Woman to Woman

By norman

October 4, 2004 07:05 AM | Link to this

Does it come as any surprise that women can be brainwashed just as easily as men?

By Jackie Dorsey

October 4, 2004 07:34 AM | Link to this

All I can say is thanks goodness Diane’s sister has some sense. Diane’s commentary is so full of lies, but then that’s the only thing the Democrats know how to do. They can never argue factually. They always seem to use passion, but hardly ever use truthful statements. On the other hand, Republicans almost always back their arguments with fact and reason. Go “W”. Jackie Dorsey

By Gayle Wright

October 4, 2004 07:59 AM | Link to this

I can’t figure out why some female voters are ambivalent about Senator Kerry. This one certainly isn’t. I know that he is ready to be President, and that he will fight to protect us from any and all harm that might come our way, which, I’m sorry to say, is more likely since Bush has opened up the avenue of terrorism by his incompetent “leadership.” A report released last week by the Homeland Security Dept.’s inspector general said the government’s effort to consolidate 12 different terrorist watch lists had gone nowhere, because the dept. failed to take a leadership role. Bush has cut federal help for first responders and is not protecting rail and subway systems. Bush backed off stiff security requirements for chemical plants because he received campaign donations from the chemical industry. Bush is also not protecting ports, cargo flights, and borders, and Bush cut funding for bio-terrorism preparedness, hospital preparedness and disposal of commercial radioactive material, which could be used to make dirty bombs. No, I’m not the least bit ambivalent about Senator Kerry.

By Brian Curtis

October 4, 2004 08:24 AM | Link to this

I’ve yet to run across a conservative who can cogently disagree with the statement, “Consistency is no virtue when you’re consistently wrong.” But apparently a lot of them plan to vote that way anyhow.

This campaign has been all about marketing of images and catchwords (as usual). The Republican machine has hammered away at the terms “flip-flop” and “appeaser” whenever they refer to Kerry, and some of the smear tactics have stuck.

Never mind the fact that Bush himself has reversed opinions numerous times over the past four years, on everything from Osama (remember him? The guy who ACTUALLY attacked us?) to nation-building, jobs, the economy, and on and on.

Apparently, the main difference between Bush and Kerry is that Kerry can actually learn from mistakes (of course, Bush doesn’t recall every making one). When Bush barges ahead with proven failures, it’s called “leadership.” But how secure does it make you feel to be confidently led over a cliff?

By Sheila

October 4, 2004 08:27 AM | Link to this

I agree with Diane. I feel that if Bush was not on vacation more than he was in the office, 9/11 would’ve never occured. I feel that he is the reason we were attacked so effectively because he has a total disregard for his job. I feel that he thinks it’s a joke and that it is his birthright to hold the office of the presidency when in all honesty, which he lacks, the American public did not vote him into office. And, if he had any integrity, he would’ve accepted Gore’s election into the white house and bowed out gracefully. This thing about instilling fear to the American public is evil and if America votes for him out of fear of being attacked, well, guess what Job said, “The thing I feared has come upon me.” Bush lied. He lied. He’s a liar and a deceiver. He deceived the American public. We all believed him. We were all behind him 100 percent and he let US down. How could anyone trust him. And to see his face on national tv during the debate again saying Iraq attacked us makes me sick to my stomach. How can anyone support him knowing that he misled us and lied to us is beyond me. I am desperately trying to see the good in him. I wanted him to be right. We needed to know that this was not just a personal vendetta against Sadaam. I want to know how is Iraq better now that thousands of there people are killed and over a thousand of US children are dead. I would like to know who is really the terrorist here. Sure, Sadaam was misusing his authority, but that was a global issue that should have been handled by the United Nations. The leaders of the african nations are starving their people to death, Bush didn’t send troops there to save those people. Who died and left George Bush in charge? Oh, I know. 3,000 people at the WTC that Saddam flew airplanes into. I would like to know who made Bush God and Savior of the world.

By Bob Swygert

October 4, 2004 08:31 AM | Link to this

Someone should send Diane a copy of “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” Accusing “Soccer Moms” who support Bush of being fearful and stupid won’t win many friends. I’ll give you two words why Diane’s sister has become more conservative as she has had children— responsibity and maturity. When leftists learn to grow up and act like adults, they may win more elections

By norman

October 4, 2004 08:36 AM | Link to this

You know, it may be a matter of sex appeal. I suppose women can imagine being in bed with Bush. But with Kerry? Not a chance.

By D Jones

October 4, 2004 08:39 AM | Link to this

When George Bush first became president he was in a no win situtation. He was coming behind maybe the most charismatic president that ever held office. If the economy flourished, it was going to be credited to Clinton. If it failed, which it has due to the war and other factors, he would be blamed. Now Kerry is in the opposite position. If he does become president he will be in a position too flourish. If anything goes bad, he can pass the blame to Bush. If the economy turns around or attacks against U.S. troops diminish who do you think will get the credit? I’ve followed politics for all my life and it was amazing that when there were terrorist attacks during Clinton’s administration I didn’t seem to see the message boards lighting up as I do now. Are people that partisan? I guess since the World Trade Center was bombed, and not toppled, in 1993 and only 6 people died, not 3,000 I guess it wasn’t that big of a deal. I guess when the USS Cole was attacked and the soldiers lost their lives on that ship that was still not a big deal. What I ask is for people to stop being so partisan and lets start acknowledging that there were errors by BOTH administrations. Can we all agree on that?

By Kurtis R.E. Segars

October 4, 2004 08:40 AM | Link to this

A conversation between soccer mom and Diane Glass.

Soccer Mom: John Kerry’s Seante record shows a pattern. He has frequently voted against military spending. I’m worried he is a little to weak on defense.

Diane Glass: No he isn’t.

(a long pause)

Soccer Mom: Um, ok. But I am also concerned with the fact John Kerry thinks we need U.N. approval before we take premptive military action.

Diane Glass: John Kerry won 3 purple hearts.

(another pause)

Soccer Mom: Uh-huh. Well, maybe if John Kerry had a more clear position on Iraq. He said it himself, his only consistant position on Iraq, is that he isn’t George Bush. That really doesn’t tell me a lot.

Diane Glass: George Bush has a questionable national guard record.

(a pause)

Soccer Mom: Ok? Well, between me and my husband we make over 200,000 dollars a year. We already pay too much taxes, and use less government programs than people who pay less taxes. We aren’t on welfare, our kids are in private schools. John Kerry wants us to pay an even higher percentage of taxes. It doesn’t seem fair. We worked hard to get where we are.

Diane Glass: Every morning when I wake up, I pray that I find bad economic news, becuase it makes George Bush look bad. Yes, that’s right, I actually pray for the U.S. economy to fail.

Soccer Mom: (nervously) I see, Diane. Well I really should be going.

Diane Glass: George Bush smells.

By Terry M. Adams

October 4, 2004 08:52 AM | Link to this

Could it be that women have an inherent sense of who strong men are and aren’t? Could it be, that no matter how hard the feminist movement has tried, women still realize that we need strong men to come to the front when the going gets tough?

I think so. Women would rather have the “cowboy” out front protecting us, rather than the wind-surfing, nuanced - “botox man”.

Women understand it, it’s the “girlie-men” as Arnold calls them - that we need to worry about!

By Tim

October 4, 2004 09:11 AM | Link to this

Terry Adams give me a break, calling ‘W’ a ‘Cowboy’, don’t make me laugh! Living in Texas, wearing a cowboy hat, and ‘cuttin some wood’ does not make Bush a ‘Cowboy’. Can we please get beyond these silly titles.

By dan

October 4, 2004 09:20 AM | Link to this

Bush didn’t “send troops to their death”; it’s an all volunteer military with the understanding of possibly makikng the ultimate sacrifice so we can read this article.Freedom isn’t free; I’m not taking a chemical protection mask onto Marta living in fear of anyone who looks muslim, so today I’m “free”. Kerry has shown a desire to disarm everyone who’s willing to obey the law.

By lyrazel

October 4, 2004 09:26 AM | Link to this

Im so tired of soccer moms being asked their opinions about everything. I am tired of the WASP woman with lots of money (or at least credit) being used for all the opinions for women in America and becoming this bellwether standard. I am preterbed by this myth of suburban prosperity and normality when I can only find gross debts and unemployment. I want to scream at anyone who uses said ‘demographic’ to lump a small percentage of women into a huge and broad voting block. Unrepresented are women of all ethnic backgrounds and financial states. Unrepresented are single women, elderly women, women who have no children, women who have children who dont play sports, women who lost their children/husbands in Iraq/Afganistan who now face life alone, and the vast minority of women citizens who are not prosperous enough to have time to leave work to get their children to soccer practice. Does their votes/opinions not count? So why are pollsters going after only one kind of women? Would be curious to know if the OTHER women in the USA and abroad are so willing to ‘stay the course’ when the course means: probable re-enstatement of the draft, (both candidates, how can we maintain 16 new bases in Iraq without re-enforcement troops?) continued half-baked efforts on terrorism (faulty because of lack of funding and racial profiling that netted us some faded rock star from 1970 but no Osama), over-taxation of single women & single men to benefit families, lack of affordable health care to senior women, and lack of freedoms of their own reproductive care (and I am NOT talking abortions). Neither candidate has addressed issues with relevant answers. Kerry offers untried plans for health care while the majority of seniors already understand the problem is with government casting a blind eye to insurance companies and drug manufacturers who insist on getting government to pay for research but wont allow the largest nation in the world to negotiate price of drugs or insurance. Neither candidate comes from the background of middle class nor were their mommies soccer moms, nor are their wives. They are clueless concerning the women who are stuck at home working temp jobs without any hope of full-time employment because their company now uses overseas employees at cheaper cost. Neither candidate faces unemployment lines if they loose but get to return to a life with more perks than we working stiffed women have never dreamed of. Perhaps we are not ambivilent/we just are never heard from until AFTER we vote and the pollsters are surprised.

By Greg

October 4, 2004 09:26 AM | Link to this

Hmmm… as a hard lined democrat, I of course want to see a democratic president in office. Dianne’s comment of her grandfather saying, “Stick with the devil you know.â€? rangs very true for me. Even though I don’t like Bush for several reasons, I know how he works! Is Kerry going to be hard hitting? I don’t know. I feel like I’d be gambling if I voted for Kerry at this point.

