Want to buy or sell something? Check the classifieds
  • The Fedora Lounge is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.

Current U.S. Politics - An appeal for reason

MDFrench

A-List Customer
To the fine men and women of GoldenEra,

The current climate of politics in this country is at a fever pitch like never before. It is virtually half of America against the other half if you believe the polls. The Kerry supporters are bashing Bush and the Bush loyals are trashing Kerry. War records are in dispute and both are being fed to the media like sacrificial lambs.

As MK can personally attest, I am a fairly conservative guy with moral views on life and politics. However, I am also a man of reason and become quite disturbed when America starts to split into two mobs.

Here at GoldenEra, naturally, our political views tend to lean in the conservative direction, but I would like to add something to the continuing (and healthy) political discussions here on this forum.

Let us keep in mind that political parties are just that, parties run by politicians. Both have one thing on their agendas - to win. Yes, the Bush administration is trying to run the country, but it is his campaign team that is working overtime to ensure his re-election just as the Kerry camp is trying to claim victory. In these moments, politicians and parties throughout history have gotten down and dirty, regardless of their high-minded ideals in the face of the public.

I try and keep this in mind when I hear the two sides bashing each other's candidate. First, about Bush:

He is a moral man who has overcome demons in his life, including a drinking problem and an inability to remain employed in his youth. He was a wild one - and those men when (and if) they settle down, often become good leaders. He was blindsided shortly into his Presidency by 9/11 and has been in a situation no President has had to confront. Yes, he has made good decisions, but he has also made mistakes and like all men will continue to do so - it is the nature of humanity. There were only two perfect men in existence - Jesus and Soupy Sales. (For those of you who haven't grasped it yet, the Soupy Sales mention is me kidding around).

Ultimately, it will be history that judges a Presidency like Bush's, just as it was history that ultimately judged Lincoln's. Right now, we are too far in the thick of it to get a clear picture. Again, like all men, Bush is not perfect but I feel he is doing what he thinks is just and best for this country from his point of view.

On to Kerry:

Kerry has been tortured by the right and in the media and sometimes here at Goldenera. I respect all opinions, so i would like to share mine. Kerry is doing what he is supposed to do, take on the responsibilities as the nominee of his party and try to win the election. People have argued that Kerry flip-flops on issues. Well, everyone changes their mind and while it is unfortunate that Kerry cannot solidify his agenda, that does not make him a demon. God himself changed his mind on many of his cosmic policies between the Old Testament and the New Testament. I mean, when Jesus came down, he basically said, "Hey, God isn't so vengeful anymore and he loves everyone - please let him into your lives."

I'm not saying Kerry is God. I am saying that if God can change his mind, I don't think Kerry should be roasted for rethinking his ideas. I can't speak to Kerry as a person, but he, like Bush, is trying to do what he feels is best for this country. And really, we can't speak about Bush as a person either until we're next door neighbors with him for a few years. In short, I don't hate Kerry anymore than I love or hate Bush. Do I agree with everything Kerry wants? No. But then again, I don't agree with everything Bush wants either. (e.g. logging along the Appalachian Trail)

As far as military records are concerned - remember this. There is nothing so infuriating as a draft dodger, and neither Kerry nor Bush can be described as one of those. Both of these men undenibly served their country in the military in a time of war. Neither ran to Canada. All this crap about who did exactly what while in the military is bogus. The fact is, these men stayed and took up responsibilities to defend this country. That makes BOTH of them heroes in my book.

I seem to remember a President a few years back who was a draft dodger - we rightly hated him for that, so let's not catch ourselves just trying to find something to hate about a man because of his party affiliation. Kerry served. Bush served. Details are irrelevant. Don't get caught up in this petty game.

In closing, and thank you for reading this, I do not demonize a man for his party affiliation, nor do I ignore the fact that both parties in recent years have lowered themselves to flame a man's character during an election year. I'd rather hear men talk about their solutions for our country, not another guy's specific military record or high school report card. It's immature and it cheapens our political efficiency.

There were great men in both parties - upstanding and outstanding Presidents who truly wanted the best for our country - Teddy, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Reagan, and Jimmy Carter. Say what you want about Jimmy, but like Reagan, he was a moral man who never cheated on his wife or family, always told the truth, and like W. Bush, stuck to his guns in the face of immense unpopularity (e.g. - the oil embargo, which in light of current events, seems to have been a prophetic move, don't you think?)

