Kerry has conceded

[jimbo]

Raque-

Good to see you stopped in again. I guess this thread's like a bad car wreck, everyone just has to take a peek now and then.

1) I can't speak for the other guys but I don't "hate" at all. It bothers me that people keep thinking that. We are just discussing things and I personally have had fun and made a few friends (I hope). I also don't think I am particularly emotional about these things, although I have always been very opinionated.

2)The religion thing seems to be at the root of why some people (me included I guess) really object to this administration. The country seems very divided as to whether religion should have anything to do with public policy.

I've watched peices of Bush speeches to born again christian groups and it seems to me that unless he is simply pandering (doubtful) he actually believes that his presidency is a calling from God. He seems to have acted on this belief.

I know many born again christians (my family background) and they seem very happy (thrilled even) and feel quite safe with bush as president. Secular friends who are more like me are very, very uncomfortable with someone like that in the white house. This is why I guess it has come up so much.

3) I don't think posters like "Bam Bam" who wrote about "Empire" meant Bushes empire.

They meant America's empire. Basically many people object to us using the "war on terror" as an excuse for running roughshod over the world, trying to remake governments by force to be more like "us".

I personally am not sure whether this is a problem or not. It sure hasn't helped our image in the world. I think American's are despised more than ever, but perhaps more respected.

I think the thread has run its course and will attempt to shut up now.

Like I said before it has been fun.

[jimbo]

Other than over night - this is the longest time between posts on this thread to date. It's OK though, liberals - take all the time you need to come up with the appropriate rebuttals.

Funny, I was typing while you posted.

(man I don't get this whole "liberal" thing, I would never call myself that)

[SGT.BATGUANO]

Raque-

"The other argument I'm not following is the whole "Bush is trying to build an empire in the Middle East, and it's all about the oil". Have we forgotten that W is on his last term in office. So with four years to go, how does he benefit? And that begs the question that when he got into this and had only a year to go, he had more to lose than gain politically by this action, so why would he go on an Alexander the Great mission. We do not have a king or dictator, we have an elected President with a four year term - he has nothing to gain by "growing his empire".".




Don't forget that there are more Bush's with political proclivities waiting in the wings.

Will there be some kind of award for the millionth post on this thread?

[StormTROOPER]

Originally posted by SlowPro48
I can tell they really chap your *****, but have you ever considered that maybe there's a "blinded by lack of faith" democrat for every "blinded by faith" republican? That they exist to balance each other out in some sort of weird political yin/yang system...?

Excellent point, we keep hearing how we (U.S.) are so DIVIDED but it is the yin/yang principle alive and working very WELL as the gas pedal and brake pedal (just as one analogy) Guess which political party is the yin (child) gas pedal and which one is the yang (adult) brake pedal?

[jimbo]

Guess which political party is the yin (child) gas pedal and which one is the yang (adult) brake pedal?

It would have to be the Republicans who are tromping on the gas (and acting like children).

We have a republican controlled congress that even some republicans like John McCaine say is the most fiscally irresponsible in modern times. During the first 6 years of the Clinton administration the Dems had pay as you go strategies and had virtually eliminated the deficits (of course the stock market was boomimg then so it was easier). Now deficits are at scary record highs.

Bush is going to put the pedal to the metal in the coming months in his attempt to "save" social security by stripping half the life out of it, eliminating its traditional safety net role, and turning it into nothing more than a retirement savings account (which we already had). We have been running for decades, and are still running surpluses in social security funds and both Reps and Dems have irresponsibly "borrowed" these surpluses for other government spending programs, with no intent of ever paying them back.

Al Gore wanted to put the brakes on this 'stealing" from social security (the lock box) but he was not elected and the stealing has gone on every month. I think social security is a safety net for everybody and should be saved but not turned into a savings account that just funnels money from a government program into the stock market.

There are hundreds of other examples of the republicans wanted to radically change our country as fast as possible.