Will have to say Kerry did impress me during the debate though.

By sheila

October 4, 2004 09:28 AM | Link to this

D Jones you are right to point out the fact that terroristic attacks happened under Clinton’s administration, however, Clinton never lied to us about who did it. He never declared war on an innocent country. And when I say “innocent” I don’t mean Saddam was not a monster to his people. I mean that he didn’t lie to the American public about who attacked us. The fact of the matter is, Bin Laden and his group had been planning this for years. And the truth is, we were going to be hit no matter who was in office, the question I have is, would it had been as effective if Bush were doing his job and not out hunting poor animals instead of terrorists. Because he didn’t take his job serious enough the FBI and CIA was being run by the good old boys who have been working for years and hoarding information that even the president didn’t know because he was too busy fishing and reading stories to kindergarteners instead of reading intelligent briefings. The truth of the matter is Bush dropped the ball and now he wants to stay in office, just like Guilani did and make it seem like he is a hero because he had a stiff upper lip and “went after terrorists.” Guilani divided New York and now Bush is dividing the nation. The terrorist attack on the WTC was the best thing that could’ve happened to Guiliani because until then, he was a nobody and he did very little to help the majority of the citizens in New York. That’s what he and Bush have in common—Bush has done nothing to help the citizens of America—oh, yes he did. He helped over a thousand families get a reality of the Vietnam war.

By Akeya W., Forest Park

October 4, 2004 09:41 AM | Link to this

Why are women becoming ambivalent about Kerry?

That’s a question that I honestly cannot answer. I can’t fathom why women would support Bush, either.

The people of this nation have become belligeren, baring teeth and claws to other nations to show that we mean business. That we’ll fight.

We’re “fighting” for security and for to be able to live the “American Dream” in peace at the expense of others. We want to keep kids safe from terrorism, but we fail to educate them on life issues that they face EVERY SINGLE DAY. Ms. (or is ir Mrs.?) Feldhahn mentioned an uncertain future. I believe that it is certain our future will be wrought with fear and fighting if we continue to allow Bush to make a shambles of the presidency. I am certain that the people of our nation will continue to remain uneducated because Bush (excuse me if I can’t dare to utter the president before his name) is so busy trying to score brownie points.

Bush is in the lead because we are used to hearing his name. I really don’t think that it’s about his “ability” to lead or that he is “strong.” I believe it is a popularity contest of which Bush will win because we as a nation are scared and Bush can capitalize on our emotions.

What is the problem with withdrawing from Iraq?
If we care so much about Americans, why do we not pull Americans out of Iraq so that they can return here to be with their families? Isn’t that one of Bush’s concerns? The family? I hear the rhetoric about children needing both fathers and mothers, yet there are fathers and mothers being blown away in Iraq. I don’t feel proud that these people are dying. I feel sad for their families that may be deprived of their presence.
This war-infused fervor is sickening, and the fact that Americans seem to be leaning toward Bush saddens me because it lets me know what kind of people are being farmed here in America.
People who are excited about war and the prospect of killing. People who do not seem to understand that violence begets violence.
These “soccer moms” that are being referred to are probably the same women who don’t spank their children because it will only teach them that hitting is okay.

I am a woman who supports Kerry. Not simply because he is a democrat, but because he seems to be more of a peacemaker than a hellraiser. He seems to understand that a nation surrounded by friends is more safe than a nation fraught with enemies.

If Bush were the peacemaker and perhaps a skosh more intelligent, I would support him.

By Ronald Millsaps

October 4, 2004 09:56 AM | Link to this

Some women seem to be ambivalent toward John Kerry for a couple of reasons. There’s a myth in the feminist movement that a Pro-Life president is against women (far be it from them to realize he’s simply for the unborn and the sanctity of life), and there’s a belief that we’re safer now after 9/11 due to George W. Bush’s leadership. (I wouldn’t call this a myth because there’s evidence to support it.) If I had it my way, Alan Keyes would be president.

By Gina

October 4, 2004 10:01 AM | Link to this

I have to agree with Diane. Bush’s campaign is based on fear. I don’t see how folks can vote for this man to remain in office. He has lied and he continues to lie. He says he wants to remain consistent, even when he’s consistently wrong. It takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. I also do not trust all the polls that are floating around. How true are they really? Take Newsweek and the New York Times, for instance. They only poll the people who subscribe to their periodicals. How about hitting the streets and getting folks opinions? How about going into the urban cities and polling those folks? How about going to the unemployment centers and polling those people? When that happens, then I will believe the polls.

By D jones

October 4, 2004 10:02 AM | Link to this

Sheila-“And the truth is, we were going to be hit no matter who was in office, the question I have is, would it had been as effective if Bush were doing his job and not out hunting poor animals instead of terrorists.”

This is exactly what I’m talking about is partisanship. Instead of understanding that both administrations were at fault you throw out a condescending remark at the end to make sure that Bush is blamed more then Clinton. Couldn’t the same response that you made also apply to Clinton? If he wasn’t busy having “intern extra credit days” could he have stopped the attacks that occured while he was in office? Be consistent is all I ask. Bush has done things too help citizens. I’m pretty sure you didn’t send the extra amount you got back on your taxes due to the Bush tax cuts. If you have children I bet you didn’t send back the extra amount you got for the child credit. This is the hypocrisy that I speak of. If you are so anti-Bush please send that money back since “he hasn’t done anything for you”. If I disagree with someone’s views and I didn’t vote for them I would not then gain from their policies unless I was ignorant of them. I don’t think you are ignorant when it comes to the benefits you’ve received.

By D Jones

October 4, 2004 10:20 AM | Link to this

Gina-“He has lied and he continues to lie. “

What statement are you referring to? Or is the the catch slogan that you heard on the 11 o clock news. Did you know that John Kerry as late as 2003 stated that Iraq had WMD’S? Did you know that in 1998 President Clinton bombed a “chemical weapons” plant in Iraq. Were they lying also? Was the U.N. lying when that passed resolution 1441? Were they lying when 17 resolutions were passed in 1991? This is also the same U.N. that France holds veto power which they didn’t excercise in the above mentioned resolutions passing. When you say “he lied” please have facts or quotes that ONLY George Bush made and then will you at least have some basis to make a case on.

By Andrew Smith

October 4, 2004 10:30 AM | Link to this

Response to Kurtis Segars:

Mr. Segars, Kerry voted against military programs that then Sec. of Defense Chaney asked Congress to end. Cutting waste in the defense budget is not “weak” on defense. Conservatives are always crying about waste in government, so what is your problems with cutting wasteful programs?

Kerry answered the question in preemption, were you not listening?

On Kerry’s Iraqi policy, again were you not listening?

On your taxes, do you not use roads to get to work? The military to defend you? Water and Wastewater Services? Police and Fire protection? Security at Airports? I can go on an on, but the point is you rely on as many governement services as any one else, and you made a choice to send your kids to private school.

No one ever said life was fair, you just expect that the wealthier you get the more breaks you should get, the less you should have to contribute. Whatever happened the old adage, “To whom much is given, much is expected,” or the idea of noblesse oblige?

Some one else wrote of Bush’s birthright. I live in Texas and work with folks that know the Bush family and they report that this sense of entitlement runs very strong in that family.

By Paul D

October 4, 2004 10:40 AM | Link to this

The choice is very simple and the debates only served to reinforce the case. If you believe that America knows whats best for America then you vote for Mr. Bush. If you believe that Europe and corrupt UN officials know whats best for America then vote for Mr. Kerry. Politicians are just that, politicians and trying to tell me one is more honest than the other is just silly. If you want to take the advice of actors and musicians who live in their own fantasy world (and just spout their thoughts word for word) then listen to Diane. If you can form your own thoughts and options then examine the positions of Kerry (passing the global test and support for international criminal court) and Bush (being smart enough to know that a 16th resolution is going to be as useless as the first 15 and that America is smart enough to make its own decisions). Quit listening to sound bites (from either side) and realize that our sovereignty is at stake and support which ever direction you want this country to take.

By Brian Curtis

October 4, 2004 10:41 AM | Link to this

You want some specific Bush lies? No problem! “My tax cuts will create 3 million jobs over the next 3 years.” “I won’t touch the Social Security surplus.” “Saddam and al-Qaeda are one and the same.” “I’m gonna get Osama, dead or alive.” “The abortion question is between a woman and her doctor.” “Creating a Department of Homeland Security wouldn’t solve anything.” “We invaded Iraq in support of the UN resolutions.” “We don’t need a 9/11 Commission, and I oppose it.” “Gay marriage is a state issue.” “I won’t get us involved in ‘nation-building’.” “Saddam has WMDs; we know where they are; we have solid evidence.” “We’re winning the war on terror.”

My question is, since the Iraq invasion has been proven to be a mistake (even Bush can’t deny that)… why should we put him back in office to screw up again?

By Akeya W.

October 4, 2004 10:43 AM | Link to this

I did not return the money from the tax refund and I still do not support Bush. I invested the money so that my son and I can have a brighter, less financially-strained future.

I am Anti-Bush. I am pro- my son.
I am more afraid that Bush will continue to make enemies and the result will be my son growing up in a world akin to that of the every day world of children in war-ridden countries.

By DJones

October 4, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this

Andrew Smith-“On your taxes, do you not use roads to get to work? The military to defend you? Water and Wastewater Services? Police and Fire protection? Security at Airports? I can go on an on, but the point is you rely on as many governement services as any one else, and you made a choice to send your kids to private school.”

Exactly. That is actually a point why someone SHOULDN’T have to pay more taxes when WE ALL get the same benefit out of the above mentioned services. Why should I have to pay more for government services just because I succeeded in life? I can really see how that is fair.

By DJones

October 4, 2004 10:59 AM | Link to this

Akeya-” did not return the money from the tax refund and I still do not support Bush”

Typical. So let me get this straight……. you disagree with his policies yet you will still reap benefits from tax cuts that he installed? It would seem like the lesson that you could have taught your son is I disagree with someone’s views and therefore I will send this money back. But you know why that won’t happen, because you really don’t stand for what you beleive in. Don’t worry, you’re not alone. There are plenty of people that sell their morals for money.

