Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Mar 26, 2006.
History News Service
Good article, but that last paragraph asks a very good question. Polls are showing that people are waking up, but I still wonder about two things. (1) Are they waking up because they truly understand the constitutional implications, or are they just "tired of the war"? And (2), will their displeasure translate into a clear rejection of neoconservative "policies" this November?
Honestly Thomas, do you think that we can convince the majority of the South (MS, LA, KY, TX, etc) that voting for someone who will take over from where Bush left us will screw us even more? I doubt it. These people voted for him after the first term he started screwing us. As long as it's a good ol' boy with strong religious convictions, they'll vote for him.
I think, for the most part, those who are ignorant of the true happenings, are "tired of the war."
I'll be honest, I didn't vote last time. Not that it would have mattered if I did anyway, but I found neither candidate to be less evil than the other. However, when people are like "Look at what Bush is doing!" I can throw my hands up and say "Hey, I didn't vote for him." I won't vote until there's someone worth my vote.
And you blame the present mess on the people in the South who did vote? I understand frustration with the present system, but let's not make a virtue out of not participating.
I'll just agree without elaborating. I don't want to detour this into a debate on why one should or shouldn't vote.
Considering Kerry needed 3,012,497 votes to just TIE Bush (not to mention Florida's polls not being rigged), yeah, my ONE vote would have counted.
Though I agree, let's not make this topic about MY voting habits.
I still think the South, and well, people in general need to not pick a side because of religious beliefs, but on how our future president plans to bring us out of debt, reduce taxes, and work for us instead of against us by maintaining his duties and respect for the law. Like I said, Bush got the South (and just about every "christian") to completely back him because he's a good ol' boy and a God-fearing Christian. Needless to say they didn't look at it like "Oh, you want this war in Iraw to last the next 5 centuries... okay."
Actually, 130,000 votes in my state would've made John Kerry president. That is the shame Ohio will have to live with.
And for those saying he wasn't much better, myself included, he couldn't have been much worse.
the title of the thread says it all
constitutional law 101 will show anybody that bush definitely did not take this class
this thread seems as good a place as any to post this bit from the nation:
We need more Harry Taylors. Lots more Harry Taylors.
It's too bad you didn't post Bush's reply to the guy too. I caught it on the telly a couple days ago. It wasn't very direct, to be charitable.
sadly, the reply wasn't in the article. i wonder if i can find it over at whitehouse.gov...
found a little more info here...
i left that last line in there because, well.... i'm a writer and *i* couldn't have written that!
Excellent! Thanks for digging that up.
If they were after terrorists when they did the wiretapping, why didn't they just get warrants? That's the question. I don't see what the problem is here, what he did was clearly wrong and unconstitutional.