I've been thinking.
I do that from time to time.
Anyhow, I've been thinking I have no choice but to vote.
Earlier in the year I said, and meant it, that I felt I could not vote the way things were going. I'm not excited about any of the candidates at all. I've said repeatedly I'm not a McCain supporter and I had no desire to vote for him.
Of course many razzed me saying no vote is a vote for Hillary or Obama. So what? To me they all looked alike once you get past color and gender.
Anyhow I've been thinking.
Now it's down to two. Obama and McCain.
When all is said and done I have to admit Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America.
Quite the opposite. He paid a huge price for resisting our enemies even as they held him prisoner and tortured him. What has Obama done? What has he proven to us?
The choice is a no brainer.
I'm voting for McCain.
I claim no ability to enlighten anyone, but will ask questions and point some things out.
First, I think it is a peculiar sort of Christian who would vote for a man who promises to continue what has now been proved beyond doubt to be a war of choice in Iraq. In the eyes of the world, such wars are both illegal and immoral. Jesus Christ was the prince of peace, was he not? I don't recall him ever encouraging war, and I rather doubt that if he were alive today he would own a gun and vote Republican. In point of fact, I think his Sermon on the Mount and the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes proves pretty conclusively that Jesus was (Gasp!) a liberal.
By the way, are you aware that McCain has repeatedly confused the Sunni Muslims in the the Middle East with the Shi'a? Apparently can't keep 'em straight. Do you know the difference, and do you know why it is important that the next president does?
You are aware that we have tortured prisoners and have gone to extraordinary lengths to do so. I think we have pretty much sacrificed the principled position we took after World War II and established "justice at Nuremberg". Who would Jesus torture?
Also, your mixing of politics with religion disturbs me, as it is the stated official position of the United States government that the United States is not, repeat NOT, in any way a Christian nation. But I'm sure you know that. How could you not? After all, this printed position was ratified by Congress and signed by the then-president.
Secondly, I think it is a peculiar sort of Christian who would vote for the man who promises to continue Bush's un-Christian domestic policies, which have conclusively favored rich people and corporations over the working class and the poor. The Holy Bible has over 3,000 references to helping the poor, but I can't think of even 3 Republican policies that directly do that, can you? Under the Bush policies, which your man promises to carry on, the median wage of the average American worker has fallen (while corporate profits have risen, some to record-levels), more Americans (and American children) have sunk into poverty, the price of gasoline has almost quadrupled, and the United States has achieved one of the highest infant-mortality rates in the First World. Do you think these were good results, and why would you want to continue these policies?
Under Bush, the American dollar has lost approximately one third of its value against the world's other major currencies. Do you approve of that? Under Bush, a record surplus inherited from President Clinton was turned into a record deficit in less than eight years. Do you think that was a good thing? Under Bush, the Iraq War has been fought entirely on borrowed money, which has resulted in China, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Dubai holding a collective amount of debt that would catastrophically damage this country if it were called in at once. Do you approve of that? Are you aware that when Ronald Reagan took office the United States was the biggest creditor-nation in the world, and that right now we are the biggest debtor-nation in the world. Do you think that is a good thing?
I don't think it's very sensible (or patriotic) to vote for the man who promises to continue the Bush policies that have systematically stretched the capability of our armed forces to the breaking point through the back-door draft of stop-loss and repeated deployments. Do you know what stop-loss is? Do you approve of it? If so, why? If not, what alternative would you have our next president replace it with?
Are you aware that your man McCain does not support the new GI Bill, which has overwhelming (and probably veto-proof) bipartisan support in both house of Congress? How's that for supporting the troops? For that matter, how is that supporting the troops? Do you support the troops? If so, how?
Then there is the Constitution. I'm sure you know that until the Supreme Court's decision last week restoring "habeas corpus" (which McCain disagreed with and disapproves of), nine of the ten guarantees made to all Americans under the Bill of Rights had been taken away from us based entirely on Bush's illegally-assumed authority to define anyone as an "enemy combatant". Do you know what "habeas corpus" is? Do you like it? Did you miss it when it was gone? Are you glad to have it back? Can you tell me what single right was left when the other nine were taken away?
