when a judge said it was against a state constitution not to allow gay marriages. Maybe the next steps will be for more legal challenges.

Also, change takes time, maybe generations. When I grew up, there were no gay people (or non admitted it). Now at least they have much more freedom to be open about their sexuality. Gays have more protection agaiinst discrimination and can even adopt children. Progress just happens much slower than we would like.

How do you think a pre Civil War Abolitionist felt about our ability to move away from slavery? It''s taken a couple generations for substantive change but we are progressing in what I think is the right direction.

 

[JCJD]

And I love this "activist judges" routine! Bush clearly does not understand that the job of the judicial system is to make sure that the rights of the minority are not compromised by what the majority-elected legislative and executive branches do. "Activist" judges are doing their jobs as the Constitution meant them to. The spin is just ridiculous!

 

[AGBF]

Another map that might interest you. (If this is the one Todd posted, I cannot see it on my browser!!)

 

[fire&ice]

AGBF, I must say that I am personally offended by your chart about "Jesusland" & "The United States of Canada." I am sick and tired of people thinking that every person living in the South is a Bible Thumper. And, while every religion/non religion has it''s nuts, I personally know many fine people in all various aspects of spirituality and religion in the South. Truth be, with *many* that I talked to, it was a vote against John Edwards. You simply don''t understand how *hated* that guy is. It''s rather unusual that you can''t carry your *own* state, nor his birth state. He didn''t carry his own county. Southerner''s aren''t stupid. I''ve lived in many states & countries. Southerner''s are some of the most sensible people I''ve ever met. I am simply sick & tired of the "stero-type". I wouldn''t want to live anywhere except here.

If we were to trust the exist polls, John Kerry would have a resounding Mandate. I''m tired of the "exit polls" WHICH PROVED TO BE VERY *WRONG* that state "moral values" as the reason they voted the way they voted. They, the media, made that "label" up. If fact, the first news reporters stated as such. They assigned "moral values" because they really couldn''t come up with anything else. Could it simply be a reaction to the spun out of control normalcy of *anything*? Could it be injustice in the world? Could it be a holdover to the Clinton Whitehouse & not being able to keep it in his pants? Could it be a reaction to social injustice? Enron? Who the heck knows? And, some of these "moral value" voters voted for John Kerry. What I find most interesting is that the Religious Right did indeed turn out without GW selling out to the Pat Buchanan''s of the world. In fact, Buchanan was somewhat outspoken in a negative way toward''s GW.

Regarding legislating "morality", one doesn''t have to look any further than our Anti-trust laws. And, the last time I looked, no one has told me what God I should worship.

And, at the end of the day, your local government is the one that will most directly affect your life.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/5/2004 10:16:50 AM
Author: fire&ice
AGBF, I must say that I am personally offended by your chart about ''Jesusland'' & ''The United States of Canada.''

It isn''t "my" chart. I only wish I were that inventive. It expresses my point of view, however. I am offended by Bush.

Deb

 

[fire&ice]

Regarding Gay Marriage: My opposition to it has nothing to do with morality. I simply do not think that you can in any way limit *who* gets married. Many Many benefits come w/ Marriage in the legal sense of the word. How are you going to limit it to only those in love? You can''t. Heck, they can''t do that now. I''m a pragmatist & have a very selfish motive for my opposition. I believe that if you open the door to all and anyone to marry, the system would do away with the "benefits". It''will become to taxed to afford the benefits.

That said, I am opposed to a Constitutional ban against Gay marriage. And, I think that is all double talk. I no Judge; but, I think it''s against our Consititution.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/5/2004 10:27:40 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/5/2004 10:16:50 AM
Author: fire&ice
AGBF, I must say that I am personally offended by your chart about ''Jesusland'' & ''The United States of Canada.''

It isn''t ''my'' chart. I only wish I were that inventive. It expresses my point of view, however. I am offended by Bush.

