OK, here goes... [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : OK, here goes...



dean_martin
08-31-2004, 08:21 PM
Are politics off limits since the regime change? I watched the first night of the Republican Convention. From a Democrat's perspective, I have to say that McCain and Guliani held my attention and for the most part these two men have my respect. Arnold and the Bush twins who spoke tonight didn't really keep my interest. Senator McCain used the term "justice" in his speech several times. I just hope that if we get four more years of Bush this concept is applied to the Republicans' domestic agenda. I know that criticism of juries, the civil justice system, trial lawyers, etc. is a big part of Bush's stump speech. And, because Edwards was a trial lawyer, the attacks will keep coming.

And then there were the celebs making the rounds. Did anyone see Stephen Baldwin? He's voting for the candidate with the most faith in God and it was obvious that he meant Bush. I'm not going to criticize him for his beliefs. I believe in God too. But actions speak louder than words. So I thought I would really stir things up and quote a little scripture:

"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!" Isaiah 10:1&2

Yes, there have been appeals to God for help and guidance by Bush (and by most Americans, frankly) in the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. And, giving them the benefit of the doubt, the Republican base believes that it is doing the righteous thing in its stances on abortion and gay marriage. Afterall, we don't want to be destroyed like those Old Testament cities of evil. But, when it comes to matters that effect the pocketbook there is a divide between the social conservatives and the economic conservatives. We saw this recently in Alabama, before our Ten Commandments Chief Justice was ousted. An economic conservative already a justice on our Supreme Court ran against Judge Roy Moore for the Republican nomination for chief justice. Moore appealed to the religious/social conservatives, of course. But, the economic conservatives could not stand him because he consistently refused to overturn jury verdicts in civil cases and in most cases refused to dismiss cases against big business before they went to trial. Karl Rove came to Alabama to unseat Moore by running the economic conservative's campaign. This candidate, who was already an associate Jusitce on our Supreme Court, consistently ruled in favor of big business, overturned jury verdicts against big business and threw out cases before they went to trial.

Joe Scarborough asked a question last night that I know the answer to but his panel didn't. Immediately after 9-11, even trial lawyers were behind Bush and some were thankful that he beat Gore, but now those same people are trying their hardest to defeat him. Why? Because he subsequently took a course of divisivness - a hardline course mandated by the economic conservative wing of his party that fails to heed the warnings of the scripture quoted above.

Except for a small portion of Guliani's speech, I thought the first night of the convention exhibited an effort to reach out rather than to divide. Tonight was more geared toward the Republican faithful which is certainly appropriate for a convention.

Swerd
09-01-2004, 10:19 AM
Are politics off limits since the regime change?
I hope not! I usually stay away from the political threads, but things are kind of slow around here. It might be late August or it might be the result of the regime change. We shall see.


From a Democrat's perspective, I have to say that McCain and Guliani held my attention and for the most part these two men have my respect.
McCain has had my respect in the past. Since the recent business about the anti-Kerry lying ads, with McCain supporting the Bush side, I've lost most of that respect. It seems that he too is also a politician. He wants to get re-elected as senator, or run for president in the future. I suspect that he was threatened with Republican party opposition or blocking campaign money in a future election if he didn't support Bush. So he has developed a blind eye to the same lying campaign tactics that Bush/Rove used against him during the primaries in 2000.

It seems that both parties are aiming their remaining campaign appeals to the so-called undecided swing voters. Unlike other elections where these voters were true independants or conservative-leaning Democrats, I think this time the swing voters are traditional Republicans that can't stomach what Bush has done with foreign or economic policy. He led us into an unjustified war and has tried to avoid paying for it. Living in the Washington DC area, I know of a number of active and retired military, CIA, and foreign service people who fit into this category. They are conservative Republicans who think Bush's radical policies are a disaster. For the most part, they have avoided talking publicly about this. I don't think this has been reflected in any national polls.


"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed; To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless!" Isaiah 10:1&2
Great biblical citation! The beauty of quoting biblical passages is that you can usually find passages that support both sides of any modern debate.


