Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 98
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by Expat
    So I've lived here for a while and I thought I understood the general sentiments/concerns/politics of America but after the result of the election I read an article about the differences between California and the rest of the USA and it made a point that really struck home: California is different from the rest of the USA.
    So if you voted for Bush please can you tell me why, was it something specific (tax cuts, religious views etc.)/general policy (war on terror etc.)/something undefined (liked him more etc.) and which state you are from?
    In the interests of full disclosure:
    I'm from the UK, I can't vote yet but would have voted for Kerry, I'm really interested in a reasoned discussion rather than the shouting matches that a lot of the political threads degenerate into.
    Thanks
    Ian
    We voted for Bush because the terrorist won. We voted for Bush because we are afraid. We voted for Bush because we are angry. We voted for Bush because we have no sense of proportion. We voted for Bush because our media have taught us to believe in a risk-free existence and that government is responsible for providing it. We voted for Bush because he promised to keep us safe from the bogeyman.

    I understand that for someone with the Blitz and IRA terrorism in their history and culture cannot appreciate how fearful we are. It must seem incomprehensible to citizens of a tiny island nation that could not be defeated by powerful nation states that the "world's sole remaining super-power" has been defeated by a few tens of thousands of fanatics and a few tens of events.

    It is not to our credit but it is easy enough to understand. We voted for Bush because he appealed to fear and anger. It is good that you asked the question here for our media will not explain it to you.
  2. #22  
    mhmurray, as someone who voted for Bush, I think your reasons are 100% off-base. Why don't you go back and read through this thread to find the real reasons people voted for him.
    There's no place like 127.0.0.1
  3. #23  
    I think we just need to get the government out of the business of defining what marriage is, and let people make whatever contractual arrangements they wish to call a "marriage".
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Can anyone explain to me what the fuss is about gay marriage? We don't have it here yet either, and I think the debate is far more high-profile over there. I can see why churches would not want to conduct gay wedding ceremonies, but I cannot understand why civil gay weddings should be banned.
    It is a semantic issue. Lest you think that is not important, think of all the wars that have been fought over language.

    That said, I do think that there are some among us that simply cannot resist the temptation to use government to enforce their belief systems on others.
  5. #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by Im So Unpopular
    mhmurray, as someone who voted for Bush, I think your reasons are 100% off-base. Why don't you go back and read through this thread to find the real reasons people voted for him.
    I have read the thread. What I see are the rationales that are used to excuse otherwise irrational behavior. What I see are individuals, writing in the singular, telling us how they reasoned. I do not think that even these authors would assert that their personal reasoning explains our collective behavior.

    "The Emperor has no clothes."
    Last edited by whmurray; 11/06/2004 at 08:09 AM.
  6. #26  
    I've been trying so hard not to speak my mind, but I'm about to blow I think! I spent 10 years in the AF, volunteered to go to Beirut with the Marines in 1982, volunteered to help in Reagan's second inaugural, and voted for him twice, and George senior twice. My conservative credentials speak for themselves.

    Junior has never received my vote. His arrogance and complete whiff on leading us will result in great pain in about 10 years. While defeating terrorism is number one, he has spent the lives of my fellow warriors and our money in a diversion that is sucking money and focus from our second and third priorities.

    We must do something about the deficit. People, please read about the looming crisis that will devastate our economy. The current devaluation of the dollar is just the beginning. We are in greatest debt to the countries that want to do us the greatest harm - China for instance. His priorities for the second term will make this situation even more grave. Find room in your fears for this, for just like another attack will happen, this too will happen.

    We must transition from oil to an alternative source(s). Not only for the sake of our environment, but also to rid ourselves of depending on the destructive nations of the middle east. They have a 50 year or more problem to solve. It is not something we can enforce. They must work out the intolerance and centrality of their religious extremism - the west did that in the 1500's. The moderates there must do this from within. Why spend $10 billion on an oil field that will someday, according to all estimates, end? Letís spend $10 billion on finding a sustainable energy source.

    What if we had spent $200 billion in Afghanistan rebuilding? We could not be accused of going after oil, as they have little. Almost every nation on Earth felt we had every right to pound Afghanistan and go after the terrorists. Now, whatever your feelings, we do not have a clear mandate. No matter how you argue, we are less righteous.