By Noel Curry

October 4, 2004 11:00 AM | Link to this

Isn’t it interesting that we use such broad strokes to typify women and ‘soccer moms” in order to create a devisiveness in support of two substandard candidates.

When are we Americans going to stand up and demand a candidate that is worthy of our vote? Instead of continually accepting average men as our choices.

Kerry supporters know this to be true as most of them don’t support him as much as they bash Bush. It’s a sad commentary that hatred for one candidate drives them to another candidate that is equally inappropriate for the office.

By Hasell Brown

October 4, 2004 11:07 AM | Link to this

The question that Shaunti has yet to address is this: who funded and armed the terrorists that we’re presently fighting? Answer: the US under Ronald Reagan. Let us not forget that under the Reagan Administration, the Afghans were given American arms to fight to Russians, and Saddam was funded to fight the Iranians. The problem with the Bushes is not just their myopic view of the world…..but the family history is not kosher either. Grandfather Prescott sold coal and oil to the Nazis in WW2; father George Herbert Walker was head of the CIA; brother Neil stole $2B in the savings and loan scandal….but was an “unindited co-conspirator”; brother John Ellis (JEB) has purposely disenfranchised African-American voters in Florida to allow his brother to be ‘selected’ by a margin of 537 votes….and is continuing to invoke the same practices to disenfranchise elderly black voters, particularly in Orlando. With these questions NOT being addressed….and the Bush campaign continually avioding the issues, is there any question that the American public is being hoodwinked….or better still…..Bushwhacked??

By DJones

October 4, 2004 11:12 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis. I’ve never said that Bush was a great President I just enjoy pointing out how people are so partisan it’s not even funny. I disagree with Bush’s fiscal policies, large tax cuts-massive spending. You don’t have to be an Economics major to understand that doesn’t work. I’m a libertarian and I didn’t vote for either candidate in 2000. Nor will I vote for either one this time either. It’s just amazing to me how people point out some things that Bush said and then when someone of their own party mentions the same exact thing their story changes. Let me show you how. Here is your statement that Bush made: ““Saddam has WMDs; we know where they are; we have solid evidence.â€? You with me so far? So when Clinton bombed a “chemical weapons” plant in 1998 in Iraq what was he doing. Lying. I’m sure you’ll find some way out of that. How about when John Kerry, the next coming of Jesus Christ to some said that to not act on Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction would be foolish as late as 2003. Was that lying? Let me show you another contradiction. Every one makes a big deal out of how much of an idiot Bush is and how he is mentally challenged. Which I don’t disagree with that much. But how can you say he was on the other hand sooooo intelligent that he pulled the wool over the eyes of the whole Senate to get them to vote 73-0 for war? Make up your mind whether he is not that bright or a master manipulator, which would take some intelligence, to get the majority of congress including John Kerry to go to war.

By Ronald Millsaps

October 4, 2004 11:15 AM | Link to this

In George W. Bush, we have a president who pays more lip service than physical service to the moral values he stands for and who seems to be more out for the rich man than anything else. In John Kerry, we have a somewhat flexible candidate who supports abortion and gay marriage. Women aren’t the only voters who are feeling ambivalence.

Bush does deserve credit for not letting the U.N. tell him what to do. As many dollars as we put into that compared to everyone else, why shouldn’t we be a little assertive?

By Akeya W.

October 4, 2004 11:17 AM | Link to this

DJones- You’re absolutely right.

Doesn’t your beloved president espouse family? Sending the money back would not have benefitted myself or my son. I feel sad for you because of the tactics you are attempting to use to in some way make me feel bad about doing something for my family.

Try again…

By DJones

October 4, 2004 11:29 AM | Link to this

Akeya- I was not trying to make you feel bad and I apologize if that was the case. It just seemed like a contridiction to vote against someone because you disagree with but to still use something that George Bush himself enacted. The person you disagree with. Sending the back the money would have benefited you, not monetarily, but in something more important. It’s like in one sense in your personal life and on message boards you speak against President Bush but you know what, if he puts money in my pocket thats okay with me. Confusing to me thats all. Once again, I apologize and I will give you the last word if you would like and leave it at that. Two people with two different opinions. There is nothing wrong with that!

By cindy

October 4, 2004 11:55 AM | Link to this

Hitler used fear to get into power and to stay into power and so does Bush. Forget the economy, forget jobs, forget everything except that “if we don’t re-elect him that terrorist will be on every corner of america”, that’s what this man wants us to believe. Bush is hopeless, he is running our country into the ground. Just watch the debate again, he doesn’t even know who attacked us, but he knows why he started this war with iraq and it wasn’t to protect americans. He’s a con artist and i hope come Nov 2nd, americans will show him we’re not falling for his lies anymore.

By Noel Curry

October 4, 2004 12:08 PM | Link to this

For crying out loud, Cindy - that was the most ridiculous think anyone has had the nerve to post today!

Comparing Bush to Hitler is an inexusable failure to exercise intelligence or sound judgement (that is verbatim the definition of asinine).

Furthermore, by doing so you have put yourself in that same category - trying to sway thoughts by the use of fear. And you illustrate my original point perfectly, you aren’t supporting Kerry - you are tearing down Bush. You are so blinded by your hatred for one man that you cannot see what Kerry is doing and support him on his own merits.

Now, ENOUGH of the Nazi comparisons. Let these two inadequate stand or fall on their own merits.

By Cindy

October 4, 2004 12:16 PM | Link to this

Well Noel luckily for me this is a democracy (no thanks to bush) and i don’t care about your opinion (and i don’t need to be excused by YOU!) This “war on terror” that taking so many american lives is this pitiful excuse for a president’s only political leg to stand on. He ignores what the people want, he ignores the UN. Who does he think he is. To keep some kind of credibility we need him out of there. It’s just a same that people like you get to vote.

By Noel

October 4, 2004 12:30 PM | Link to this

Cindy,

What does living in a Democracy have to do with whether or not you care about my opinion. The only think our Democracy does is allow me to state it and you to state that you don’t care - so what.

The crux of it all is that you appear to think that we live in a country called the United Nations. Why else would their opinion matter when it comes to the actions of our government?

But, we don’t, Cindy. We live in the United States of America and we are not governed by the UN. That’s who he thinks he is (we are).

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t like him either. But, I’m not flailing about blindly making ridiculous comparisons either.

We voted him in and we can vote him out just as easily. And if you truly feel that he is comparable to Hitler than you are his accomplice as I’m pretty sure you have done nothing to remove him from power. Is that what you want as your legacy? Someone who stood by and did nothing while a cruel and evil man commited genocide all over the world?

Of course not, because deep down you don’t really believe that. You are just prone to making crazy statements.

By norman

October 4, 2004 12:37 PM | Link to this

The fact that this discussion has gotten off the topic of women and their feelings about Kerry shows how unimportant that topic was. What people really want to discuss is the choice between Kerry and Bush by people of all genders. To me, it is clear that Bush supporters have been brainwashed by the usual and normal GOP means. In the ‘40’s and ‘50’s the Democrats were called pro-Communist. That no longer works. Now the GOP paints the other side as liberal (as if that were a dirty word), lacking values (as if bourgeois values are the only possible values), immoral, and weak on terrorists. Bush is no Hitler to be sure, but GOP tactics have too many similarities with the rhetoric and tactics of Benito Mussolini and Paul Joseph Goebbels to be accidental. If Fascism comes to America, it will be Fascism with an American and Christian face: it will be Jesus in your face, patriotism and capitalism in your face, and conform or else.

By Archie

October 4, 2004 12:39 PM | Link to this

When Bush took the lead in the polls there has been no talk about postponing the election but now that Kerry has a slight lead I wonder if Kerry gets up about 5 more points in the polls will the talk about postponing the election occur again. I agree with Diane on this subject and I think women just like men need to read. Several ex-military people said Iraq could not produce weapons of mass destruction. Health insurance,employment, are other issues to think about.

By Cindy

October 4, 2004 12:44 PM | Link to this

This Noel is my last comment to you, after this you continue to flight around in your own ignorance. Because IGNORANT is what you are if you think that the UN and alliances with other countries don’t matter. And as for voting for BUSH, i didn’t vote for him, if you did that’s your mistake. And don’t think that for one minute you can tell me what i believe. You don’t know me. And i’m not “prone” to making crazy statements, i’m prone to telling the truth and stating the obvious to busy bodies like yourself. So if i was you i would stop worrying about what my legacy will be and worry about your own. I’ll do everything i can to stand up for my beliefs no matter what people like you think you on the other hand get your facts from cnn and fox news and think you can lecture me. Have a nice day NOEL.

By S. Kozozemski

October 4, 2004 12:49 PM | Link to this

I guess soccer mom is a euphemism for moms with kids of an age to do sports - down here, we have football moms, cheerleading moms, softball moms, swimming moms, etc. And interestingly, I’ve found that you can’t generalize what they think or who they will vote for. Some I know are staunch Republicans, and some are Democrats, and many are like me - a full-time working softball/swimming/Girl Scout/volunteer at school mom - unable to side with either candidate due to the sickening levels of political speak and lack of true position on issues that matter to me. I can’t support Bush - he is not willing to admit to mistakes, he has taken away rights of Americans with the Patriot Act, his cabinet (specifically Ashcroft and Rumsfeld) is downright scary, and I can’t tolerate the smug look on his face when he unnecessarily runs down his opposing candidate. He is in the position of power as incumbent but has totally blown it with me because of his needless attacks on Kerry (and they’re not even well-done). I don’t trust Republicans and never have. I would give the last four years a “D” - the economy stinks - gas prices are high, I didn’t see a check in the mail for my children because I guess we’re “rich” (news to me), and I’m not comfortable that we’re on a solid track with our foreign policy, to put it mildly. Yes, Iraq is free and many of them are glad, and we did it. I’m proud of our military for being there. I don’t think they should be there, though. I can’t support Kerry, either. I don’t trust Democrats; I don’t trust politicians. People who will say whatever they think people want to hear in order to win an election do not have the integrity that I believe is required to lead our nation. I don’t want to rely on the United Nations to make foreign policy decisions for us, but I don’t want us to act unilaterally. We are not alone on earth, and we should be fostering global peace, not global war. So, for the first election in my voting eligibility years, I may not be able to vote in good conscience for either candidate. Mostly because I do not trust either of them to lead this country with decency and integrity. Call me disillusioned - just don’t call me on November 2nd!

