Compare your views with Obama-McCain
Gene Douglas
Jack Johnson
election though. I don't think either man is fully qualified to be
President.
Jack.
VtSkier
Well, I wish that I could justify doing
just that. But:
I'm afraid a vote for Nader is
a vote for McCain.
I don't think Nader is qualified or
would make a very good president.
Gene Douglas
Of course, that's what gave us Dubya. Hope you live in a red or blue
state.
Jack Johnson
party.....it will draw from McCain.
However, I am not one who believes a person shouldn't vote third party,
because it "may" draw from another party. We live in a country where
we have the right to vote, and the only wrong thing a person could do
(in my opinion), is not exercise that right. Not voting is
irresponsible. So many people, in so many countries would give their
lives for that right! I don't agree, that voting third party is
somehow wrong, or, equally irresponsible. I am one who strongly wants
a viable third party in this country. I think we need it. The two
major parties have become one, there is very little difference between
the two. My vote, obviously, is a protest vote. I know Bob Barr, or
any other third party candidate would never be elected. So, I chose a
candidate that would draw votes, from the party I like least.......the
Republicans. However, I stand with my opinion that neither McCain,
or, Obama is fully qualified. I don't like either.
Jack.
VtSkier
There is nothing in our constitution that says
we must have a two-party system. It's just grown
up as 'tradition'.
Our system was pretty much the first like it and
the founders did the best they could, but looking
around at other elective democracies in the world
I sometimes think that a parliamentary system
with a head of state and a head of government
being separate individuals might be a better
way. In some ways these systems seem messier
than our own but ours is surely a mess at this
particular time in history.
Our current president and his cronies are surely
and intentionally eroding our civil rights. If
Obama does nothing else but restore these, then
he will have been worth the votes. I don't happen
to see McCain as from the same cloth at Dubya,
but I don't see great change of any sort coming
from him.
Barr? He seems to hold some hope, but what I see
from him is a complete removal of all regulation
by government so greed can completely take over
as it is in certain quarters already due to the
work of Reagan-omics and other quasi-conservative
programs of deregulation.
Sorry, I can't go his way either.
Jack Johnson
government is far more accountable, to the point, if Parliament calls
for a vote of no-confidence.......they could be out of a job!
Certainly, that can be taken to the extreme aswell, like Italy. Only
in the past decade, did Italy finally have a government that stood more
than a year. But, in Great Britain, and Canada......the system works
great.
A man, like George W Bush, would have been tossed out years ago.
Jack.
Gene Douglas
If you believe there is little difference between the parties, then
you believe there is difference between Dubya as a president, and Gore
or Kerry. The difference in outcome would be as great as day and
night.
Nader claimed there was hardly any difference, and Nader gave us Dubya
-- a politician diametrically opposed to his positions. Gore would
have been very different from Nader, but not nearly so much as Geo.
III.
There is also the fact that Barr, whoever that is, has less than zero
chance of being elected. If you are in a "white" state, your vote
could be critical. Florida was decided by a few hundred votes. If
you are in a red or blue state, it doesn't matter who you vote for.
Jack Johnson
especially referring to this election. John McCain is conservative on
many issues, but has worked with Democrats for years. Obama is liberal,
but is already "flip-flopping" on several issues, because he knows the
majority of America isn't as liberal as he is. In particular, on
social policy. So, now he's trying to appeal to conservatives. And,
what's the result? A mess! I don't fully trust either of them.
Both have demonstrated they will compromise, if the political pressure
gets too great. (That isn't necessarily a good thing). I don't want a
dogmatic President, who doesn't compromise, but, I want someone who
stands on "their" values, without "flip-flopping" their policies. That
was John Kerry's problem. That is why he lost the election. He
didn't stand firm on core issues, and didn't "fight back", against the
attacks from the Swift-Boat group. He 'tried' to be "Mr. liberal", and
play nice.......and he lost.
Al Gore took "his" election for granted. He didn't campaign as hard as
he should, even to the point of not wanting President Clinton to
campaign for him. (Mistake). Despite his personal failings, Clinton
was still popular, and could have made a difference. Al Gore didn't
even carry his home state of Tennessee. (If he would have, he would
have won the election). I blame Al Gore's defeat......on Al Gore.
Not the Supreme Court, and not Ralph Nader.