Morality. As you are aware from an earlier post, John McCain is a self-confessed adulterer, and under pretty unsavory circumstances at that. That means he deliberately and with premeditation broke some of the most solemn promises a man can voluntarily make, and which are customarily made in a house of God, in the eyes of God, and in front of one's best friends. He broke these solemn promises to get laid, which in my eyes makes him no better morally than President Clinton, whom I think is a loathesome human being. McCain was also a member of the Keating Five. Do you know why that's important? Do you know what they did? Why would you want a member of that august group to be president?
McCain has had a number of members of his campaign resign because they had been lobbyists for foreign companies and countries, some of whose interests did not exactly coincide with those of the United States. His chief financial advisor, Phil Gramm, was a lobbyist for the United Bank of Switzerland, and who encouraged McCain to adopt policies that favor that foreign bank over working Americans. Do you know what a lobbyist does?
Now you enlighten me please. Your original post seems to imply that Barack Obama has spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. He must have started in his twenties then, as he is not yet fifty. Who, in your view, did he aid and abet, and how?
If I hated America, I'd want its military to be weakened; I'd want its economy damaged; I'd want its bedrock foundation (the Constitution), that has made it the best nation in the world, undermined; I'd want its moral superiority negated, perhaps by ordering prisoners to be tortured under its flag and in its name; and last, I'd want its workforce demoralized by having millions of decent jobs sent overseas.
This administration can't claim one single policy success, foreign or domestic, and you are going to vote for the man who promises to continue all of the policies that have undermined this country. And, to make it worse, you say it's a "no brainer". I'm forced to agree, but I think my definition of "no brainer" is different from yours.
I don't agree, Parated, with your experience of liberals. Jimmy Carter is a good example of a "hands-on" kind of liberal. In any event, I, as a liberal, believe that the government can and should be an instrument towards helping people. The prosperity we as adults have all experienced in our lifetimes is a direct result of liberal policies put in place by people like FDR during the Great Depression. And while McCain has cultivated a reputation as a maverick, he has lately reversed himself on almost all issues that separated him from Bush. If you doubt it, google the "Bush McCain Challenge", and take it. I flatly disagree with your last statement - I think the Dems can much more adequately represent the country as a whole than the Republicans have for the last eight years, particularly up to 2006 when the Republican Congress was a complete rubber-stamp for Bush.
Dr. Guy - Sorry, the Iraq War was proved to be a war of choice as of the release of the Downing Street Memo. Add the mountains of evidence produced since then, from "Plame-gate" through the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report earlier this month, and you have it. You may choose to ignore it, but it's a case that can, should, and hopefully will, be made in a court of law.
I know Bush is not running, but McCain is promising to continue the Iraq War and most of his economic policies. That makes Bush fair game.
Good point about "my humble opinion", but I don't agree with your list either. The economy was NOT revived after 9/11, we simply ran up a mountain of debt, which is now catching up to us.
Now, to "Kickin'" - I'm not remotely trying to "shut [you] up, and don't know where that came from. First, I disagree with your interpretation of Jesus, but you are entitled to it. I still find your views on the war incompatible with Christianity, but you're entitled to them.
I never said the poor shouldn't help themselves, nor did the Democrats. It was President Clinton who undertook welfare reform, after all.
Glad we agree on something, even if it is only that adulterers are vile people. As for sin, indeed we are all sinners, but it is the premeditation of adultery and the degree of betrayal that bother me the most. In my view, because of the nature of the marriage ceremony, when you betray your wife you also betray God and everyone who chose to share the occasion of your wedding with you.
I'm completely unaware of what Obama has done that even approaches the level of betrayal exhibited by Senator McCain. I asked you to tell me how he has aided and abetted those who hate America, but you didn't tell me.
As for 9/11, I don't buy your point. First, I think that 9/11 largely happened because Bush and Company were asleep at the switch. Secondly, I'm aware that the Bush administration did everything in its power to first prevent, and then obstruct, the investigation into what happened on that awful day. I am NOT, repeat NOT, pushing a conspiracy theory, but I want full disclosure about the event, and this administration has deliberately kept that from happening.
