Politics

[Anonymous]

Bush is a disaster waiting to happen and I say we cut our losses.

Don't mess with Texas! He has taken his state slogan and applied it internationally, grandly alienating us from the rest of our international allies. OUTSTANDING! Even better, he took "clear evidence that Saddam had WMD" to the international community and demanded their help. Oh, wait, shit, that was forged...

I've seen people talking about how Bush is willing to take strong stances and actually stand by them, well, lets analyze that.

Economically speaking, it really doesn't matter to me where we sat when Bush took office. What matters to me is that he turned the largest budget surplus in the history of the United States of America into the largest budget deficit in the history of the United States of America. We can now add to that deficit the already-spent $166 billion for the cost of the work so far in Iraq and Afghanistan and the $87 billion that Bush informed us it will cost to stay in Iraq for another year. Bush's $5.6 trillion surplus once predicted by 2011 is now (given charitable predictions) a $2.3 trillion cumulative deficit. You can blame the immediate deficit problems on the economic downturn (although it was not solely that which caused the extreme slide in numbers), but economists are looking toward the future and the long-term deficit. It is THERE where Bush's incompetence truly shines. Oh, we may not have to deal with it and certainly Bush's supporters, old, white, rich men, won't have to deal with it. It is our children who will have to face the decision of drastically higher taxes, severe spending cuts, or unstable levels of debt.

Like Bush's educational stance? No Child Left Behind! Woot! Oh, wait, once he had taken pictures shaking hands with school superintendants and lawmakers, once he sat in on a few televised children's classroomes, he cut the shit out of the budget. That probably doesn't effect you. His freeze on permissible Pell Grants for college students may. Personally, I took out as much in Pell Grants as I could because I paid and worked my own way through college. Well, in an economy with record-highs for tuition, Bush's proposal is to completely freeze this program. That's not exactly it, though. He reduces the educational budget, eliminates educational programs, reduces afterschool programs and freezes teacher training grants.

And one of my BIGGEST problems with Bush is this assclown pushing Christian ideals on the country.  His motivation for keeping gay marriage illegal is mostly grounded in pandering to the religious right. And here I thought there was something somewhere about church...and state...

The constitution guarantees equal protection under the laws. Accordingly, if this is a federal governance issue the constitution addresses it. If instead you feel this is a state governance issue, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court ruling made clear that states could not bar anyone from marrying without good reason. That ruling struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which the court also said violated 14th Amendment guarantees of equal protection.

So now Bush wants to re-write the constitution to match what he feels his right supporters desire? The whole point of the constitution and the US supreme court is that it is not beholden to popular opinion or the majority opinion. If it were, many of the decisions, on things like abortion, black rights, etc., would not have happened and our nation would not have progressed. The court is a vehicle for progression insofar as it is not tethered by public opinion and personal bias. It is only tethered by the constitution. And I don't care how sideways these people are reading the constitution, how closely they are squinting their eyes - it STILL cannot be bent to our petty hatreds. It is what protected us during similarly prejudiced times and hopefully it will protect us now. The Supreme Court has already once decided that equal but separate isn't good enough. Civil unions for gays are not good enough. Marriage is not privilege conferred by a State, it is a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference. There literally is no justification for a sex-specific classification in our marriage laws, much as there was no justification for laws forbidding blacks from marrying whites.

The idea that one president would do away with the equal protections and guarantees thereunder is a sad statement on how far the seat of the presidency has fallen.  That is not taking a strong stance; that is desecrating one of our most historically important statements of liberty and freedom.

As for the mega machine propoganda about Kerry's flip flops, well the site posted by someone in this thread humorously addresses some of them. Honestly, I don't know every issue that can be drudged up. What I do know is I would prefer a president who puts "my" and "our" desires first, not a president who puts forth his own personal agenda in the face of international outrage and alienation. For people who feel that Bush has an agenda - and they can AGREE with it - his tactic may be great for you. I would prefer a politician who can listen to the populace, reseach and analyze the meaningful issues involved, and adapt his plans as needed. I don't know if Kerry is that guy. But I do know that Bush isn't.

Peace out. =)

[Anonymous]

Great post Muse.  I couldn't agree with you more.

I lived in the states for the last four years.  I recently moved to Canada.  All I've seen in the past four years are pro-Bush people.  I was beginning to think that the United States were full of trigger-happy, bible-totting rednecks.

It's nice to hear an intelligent and lucid opinion.  Something more insightful than "Saddam was a bad guy".

I think four more years of Bush would definitely bring America's standing and leadership in the world to a new low.  Bush isn't respected anywhere in the world.  Other countries just fear him or kiss up to him.  That's it.

I can't believe these guys were elected in the first place.

Anyways.  I just hope the voters wake up before things get even worse.

[Anonymous]

Core you really thought that? This is just going to show what people are coming to think of America. It's so completely sad... And yes I forgot about the point you brought up muse. The deficit - I should ahve remembered when I was talking about Bush, don't know why I didn't. But GREAT post nonetheless - awesome....And just as you said, and To answer Iluvatar's rebuttle of civil unions being "much better" I say that who are you to say that a civil union is better for someone who wants marriage? If you wanted to marry someone that was black, or someone that's not of your race, a few decades, ago, you wouldn't be able too! OR what if they told you...to just go and have a civil union? Now as a amtter of personal preference that may or may not really mean anything to you, but tell that to any other straight couple now a days that they can't have a marriage but they can have a civil union and watch as all hell breaks loose. What I'm trying to say is that they shouldn't have to settle. Not in a country that's supposed to be so diverse and a "metling pot" they shouldn't. Not in a country that boasts on how it accepts all different colors, creeds, genders, but not sexuality. It's bullshit...and just like Muse who I once again say had a GREAT POST BUsh is really showing his intolerance and ignorace on trying to push his Jesus condemns your abominations and perverity or marriage. If he isn't for it personally fine, but don't try and use religion, and then USE THE LAW (as I stated in my first post) for his own selfish and ingorant wishes. That is why Iluvatar I call him a pig and a liar.