Most people are "moderate". Most people aren't completely liberal, or
conservative. I am very liberal on economic policy, but, I am moderate
to conservative on social policy. I, for example, am very "pro-life".
I do not believe in any form of "choice", in relation to abortion. As
a Christian, I believe abortion is no less than murder And, we have
aborted (legally) over 40 million babies, since Roe v. Wade, in 1973.
That to me is no less than mass genocide. This is one issue where I am
conservative. But, I support gay rights issues, all forms of "human
rights" issues, (anti death penalty). I support labor unions,
international cooperation and I believe the war in Iraq must end! I
believe in "free markets", but, I don't consider myself to be a
capitalist. However, I don't think socialism works either........see
what I mean. People have a variety of beliefs, and very few people are
completely "liberal", or, "conservative".
When I vote, I vote for the candidate that appeals to my conscience.
In this election, I don't like either Obama, or, McCain. To me, these
two are very much alike, when it comes right down to it. Neither man
appeals to the middle of the road moderates. (Which are the majority
of people). That is why they are running.......splitting the vote.
Independents will decide this election, and right now, they aren't
making up their minds.
Jack.
Ed B.
your statement, "I do not believe in any form of "choice", in relation
to abortion", is pretty dogmatic. The two extremes on this issue, taken
together, represent a minority of the people. The majority take a
middle position.
Abortion will happen when a woman decides to have one. The choice
becomes do we allow them to be done in a sterile environment with
trained people or do we put those women at risk by making them seek out
a quack who will perform it in a dirty, rundown hotel room?
Most extremists who demand an end to all abortions are the very people
who are against minimizing the need for abortions by providing
comprehensive sex education. They are largely also against using any
kind of birth control and advocate making it illegal to provide birth
control pills and condoms to teenagers.
Should teenagers be having sex? Probably not. Will they have sex?
Probably so. Do we teach them how to protect themselves against disease
and pregnancy or do we allow them to remain ignorant of the consequences
of their actions?
"Just say no" does not work. Abstinence only sex-ed does not work.
Several studies have shown without any doubt that those who receive
abstinence only sex-ed have more STIs and more pregnancies than those
who receive a good comprehensive sexual education.
Good comprehensive sex-ed, taught with universal values of love and
respect for yourself and your partner, will go a long way toward making
abortion unnecessary in most cases. Some school districts have finally
recognized that fact and have turned down federal funding that mandates
abstinence only sex-ed in favor of providing what works best for the
teenagers involved.
--
~)< Love & Peace Ed B.
We grow tyrannical fighting tyranny. The most alarming spectacle today
is not the spectacle of the atomic bomb in an unfederated world, it is
the spectacle of the Americans beginning to accept the device of loyalty
oaths and witchhunts, beginning to call anybody they don't like a
Communist. -E.B. White, writer (1899-1985)
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association,
covenant to affirm and promote:
justice, equity and compassion in human relations. -Unitarian
Universalist 2nd Principle
Jack Johnson
a strict (conservative) traditionalist view. Very simple.......I
believe abortion is murder. How can a person compromise on murder? I
can't, and I won't.
As far as sex education, yes, I agree with you......we need
comprehensive sexual education. I believe one can never have "too"
much knowledge. I do believe, however, that traditional abstinence
teaching should be taught, right along side of all of the other
teaching. I think we are too quick to "assume" that all kids are
engaging in pre-marital sex, they are not. No doubt, a majority are,
but, traditional teaching has it's place.
Jack.
Ed B.
circumstances? Even if pregnancy endangers the health of the mother?
Even if the pregnancy is the result of rape?
What about those abortions in unclean hotel rooms? Is that the scenario
you want to return to?
And yes, abstinence should be part of the sex-ed program. But it should
not be all there is. That is especially true when what is being taught
is completely false. Most faith-based abstinence only education is
based on lies.
--
~)< Love & Peace Ed B.
How hard to realize that every camp of men or beast has this glorious
starry firmament for a roof! In such places standing alone on the
mountaintop it is easy to realize that whatever special nests we make --
leaves and moss like the marmots and birds, or tents or piled stone --
we all dwell in a house of one room -- the world with the firmament for
its roof -- and are sailing the celestial spaces without leaving any
track. -John Muir, naturalist, explorer, and writer (1838-1914)
We, the member congregations of the Unitarian Universalist Association,
covenant to affirm and promote:
the acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual growth in
our congregations. -Unitarian Universalist 3rd Principle