As for there not having been another attack, I submit that that is so because no one bothered. Face it, "Kickin'", our borders are wide open, there are illegal immigrants all over the country, guns are easy to get, and another attack would be no trouble at all. I think it is far more likely that we have been left alone because the terrorists (Al Qaida) got exactly what they wanted. This country for the last eight years has been undermined from within, thanks to the worst president in history. There's an old military axiom (from Napoleon, I think) that you never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
Last point - Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. This has now been proved. Nothing - nada - zip -zilch - bubkis. Why did we go there?
Last point for Parated - one of the frustrating thing about teaching 7th-grade is that I seldom know what happens to my students when they go on to high school. I'm sorry to tell you that some of them have died by gunfire on the streets of L.A., either because they became involved with gangs or were just in the wrong place at the wrong time (one kid was killed in a drive-by just after he had come out of Bible class on a Sunday morning). The few who have come back to see me are doing well, and while I can't take more than fractional credit, I'm proud of my having helped them on the road to productive and happy lives.
Last point to "Kickin'" - you left virtually all of my factual points about Bush's policies (which are relevant because McCain has now embraced them) unresponded to. I addresssed your version of Christianity because you brought it to the playing field in your screen name. The issue was politics. Do you think that the Bush presidency has made the United States more prosperous, safe, and secure. If you do, then back it up with facts please.
+1 web post skills to catguy.... epic win!
On the lighter side of the Republican race for president - for the second time, recipes reported to be Cindy McCain's (the candidate's wife), apparently put on the McCain Campaign website to make the $100,000,000 heiress look like a homemaker, proved to have been lifted word for word from other places including Rachel Ray's show on the Food Network.
On the darker side of the Republican race for President, the Texas Republican Party is featuring buttons saying "If Obama is President, will we still call it the White House?". That's class. Oh, and in Utah, a Republican couple is marketing sock puppets of a monkey as Barack Obama.
And for anyone who has the nerve, google "Republicans - sex with a mule" and see what you get. And no, I'm not kidding.
Oh, and Parated, I'd be interested to know the source of your opinion about FDR and his lengthening of the Great Depression. What about Social Security? And any "government" housing program would not end the need for government housing, it would provide it or subsidize it. I think the primary government responsibility towards the poor is in the areas of education and employment. I don't want the poor supported, I want them helped. And not the way Bush helped the poor in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, either. And as for the Dems having controlled Congress for decades, it was usually under a Republican president.
However, it is the Republican Party that had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress for six years, and still has effective control of the Senate for the last two. I maintain that in that period of time America has been weakened financially, morally, and militarily as a direct result of those policies. If you disagree, then back it up with facts and figures. If you agree, then why would you vote for McCain?
Do you want to continue the war on borrowed money?
Do you want to continue the stop-loss program?
Do you want to keep outsourcing American jobs?
Do you want the president to have "unitary executive" powers, and if so, justify it under the Constitution please.
Do you want the dollar to continue to fall against other major currencies?
If you do, then by all means, vote for McCain.
I'm no supporter of the current Democratic Congress myself. If they had any guts, Bush and Cheney would have been impeached long ago, inherent contempt would have been used on Rove, Harriett Myers and Josh Bolton.
I have to go to work, so will respond at length later. However, I must once again point out that no one is responding to my questions, which I will now ask again.
Are you happy we fought the Iraq War on borrowed money? Do you want to continue to do this?
Do you agree with the "unitary executive" theory that gives the president the powers of a dictator and makes him above the law?
Are you happy we got "habeas corpus" back?
Do you support the new GI Bill? If not, just how are you supporting the troops?
Do you agree with the stop-loss policy?
Are you happy that private contractors are basically holding the army hostage in Iraq (see latest story re: KBR billion dollar overcharge and firing of army auditor who discovered it)?
Are you pleased that the dollar has lost a third of its value under the Bush administration?
Re: references - I asked for the reference so I can see where the argument came from. It's not an argument I am familiar with, and of course I will have my own refutation. Feel free to ask any of my sources.
PS to Dr. Guy - There were 35 Articles of Impeachment read on the floor of the House of Representatives recently. They make interesting reading, and for you to say there are no grounds simply betrays your prejudice and ignorance. Unless, of course, you have read them.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