I know who I'm voting for, but I have no hatred for the other candidate. For me, it's about what I believe and voting for that, not hating what someone else feels politically and voting to ruin him.

Sincerest regards,
Mike
 

Renderking Fisk

Practically Family
Messages
742
Location
Front Desk at The Fedora Chronicles.
AS I said in another thread, There's a whole lot of talking ans shouting but there isn't enough listening on either sides.

About the idiot peanut farmer turned politician- Jimmy Carter and the handling of the Iran crisis. During his administration Carter advised Mohammed Reza Pahlevi (who was The shah of Iran since 1941) not to clamp down on the political disidents who were fueled by Islamic Fundimentalists. After taking Carthers advice for years and did nothing to stop the insurgencies, the situation became worse because the disidents were emboldened because of The Shah?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s inaction. Mohammed Reza Pahlevi was overthrown in 1979 by a revolution led by the Ayatollah Khomeini in a sucession of events that led to the hostage crisis after the American embassy was overthrown. When the Shah asked for political assylem, Carter betrayed The Shah one last time and denyed his request saying that he didn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t want to give the former Shah aid which might inflame and already volitile situation in the Middle East.

About Clinton: During the Clinton Administration, roadblocks were set up by a woman by the name of Jamie Gerlelic who had created mandates that organizations such as the IMF, FBI and the CIA could not share information (a disision she later learned to regret once she was placed on the September 11th 2001 Commision). The FBI was told that men were training to fly planes into buildings, but couldn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t consult with the CIA. Who?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s the idiot there?

Under Janet Reno, leads were ignored that later proved that Timmy McVeigh and Terry Nicoles where given aid by Hussain Hashem Al-Hussaini?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ a former member of Saddam?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s Republican Guard. Even though Terry Nichols was a lower-middle class citizen and McVeigh was unemployed for long stretches of time, both made several trips to the Philipines and met with men who would later be outed as members of Al-Qaeda. Once in The Philipines the two men had met with Ramzi Yousef?¢‚Ǩ¬¶ original Mastermind of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York city, who?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s terror-cell was funded by Osama bin Laden. The Clinton Administration chose to IGNORE these leads and decided to play a game of make-believe and hunt down ?¢‚Ǩ?ìMilitia Groups and Listeners of Talk Raido?¢‚Ǩ?. Who?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s the idiot there? Janet Reno, or was there a stragidy there? Regardless, 3,000 people were killed on September 1th, 2001 and their only crime was showing up to work.


Frenchy, I like you and your intentions and I think your heart was in the right place. The problem I have with yoru thesis is that not all politicans are "good" people. Carter and Clinton are exsamples of how radical Leftists have hijacked the once proud Democratic Party. You're never going to convince me that Carter or Clinton were good presidents. Ever.

We can disagree as long as we're civil. That I'll go along with.
 

Renderking Fisk

Practically Family
Messages
742
Location
Front Desk at The Fedora Chronicles.
I've been up since 4 AM with a screaming baby. No harm meant.

I do become a total nutcase when people say Carter was a well meaning President. He wasn't. His attitude and approach is similar to John Kerry's: Blame America first and we should be embarrased for having a strong military.

I posted what you read above elsewhere... I added the bit about Clinton for good measure.
 

Art Fawcett

Sponsoring Affiliate
Messages
3,717
Location
Central Point, Or.
MD,
Your analysis of the current politics is fair, but IMHO it is really too fair. Of course it's OK to change your mind when new facts come to light that weren't available when deciding in the first place. What isn't OK is changing it to suit whoever you are speaking to. It also is NOT OK to change your mind on virtually everything in order to be able to honestly say you were on the right side of history. Truth is, Kerry has been on BOTH sides of history. I used to have alot more faith in the political system AND the American people's judgment until 1992, when the people elected a man who confessed to cheating on his wife. this showed his true charactor and by George, he lived up to it! For me it really wasn't about sex, it was about his ability to break a solemn vow, have the American people see that flaw, and elect him anyway. If your word is not good to your wife, who is it good to?
I have no information that is derogatory about Kerry other than we really don't know where he stands because I don't know how to decifer when he is telling the truth about he what he really feels or is pandering to his audience. When he is called to the carpet about his past decisions it's "well, YOU don't understand the nuances". Right, I can't see that gorilla behind you.
I look for core character and in Kerry the only core I can see literally frightens me.
I too disagree with some of the things that Bush has done and legistation he has signed, but does anyone really have any doubts as to where his heart is at? Sure, the far leftists can find conspiracies in anything, but really, is there any doubt once you stop lying to yourself?
 