    I agree with whmurray, he won because we are afraid. A greater leader said that fearing was the worst fear of all. Iím tired of being afraid, and Iím tired of trying to find someone to blame. Americans are doers, builders, and dreamers. We are going to find that worthless piece of crap, and because we are Americans, we will take him to a court of law. We will find Zarqawi, and if he chooses to fight, he will certainly die. If not, he too will face the rule of law. As much as I want just 10 minutes with that *******, his soul will find greater torment if he finds we mean what we preach.

    Ian, become a citizen. Vote. And learn to love this wonderfully crazy place that is the last great hope of mankind. If we donít get it right here, then Iím afraid it will not be done.
    Doug
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I think we just need to get the government out of the business of defining what marriage is, and let people make whatever contractual arrangements they wish to call a "marriage".
    Before it was done by government, it was done by the church. If I remember my history, that was the issue between Henry and Becket; Becket lost. Are you ready to go back to that?

    For thousands of years, marriage was about the inheritance of property. In the 20th century it was about reproductive rights. In the 21st century it is about the distribution of economic benefits.
    Last edited by whmurray; 11/06/2004 at 08:40 AM.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I think we just need to get the government out of the business of defining what marriage is,
    They arent in the business of defining it. It was defined years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    and let people make whatever contractual arrangements they wish to call a "marriage".
    No one says they cant.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Before it was done by government, it was done by the church. If I remember my history, that was the issue between Henry and Becket; Becket lost. Are you ready to go back to that?

    For thousands of years, marriage was about the inheritance of property. In the 20th century it was about reproductive rights. In the 21st century it is about the distribution of economic benefits.
    Excuse me? I am not aware of any economic benifits. It wasn't until just recently that a married couple was actually penalized by the tax code. Now the government has removed the penalty- but that doesn't translate to a "benifit"
  10. #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Why? It's not like trying to explain some creative process!
    No... But voting the way we did..... was our efforts in trying to preserve one
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Excuse me? I am not aware of any economic benifits. It wasn't until just recently that a married couple was actually penalized by the tax code. Now the government has removed the penalty- but that doesn't translate to a "benifit"
    Of course, not all benefits are distributed by government, but many, both government and otherwise, are based upon marriage. For example, inheritance, health, social security, and other retirement benefits.

    If you and I cohabit under a license, granted by the state, of marriage, then your employer may cover me with health insurance. Without such a license, I may not be covered. If we cohabit with a marriage license, you may be entitled to social security benefits. If you and I cohabit under a marriage license, you and our children may be entitled to inherit my property upon my death. In some states, sans such a license, my siblings or other "forced heirs," may inherit. If you and I cohabit under license, you are responsible, prima facia, to support my children. While you may still be responsible even without such a license, the burden of proof switches to me.

    To some degree, you and I may be able to find other ways than "marriage" to accomplish some or all of these distributions without the license but some of them will be expensive and difficult. You might choose to work only for an employer who is willing to cover me under your health insurance. However, that may be at the expense of a lower salary. Not much we can do about social security benefits. We may be able to transfer property before death but in many states that cannot stop my siblings from suing. And of course, adoption agencies are reluctant to place children with us because our commitment is not sanctioned by the state.

    Of course, as a society, we might have chosen other ways to distribute benefits that were not based upon "marriage;" we did not. In retrospect, we can now see that using the "traditional definition" has resulted in inequities. It should be noted that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has held that, at least under the Massachusetts Constitution, that forcing us to do so is, de jure, illegal discrimination.

    While a few mean-spirited among us might like to preserve the inequities, most of us would like to remedy them. We can address these inequities by redefining all of our benefits and institutions, ad hoc, or, alternatively, we can define all committed relationships the same.

    These are hard problems. Solving them will require patience and tolerance. Such hard problems as slavery, discrimination, abortion, and now, gay rights, are rarely if ever solved within a generation; often they take several. They often involve a change in the way we understand language. However, we are about as likely to resolve them by passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as we are to change the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter by passing a law simplifying the definition of pi.
    Last edited by whmurray; 11/06/2004 at 09:51 AM.
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Of course, not all benefits are distributed by government, but many, both government and otherwise, are based upon marriage. For example, inheritance, health, social security, and other retirement benefits.