By cindy

October 4, 2004 12:53 PM | Link to this

Norman, i totally agree with you. Things going on now with our “leadership” are things that have been seen in other places and times, i just hope and pray that it doesn’t get that bad and that america will get on the right track once lord willing we get a new president. Stopping terrorism is important but so are jobs and the economy. We have enough issues at home to be constantly worried with everything going on abroad.

By RS

October 4, 2004 12:59 PM | Link to this

Yes I am a woman but not some brainless, Stepford-wife suburban soccer mom that some rich yuppie picked for her looks & now takes care of her like an over-protected houseplant while she drops baby after baby. I’m a woman who has the capability of thinking for herself, & that means fearing the re-election (oops, did I say that? ELECTED???) of a man under whose administration we experienced the most horrendous terrorist attack in history, a man who can’t even hunt down one lone pathetic villain with failing kidneys, a man who “thinks” (??) he has the right to tell me what I can & can’t do with my own body.

By Kool Kathy

October 4, 2004 01:00 PM | Link to this

Why are women ambivalent about John Kerry? You got it all wrong. Kerry is ambivalence personified. He has to drive on one-way streets so he won’t make frequent turn-arounds. Women know that. Then Diane asks why so many Americans think she is wrong about President Bush. That’s easy. Because she is wrong. While she is sending out her partisan peripatetic prose, Bush is in Washington leading our country and fighting terrorism in every way possible.Diane is hanging on to a dilapidated Democratic wagon headed over the cliff. The rest of us don’t care to go with her and defame our president in the process.

By ToePro

October 4, 2004 01:22 PM | Link to this

True Strength and Braver are proven on the Battlefield! This is were Hero’s are made!

Cowards are strong when they don’t have to fight!

It’s Amazing how so many American Citizens view this war administration as “The Strength of America”

By Jay

October 4, 2004 01:22 PM | Link to this

Soccer moms support Republicans because they have developed “responsibility and maturity?” Soccer moms, and those that marry them, really are stupid if they think they’ll be “safer” because Bush is re-elected. Puhleeze… God help us all if this is the intelligence level of the American electorate….

By Jason

October 4, 2004 01:37 PM | Link to this

I fail to understand why a hard-hitting, macho leader is desirable. Sure, Bush demonstrates bravado and confidence that Kerry will not likely bring to the role of President. Bush will kick down your door, shoot and ask questions later, if at all. That might scare terrorists. It certainly scares me. Sadly, the reality is that we are creating more terrorists. We can’t dismantle the Middle East, and eventually we will have no more countries to attack in the name of retaliation. Yet the terrorism will continue and likely increase with the meddling we are doing in Iraq.

Bush has been consistent, and has “stuck with his guns” which are usually hot and smoking. Americans seem to love his cowboy swagger, but his brash and uncompromising position is not bringing us closer to a safe world, here or abroad. Why is it an ideal to be uncompromising? Only a fool never changes his mind. Bush never changes his mind. Even in the face of opposing facts, he maintains his position on Iraq, though he has been proven to have been incorrect in his assumption, and assumption that has and is costing thousands of lives. A true leader can admit when he is wrong.

As for the devils, the only one we are facing is blindness. Both democrats and republicans are choosing leaders for the wrong reasons. I for one are more comfortable with a leader that is gun shy, because war is brutal and should not be entered lightly. We entered the Iraq war lightly and unprepared and we are reaping that harvest. We were overconfident, like a bully picking on a helpless opponent. We’ve done this before, if anyone recalls. Kerry was there. Wonder why he’s against it? It’s a no-win scenario.

Soccer moms remember this…if we are still at war in two or three years, your starting goalie will be defending a supply outpost in Baghdad. Yes, the draft is real. Choose wisely.

By Van

October 4, 2004 01:50 PM | Link to this

if you really want to know -

Under Clinton, a favorite with soccer moms, did nothing but send in a couple of cruise missles when terrorist attacked -

Bush, responded with force against force. He actually did something of substance.

By Rick Harris

October 4, 2004 01:57 PM | Link to this

I would like for you to cut out the portion of your editorial that bolsters your reason to vote for John Kerry. There is only one sentence that states a positive about Kerry and that is “Kerry is not weak.” The rest is another Bush bashing piece. That is the problem with the Kerry campaign. His followers cannot come up with a reason to vote for him only a reason to vote against Bush. Come up with a different tactic because the one your using is not working.

By Ronald Millsaps

October 4, 2004 02:09 PM | Link to this

This is why I can’t support John Kerry as much as I’d like to. While he carries himself well in debates and seems to have some good ideas on some issues, we have those out there like “RS” who talk about not wanting Bush re-elected because he allegedly wants to decide what she can and can’t do with her body. These people need to admit it’s not THEIR body that’s being aborted. Therefore, the government does need to intervene.

If Kerry were Pro-Life and against gay marriage, he’d get my vote in a heartbeat.

By Angie

October 4, 2004 02:10 PM | Link to this

I think women see that the choice comes down to a strong man vs. a weak man. Someone who has strong beliefs vs. someone who changes their beliefs depending on what day it is. With comments like , “I actually voted for it before I voted against it” is it any wonder listening to John Kerry speak makes one feel as dizzy as riding the tilt-o-whirl!

In the middle of this war on terror we don’t need to change leaders and let a new guy come in and get his feet wet trying to learn the ropes of being president. We need someone who will NOT tolerate another 9/11 in this country.

I am a woman and a mom (not a soccer mom). I am pro-life and pro-family. I am against anyone taking the life of an innocent baby and against gay marriage. Whether those two things are pollitically incorrect I couldn’t care less. This is still America where you can speak your mind without trying to please everybody (what do ya think of that ACLU?). With a Democrat in office (Zell Miller being the exception) this country would continue to turn into another Soddom & Gommorah (sp?). But, hey, at least we’d be politically correct!

Boots or flip-flops? I choose boots.

Angie

By Jason

October 4, 2004 02:20 PM | Link to this

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. Kerry is not a trigger-happy reactionalist who acts without fully knowing his opponent. He is a decorated hero. He has shown sound judgement in his voting record and also shown flexibility with the will of his constituents. He is charismatic but not a zealot, he shows a better grasp of economic issues, and does not allow religion to color his actions.

I’ll wait for a pro-bush post. What has Bush done besides kill Arabs? Is the US a better place it was when he took the helm? Are we better off? Are we safer? Jobs are down, the economy is down, gas prices are up, and the United States is considered a monster in the global community. We suffered the first attack on US soil in 50 years under his watch. Bush spent less time in the White House than any president in the history of the United States. He has spent less time addressing the nation on Television since its invention than any president before him. The draft will be reinstated under Bush, and I’m not willing to watch my brother die to further one man’s personal vendetta. What has Bush done? What is he campaigning for? What are the issues? A safer America? His America is in more danger of attack than any before him.

Bush has failed this country. He probably should have been impeached. He lied to the nation and the world and got away with it. It’s time for a change, and Kerry is the only option. Will he be a better leader? I can’t imagine how he could be worse.

By Angie

October 4, 2004 02:43 PM | Link to this

When we have a president that allows the U.N. to decide when we can take any actions to defend ourselves then things will be ALOT worse! The U.N. is useless from what I can tell. Look at what’s happening in Sudan right now…is anyone ever going to DO anything about the torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people? The U.N. will probably ask politely for the government to put a stop to it. And the government of Sudan will look at the how the U.N. dealt with Iraq and then sit back and have a good laugh at them.

Just how powerful does the world think the U.N. is? What would it take for them to get up off their butts and DO something? If Hitler was alive today and killing millions- the U.N. would be trying to come up with sanction number 57 right about now!

Kerry will NOT keep America strong but will hand over the keys to the U.N.-then heaven help us if we have another terrorist attack on US soil. We won’t be able to do anything unless France & Germany say it’s ok. It’ll be a game of “U.N. May I?”. We can’t afford to play that game with our future. Angie

By Akeya W.

October 4, 2004 02:59 PM | Link to this

If you are truly pro-life and pro-family, perhaps you should think about what bringing unwanted children into the world would do to that child. I hear things line “what if that child is the next president or cures cancer?” I respond with “What if that child is the next Charles Manson on Jeffrey Dahmer?” But, I digress…

I don’t believe that people who are not involved in the lives of those who have to make decisions about gay marriage or abortion should have the right to tell someone else that they cannot abort or that a man cannot marry another man.

What people should be concerned about is teaching their children what they want them to learn.

I am a woman is who neither pro-choice or pro-life. I don’t have the right to infringe on the lives of others with my own beliefs. I do not care of a man wants to marry another man or a woman wants to marry another woman. It is not my right to make a decision about someone else’s life based on what I believe.
It is not right.

Perhaps some of you need to revisit George Orwell’s “1984.” It’s fiction, but it’s looking more and more like reality to me.

By Noel

October 4, 2004 03:02 PM | Link to this

Nice, Cindy. You can’t make any valid points so you reduce yourself to name-calling. I don’t know if you are a soccer mom but, if you are I hope you don’t poison your children’s minds with your non-sensicial Nazi clammer and vitriol.

I agree with Rick and have said as much - most people support Kerry simply because he is not Bush. That’s not a good way to pick a candidate.

As far as the most horrendous attacks occuring under his watch. Those attacks were going to happen regardless of who was in office and the reasons for them began in the Clinton and the senior Bush’s administration.

Since when were soccer mom’s chosen by some rich yuppie based upon their looks, RS? The ‘soccer moms’ that I know are middle class and most certainly not picked based upon their looks.

I appreciate RS’s point about a woman’s right to choose though I don’t know that this administration has set back women and their choice anymore then previous administrations. Women should have the right to do as they please but, I think there should be some laws that protect father’s rights as well.

Finally, while we are on the topic of a woman’s right to choose; can someone explain to me why liberals are pro-choice yet anti-death penalty while conservatives are pro-life and pro-death penalty? Don’t these folks have it backwards? Doesn’t it make more sense to be pro-choice AND pro-death penalty or pro-life AND anti-death penalty?

By Jason

October 4, 2004 03:15 PM | Link to this

The U.N. was right. We were wrong. We gave Iraq an ultimatum. They met it. We attacked them anyway. And you wonder why the world hates us. The U.N. exists to stop countries from invading other’s unjustly, as we did in Iraq. We violated the sovreignty of a nation as capriciously as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. And you still champion our cause? Let’s be realistic; two-thirds of the world’s nations are underdeveloped dictatorships which heap injustices on their people. China is synonymous with rights-infringements. Why don’t we invade them? The simple fact is that we cannot invade every country that is not up to our standards of civil rights, first because there isn’t enough money or resources in the world to do it (we can’t even get it done in Iraq) and because you cannot force western ideals of relgion and government onto people of middle eastern ancestry. The change has to occur naturally, as it did in the U.S. during the Civil War. What if Britain or Russia decided to invade the US and stop the North from fighting the South, allowing them to cede? We’d have two countries now. Would it have been right? Who’s to say we have the right to invade anyone we want? Iraq didn’t attack us. They weren’t a threat to anyone. They didn’t have WMD. We attacked them for nothing, unless you consider their human rights violations, but that was not the reason we cited for the war, so don’t bring it up. The UN may not be the solution to the world’s problems, but in this case they were right. You’ll all be singing a different tune when your sons, daughters, sister, brothers, and spouses get drafted to fight this war. You’ll ask why your family had to die, and consider that answer. You won’t be satisfied with it when that letter comes. I want every one who supports this war to enlist and give your time and life for it. It’s easy to support a war from the comfort of your Dunwoody brick house or Buckhead condo.

Vote Bush at your own peril. You’ll curse his name the first time you lose a loved one.

By norman

October 4, 2004 03:28 PM | Link to this

Evidently for Millslop a woman’s body belongs not to her but to the government. And this is conservative?

By cindy

October 4, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this

Noel, stop while your ahead, don’t bring kids into this because if the planet is lucky then you don’t have any because one of you is far to many. The last thing anyone needs is more people such as you If your gonna keep posting and using my name like a child then stay on topic and try making some sense.

By Akeya W.

October 4, 2004 03:36 PM | Link to this

Jason- Please re-post your opinion. It deserves to be read again. I do disagree with your comment about cursing Bush’s name the first time a loved one dies.

They won’t curse his name. I think that they will, however, think that it is some great civic duty that their family member performed.

Just as the terrorists from September 11, 2001 believed that they would go to heaven (or its equivalent) because of the civic duty they performed for their country…

By Jean

October 4, 2004 03:40 PM | Link to this

I am speaking as the single mother of a fourteen year old child. I am not a soccer mom due to the fact that I have to work two jobs to provide for my daughter. In 2002, I was laid off a very lucrative job due to the decline in the economy. It took eight months to find another job and when I obtained employment it was on a part time basis. At one point, I worked three jobs to make one paycheck so that I could provide for my family. I said that to bring up this point, with rising gas prices, security alerts every so often and the economy still in a depressed state any change at all would be better than what is available now. I truly feel that we have to choose between the lesser of two evils but I want to give someone else a chance that has the ability to restore the severed ties with our ally counties and can also pick out the countries we are defending on a map. Six month prior to being elected the current President could not pick out on a map of the Middle East and Europe the counties of Iraq, Iran, India, etc. This can be verified on Dateline, Fall 2000. I have more confidence in a man that has gone to war and seen the outcome, than in a man who chooses to stay state side and view the war from the sidelines.

By cindy

October 4, 2004 03:42 PM | Link to this

This post is for everyone to give their opinions and i’m sick of people saying oh your only voting for kerry cause you don’t like bush, well i don’t like bush i know kerry will do a better job (i doubt anyone can do any worse) but the bottom line minds are already made up. No one on here is going to change anyone’s opinion so to the people that are making juvenile comments and trying to tell others they are wrong, your wasting your time. Give your opinion, agree to disagree and move on. Either you like this administration and what it did for america or you don’t and i happen not to. So you can keep saying “your not pro kerry your anti bush” it doesn’t matter what i am, it’s my vote and i have a right to use it and despite what i think of anyones’ opinion i hope everyone will go out and vote on NOV 2, that’s what’s important at this point.

By Angie

October 4, 2004 03:43 PM | Link to this

Someone stated,”If you are truly pro-life and pro-family, perhaps you should think about what bringing unwanted children into the world would do to that child.” Did you know that there are over 2 million couples wanting to adopt right now? Couples that actually WANT the child that someone else doesn’t. The child doesn’t have to DIE!

The same person stated,”I don’t have the right to infringe on the lives of others with my own beliefs.” Should we do away with laws against murder and theft? After all, the BIBLE does say “thou shalt not kill…and thou shalt not steal”-making those issues ‘religious’ and ‘Christian’. We have laws that keep people from infringing upon the rights of other people. That’s why we have laws against murder, rape and theft. We don’t have laws against coloring your hair blue or tatooing 90% of your body because that’s your RIGHT-it doesn’t hurt anyone else. However, abortion ends the life of a seperate and unique individual-ending it’s life in a violent and greusome manner. Taking someone’s life is the ultimate infringement of rights.

Someone else asked this question,”can someone explain to me why liberals are pro-choice yet anti-death penalty while conservatives are pro-life and pro-death penalty? Don’t these folks have it backwards? Doesn’t it make more sense to be pro-choice AND pro-death penalty or pro-life AND anti-death penalty?” The answer from a pro-life point of view: the death penalty is handed down to criminals who committed horrific murders and deserve to be punished for their crimes. An unborn baby has done nothing wrong and certainly nothing to deserve the DEATH sentence. Big difference!!! Even the murderers are given a humane lethal injection when they are put to death. Yet the unborn babies are either: literally torn limb from limb with the head being the last piece removed (in a D&E), have their skin & insides burned with chemicals (saline method), have their brains sucked out (in a D&X), or some other horrible abortion method while still alive and then thrown in in trash or incinerator. Not even a serial killer is treated in such a cruel and inhumane manner. Don’t believe me-check the internet. The way these 1,500,000 babies per year are tortured and killed should break your heart. If you can check the internet and pull up a picture of an aborted baby and look it in the face and still tell me abortion is ok then you haven’t got a heart.

By Noel

October 4, 2004 03:55 PM | Link to this

Cindy,

I thought you were through commenting on my posts? At least you acknowledge that I am ahead in our tete-a-tete.

But, now you’ve gone too far with your continued personal attacks. You called me ignorant and I can live with that considering the source. You called me a busy body because I’ve commented on your posts just as you have mine - whatever.

I’ve done nothing to comment on you personally, only your comments. The only think I said is that if you are a soccer mom then I hope you haven’t poisoned them with your thoughts - nothing personal against them.

But you have the audacity to say that the world is a better place without my children? My children are fine, thank you very much and you know nothing about them and in no way are qualified to make a judgement about them. Now I will make a judgement on you and not just your words, you are disgraceful. Bringing innocent children into your sorry debate on the internet.

By Akeya W.

October 4, 2004 04:05 PM | Link to this

Angie,

Do you know that these couples are most likely waiting for a newborn? Or worse yet, they are going to China, Russia, Bosnia, and other countries to adopt children while children in American foster homes and orphanages wait to be adopted but will never be because they don’t have that “new car smell”? Also, you cannot quote the Bible to someone who may not be of the same religion as yourself.

Before you preach on the evils of abortion, go to an adoption agency and adopt 203 children who are 7 years and older.

It is harder to place children of African descent.

Have you adopted any children today?

What about the children who are in abusive foster homes waiting to be adopted?

Did you think of them, or are you only thinking of round Cherub faces and pink dresses or blue baseball outfits.

You are not pro-family. I imagine you are one of the women standing at the entrances to abortion clinics waving silly little signs, yet doesn’t offer to take in the woman who is pregnant, pay her medical bills, feed the child once he/she is born, promise college tuition to that child, pay for food and housing and keep the family off of food stamps, TANF, and Section 8, teach that woman how to raise a child (not just HAVE the child.) Any intelligent person realizes that having a child and raising it are two different things.
Yes, I realize that there are many families wanting to adopt, but if we care so much about children why are there so many waiting to be adopted? Angie, do you not think that anti-abortion sites and “pregnancy crisis centers” will not doctor what you see and hear to play upon your sensibilites and capitalize on your emotions?

It’s also sad that you would believe everything you see on the Internet, the same Internet people use to buy Latin, Russian, and Asian brides and p*** pumps…..

By cindy

October 4, 2004 04:09 PM | Link to this

You don’t like the post then keep kids out of this conversation. You are ignorant and you made the stupid comment about poisoning kids minds!!!!!!!!! or can you not read what you write. I’m sure your kids are lovely fine children, it’s you with the mental issue!!!!!!!!!

By A Smith

October 4, 2004 04:34 PM | Link to this

DJones, you conveniently let out the part on “To whom much is given, much is expected,â€? or the idea of noblesse oblige?” There was once this notion that the wealty and the educated owed just a bit more back to socity than the less fortunate. I guss that notion is dead. Today, the rich just want all the breaks with none of the responsibility.

The US already has some of the lowest taxes of all the industrialized nations, and you want to lower them even further. Who should have to pay for the services that you enjoy? Do you really beleive it is fair for people making minimum wage to pay the same amount of taxes that someone making over $200k does? I thought Conservatives were supposed to be Compassionate also. Ask your self, WWJD?

By DJones

October 4, 2004 05:10 PM | Link to this

Jason….. Where do I start. Lets take this one at at time. First “Are we safer?”. I think there is some confusion between the statement “are we safer” or “can we be attacked”. I think that we are safer. Can we be attacked. Yes. That will ALWAYS be the case whether Kerry is President or Bush. Can you at least agree to that. There is no such thing as an unattackable country. The reason I think we are safer is because there are things in place that make it more difficult at this time then pre 9/11. Are the screeners at the airport impenetrable? Of course not. They also won’t be under Kerry. No matter what he does, or any other President does, we will never be above getting attacked. I guess that when Kerry gets in office and is soooo polite with the UN (I could have sworn Clinton had a good relationship with the UN and we were still attacked in 93) that the terrosits are just going to put down their guns and never attack us again. Your next point was: “gas prices are up” Are you aware that under Kerry he would like to put an additional .50 gas tax? Please know your candidates before you make a point. When that takes place I want to make sure you’re on the message board “complaining” about gas prices. It’s simply because it’s Bush and that is it.Your next statement “We suffered the first attack on US soil in 50 years under his watch” Where did you get this false statement? Just an FYI the same WTC that was attacked in 2001 was the same one attacked in 1993. Oh, I’m sorry. Only six people died then so please tell their family it was not a big deal. Where was the outcry to retiliate for that attack? Nothing was done then. I didn’t see message boards lighting up at that time. Your next statement: “He probably should have been impeached. He lied to the nation and the world and got away with it.” Now remember, the WMD’s were AGREED upon by the UN. In resolution 1441 Sadaam was supposed to disclose what he did with his weapons of mass destruction. Nothing was disclosed. So the UN that you cherish or you consider so morally on a high ground AGREED that there were weapons. “The U.N. exists to stop countries from invading other’s unjustly, as we did in Iraq.” Don’t forget skimming money off of the oil for food program. Please do just a little research and you will see that the UN is not what is cracked up to be. They appoineted Libya head of human rights.If that’s not comical I don’t know what is.”They weren’t a threat to anyone. They didn’t have WMD.” Now once again you’re disagreeing with your beloved UN. Please be consistent. Either the UN knows what they are talking about or they don’t. Now that we have that cleared up let me tell you where I stand so you don’t make assumptions. I’ve used quotes from your posts that way I’m not saying anything that you didn’t say. I think Bush is a bad president. I know it’s hard for you to understand someone defending also pointing out fallacies at the same time but that is called “non-partisan”. If people would attack both sides I would feel more comfortable but that is not the case. I don’t think liberating Iraq is a good reason to fight. I think our forces our stretched too thin trying to protect everyone else. We shouldn’t have forces anywhere. I also don’t beleive in waiting to be attacked before we can do something. That is why I disagree with having UN approval when they are corrupt themselves. I’ll leave you with one thought….if we would have attacked Afghanistan on 9/10/2001 and the President said it was because we were going to be attacked the next day.. do you really think you would have backed that war? I don’t think so. I think the same people would be posting that we should not go into Afghanistan and it’s for oil and on and on. So either way, you can’t win for losing. So even if we do get good intelligence which probably seems like an oxymoron for our contry now, would we still be able to attack someone first. Or can we only retaliate after we have lost American lives. The governments number one role, lets please not forget, is too protect us. If they could devote all their time to that and stay out of other issues (like abortion, healthcare, government services) I think they would be far more efficient. By the way, most of the other things in your posts I agree with.

By Angie

October 4, 2004 05:27 PM | Link to this

To Akeya: You said, “Do you know that these couples are most likely waiting for a newborn?” Ok, so give the newborns up for adoption instead of killing them.

You said, “you cannot quote the Bible to someone who may not be of the same religion as yourself”. I was trying to show you the correlation between some of our laws and what most religious people believe. To prove that some of our laws DO relate to the issue of morality.

Why should I have to adopt “203 children” before taking a stand against abortion? That’s like me telling you to keep your mouth shut against drunk driving unless you intend to be a designated driver and chauffeur 203 drunks around so they don’t have to drive.

You asked me, “have you adopted any children?” Actually, I plan to adopt several once I get married.

My heart goes out to all children who are hurting or abused. But your mentality that we should just kill the children because they would be abused anyway is ridiculous!

How dare you say I’m not pro-family. Do you know how many years of volunteering I’ve done or how many children I’ve helped? No, you don’t. Then don’t make presumptions. You said something interesting, “Any intelligent person realizes that having a child and raising it are two different things.” I couldn’t agree more! Just because you can’t raise the child doesn’t mean you have to pay to have it killed.

You said, “do you not think that anti-abortion sites and “pregnancy crisis centersâ€? will not doctor what you see and hear to play upon your sensibilites?” Well, it’s pretty hard to doctor photos of babies torn apart and lying in blood. It’s pretty hard to doctor the desciption of the abortion procedures when the abortion clinics describe them the same way-but with less shocking terminology and no mention of the pain the baby feels.

Do I believe everything I see on the internet? No, of course not. But the internet is a useful tool to gather information-from a wide variety of sources. It’s not all comedy central or National Enquirer. Believe it or not there are actually factual websites that provide truthful information. And yes, there are actual abortion photos on then internet taken by clinic workers. And yes, former abortionists have given ample testimony of how the abortions are performed. People are getting out of the abortion industry and telling the truth about what really goes on. Bernard Nathanson is one of them and he was the founder of one of the biggest abortion rights groups before coming to his senses. Maybe you should do your research. But you have a right to your opinion and I’m not trying to attack your comments. I just wanted to tell my side of things. I definitely don’t think I will change your mind on abortion any more than I think anyone will change their mind about Kerry.

It’s just a place to share our opinions. Angie

By Randy Hayes

October 5, 2004 07:10 AM | Link to this

What it really comes down to is a mother’s instinct. Most Amercians were or are liberal thinking at some point in their life. However, some of us mature out of it. A mom instinctively whats what is best for their children, like Diane said the more children her sister gets the more conservative she gets. Kerry is very liberal. Being a liberal at one time, I would have thought look at me, I’m liberal thinking, I’m college educated, I’m intelligent. Notice the I’s, now realizing that it isn’t all about me. It what is best for my family, my country etc. Let’s stay with what is right with America, freedom, faith and family. Those are the aspects that has made this country strong.

By Allan

October 5, 2004 07:20 AM | Link to this

I am glad to hear that there are women who are not for Kerry. I have to say that I agree with Bush. One thing that everyone has to remember is that Clinton dismembered a lot of our military and I have heard the words directly from a family friend who is a military general. Keeping that in mind, it is obvious that to rebuild a military takes time. Because of the cuts in defense promoted by Clinton, it is no wonder why our intelligence is a problem and 9/11 happened. Democrats, including Kerry, have a history of cutting defense spending. I will say that I am not for the eroding of my rights (Homeland Security), but I will ask, “What good are the rights I do have if I am killed by an Islamic extremist?” I agree with the war because Bush is fighting the terrorist over there so that they are not afforded the opportunity to regroup and attack us on our own soil again.

By norman

October 5, 2004 07:23 AM | Link to this

Randy: why so firm about freedom, faith and family? Family is frequently a matter of sexual abuse and other forms of oppression. Freedom is quite subjective, and as for faith, well faith in what? In the fairy tales of organized religion? Come on, stop parrotting rightwing nonsense and think for yourself. You are beginning to sound as intelligent as Milkslop.

By norman

October 5, 2004 07:30 AM | Link to this

Looks like the whole Bush Administration is unraveling. Rumsfeld has just been quoted as saying there was not AlQuaeda connection with Saddam, and Paul Bremer has just commented on the inadequate preparation of the Bushies for the war and occupation of Iraq. Will Cheney tonight repent for his devilish role and come out in favor of Kerry-Edwards? Anything can happen with this Administration from Hell.

Speaking of Hell, I like to think that if the place exists at all it is populated with Republicans and other Fascistoids.

By Annoyed

October 5, 2004 07:52 AM | Link to this

BIG yawn about abortion ladies. Just keep your legs shut and you dont get pregnant or take a damn pill if you cant do that. Why does the government have to meddle in health issues between women and their doctors? If its against god—well cripe on a biscuit—dont get one if thats what you believe, but damn it life is NOT sacred, ya twit. If it was sacred would there be war? Would there be abandoned children without even foster homes to go to? Would there be even homeless? Yeah, sacred enough to be meddled with by holier than me folk. Life is sacred! I am not voting for either of these paid-for-by-special interest maniquins. Ever notice that its NEVER the best person who is nominated, but the schmuck who might win? O yeah, Bush is a brainless waffle but he won, so elect him again. Kerry is a crumbling cookie whose track record is so full of contradictions in voting (and he oddly missed voting because of campaigning, how dedicated to duty is that?) Only reason he gets votes by his own party is to dump Bush. So thats the choice? Two men you dont even want as neighbors? No, there are other candidates who dont pay dues to the same-ol-same-ol but you have to be INDEPENDENT to vote for them and I rarely see Americans acting independent in elections. Mostly its whoever follows whichever party castrated sheep into the polls, and then you complain about it! Ha ha ha life is sacred! Soccer moms are sacred cows and Im ready for bbq!

By Randy Hayes

October 5, 2004 08:07 AM | Link to this

Norman, I do think for myself. There is nothing fairytale about Christianity. The rest of religion I don’t know. What really concerns me is your “built up frustrations” wanting to fight and argue, maybe you need a mate. One of your problems is particial information, particial information is a dangerous thing. God exists, Jesus is the messiah, these are not just things I have “faith” in, these are logical absolutes(read my opinion in last week’s woman to woman) All people like you who don’t belive do is attack with no logic, calling it fairy tales, etc. Weak As luck would have it only a very small percentage of people haven’t “thought it through”, you are one of them!

By Akeya W.

October 5, 2004 08:33 AM | Link to this

Angie-

In my personal opinion I think that the children that are already in foster care should be placed with loving families first. Why should newborns take precedent over children who are waiting and have been waiting for someone to make a difference in their lives?

Surely since abortion is horrible, then you, as a single woman (I assume from your post), should be able to adopt a child. Why wait around for a man that may never come?

Also, yes…it is very easy to doctor things. Are you not paying attention to what goes on around you? Things are doctored, airbrushed and completely changed each day in the media.

I did not in any way purport that children should be killed because they will be abused anyway. I think that was a desperate attempt to denigrate me.