CoffeeDude

One of the Regulars
Messages
207
Location
Bellevue, WA.
Maybe that's the "core" of the Rep party. A bunch of Rat-bastards who are just a bad as Dems in their manipulations. Yeah Republicans are real stand up people.
 

The Wingnut

One Too Many
Messages
1,711
Location
.
Coffee Dude...don't lump everybody in the Republican pot into the 'rotten core'...you be offending far more folks than you know, plenty of which are upstanding.

MDFrench makes an excellent point in that he feels there is no need for Americans to be at odds with each other. We all vote our conscience, based upon our principles, and we want the man in the Oval Office to represent us well.

The body of American citizenship has lost sight of the true purpose of elections. Today, the idea is to get your party in control, increasingly by whatever means possible. The original intent when this nation was founded was to place citizens in office that would best represent their fellow citizens. Career politicians - such as Ted Kennedy, who has been in the Congress / Senate for nearly 40 years - were never intended by the nation's founding fathers. Representative selection was far more varied and diverse in the beginning, and while there were still just a few parties, so many politicians came and went that they could only serve as they were intended to, and wished get back to their lives in their native states and towns. There was no time for a politician to even be created. They were all civil servants with lives outside the Capitol, and homes they wished to return to after their term had been served.

I'm voting for the candidate who best represents me, not just because I'm in agreement with his policy or because I don't want to see 'the other guy' win. My fellow citizens are voting based on their principles, and though I might hate what they believe in, I'd die fighting beside them for their right to believe it.
 

Andykev

I'll Lock Up
Bartender
Messages
4,118
Location
The Beautiful Diablo Valley
Stuff this Mr. Ballot box

All I can say is "I'll Vote For That".


You have seen a total shift in American politics. It was supposed to be the common man selecting the best person for the job, to make the decisions and for the good of all.

Now, it's whats in it for me, how much you gonna pay for my vote,...etc.

George Washington was a one term President, and his idea was that the business man, etc. would step up to serve his country, THEN GO HOME!


SO the Career Politicians are becoming the American Royalty. Isn't that contrary to what the Founding Fathers invisioned?
 

The Wingnut

One Too Many
Messages
1,711
Location
.
It was supposed to be the common man selecting the best person for the job, to make the decisions and for the good of all.

See, there's where I disagree...I don't believe it's about picking the 'best' man for the job, because everyone's going to have a differing view on who's best for it. The idea is to vote for the person who you feel will best represent you, the citizen...that may mean he's not the best man for the job compared to other candidates. Example, if Pete Wilson was running against Arnold Schwazenegger for governor of CA (never mind that the two would likely never run against each other), Arnold would not get my vote, as I feel he would not represent me and my principles as well as Pete Wilson would.
 
Hmmm... Wilson or Arnold. How about neither? Bring back Reagan (yeah, alright I know he is gone but you did mention someone who could best represent me. :D). Wilson was too wishy washy on some issues and raised taxes just like the rest. The jury is still out on Arnold. Don't raise my taxes and leave me alone and I just might put him up there with Reagan but what do I know? I was only an uncompensated, elected official for the local party for ten years before I decided to "go home" and stay there. LOL Geez was I happy to not do anything---until now. :D You cannot believe what really goes on.

Regards to all,

J
 

CoffeeDude

One of the Regulars
Messages
207
Location
Bellevue, WA.
Well guys, my comment was half sarcastic and half irritated (explained later) one made in response to another individual who has since removed their comments from the thread. I was actually using the some of the same adjectives to describe Republicans (btw, I am one) that this individual used to describe democrats (I became irritated because it seemed to fly in the face of MDFrench's original comment of an appeal for reason). I do not know why the individual choose to remove their comments - that is up to them to explain if they choose to do so. Taken IN CONTEXT with those comments, my reply would have made more sense. This evening I considered removing my post but I've chosen to let all my words stand (even my sarcastic out of context ones). I've seen many times on forums (this one included) when the topic of politics comes up people end up point fingers and bashing the opposing party. This thread was turning out to be no exception and exactly the issue that MDFrench was attempting to address. As long as we continue to use labels like 'idiot' or 'rat ba***rd' to describe either democrats or republicans there will be no reasoning together that MDFrench suggests. Yes, democrats and republicans do things that we can call idiotic or they on occasions (some with more frequency) act like rat bastards that doesn't mean that they are indeed such.