Deb

Being offended by a President is entirely different than offending a population that I am a part of. Whether or not that is *your* chart is inconsequential. It was your choice to post it & therefore believe it to be relevant. In my opinion, it is not & is inflamatory.

So, then by your posting of this chart, we can then assume that *all* Northerner''s are Godless people feeling more akin to Canada than their own country. Oh, yeah, that''s the ticket.

 

[Todd07]

Feydakin,
I don''t think it''s related to land ownershp but has more to do with population density. I''m in a blue county and think ownership levels are not different but the density makes the cost of ownership higher. In the sparsely populated areas, few people own more than their housing lot. The Govt and corporations own the land (farms and ranches are no longer family businesses)

F&I,
Take a stress tab Gotta have a sense of humor about the way the country voted. The map was not picking on the south - it made fun of the complete center of the US.

 

[fire&ice]

F&I,
Take a stress tab Gotta have a sense of humor about the way the country voted. The map was not picking on the south - it made fun of the complete center of the US.

Perhaps you may have wanted to post it in jest. It wasn''t posted in "jest". It expressed "her" point of view.

And, this Southerner''s vote, had nothing to do with Jesus.

Sorry if you think I should take a stress tab. This is just the straw that broke the camel''s back. Somehow, because you may have voted for GW, you are an intellectually inferior religious right. The majority of people I know who voted for GW had other reasons.

I''m just tired of all this mumbo jumbo about "moral value" voting because there exists no definition of such.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/5/2004 10:36

3 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 11/5/2004 10:27:40 AM

Author: AGBF

Date: 11/5/2004 10:16:50 AM

Author: fire&ice

AGBF, I must say that I am personally offended by your chart about 'Jesusland' & 'The United States of Canada.'

It isn't 'my' chart. I only wish I were that inventive. It expresses my point of view, however. I am offended by Bush.


Deb

Being offended by a President is entirely different than offending a population that I am a part of.

Sorry, but satire loses its punch if it has to include disclaimers such as: "This does not refer to F&I and, by the way, I know there are other people who voted for Bush after thinking". Satire *IS* (always) "in jest", by the way, even if those who write it or distribute it think there is a good point contained within the humor. So this satire can both be "in jest" AND "my" point of view. (Why did you write "her" point of view, anyway? I must have missed a grammar class .)

 

[JCJD]

Date: 11/5/2004 7:34:25 AM
Author: Feydakin

Equal pay.. Would you please provide a FACT for your statement?? One would be fine..

Alas, I was in fact wrong about that. I originally thought that the $76,624/year for men and $59,917/year for women salaries on average (http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/07/13/nation/10052342.txt) was a result of wage discrimination. But upon reading the article again this morning (after 4 months), I read that this wage gap is not a result of wage discrimination. Rather, men simply have higher-ranking positions in the Bush White House than women do (which I do think is still a problem, but not as serious as wage discrimination). Apologies. I did not intend to mislead or lie about this.

 

[Todd07]

The White House staff may be dominated by males (probably white) but Bush did a fair job of giving women and minorities high visibility positions. As a tool for change, I'll take one high visibility position of power over 10 behind the scenes positions. I'm curious about his next cabinet.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/5/2004 11:46

2 AM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/5/2004 10:36

3 AM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 11/5/2004 10:27:40 AM

Author: AGBF

Date: 11/5/2004 10:16:50 AM

Author: fire&ice

AGBF, I must say that I am personally offended by your chart about ''Jesusland'' & ''The United States of Canada.''

It isn''t ''my'' chart. I only wish I were that inventive. It expresses my point of view, however. I am offended by Bush.


Deb

Being offended by a President is entirely different than offending a population that I am a part of.

Sorry, but satire loses its punch if it has to include disclaimers such as: ''This does not refer to F&I and, by the way, I know there are other people who voted for Bush after thinking''. Satire *IS* (always) ''in jest'', by the way, even if those who write it or distribute it think there is a good point contained within the humor. So this satire can both be ''in jest'' AND ''my'' point of view. (Why did you write ''her'' point of view, anyway? I must have missed a grammar class .)