We saw this recently in Alabama, before our Ten Commandments Chief Justice was ousted. An economic conservative already a justice on our Supreme Court ran against Judge Roy Moore for the Republican nomination for chief justice. Moore appealed to the religious/social conservatives, of course. But, the economic conservatives could not stand him because he consistently refused to overturn jury verdicts in civil cases and in most cases refused to dismiss cases against big business before they went to trial. Karl Rove came to Alabama to unseat Moore by running the economic conservative's campaign. This candidate, who was already an associate Jusitce on our Supreme Court, consistently ruled in favor of big business, overturned jury verdicts against big business and threw out cases before they went to trial.
This was interesting. We all heard about Roy Moore and the granite Ten Commandments, but I never knew any of his other positions. So the Bush administration and the Republican national party pulled the rug out from under him, while paying lipservice to his Ten Commandments position. Very interesting.

piece-it pete
09-02-2004, 08:37 AM
Ok, you guys got me, though I'll stay short.

I too enjoyed Guliani, missed McCain but it's clear both of them are positioning for '08. Arnold can't run for Pres, so outside of P.R. and local politics he's a non-issue.

I kinda hope McCain becomes Pres 'cause all those folks that think he's some sort of lib will get an eye opener. Of course he's rallying around Bush, he works against him in the primaries to build his organisation, but he IS a Rep, and wants Bush to win.

As a "true" Conservative (most Reps are NOT) I can assure you that these folks dissatisfied with GWB will vote for him come november, you can bank on it. They sure as h*ll ain't voting for Kerry, the #1 ranked liberal Senator from Mass. who built his whole career gutting (and dissing) the military!!

In no way would Bush be considered radical if he was a Dem. Well, abortion and gay "marriage". Hmm maybe holding the NEA accountable, too.

Opinion on the "unjust" war in Iraq is still split pretty much 50/50 give or take. Its' continuing success will make it less an issue. (BTW, most Iraqis don't think it's unjust, polls there bear it out, though many Serbs think the liberal-approved NATO action out their way was, Milosevic has become a living martyr. Saddam is universally despised.)

Using the Bible to look at either party is rough. I'll continue to vote for the GOP 'cause I believe it's better than the Dems for us overall, but think we're already screwed anyway. I realise the GOP is hardly the party of Christ but abortion on demand, gay "marriages", and vocal advocates of increased restrictions on freedom of religion, that I just can't take - the first two are CLEARLY anti-Scriptural, the third downright disturbing for our future as a free society. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand, in many ways thy are the same thing.

Just because Dems spend more on social programs doesn't make them more Christlike IMHO.

The Judge Roy thing is pure power politics. As Clinton showed, big business is owned by no party. Quite the contrary, no one gets elected in a national election without their at least partial support.

All politicians are divisive, unless they don't stand for anything.

I'd like to put in a plug for the good ol' Constitution, something forgotten in our "modern" society. It is the ONLY contract that has given "the people" at least a taste of freedom for more than a couple of years. No one EVER brings it up, except in a nebulous sense (They say - it's unConstitutional!! I say- where. Rights not "specifically" enumerated therein are reserved for THE PEOPLE - State legislatures, not the courts).

Dean, you sure right about the lawyer thing! People love to bash them anyway, and with Edwards on Kerrys' ticket (which I think was a good choice for him BTW), you guys are in for a heck of a time. Where's the flak vest? :)

Well not too short! :D

Pete

dean_martin
09-02-2004, 10:36 AM
I tried to watch a little last night, but the speakers got quite venomous. Pete, I wish Zell wasn't retiring so ya'll could have him for a while. I hope you saw or get to see his exchange with Chris Matthews on Hardball.

Kerry almost has to launch an all-out attack after the convention. No more of this "positive campaign" B.S. His message has to be articulate and simple on the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq, much like it was at the dem. convention, but the people have already forgotten that message.

Certainly McCain is carrying the party banner. But he's already drawn lines that he can't cross without losing credibility. That's why he wasn't the attack dog.



[QUOTE=piece-it pete]
Opinion on the "unjust" war in Iraq is still split pretty much 50/50 give or take. Its' continuing success will make it less an issue. (BTW, most Iraqis don't think it's unjust, polls there bear it out, though many Serbs think the liberal-approved NATO action out their way was, Milosevic has become a living martyr. Saddam is universally despised.)