    If you and I cohabit under a license, granted by the state, of marriage, then your employer may cover me with health insurance. Without such a license, I may not be covered.....You might choose to work only for an employer who is willing to cover me under your health insurance. However, that may be at the expense of a lower salary.
    It is not up to the employer whether or not the spouse is covered by the health insurance. That is the decision of the insurance company, and most if not all health insurance providers have had domestic partner coverage in place for 10 years or so. Spouse is actually quite loosely defined in this area. The only way your salary is affected by this is if the employer does not PAY for spousal coverage, which most do not in todays world.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof
    It is not up to the employer whether or not the spouse is covered by the health insurance. That is the decision of the insurance company,....
    Well, perhaps. However, it is not a unilateral decision of the insurance company. An insurance policy is a contract. It is a contract between the insurer and the insured. When the Insurance company is Metropolitan and the insured is you or I, then the contract is assymetric; you and I may consent or not to Met's terms but we are unlikely to negotiate them. However, when the insurer is Met and the Insured IBM or Disney, then most everything is on the table.

    A decade ago, when Disney decided that its historic coverage resulted in its employees being treated inequitably, they renegotiated the coverage. It was enough of a departure from the norm to make the news. Since then, most large employers and their insurance companies have been struggling with the issue. I do not think that it is anywhere near as settled as one might infer from your post.
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Well, perhaps. However, it is not a unilateral decision of the insurance company. An insurance policy is a contract. It is a contract between the insurer and the insured. When the Insurance company is Metropolitan and the insured is you or I, then the contract is assymetric; you and I may consent or not to Met's terms but we are unlikely to negotiate them. However, when the insurer is Met and the Insured IBM or Disney, then most everything is on the table.

    A decade ago, when Disney decided that its historic coverage resulted in its employees being treated inequitably, they renegotiated the coverage. It was enough of a departure from the norm to make the news. Since then, most large employers and their insurance companies have been struggling with the issue. I do not think that it is anywhere near as settled as one might infer from your post.
    Perhaps? I happen to sell insurance. Health insurance. Insurance companies are not allowed to make deals with companies. All the coverages are the same whether you work for IBM or whatever. There are different options available, or differents coverage planns if you will, but they are not created for the comapny. It may have been that way in the past but not any longer.

    I am aware of the contract thing. And you are slightly wrong about something. The contract is between the insurer and the insured. The company is not in the mix. They just determine which package to offer to the employees. And in many cases they pay for a portion or all of the coverage to some level. However the contract is between the insured and the employee. The employer can elect to change the available coverage (because they are paying for it) or remove it altogether but they are not involved in the actual insurance contract between the employee and the insurance company. The claims do not go through the employer nor do the benefits. When you get a statement form your ins company showing what you owe and what they paid, your employer doesnt get a copy.

    Also spouse and dependant coverage is universally available. Not paid for maybe by the employer but it is an option for the employee if they choose.
  15. #35  
    Can anyone explain to me what the fuss is about gay marriage? We don't have it here yet either, and I think the debate is far more high-profile over there. I can see why churches would not want to conduct gay wedding ceremonies, but I cannot understand why civil gay weddings should be banned.
    ________________
    I am by no way a spokesperson..but from what I have heard some of the problem is where do you draw the line. Do they allow you to marry 3 people now? Can you marry your dog? Sounds crazy- but it may open more problems down the road. How about marrying your daughter? Where and how can you draw the line now? I personally have mixed feeling on it. I guess if I was gay Ė I would feel discriminated against. But then there is ďreligiousĒ part of me that feels the purpose of marriage is to commit and raise a family as a couple. Itís to bring a family together spiritually. Sorry- I am not a fan of gays raising children. Who the heck said there are economic benefits to being married? LOL. None of my married friends have anything near I have- LOL. They walk around with 5 bucks in their wallet for the week- LOL. Talk about hell- go throught a Divorce. The only one that comes out ahead is the lawers. If I was gay- I don't think I would even waste my time. Draw some contracts up and move on.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I have read the thread. What I see are the rationales that are used to excuse otherwise irrational behavior. What I see are individuals, writing in the singular, telling us how they reasoned. I do not think that even these authors would assert that their personal reasoning explains our collective behavior.

    "The Emperor has no clothes."
    whmurray, I don't mean to be blunt, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly have no understanding of those on the other side of the isle, as evidenced by your description of those who voted for Bush. It is simply childish to claim that all those who did not vote the way you did, did so out of "hate and fear".