But, this assumes that the vast majority of Bush voters voted because of religion. The Religious right historically votes. And, they tend to vote based on religious beliefs. Nothing is new about that. They have *always* been a force to coerce.

I''m in the Southern Bible Belt. You state that "satire" is what you believe. You believe the satire as truth. It''s wrong. And, your disclaimer of F&I is even more ignorant that I may be the sole disenter.

Shared a bottle of wine w/ a dear old crazy democat friend last night. She pulls straight ticket (albeit does it one by one). Her family is deeply entrenched in politics. She has been chairman of the Demo. campaign in her district. I trust her opinion. We concured that those RR votes will rarely swing to a Democrat & they showed up in force AS THEY USUALLY DO. John Kerry''s failure to get elected fell to two reasons. Edwards ending up not delivering & the failure of the Kerry campaign to deliver the 18-28 year old vote (or the failure to lite a fire under them to vote). And, those swing voters w/ the timing of the Osama tape. If you read the democraphics (or trust the exist polls), people who decided who to vote for last week went strongly in favor of Bush. Of course, she thought the timing to be a republican conspiricy. So, now the repubs are controlling Al Jezera?

BTW, she is an upper middle class white women, married with children, who is a Baptist.

While I''ll be the first to admit that people do vote w/ their faith, I don''t think that is the majority voters. Most people I know voted because they felt Kerry would raise their taxes, which my friend fiercely didn''t think that to be true & the biggest scare tactic by the Bush campaign. We agree to disagree. I don''t find her morally bankrupt; nor, does she find me unintelligent. And, it''s over.
And, I think tooooooo much is being made of the made up "morality voting". That is my point. I don''t think the pundints really know why GW was re-elected. I just keep going back to the "Goldengirl" contingency of which I was part of. Heck, maybe dog lovers vote for dog lovers.

Regarding Hillary, I don''t know if she is hated - doesn''t matter. The Clinton family is one of the most powerful polictical families in the country right now. Sure, I''d love to see the Dems put up a moderate southern candidate. I just don''t see it happening right now. Maybe they will re-evalute. But, Hillary has been more than suggested as a potential candidate for 2008.

And, I was speaking to the Cowboy & not directly to you - hence the "her".

 

[fire&ice]

..

And Deb, while you may find the picture humorous, what facts do you have to base the satire on?? Of all of my friends, the only real church goers I know are just two families.. And one of those doesn't always go.. The rest of us are ethical, upstanding members of the community that have no desire to worship any god in a structured way..It would be comperable to me stating that all that blue space is filled with godless socialists.. Not only is it not accurate, it's really not even funny.. Satire works best when it's based at least partially in fact and is humorous.. This is neither..

Steve

This is what I meant to say instead of running around like a chicken w/ my head cut off w/ righteous indignation of how wronged I was.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 11/4/2004 11:53:51 PM
Author: 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.

But Kerry didn't get 48% of the total vote from *just* the blue areas. The blue areas represent districts where Kerry beat Bush and the red ones are where Bush beat Kerry. So, an area where the vote was, say 51% Bush 49% Kerry would show up as completely red even though almost half the voters went for Kerry. The same is true for a blue area that went 51% Kerry, 49% Bush: it shows up completely blue. That map helps the media perpetuate the ridiculous notion that there are red areas and blue areas when in fact the US is pretty much "purple."

Using voting data from USA Today, Robert Vanderbei of Princeton came up with a different map. Pure red represents a county that voted 100% for Bush while pure blue represents 100% Kerry. There aren't any of those. Purple represents 50% and the shades in between correspond to the percentages in between. (Some areas are black because USA's data didn't fit the county format that Vanderbei used, but hardly anyone lives there anyway.)

So we can either take heart in the idea that the country is not completely polarized along geographical lines -- or we can be further discouraged because those damn Bush supporters taint the blue everywhere...that was a joke; chill out people!