Some of them :

Faith based initiatives (giving churches free federal money), pre-emptive war, withdrawing from major treaties like Kyoto global warming, geneva conventions and arms control with russia. Stopping American's ability to burn the flag in protest, overturning Roe vs Wade, allowing prayer in public schools, writing discrimination against gays into the constitution. Setting up their own shadow defense dept (office of special plans) run by Dick Cheney - the first time this has been done I believe, most aggresive tax cuts for millionares in modern history. Blocking scientific advancement by withholding federal funds from types of science that they "morally" object to. Pushing the Patriot act down America's throat and now pursuing passing Patriot 2 ....

And on and on and on ... they got the pedal down (on aggresive change) and they aint letting up for at least four more years.

[vxkween]

Wow...I have been reading this thread along with many of you, I'll have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised at the "progressive" beliefs that a majority of you hold. I hate labels, they are restrictive and in discussions like this many will jump to conclusions just because one is a "liberal","conservative", "Democrat" or "Republican". I think that we can all have far-ranging beliefs on any number of subjects and don't have to be pinned in to some all encompassing set of rules that have been set by the label makers.

I will admit that we (my partner and I) have considered attending some of the events but weren't quite sure if we would be welcomed with open arms as we have an "alternative lifestyle" (whatever that means!). We have both been lucky enough to have families that support us 100% and work enviroments that were inclusive and diverse, but wasn't sure if a car club of any kind would be so open....a clear breakage of my don't pre judge rule!!

So again I'm warmed by the general fair and open-minded opinions I've read in this thread.......any group should have a token lesbian couple anyway!!

[jimbo]

Yippeee! Welcome to the party vxkween.

I feel so bad that anybody in America has to worry about whether they would be accepted in any group, with open arms.

I wish the people who voted in the recent state referendums would have been more tolerant and accepting. What's with people?

My next door neighbor just lost his partner to aids and I can't believe the sh#t he went through in additional paperwork, estate taxes and just plain heartache, because they were not permited to be married the same as everyone else. I'm afraid he is going to lose his house.

Please chime in on this thread ... I've already broken my promise to shut up. LOL

[Capri]

Briefly skimmed through a few posts, there is a particular one I'd like to add/respond, per Raque's 2nd point about:
"2) The religion thing keeps rearing its head. It is made to sound as if EVERY Republican is Jerry Falwell (as a Republican, I'll tell you that Jerry Falwell is not ANYWHERE near who I identify with), and EVERY Democrat is Joe Atheist. There are many non-believing Republicans, and many believing Democrats. MANY, MANY on both sides. It's not about religion - it's about what we believe is right for this country. Let me repeat that in case you didn't get it - it is not, and never has been about religion, or the lack thereof..... "

You can't separate religion and what we 'believe' for the majority of the population, since they are mostly theists. Religion plays a HUGE role in this election, the Republicans realized that by targeting their campaigns to Churches and other institutions since 2002, and remember the great speech Bush gave back when he was running in 2000? "Jesus is my idol" that caught people by surprise. It's no secret that this election has to do with religious issues that tie in with a LOT of moral values of both candidates. Abortion and stem cell research were brought up many times, exit polls show that moral values were a huge deciding factors for many, (as well as economy, Iraq, homeland security). Gay marriage was also significant, as evident by 11 states passing the law at the same time of the election. There were stories how Pastors and Ministers were telling people not to vote for Kerry, because he is not an authentic Catholic, radio talk shows have callers calling about how important it is to have their religious believes on the same page as their nation's leader.

There's just too much overwhelming aspects that religion has played a huge role in this election and Bush's administration. I would also like to add that Kerry's no different in this, except he didn't aggressively talk about his Catholic background until the final push in the election run.

[Dallas4u]

I hate labels as well. I don't like to consider myself a "Liberal", "Conservative", "Democrat", "Repbulican", "Liberitarian", "Green Party", ... whatever. I just consider myself able to make a decision the way I want to. I have never voted down the party lines, and usually take MUCH time deciding who I want for a particular local, state, or federal office, or what items I want to pass through the county, state, or federal system. Many of the people and items on the ballot, this year in particular, were tough to decide on for me.

I think what bugs me most is seeing how far many of us here lean one way or another and care not a bit what the others have to say. Thumbs up for those of you who can look past the party labels.

Oh, and hey vxkween... you're always welcome to a meet in the northwest !