God, whose ways and thought are as high above our own as heaven is from the earth (Is. 55:7-9) (and who is the only one who could really consider us all idiots - though He doesn't), He invites us to dialogue. "Come now, let us reason together" (Is. 1:8). Of course in that scenario, God is always right. He is God after all. However, shouldn?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t we work toward that same mind set of reasoning together*? Even if we agree to disagree, it can be done without keeping chips on our shoulders or name calling.

*I acknowledge the fact that there are some whom, attempting to be reasonable/rational with, does not work.
 

Art Fawcett

Sponsoring Affiliate
Messages
3,717
Location
Central Point, Or.
Thanks for taking the time to explain Dude. I have not seen you as a cheap shot artist in the past and your post surprized me. I didn't have the opportunity to see the post you are responding to. I must say though, in rereading the posts of this thread I can't see where it has degenerated into name calling so that part of your last post confuses me. No need to explain for me though as confusion is a constant state.:)
 

MDFrench

A-List Customer
CoffeeDude,

I was able to read the post you were responding to before it was removed, and I commend you on your choice to let your response post stand even as the offending post was retracted. Your ability to recognize and acknowledge the imperfections of the political party you support is, in my mind, critical to this country if it ever wants to reach any form of social stability again.

I too am conservative as a rule, but I also recognize that there are zealots on both sides of our government (both politicians and their voters) who refuse to even consider the possibility that aspects of their policies and stances are less than perfect.

Both sides need to wake up and smell the coffee (no pun intended) and start explaining and listening to each other rather than tuning the other speaker out while waiting to deliver the typical counter-party rebuttal.

As I stated in my post regarding the Few, nothing is more courageous and noble as a man or woman who stands their ground for peace and justice in the face of overwhelming opposition and threat to themselves. I believe there was one guy who was crucified for promoting peace, compassion, reason and understanding.
 

Renderking Fisk

Practically Family
Messages
742
Location
Front Desk at The Fedora Chronicles.
I?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢m to blame to a small extent in this thread, I did call Jimmy Carter the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìIdiot Peanut Farmer Turned President?¢‚Ǩ? after all.

My problem with having discussions with Liberals is that they are absent-minded when it comes to history. They don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t remember how appeasement and pacifism has failed in the past when dealing with tyrants such as Adolph Hitler.

It?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s one of my greatest frustrations that there are too many lawyers and not enough historians in the government.

While many Republicans are will to admit mistakes and they aren?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t perfect, too many Democrats I know will not make the same concessions. For too many Democrats the PARTY is their religion and has replaced God. This radical faction of the DNC view Conservatives as the enemy, some have even made deplorable comments calling Republicans ?¢‚Ǩ?ìThe Teleban Wing of The American Political System [SIC]?¢‚Ǩ?.

When presented with information or historical references, many liberals retort in such away that screams: ?¢‚Ǩ?ìDon?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t confuse me with facts when my mind is made up?¢‚Ǩ?. There?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a saying that repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting results is a sign of insanity. What else would you call ignoring history?
 

MDFrench

A-List Customer
Yes Render,

And keep in mind that there is role reversal there too. Many a Republican I have met who preaches policy like religion (I have a few uncles like this...) and quite a number of Democrats I have met who are open to the flaws of their party and are reasonable men and women (a few fellow grad students I know studying law and poli sci).

Both sides have similar problems. And most of the time in this country, the squeaky wheels get all the attention, and sadly for us, when it comes to party politics, all we hear about are the obnoxiously squeaky wheels of voters and politicans from both parties representing their views poorly or inappropriately - like liberals who try to sabotage oil rigs and logging equipment and conservatives who bomb women's health clinics.

There is a better way to solve issues like the environment and abortion. Our fellow citizens do their political parties no credit or justice by resorting to violence, ignorant name-calling, and rioting in the name of politics. They only bring the whole system down.

Mike
 

Forum statistics

Threads
107,517
Messages
3,039,168
Members
52,904
Latest member
johnmichael
Top