Also, I have worked closely with abortion clinics, anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers and people who have had abortions, doctors who perform abortions,women who have children and have had abortions, women who were relieved and never looked back who’ve had abortions, women who’ve had abortions and are still trying to deal, people completely opposed to abortions and those who straddle the fence. I worked with and talked in depth to these people so that I could get a clear understanding of this issue from all sides.

I’ve never been one to only look at one side of a situation.

In my opinion, I do not think it’s anyone’s right to police and micromanage someone else’s life. That is not the kind of person that I am.

By norman

October 5, 2004 09:01 AM | Link to this

Randy: scholarship over almost four hundred years establishes that the Old Testament is propaganda on behalf of the royal house of Judah, starting in the 8th century. The New Testament does not give us reliable information about Jesus, only Hellenistic romances. The earliest information about Jesus comes from Paul of Tarsus who never met him. Paul has many ideas which are contradictory to orthodox Christian dogma. He believed, for example, that Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual and not physical. In any case, Christianity rests on very little: Jewish superstition, Hellenistic salvationist religiosity, and Roman imperial decision-making. As a Christian you are not a follower of Jesus but of Constantine the Greaty.

Instead of pondering this scholarship you prefer to attack me as weird. I am as weird as Spinoza, Albert Schweitzer, and countless other scholars and leaders such as Thomas Jefferson and probably Abe Lincoln as well.

By Angie

October 5, 2004 09:14 AM | Link to this

First, I don’t see how opposing the death of innocent children could be labeled as trying to “micromanage someone else’s life”. It’s trying to SAVE lives, save children from being inhumanely destroyed and dumped in the garbage.

Yes, life IS precious to those of us that still have values, morals and faith in God. No, it’s NOT precious to eberybody. The people running around killing, raping and stealing don’t think life is sacred. They don’t care about anyone else, don’t have faith in God, and do not place any value on life. Look in the paper at the daily news and you see violence all around you and it’s very scarey and disheartening. But if you would check out what the Bible says you would see that God said all these things would happen in the last days. The world has turned into exactly what God predicted thousands of years ago. People turning against their own families, disrespect for human life, famines, diseases,etc. Why does God allow these things? God gave people free will to make choices-good or evil. The world is becomming more and more evil but the good news is that God will only allow it to go on for so long before intervening. You have a choice whether to choose Him or deny Him and His son Jesus. The choice is YOURS to make. The people that deny Him are destroying other people and our world. The people that believe in Him are trying to stay strong through these perilous times and hold on to their faith-knowing something much better awaits those who believe.

By Hugh Jorgan

October 5, 2004 09:14 AM | Link to this

“Diane’s commentary is so full of lies, but then that’s the only thing the Democrats know how to do. They can never argue factually. They always seem to use passion, but hardly ever use truthful statements. On the other hand, Republicans almost always back their arguments with fact and reason.”

You DUMBASS.

By Vincent

October 5, 2004 09:26 AM | Link to this

Soccer moms, housewives, gladware hostesses… Isn’t that a neat little list? Are there any humans on this planet that are put off by the labeling of people?

The Associated Press reported yesterday a survey conducted after the first debate had one glaring result. Almost 40 % of the humans did not know until the debates that Iraq was not associated with 9/11. It wasn’t until Dumbya was forced to say it, that people had that wake up call.

So, what has this to do with the column? People believe what they are told to believe. Last week, the hometown paper, “The Iconoclast”, of Dumbya endorsed Kerry for President with a long list of FACTUAL information gathered from THE OFFICIAL White House Website. The following morning after that event, Fox News lead story was wondering if Kerry went to a tanning booth. Not only was the endorsement ignored, but more importantly, the reasons.

The entire campaign Dumbya has launched based entirely around “what if’s” should make all of us, not just women, curious. Speculation is just that. Action is verifiable.

So, all you soccer mom’s that wondered last week about Kerry’s new sun tan, feel safer with Dumbya, and have not read about what Bush and his team has done to jeopardize women’s health issues, read any government official website before the election, and then ask yourself if you HAVE BEEN safe, not if you think you will be.

By Angie

October 5, 2004 09:33 AM | Link to this

To the person who said, “The New Testament does not give us reliable information about Jesus…Christianity rests on very little…As a Christian you are not a follower of Jesus but of Constantine the Greaty.”

WOW!!! I don’t know which Bible you read but it certainly doesn’t match what’s written in mine! The New Testament describes Jesus’ life from birth to resurection and details his words and deeds written by eyewitnesses! Christianity rests on belief in Jesus Christ…faith in Him and in God. Something you apparently are unaware of is the Holy Spirit that God sends to everyone who professes their faith in His Son Jesus. The Holy Spirit is something only a believer can fully understand because when you feel it’s presence it changes your life. You have to feel it to be able to fully understand it. It’s a holy presence that guides your life and helps you to understand God’s word. God definitely makes His self known to those that love Him. I personally have witnessed miracles and there is no doubt in my mind or in my soul that there is a God and He has a son named Jesus. As a Christian I am a follower of Jesus Christ and no one else. I don’t see Constantine’s name anywhere in the Bible. My belief in Jesus is a one on one releationship that has spanned over 30 years of getting to know Him. If you don’t believe in God or Jesus that’s certainly your choice to make. But don’t belittle something you obviously know nothing about.

By norman

October 5, 2004 09:46 AM | Link to this

Angie: why do you believe the Bible? It was given to you by a bunch of scribes at the Judaean court of Josiah and by some Hellenistic scribblers, put together by the church of Constantinople and given to Europe by the church of Rome. There is no more reason to believe it than to believe the Koran, the Bhagava Gita, or Alice in Wonderland. Wake up! Why should God if there is a God communicate to you through this means?

By Akeya

October 5, 2004 09:58 AM | Link to this

Hmmmm…

How quickly this turned into a discussion about the Bible.

I’m sorry, what was the debate topic again?

By Angie

October 5, 2004 10:13 AM | Link to this

Norman: the “bunch of scribes…and scribblers” you mentioned were men God chose to record history and prophecy as well as words to live by and an account of Jesus’ life and reserection. Unlike the Koran and other “religious” documents the Bible has never contradicted itself one time-according to numerous biblical scholars. The archeaological evidence of the ancient cities and people have been dug up and matched to the accounts and names given in the Bible. Again, it comes down to belief and faith.

If you go into a bookstore you will find many translations of the Bible as interpreted by different scholars. The one I have is a parallel bible that includes the original Hebrew and Greek text so you can do your own interpretation.

You said, “There is no more reason to believe it than to believe the Koran, the Bhagava Gita, or Alice in Wonderland.” You are free to believe what you want (at least in our country you are). You are certainly not the only one who doesn’t believe the Bible but that doesn’t disprove what the Bible says or who wrote it.

God gave us the ten commandments and certainly He gave us the Bible to guide us and help us to understand what’s to come in the future and to have faith.

Even if I did not have a Bible I would still believe in God because of His presence in my life and our one on one relationship which doesn’t come from the Bible or from going to a church. It’s a personal relationship that an unbeliever can’t understand.

Without faith how does someone make it through this crazy world? Do you honestly believe this is all there is and once you die that’s the end?

By Angie

October 5, 2004 10:16 AM | Link to this

Akeya’s right about something…we should debate Kerry and his lack of appeal to women. We did get way off the subject here. Sorry folks!

By mark wood

October 5, 2004 10:39 AM | Link to this

I may have missed a post that already answered this because I am so amused by the bible debate. But, to the woman who asked why soccer moms are put on this political pedestal, the answer is simple. They vote. Disenfranchised women, as well as men, generally don’t. Right or wrong, in a nation where voter apathy is the norm, that’s the reality of it. Disenfranchised women (and men) will continue to be ignored as long as they believe their votes don’t really matter.

As for you men who throw your hat into the abortion debate, well, get a life. I personally would be horrified if a woman I got pregnant got an abortion. I would tell her this. But the decision is hers. It is her body.

And the people who wrote the bible were not chosen by god. A corrupt Roman dictator, who was no christian, came up with the idea. His minions (flawed humans) were extremely selective in the gospels they chose and manipulated. At his “pagan” command.

By Vincent

October 5, 2004 10:40 AM | Link to this

As actions speak louder than words: Ask yourself if you really feel safe or safer knowing the Bush Administration did not renew the ban on the sale of assault weapons? Isn’t it a bit strange that the Bush administration is currently debating whether or not illegal immigrants should be awarded driver’s licenses? So, in order to make America a safer place, not only is it all right for an illegal immigrant to live here, but possibly can drive around on our roads. This way, they can get to gun shop or store without having to hitchhike, or borrow a car.

Wake up people.

By Akeya

October 5, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this

Vincent-

What are you talking about?

What do illegal immigrants have to do with assault weapons bans?

In my opinion, the ban was lifted because it was ignored. The purpose? NRA supports Bush and fattens his campaign pockets. Do you not think it’s a bit strange that it was lifted so close to the elections?

Once again, Bush trying to gain brownie points…

By Amanda Aycock

October 5, 2004 11:09 AM | Link to this

To me - the question is not why can’t women warm up to Sen. Kerry. To me - the question is: Why aren’t the candidates Howard Dean (Dem.) and Sen. John McCain (Rep.)? Why have the American people (men or women) allowed the two parties to cram down this nasty swill (Kerry and Bush) the two parties are dishing out? Dean and McCain deserved our attention and our consideration. Instead, we stood by and watched as each man’s party tore the two men apart. What the Republican party did to McCain was unforgiveable. What the Democratic party did to Dean was cruel. So what we have is each Party’s designee - not what you and I want. If that is true - what difference does it make? Vote your party preference and quit whining.

By Randy Hayes

October 5, 2004 11:43 AM | Link to this

On the bible being inspired by God and the whole debate on Christianity. It really comes down to two positions. One position is, I don’t believe and I will downplay, make fun of, dispute any facts that are presented to me, whatever it takes. I want to do what I want to do, when I want to do it and not answer to a Creator. Unfortunately, I can’t offer any proof of this first position. Or, the second position, for those of us who have been touched by Jesus, those of us who have had a life-changing experience, we know that a creator exists without a doubt and of his love, we accept him and although we are not perfect, we try to do better! I can hit you with absolute facts on the bible being authentic, but that won’t get you into heaven. So I’ll save time and effort. I will pray for you and hope one day you know what me and 2 billion other people know. That God can change your life and it’s great being on this side.