[Anonymous]

Also, I wanted to point out - it's not so much pro-Kerry for me, it's more Anyone But Bush.

[Anonymous]

It really seems that for most people it's not pro this person or pro that person, it is just anyone but Bush.  I know it's that way for me and obviously Eclipse.

[Anonymous]

Don't forget, Hitler or Stalin can be placed in anyone.

[Anonymous]

Hmmmm. It seems eveyone misinterpeted my gay marriage sentiments. Marriage by state is nothing but a Civil Union with a superficial celebration. I am speaking of the Christian and Judaistic means of marriage, which clearly do believe solely in man and woman. When both of those religion both denounce gay marriage, how can you say it is right entirely? It seem's neither of you addressed the point of progression. Oh wait, you did. But only went it went in your arguments favor. Yes, interracial marriage was banned, which was a clear violation of the constitution and of a persons religious rights to get married to any member of the opposite sex. But, again, with the acceptence of that now gay marriage has come up. Interracial marriage had a complete grounds to be allowed, there was really no argument against it other than "we dont want it." But, now with gay marriage, their are religious arguments to bring up, and yes, I admit, there is nothing in the constitution (or anything that could be put in there, dear Mr. Bush, if you see this and can read above third grade level) to ban gay marriage. But what happens next? Again, the "hicks" as they call it in the south would want to be married to their sisters. They would say, in these exact words, no offense to anyone, "Well, you let dem gays marry, so why wont you let us murry?" Dont go saying "Well, those are two completely different things." What do you think they said when they let different races marry? That same thing about gay marraige. After that, what else could you attempt to marry? Pets? Foods? Books? Look, I dont know about anywhere else, but there have already been hundreds of epople trying to marry their pets and family. Three brothers wanted to marry, not because they were incestual, but just because it would bond them. Oh yes, my whole argument just now about the furture of marriage goes to both religious marriages and to civil unions.

[Anonymous]

Concering gay marriages, I think the whole problem really steams from one thing. A word. The word 'marriage' has a religious conotation, whereas the word 'union' does not, in the same sense of importance. If civil unions provide the same rights as normal marriages (being things like visitation in hospitals, tax breaks and adoption), then I see no reason why they can not be suitable for the homosexual population who desires just that. I understand that much of the protest has been that 'not allowing gay marriages to be called marriages means that those marriages are not good enough to earn the name'. But, if you have the same rights, why does it matter? I would think one wouldn't care what the Catholic church (or any other church refusing to acknowledge gay marriages) thinks, as long as they had what they wanted.

And if those rights attained by marriage are not enough, then these people should question their intentions. People SHOULD NOT be getting married just to make a statement. It's not right, and it will only further make a mockery of marriage, as we have recently been seeing (See: Britney Spear's 28-hour marriage, or any reality TV show about marriage or dating).

In my mind, allowing more gay marriages will make for more children being adopted, which means less children dependent on the state, which means more money for our floundering economy. So actually, supporting and legalizing gay marriages would've been in Bush's best interest in the long run if you look at it that way. Pity he couldn't realize that.

[Anonymous]

get rid of the social security for congress and there will never be a debt in the us ever again.

[Anonymous]

Concering gay marriages, I think the whole problem really steams from one thing. A word. The word 'marriage' has a religious conotation, whereas the word 'union' does not, in the same sense of importance. If civil unions provide the same rights as normal marriages (being things like visitation in hospitals, tax breaks and adoption), then I see no reason why they can not be suitable for the homosexual population who desires just that.

Siren, Wasn't this "separate but equal" approach already proposed once in the United States with respect to a subject matter just as equally fraught with bias and prejudice?  And after the close of that embarassing chapter in our collective history books wasn't it determined by both our society and our laws that "separate but equal" treatment violated our constitution and our conscience?  I mean, I wasn't around when Rosa sat in the front of the bus, or when Martin marched for freedom, but even with my limited knowledge of history I know it cannot and must not succeed.

Rather than ask the question the way you did, one might ask why some in our society are so opposed to permitting gays to marry when they seem content to permit "unions."  If it is purely religious (and it is not), then I suggest that our government and our laws ought not get involved.  Let them take it up with God.

[Anonymous]

Excatly. If it's so...equal, why not just let it be all the same. If it's so close and the same thing as marriages, why would you even want a distinction between the two to cause confusion. Why have a difference when it could be the same?

[Anonymous]

i have to find a video that i think everyone in the world should watch...ill get back to ya when i find it

[Anonymous]

You guys might have already seen this but I think this is the most stupid thing I have ever seen from republicans.

"W" as in George "dubbya" Bush.

http://www.wketchup.com/

[Anonymous]

what I think about the US in general?

Two things.

1. It's quite a Big Place with lots of intergrated cultures.

2. I do have a belief that America will play quite a large role in the revalation towards the destruction of mankind.  Yeah you many think I am crazy but tis only my oppinion, don't be offended.

Edit: Not even sure if I have answered relavently but hey whatever.

[Anonymous]

Actually its very clever because it's calling george bushes ketchup americas ketchup and john kerrys wife is closely related to heinz (i kinda forgot how cos, ummmm, well no explanation but i just dont remember) so it indirectly makes a reference towards the kerry's being unamerican without really making the statement. Bush and his administration are very good at using things like this, as well as the media towards their advantage.

Also, I'm american and with zero disrespect intended towards my country i too believe that america will play a major factor in the destruction of mankind. But then again, America is really just a culmination of all the other countries in one, so its kinda like expediting the process.