    This is what I mean when I say trying to explain this question to someone who doesn't understand, is impossible.
    There's no place like 127.0.0.1
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by Im So Unpopular
    whmurray, I don't mean to be blunt, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You clearly have no understanding of those on the other side of the isle, as evidenced by your description of those who voted for Bush. It is simply childish to claim that all those who did not vote the way you did, did so out of "hate and fear".

    This is what I mean when I say trying to explain this question to someone who doesn't understand, is impossible.
    Perhaps. See fmertz above.

    Incidentally, I did not say that any of those who voted for Bush did so out of "hate," though I believe that at least a minority did. I did not say that all those who voted for him did so out of "fear and anger." What I said was that collectively we voted for Bush because he "appealed to fear and anger." I am not the first or only one to make that observation.

    I appreciate "childish," though it has been a long time since I was a child.
    Last edited by whmurray; 11/06/2004 at 12:49 PM.
  18. #38  
    It was a difficult decision on some levels, but I voted for Bush (in Florida) for several reasons:

    1. I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. I feel this administration handled it poorly, and lied about the justification for war. That was my big obstacle to overcome for voting for Bush. Upon much debating (internally), I reasoned that Bush won't make the mistake again. I hope he learned from it. I don't like our ultra-aggressive foreign policy that much, but I also don't trust Kerry any more on that.

    2. Supreme Court nominations. Big issue here for me. We already have to deal with the media, Hollywood, and others trying to liberalize America - we already have severely liberalized this country in the past 30 years, and it's getting worse. Nominating more liberal judges only speeds that up. I am also against abortion and pro gun rights - yep, I'm a whacko according to liberals.

    3. Kerry's wife is the worst - lost complete respect for her when she criticized Laura Bush as never having a real job. What a loser that woman is. Zero class. What does that say about the man who married her?

    4. Giving up the sovereignty of the US in foreign policy. Although I've mentioned my concern about the foreign policy of this administration, I also don't believe we should give up our sovereignty to the United Nations. That said, I do believe it is important to have allies on our side in most situations. But we should never surrender our decisions to the UN. Kerry IMO would.

    5. Lastly, Middle East policy. I am pro-Israel and feel that it is important to support that country, no matter the consequences - and believe me, there are. I'm not jewish by the way.

    Now...I feel Bush is one of the worst speakers I've ever heard. It makes me question his intelligence. But, I have just enough faith that he surrounds himself with smart people. And I think he should ditch the neo-con agenda and I'm uncomfortable with the Patriot Act. That said, I was able to overcome these concerns due to the above reasons. Let's see what Bush can do in a second term with a republican congress. I'm cautiously optimistic.
  19. #39  
    Freedom has a high price to pay. To remain free we must be willing to pay the price. Freedom endures only if each generation is willing to fight to remain free. If we are unwilling to fight for our freedom, an enemy will come along and take that freedom from us. That is a recurring theme throughout history. Don't fight you loose.

    On the marriage issue, why change an institution that has and continues to be the basis of civilization for thousands upon thousands of years. A whining minority is no reason to change something when the over whelming majority does not agree. Also, there is absolutely no reason for the government to get into the marriage issue. Each person has the right to marry. A man has the right to marry a woman and a woman the right to marry a man.

    Continuing on, I praise the Texas Department of Education and its decision to ensure that the traditional definitions of our moral system remain unchanged. We loose nothing by not endorsing homosexual marriage. Nothing. I do not advocate it nor do I condemn it and frankly, what does it ultimately do for civilization? Can two men produce a child? Can two women produce a child? Nope, not at all. A man and a woman though can and they contribute to the foundation of society.

    Ben
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by TB1024
    .....

    2. Supreme Court nominations. Big issue here for me. We already have to deal with the media, Hollywood, and others trying to liberalize America - we already have severely liberalized this country in the past 30 years, and it's getting worse. Nominating more liberal judges only speeds that up. I am also against abortion and pro gun rights - yep, I'm a whacko according to liberals....
    Interesting. In the thirty years after WWII, I was seriously concerned about the trend of the US toward socialism and secular humanism. Incidentally, our government claimed that we had to compromise our civil liberties in the name of protecting ourselves from "Godless Communism."

    However, for the last thirty years, the thirty years that you refer to, I have been concerned about the drift of our society toward fascism. This time we are being asked to compromise our civil liberties in the name of protecting ourselves from religious zealots.

    Like most totalitarian governments, our government seems to prosper most when it frightens us with fear of a foreign enemy.
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions