The vote for a president: How do you vote?

I can't thank you enough Caprice. I actually pronounced it correctly :-D

0 Replies

Thanks from me too! Any word that starts with crap has got to be useful.

0 Replies

You're welcome! I know I was sweatin' it wondering if I may have made a mistake in pronouncing it.

Isn't learning fun? Very Happy

0 Replies

I feel pretty crapulous a lot of the time too. That will come in handy next time I have to call in sick.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

There was a little kerfuffle about a month ago concerning Canadians travelling in Europe and wearing flags on their backpacks. Insult was taken and dander ws afly, as this open display of the maple leaf was taken by some as meaning "I'm NOT American!"

Now, it strikes me that if I got pissed george went striding through his days wearing his own name because that really means "NOT BERNIE!", I might reasonably be thought a tad egocentric.

In fact, it is even worse than those folks who got upset know. Back in the late sixties and early seventies when myself and many of my friends travelled in europe, it was not uncommon to find American kids claiming (by symbol and speech) to be actually Canadian. My daughter, a year ago, found the same thing.

Hey blatham, here is the Cam Cardow political cartoon on the matter. Very Happy

http://caglecartoons.com/images/preview/{7F2E3197-10ED-45C9-80E3-A0A61FB681CB}.gif

0 Replies

kickycan wrote:

I feel pretty crapulous a lot of the time too. That will come in handy next time I have to call in sick.

Setanta, see what you have created?? Eeeep! Shocked

0 Replies

It's wonderful in a crapulous kind of way, don't you think?

0 Replies

I always understood the term simply to mean intemperate in general, and believe that is a correct usage. I find the religiously fanatical to be intemperate in speech, usually by being sickeningly judgmental.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

... I find the religiously fanatical to be intemperate in speech, usually by being sickeningly judgmental.

Do you believe that this fault distinguishes them from their critics?

I find the cant of the liberal critics equally monotone and judgemental.

0 Replies

My vote for President (actually, my vote[s] - I'm learning the coding now for Diebold software) will be for whoever has enough personal integrity to stand up to the 'religious right' ("the most powerful block within the modern Republican party", as a narrative on the last 60 Minutes described them - an analysis I believe is accurate) and who will fight tooth and nail against any ammendment proposed on the matter of gay marriage...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18751&highlight=

0 Replies

Thanks for so quickly demonstrating my point.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

My apologies. That was one of the other conservatives. I tend to get you mixed up as you all tend to sound the same.

"Other Conseveratives?". Are you trying to bait me?

It is the sign of a closed mind to stop listening to anyone because you have labeled them. Saying that you shouldn't listen to someone simply because they are "conservative" or even because they don't feed starving children is narrow.

If I am a conservative, than I am the only one. I think for myself and try to avoid labels, but, that being said I tend to take positions that get me labeled as a "liberal" more often then not.

Even my postion on this thread would be better characterized as a "liberal" position. Contrast my statements, for example, with those of Fedral.

The open-minded intelligent person will consider each argument on its own merit. I am proud to have agreed at times with people who have very different perspectives including dyslexia, Lola and kjvtrue.

For you to discount what I am saying by labeling and attacking me personally rather than responding to my points is offensive.

0 Replies

Do you still want to know how I vote?

I look for a politican who uses code words like "sacred" and "family values" so I can cross them off my list. They make it easy... they have to use code to connect with their base (and I mean that both ways) constituents and then they're sunk, at least, with me.

I am also a realist enough to know that voting for someone who'll never win is just giving a vote to the wrong person. I only do that when I feel it isn't critical. Last presidential election the Dems begged Nader voters to hold their noses and not let Bush in. Yes, Al Gore was not great, but this reign of mis-handled, divisive power is a thousand times worse than I ever imagined.

I also vote by encouraging my two kids to vote. We vote together using mail-in ballots and talk about all the candidates. Our family voting bloc has doubled in the last two years.

0 Replies

I am looking for the candidate that is willing to stand up and say NO to polka.(and ban the pan flute as well)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you believe that this fault distinguishes them from their critics?

I find the cant of the liberal critics equally monotone and judgemental.

If your intent is to include me in the grouping "liberal critics," then i would make a distinction between my attitude, which is to condemn nothing but that which is illegal, or which seeks to limit the rights of others to a legal self-expression, and the attitude of the fanatically religious, or the fanatically ideologic for that matter, which seeks to condemn others for their indulgence in otherwise legal activities. Homosexuality is legal; cohabitation of consenting adults without benefit of clergy is legal; the practice of non-christian religions is legal; the espousal of political beliefs which are viewed as contrarian by Republicans is legal; the adherence to and teaching of the theory of evolution is legal; etc., etc., etc., . . .

Monotone is a term you have inserted into the statement, it is no part of what i wrote. In fact, i find such folks to be anything but monotone . . .

"And the judgment of God shall fall upon this unrighteous nation, for the sins and the iniquity of those among us . . . "

. . . is a sample which could stand a type of the sort of ranting indulged in by the religiously fanatical who have forgotten the injunction directed toward those inhabiting glass houses; who have forgotten the injunction to remove the beam from their own eyes rather than concerning themselves with the motes in the eyes of others. Monotone? Hardly . . .

0 Replies

Why is it that citizens of other countries with a democratic tradition of electing their leaders are allowed to choose leaders based on what is best for their countries, yet if Americans make their choice based upon the same criteria, they are somehow being 'tyrannical' or uncaring to the rest of the world?

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Why is it that citizens of other countries with a democratic tradition of electing their leaders are allowed to choose leaders based on what is best for their countries, yet if Americans make their choice based upon the same criteria, they are somehow being 'tyrannical' or uncaring to the rest of the world?

I believe the citizens of most democratic countries *do* choose leaders based on what is best for the world. The leaders of most democratic countries certainly act according to what is best for the world.

The US is opposing the efforts of "most other countries" to address international issues -- for example:
- We insist on having and developing weapons of mass destruction.
- We are responsible for scuttling international treaties to end Global warming and landmines.
- We end around international law with Guantanamo etc.

The US also has a position of dominant military power. We have combined this with a doctrine of pre-emptive force. This means that the US is responsible for the world.

We have accepted the role of the world's policeman. The president is the head of our military strength. This means that our President does have special responsibility for the world.

There is a very fine line between empire and tyranny.

0 Replies

ebrown, Who exactly determines where that "very fine line" is between empire and tyranny?

0 Replies

Fedral wrote:

Why is it that citizens of other countries with a democratic tradition of electing their leaders are allowed to choose leaders based on what is best for their countries, yet if Americans make their choice based upon the same criteria, they are somehow being 'tyrannical' or uncaring to the rest of the world?

I don't think it has to do with being tyrannical or uncaring. It has to do with the fact that the U.S. is the only superpower, and the rest of the world is directly affected by many of the decisions our president makes. We don't live in a vacuum. Therefore, it makes sense to also consider the world view.

0 Replies

Interesting

<http://www.presidentmatch.com/Guide.jsp2>

0 Replies

The vote for a president: How do you vote?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know