MY REPLY:
Its' continuing success? Wasn't success announced a long time ago in a flight suit on an aircraft carrier? Wasn't June 1 a deadline for something? We went in, whether it was right or wrong, without an exit plan. Even if Kerry is elected and even if he believes we shouldn't be there, he won't be able to pull us out until... well that's THE question? Bush surely hasn't given us the answer to what our objectives are now that Hussein is gone. BTW, haven't heard anything about bin Laden at the convention yet. Maybe W's going to bring him out in chains at the conclusion of his speech!

Using the Bible to look at either party is rough. I'll continue to vote for the GOP 'cause I believe it's better than the Dems for us overall, but think we're already screwed anyway. I realise the GOP is hardly the party of Christ but abortion on demand, gay "marriages", and vocal advocates of increased restrictions on freedom of religion, that I just can't take - the first two are CLEARLY anti-Scriptural, the third downright disturbing for our future as a free society. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand, in many ways thy are the same thing.

Just because Dems spend more on social programs doesn't make them more Christlike IMHO.

MY REPLY:
Neither party takes up the whole mantle of Christ. That's why it is so disturbing to me that the Republicans have a monoply on Christianity. It's not that the Dems spend more on social programs, it's that their policies tend to level the playing field making access to government, government institutions and economic and social oppurtunities easier for all rather than the few. And, sure, wearing your religion on your shirt sleave and quoting scripture in politics places you on shaky ground...unless you're a Republican, then it's ok and expected. I follow you on abortion and gay "marriage" as being anti-scriptural, but the reality is, in a diverse society, a line of compromise has to be drawn. The questions are where and who's trying to move the line in what direction. Are bans on abortion and gay marriage based on Judeo-Christian principles "laws respecting an establishment of religion?" It can be well-argued that abortion of a viable fetus/human being that could live on his/her own or with medical care is already covered by murder as defined by many states. That brings us back to the line of compromise.

The Judge Roy thing is pure power politics. As Clinton showed, big business is owned by no party. Quite the contrary, no one gets elected in a national election without their at least partial support.

MY REPLY:
With all due respect, big business holds the ownership interest. Whether Clinton's appeasements to big business ever hurt the working class is something I frankly haven't given much thought to, but now that you've alluded to him I have some doubts about his trade policies and possibly the deregualtion of the securities industry and the effects on the middle and lower middle/blue collar classes.


I'd like to put in a plug for the good ol' Constitution, something forgotten in our "modern" society. It is the ONLY contract that has given "the people" at least a taste of freedom for more than a couple of years. No one EVER brings it up, except in a nebulous sense (They say - it's unConstitutional!! I say- where. Rights not "specifically" enumerated therein are reserved for THE PEOPLE - State legislatures, not the courts).

MY REPLY:
It's "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I think I know what you mean by your comments. But, to see if we are on the same page or at odds, I'll illucidate. No where in the Bill of Rights does it say that we have a right to privacy. But, certain enumerated rights such as the right to be secure in our persons and effects hint at privacy from unreasonable government intrusion. When a court announces that we do have the right to reasonable privacy, is that court securing to the people a right not specifically enumerated (a right the people already had), or has the court gone too far?

Dean, you sure right about the lawyer thing! People love to bash them anyway, and with Edwards on Kerrys' ticket (which I think was a good choice for him BTW), you guys are in for a heck of a time. Where's the flak vest? :)

MY REPLY:
Cheney took a shot at "personal injury lawyers" in the medical liability context last night saying that the current system favors personal injury lawyers over doctors and patients. That one was easy to duck. Most states now require a plaintiff to submit a medical expert's affidavit saying that it is likely that the doctor breached the standard of care. That's not easy at all. Most doctors won't testify against other doctors. Some are threatened by their malpractice carrier if they do. Most states prohibit evidence of other similar incidences by that doctor, e.g., if the doctor has operated on the wrong body part several times in the past and I'm suing the doctor for the same thing, those other incidences are inadmissible. Hospital documents designated as "quality control" documents are inadmissible, therefore, the hospital's investigation of the incident is inadmissible. The GOP's plan is to Federalize all medical malpractice, product liability and class-action lawsuits. Federal judges don't want this, the injured don't need this so who's to gain?