Vanderbei is a professor of Operations Research and Financial Engineering. Read more at his website.

 

[chris-uk04]

JCJD wrote: ." I made that last statement because I feel that this conservative movement is not based on Christian morals and Christian love but hatred and judgement towards people who are different. My understanding of Jesus'' life was that He was "a doctor for the ill", a person who loved and forgave peoples'' sins.... "

How is the conservative movement based on hate? I''m sorry, but this line of arguement is flawed. The conservative movement is based, at least partially, on Christian values. Jesus constantly forgave people for their sins, but he wanted people to repent and change their evil ways. He spells out the way people should behave and act. He didn''t give everyone a blank check to act however they pleased. Forgiveness and acceptance are two different things.

We legislate morality all time. Even social programs like welfare, or medicare is legislated morality (people shouldn''t go hungry, etc.) If the majority of democracy do not think it is acceptable for two men to marry, then that should be that.

F&I: ABGF''s Jesus map just goes to show you that the so-called compassionate liberals despise Christianity. It''s an acceptable form of bigotry in their eyes.

 

[goldengirl]

Date: 11/4/2004 1:55:55 PM
Author: 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.

Man, I hate that I can only quote the WHOLE post. Anybody want to explain how to edit so I only quote the part I want to comment on?

I agree that the Dem''s shouldn''t feel as though their voice isn''t being heard. This was a terribly close race and I do believe Mr. Bush knows he only won by the skin on his teeth; I am hoping he conducts himself in a manner that acknowledges this fact. I would have expected the same of Mr. Kerry. If 51% of the nation thinks you''re right, 49% thinks you''re wrong, and that''s an awful lot of people you''d probably do well to avoid pissing off.

I believe our next President will be a Democrat. I''m hoping it will also be a divorced, Jewish black female, at which point I will truly believe our populace votes for issues and not people.

 

[goldengirl]

Maria--I like your map...but what are the black areas for?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/5/2004 3:31:29 PM
Author: chris-uk04

F&I: ABGF's Jesus map just goes to show you that the so-called compassionate liberals despise Christianity. It's an acceptable form of bigotry in their eyes.

Actually it does no such thing. How did you come to derive that from the map I posted?

 

[JCJD]

Date: 11/5/2004 3:31:29 PM
Author: chris-uk04
JCJD wrote: .' I made that last statement because I feel that this conservative movement is not based on Christian morals and Christian love but hatred and judgement towards people who are different. My understanding of Jesus' life was that He was 'a doctor for the ill', a person who loved and forgave peoples' sins.... '


How is the conservative movement based on hate? I'm sorry, but this line of arguement is flawed. The conservative movement is based, at least partially, on Christian values. Jesus constantly forgave people for their sins, but he wanted people to repent and change their evil ways. He spells out the way people should behave and act. He didn't give everyone a blank check to act however they pleased. Forgiveness and acceptance are two different things.


We legislate morality all time. Even social programs like welfare, or medicare is legislated morality (people shouldn't go hungry, etc.) If the majority of democracy do not think it is acceptable for two men to marry, then that should be that.


F&I: ABGF's Jesus map just goes to show you that the so-called compassionate liberals despise Christianity. It's an acceptable form of bigotry in their eyes.

I never said that Jesus wanted people to act however they wanted to. I said that I do not believe that the conservative movement is based on Christian love. I personally believe that I can bring glory to God by living my life in a way that is pleasing to Him, following His laws, and being "a light in the darkness". And the best way for me to bring glory to His Name is to be available for those around me who do not yet know Him. I did not come to know Jesus Christ because those around me hated me or judged me for my past choices. I came to know Jesus through people who showed me His love through their love for me. God works in peoples' lives through relationships, and I can do God's will by forming relationships with atheists, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, etc. But I cannot do God's will by discriminating against those who do not live the way I live; if I do not know them, how can I help to save them? I do not have any problems with the personal views that are the basis of the conservative agenda, but I do have a problem with those personal views being oppressed upon those who have not come to it on their own. Jesus said that the path to the Kingdom of Heaven is narrow, and not many will find it. My job as a Christ follower is first and foremost to find that path myself, and hopefully along the way, I can bring others to the path as well. Because what good is it to follow Christianity if you do not truly believe it in your heart? Going through the motions is not enough, and the bible clearly conveys this message.