[vxkween]

Thanks Dalllas for the invite.....we actually travel that way every now and then...we took our first VX (Ebony w/ red and black) to a large number of the National Parks. We quit our jobs and camped all over the country for 6 months.....if we are near your neck of the woods we will most certainly give you a shout.

Jimbo thanks for you supports as well and between errrands I will gladly jump back into this thread...I think we can all learn from each other...seems like an intelligent group!!

[carlymac]

I just wanted to be a part of this, most likely the longest in vehicross.info history post.
My father always told me politics and religion were bad conversation topics but we are family here...right?
All I can say in response to the political situation in america is that I will support the president the american people elected... even though he wasn't my choice. I will say, that in four years the republican party will be solely responsible for the state of the union. Because now they control the executive office, the senate, the house, and will control the supreme court before this term is over. That covers the political gamut. Any change to america now is clearly in republican hands...Time will tell.

Now back to the VehiCROSS

[jimbo]

Regarding religion and the past election here is the viewpoint I agree with, articulated far better than I could:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/111204E.shtml

Last night on the news I saw that evangelist James Dobson was telling people to pray against Arlen Specter because Arlen said it was unlikely that Roe vs Wade would be overturned just because the White House and the evangelists want it to.

Man did that p#ss them off. Because that is just what they intend to do (for a start).

This goes to the point I was trying to make yesterday about the Bush White house, the christian radicals and praying for harm to come to your political enemies.

Arlen backed down and recanted, (proves the power of the christian theocracy that is taking hold in our country).

I think millions of well meaning people voted for Bush for non-religious reasons, not really being aware of what he actually is trying to do to the country (religion-wise) and how dangerous of a movement this could turn out to be.

Another link I found interesting about the red & blue election maps.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emejn/election/

I so looove this site (checkout the gallery):

http://www.sorryeverybody.com/

[BaM*BaM]

Evangelicals Want Payback

Evangelical leaders apparently buy the argument that Bush owes his re-election victory to them, and according to this Los Angeles Times piece today, they are demanding results.

Jerry Falwell has spoken to Karl Rove three times since the election, and Arlen Specter even called Falwell to assure him he won't block Bush's court nominees. Falwell is now working to shoot down the rising stars of Republicans like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani -- they are too moderate for Falwell's GOP. Evangelicals think Andy Card is too moderate, too, the Times' Peter Wallsten reports; perhaps Card is who Bob Jones III was referring to when he told Bush in a letter to "shed" himself of "weaklings who do not share his biblical values."

How much power will evangelicals really have in shaping Bush's second-term agenda and the judicial nominee process? Unclear, but they're sure talking tough. From the Times piece:

"Business as usual isn't going to cut it, where the GOP rides to victory by espousing traditional family values and then turns around and rewards the liberals in its ranks," said Robert Knight, who heads an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, a Christian conservative advocacy group. Knight also said: "The president has to stop endorsing homosexuality indirectly by supporting civil unions and called the Specter issue "a very big test" to see if the GOP leadership understood "the depth of what occurred on Nov. 2."

"If they decide to elevate Specter anyway, they will alienate millions of people who counted on them to begin pushing back liberalism instead of aiding and abetting it," he said.

The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, warned that "if Republican leaders in Congress allowed Specter to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, their political futures could be at risk."

-- Geraldine Sealey

[t2p]

The Sgt makes some valid points ....
.
No - I did not forget that Iraq had 'nothing' to do with the terrorist act that occurred here ...... and I certainly did not forget that this admin did not stop it before it happened - just as I did not forget that many prev admins (all the way back to Reagan and Carter) did little to prevent previous attacks. Again, this country did basically 'nothing for 20 years'.
.
There were *many* reasons to invade Iraq. They did not find WMD's. So I guess many would feel better if we had found WMD's .... ???
.
Maybe it was primarily 'personal' - and maybe siblings ....... relatives ........ should not be allowed to sit in the Oval Office ?

[t2p]

.
... and maybe I chose to find ways to justify the attack on Iraq ...
.
because I REALLY get hot when I see the visions of the people in that country jumping up and down with joy when the Twin Towers were bombed.
.