I'll try to watch the President's speech tonight.

P.S. - I should have put something about politics in the thread heading. And, all this time and I still haven't figured out how to box quotes.

piece-it pete
09-08-2004, 10:57 AM
Dean,

Sorry for the delay, been busy! Looks like I'm getting a house myself.

Did you catch that Clinton told Kerry to back off on Iraq and go for "the economy, stupid"? Well it worked for him....

Watching McCain jump through hoops to look bipartisan cracks me up every time! You're right, he's going to lose credibility, I think quick.

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq. What do we do? The success celebrated on a certain boat announced the end of phase one, invasion, to phase two, occupation. June 1st went to phase three, turnover of power. It took 4 years to setup a stable gov't in Germany, and our troops are still there.

This is the history we are basing Iraq on. It is impossible to have an exit stategy beyond this, and would be foolish to announce that we have one, the terrorists will just wait. Most of the major players on both sides of the isle know this, and are playing politics. If we pull out early the 1000 heros will have been wasted.

I sure wish Bush DID bring Osama out in chains. Then tour the country, allowing everyone to poke him with sticks.

Just kidding about the sticks, he'll hang.

I like your statement about abortion being covered by murder laws. It's too bad. As far as the GOPs' monopoly on Christians, I'd suggest you head over to www.democraticunderground.com and search "Christian*". They have been driven out of that party, along with anti-abortionists and many many others, they have become very rigid in their PCness. This would have really bothered the old "New Dealers" I once knew, but they're gone, and no one inside the party has had the guts to replace them so far.

I don't see how increased social programs equal greater equality.

I'm not sure I understand your statement "holds ownership interest" . I believe the very wealthy basically hold ownership interest over all of us to a somewhat large degree, and that includes both parties. Look at the Dems' candidate!! According to "Who rules America now" (an excellent, but a bit dated book BTW), most fights in Congress occur when the ruling class disagrees, otherwise it more or less sails through.

The right of privacy. Hmm, we do have this right, though I think we probably disagree about the court. I will try an Apology in the classical sense:

The Federalists did not include the Bill of Rights in the Constitution because they believed it would end up limiting our rights to those specified, a belief that looks pretty darn true, except as the court believes.

We had that right because it was reserved to us. It was up to us to enforce it, which we can, by our elections. Franklin said in answer to the question - what did we get (what form of gov't) - "a republic, if you can keep it" (I love this guy).

Although Jefferson disagreed: "It is a misnomer to call a government republican in which a branch of the supreme power is independent of the nation", talking about the judiciary. (BTW, if you go to my post a few months back, "Thomas Jefferson Quotes", you can see how much the first "old" Democrat hated and feared this branch of the federal gov't.)

Anyway, it's up to US to police our own gov't. I think this statement by Washington applies: "It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it." And when the court overturns a decision of the people this is exactly what happens.

And this applies, not only to abortion and marriage, but privacy as well. The heart of my belief here is that we DO have the right, and the right to regulate it as we see fit. It doesn't say otherwise in the statement of judical power in that document, so it's ours.

Just my .02. One of the reasons I tried unsuccessfully to, well, shut up is 'cause this can get so heated. But Thank God for freedom of speech!!

Speaking of speech :) , I think Bush did pretty well, of course the expectation IS a bit low :D .

I can't speak to the medical issue. But one thing I do know is, that if costs a person say $1,000,000 in healthcare over their lives, then somehow we as a society have to come up with that, one mil a person!, and that is a problem no matter how you slice it.

Pete

PS Quotes, at the beginning write this, but change the parenthesis to [ and ]: (quote=joe schmoe) will equal this:
To end the quote write (/quote) .

It took me a while to figure it out, too. I think I'm computer challenged. But now, I can do this:
I think George W. Bush RULES!! (whisper: celebrity statements impersonated) lol. lol. See how the internet advances morality and ethics?? :D