And as a "compassionate liberal" myself, I take offense to your assumption that I am an anti-Christian bigot. Do not judge others for the choices they make. I am doing my best not to judge either, and if I fail miserably, that is for God to decide.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 11/5/2004 4:16:47 PM
Author: goldengirl
Maria--I like your map...but what are the black areas for?

Thanks -- but it''s not *my* map! Vanderbei (the creator of the map) used data from USA Today to do this map as a class project. Vanderbei used county info provided by US Census data to delineate areas but the USA Today voting data went by voting districts that may or may not be by county. The black areas represent either missing data or a mismatch between the USA Today data and the US Census data.

I do not understand how anyone (todd07 and now goldengirl have brought this up) can possibly think that Bush is going to govern in a way that acknowledges the fact that 48% of the country did not vote for him. He won the *last* election by the skin of his teeth (or by the Supreme Court, whichever you prefer to believe). On this one he got a majority of votes. However slim the lead, Bush thinks he has a mandate. We Kerry supporters have had to face the reality that we lost. Bush supporters need to face the reality of who you voted in!

Here''s the frontpage of a newspaper from our biggest ally

 

[AGBF]

JCJD,

I haven''t said it although I have thought it whenever I read your postings: you are a loving, kind, Christian woman and I admire you very much. Your tolerance *is* an example of what Christianity can be and when I read what you write I am, indeed, impressed by what a Christian woman can do and say. If you wish to be an example I want you to know that I find you one.

Deborah

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 11/5/2004 4:38:10 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 11/5/2004 3:31:29 PM
Author: chris-uk04

F&I: ABGF''s Jesus map just goes to show you that the so-called compassionate liberals despise Christianity. It''s an acceptable form of bigotry in their eyes.

Actually it does no such thing. How did you come to derive that from the map I posted?

Look, I don''t take offense very easily. But, I did with that map. It seems that White Anglos are easy targets - make them male, middle class & overweight - it becomes open season. Or, what if you identified an area called "homosexual land". I would call that equally offensive for two reasons. One, you can''t blanket an entire area as such & two it''s a stab.

I''m not a black & white individual. I make informed choices, as did thousands of other Bush voters. I looked at quite a few issues. I knew my state was going Red. I felt that this country is divided enough. Since this person, who I think is not so bad, is what my state wanted, I voted simply for a mandate. We got it in our state. I did not want a repeat of 2000. Your map ("Jesusland") is not representative of the voter mentality.

Whether you think you didn''t isn''t the issue. It''s what you have conveyed on this thread since the end of the election:

Bush voters - unintelligent, uninformed, unfeeling, Religious rite Jesusland people who think that everyone else is a sinner.

Kerry voters - informed, intelligent, compasionate, just plain in the know up to date hip.

Just not the case. And, it''s providing you *easy* answers to a complex election. And, I find it quite disturbing that someone could have such strong sentiments about the way someone else *voted*.

And, I just read your last post to JC. You point out that she may be a role model like she is the exception to the rule. I think she has a nice handle on things - AS DO MANY MANY Christians.

I''m pretty much done. What''s done is done.

I don''t give a rat''s butt what the Brits think. I don''t think they are the people to judge our leaders or his supporters. I''m not even going there. It''s pretty laughable. But, I suppose they are so proud of their "discussions" in their "senate" when they start talking about the opposing voice''s big nose.

 

[JCJD]

Date: 11/5/2004 10:28:33 AM
Author: fire&ice
Regarding Gay Marriage: My opposition to it has nothing to do with morality. I simply do not think that you can in any way limit *who* gets married. Many Many benefits come w/ Marriage in the legal sense of the word. How are you going to limit it to only those in love? You can''t. Heck, they can''t do that now. I''m a pragmatist & have a very selfish motive for my opposition. I believe that if you open the door to all and anyone to marry, the system would do away with the ''benefits''. It''will become to taxed to afford the benefits.

Aaah, so you are in the anti-Britney-Spears''-50-something-hour-marriage camp too!

I agree that the priviledge of marriage has been, is, and will probably continue to be abused, but does that mean that people should be denied access to that relationship? Because it might be abused by a larger subset of people? I don''t think that it should. I think that successful completion of pre-marital and pre-divorce counseling should be required instead.
That said, the best thing my parents did for my siblings and I was to divorce. They could not effectively communicate with each other from the beginning, and they never learned how. My mother was severely depressed and hospitalized for threatening suicide when I was 12, and my father would avoid coming home at night from work to avoid being berated by my mother. Following a year of family counseling, they divorced, and they have been better parents to us and better people ever since.

 

[JCJD]

Date: 11/5/2004 1:20:27 PM
Author: Feydakin
Things are taken out of context, remembered incorrectly, and stated as facts often enough that soon people take them as facts without verifying them.. As I teach my kid, challegnge everything.. Without proof, don''t believe it..

I agree that this is an important lesson for your child to learn from the beginning. It''s too bad that so many people instead take what is said on the television or on election banners as facts and do not think about the issues or research them themselves. I think that you are an informed voter, and I absolutely respect your informed choices. But that doesn''t mean we can''t still have a hearty but good-natured argument about it.

In my opinion, the difference between my goof and the political and media spin that abounds in this country on all party sides is that I meant no harm by it. Every party has an agenda that must be sold to the public to gain support.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/5/2004 5:47

4 PM
Author: fire&ice

Look, I don't take offense very easily.
...
And, I just read your last post to JC. You point out that she may be a role model like she is the exception to the rule.

Far from being slow to fly off the handle, I find you like a volcano *always* ready to blow! Look at what you just made of a compliment I made to JCJD. You can't let me just say I admire her without making it into something it definitely was *not*!!!

 

[Nicrez]

Date: 11/4/2004 5

4:32 PM
Author: 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!

AGBF, I was the one who F&I quoted. Just because Hillary is a woman doesn't mean I have to like her. I don't, and I think she happens to be one of the most unimpressively political cut throat opportunist. She is entirely overpowering, and nothing about her personality speaks to me positively. She is impressive only because she is aggressive, and is agressive so she can be impressive.

I worked with many powerful women, and have noticed that many think the way to power is being OVER aggressive. Many of my female bosses where WORSE than the male counterparts in ferocity, aggression, and general over compensation across the board. Some few successful women I knew had a distinct gift of grace under pressure (distinctly different from "spin doctoring"), a reassuring and intelligent approach to dominating their field by accuity, hardwork, determination and earning their post the hard way. Hillary may have gone to law school, but she came to "power" based solely on her husband's merit, and has since been climbing the ranks, under radar. She is a true politician and I can not say that I admire her as one of the women I would like to use as a role model, SIMPLY because she is a woman.

You CAN get me started on Oprah Winfrey... To me that is a powerful woman with grace and elegance, who made it to where she is based on her own merit, without losing any of her moral fiber or her feminine traits that make her a woman. Yet she is still powerful and respected by men for being herself and not a woman in a man's suit, like Hillary.

Sorry, but I had to get that out since you mentioned it.

 

[AGBF]

Nicrez,

I, also, intensely dislike Hillary Clinton...for many reasons.

 

[Nicrez]

Oh my lord! Don''t tell me we have something in common...

I say if you huys want to duke out the whole religion thing, take it to another thread. Start one up. I''ll post my views on Buddhisms and Zoroastrianism.... i am thinking of converting...