By norman

October 5, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this

Religion is simply wishful thinking and self-delusion. Nuff said.

By mark wood

October 5, 2004 12:05 PM | Link to this

What is authentic?

Historical fact, which shows the bible was sanctioned by a corrupt, politically motivated Roman dictator who worshipped the sun, among other things?

Or faith?

As a human with the ability for reason (a chemical reaction in my biologically advanced brain due to evolution), I go with the former.

Myth, however, is very entertaining to read.

By Randy Hayes

October 5, 2004 12:20 PM | Link to this

Norman and Mr. Wood, I’m sorry but I’m going to have to give both of you a “F” on your research. Christianity has been proven, provided you obtained all the information that is out there. For example, Constantine had no knowledge of the Dead Sea Schrolls. These were found in 1947 and predated Jesus’ birth. They showed that all aspects of Jesus’ life, which would make him the messiah were written before his birth. Jesus fulfilled all 456. Second, where’s the body? Although, thousands of researchers have looked for it, it has not been found in 2000 years. Third, 11 of the 12 disciples died horrible deaths(Paul replacing Judas) all any had to do was say Jesus was not the messiah and they would be spared. None did! Fourth, Jesus talking to between 500-600 people after he rose from the grave. I’ve got many more. What proof do you have?

By Angie

October 5, 2004 12:48 PM | Link to this

Randy-thank you for joining this discussion. I was wondering where all the Christians were on here. God can change your life and let himself be known to you. I’m also glad to be on this side. (Sure beats the alternative!) Angie

By norman

October 5, 2004 12:49 PM | Link to this

Randy: you have been listening to too many redneck preachers and reading their flawed books. I have read the Dead Sea Scrolls; they contain parts of the Old Testament and many intertestimental apocalyptic books — they say nothing about Jesus in any form. Christians have been perusing them for fifty five years to find something about Jesus — there is nothing. Christianity rests on faith alone. Faith is supported by nothing but wishful thinking. I could have faith that I am green cheese and that would be no more stupid than the idea that a god sent his half-human son to be killed to save people by his blood. Bloody nonsense.

By Hugh Jorgan

October 5, 2004 01:12 PM | Link to this

What was is the Marquis de Sade said about God?

“He strung up his only son like a side of veal. I shudder to think what he’d do to me.”

That being said…..

I know plenty of soccer moms who think Kerry is just fine and are turned off by the Elmer Fudd image of Bush. M’wife’s one of ‘em.

By mark wood

October 5, 2004 01:12 PM | Link to this

Mr. Hayes (Or can I call you Randy?) I have historical fact. Recorded history. Not heresay.

Constantine did not need the dead sea scrolls for his purposes, my friend. He wanted to remain in power, plain and simple. The followers of Christ, the man, not the messiah, were growing. He did the expedient thing.

And if the dead sea scrolls are so convincing as to Christ’s deity, why did the Catholic denomination of your very divided church of 2 billion(?) (why so many denominations?) try so desperately to suppress and deny their existence? Because he was shown as a mortal man. An exceptional man, yes. But a mortal man.

As for finding a body two thousand years after the fact, use your common sense. A needle in an immense haystack.

The elven disciples. Loyal. Admirably so. But no different than the eighteen year old kid from a few doors down who eagerly dies for his flag and country.

As far as Christ addressing hundreds of faithful (And I apologize here because I can’t help but be condescending), have you ever seen the movie about Woodstock (the music festival of hippies)? I think a few of those revelers insisted they saw Christ too. Maybe they did.

By mark wood

October 5, 2004 01:36 PM | Link to this

A quick apology to Norman. Jesus is not named in the scrolls. You’re right. A wise teacher(s) is.

By Lyrazel

October 5, 2004 01:39 PM | Link to this

Thanks to the posters who are keeping this blog on topic. I too possibly would have voted for McCain and I have never voted for a republican. His VOTING record stands strong, and I feel he could have been as good of a leader through 9/11. I believe the difference is his cabinet members would thouroughly have thought out this Iraq war before sending troops. I was not bent toward Kerry and feel that the democratic party forced this man at the voters as PARTY candidate while overlooking much more interesting and qualified candidates. I dont feel either party either party serves voters because candidates serve lobbyists and special interest groups and spend 72% of their time fundraising for re-election. My anger against Bush is how easily national parks came open to oil and mineral exploration without even a cough of conscience. Bush sold Medicare and SSI upriver by allowing insurance companies and drug companies to dictate government policy. Bush appointed leaders of homeland security gives us duct tape and plastic sheeting solutions but allows for assault weapons to be legal; has yet to increase the amount of police and fire departments needed to respond to heightened terrorism threats in this country while our natl. guard and military are overseas.

I feel a leader cannot govern a country and only think of NOW! It means thinking about the consequences of actions taken by the administration. So far the Bush legacy will leave nothing for future generations to look forward to…or back on…and that may be why I loathe Kerry. He has no vision as to how a country should progress—only that he has medals on his chest; a trump card even few baby boomers might still care about. I feel Kerry p** away his opportunity to win the election by focusing his attention on Viet Nam and if Bush served. Its over, get over it Kerry!

Independent candidates have yet to be bought but are yet to be proven. A third party would be a very good counter effect to business as usual. They would be more responsive to their constituants and that is leadership of the people, by the people, for the people—not for the party. So when the party says Vote for me to dismount Bush—I say— Is that the best you can do?—no thank you. I will vote for a candidate without a snowflakes chance in hell to win this election but I wont swallow my values for your candidates sound bites. My vote will count against BOTH of them and if more people had the courage to vote against the system there could be change in America.

By Angie

October 5, 2004 01:49 PM | Link to this

To the lost soul who said, “I could have faith that I am green cheese and that would be no more stupid than the idea that a god sent his half-human son to be killed to save people by his blood. Bloody nonsense.”… I really feel sorry for what you will have to go through one day. One day every eye will see Him and every knee will bow before the King of Kings Jesus Christ. You will see who the “stupid” (to quote you) one is as well as who was full of nonsense.

Your remark about “Woodstock…a few of those revelers insisted they saw Christ too” was amusing. Your words show just how you feel about Jesus. If you refuse to turn to Him I can assure you that one day He will probably feel the exact same way about you. One day there will be no second chances-it will be too late.

You probably believe in evolution and that we started out as monkeys. Do you also believe in little green aliens from Mars? That’s what most evolutionists I’ve met believe in. They’d rather believe in aliens from outer space and that we were once swinging from trees & eating bananas than believe in Jesus.

By Akeya W.

October 5, 2004 02:00 PM | Link to this

Oh my god… What are you people talking about?

Please stick to the topic at hand.

If you all would like to discuss the bible, perhaps you should e-mail Shaunti or Diane and suggest having a forum on religion.

Right now, I would like to hear more about people’s thoughts about the election and the candidates.

Also, if people keep hearing that Kerry was chosen just to get rid of Bush, does that not tell just how badly some view Bush? That ANYONE should replace him?

By Hugh Jorgan

October 5, 2004 02:06 PM | Link to this

Angie, you are getting out of hand. Being Christian doesn’t give you the right to hand down judgement on who will and won’t go to hell. Only God can do that.

I think it’s also said by our prophet Jesus (that’s who I believe he his) that it’s a greater sin to go about thinking you’re going to go to Heaven and others won’t. You worry about your soul and let God worry about ours.

As for this little gem, “If you refuse to turn to Him I can assure you that one day He will probably feel the exact same way about you. One day there will be no second chances-it will be too late.” Funny how that goes against Jesus’ teachings, of unconditional love. No “Son of God” would ever turn his back on anyone.

Going to hell, via Christian standards, is dying and not knowing where to bring your soul, ie heaven with God and Jesus. It’s living in eternity without the love and presence of God. It’s not God shutting the door on you. He leaves it open and you have to find it.

Jesus’ teachings are just one way, certainly not the only.

Stop judging others. you’re wasting your time.

By Randy Hayes

October 5, 2004 02:07 PM | Link to this

About two years ago, in the faith and values section of the AJC there was some debate on the existance of God and of Jesus being the messiah. A Christian man offered $100,000 to anyone who would debate him on the subject and use a panel of unbias people, win that debate. No one took him up on that debate. If you all had any proof someone would have taken him up on his challenge! The real key here is not for me to win this argument. But you guys owe it to yourself to have a open mind, read books pro and con on Christianity and let the evidence lead you to the truth. Eternity is a very long time. Maybe you have read some books and probably some influence in your life has influenced you in this(wrong) direction, but don’t be afraid, like Stephen Baldwin who just became a Christian 2 years ago said, you will still be you, after you become a Christian. I wish you the best.

By mark wood

October 5, 2004 02:07 PM | Link to this

If he will judge me for a comment like that, he’s as shallow as you are. I want no part of him, Angie.

And I must say, as amusing as this has been, seeing the “christians” who judge others even though their faith condemns it, Lyrazel is right. Not about wasting your vote on a candidate with no chance to win, just to make a point no one will remember. But about voting.

Soccer moms. Do what you will.

You ladies who feel disenfranchised, be louder. You can make a difference if you only make the effort. And we will all may be better for it.

By Amanda

October 5, 2004 02:19 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel: Look at the posts from people before and after us. It is no small wonder that Bush and Kerry (two vapid poor excuses of politicians) are their Party’s representatives. These two are reflections of their constituency. No focus on the issues that matter to all of us - just fractured bickering about self-interests.
Who would have thought this “blog” would have degenerated to the authenticity - and relevance - of the Dead Sea Scrolls….I hope no one trusts these people with children and small animals.

By Anequa

October 5, 2004 02:23 PM | Link to this

As a baseball/PTA/Band mom (you get the picture) I’m not happy with either candidate. I think Bush is a lair and Kerry is weak. Neither candidate lives in the real world. I want to hear their plans for education, health insurance and the ecomomy. Every election gets worst and worst. No one will talk about the issues, everyone wants to just bad mouth the either one. I for one am sick of it.

By mark wood

October 5, 2004 02:39 PM | Link to this

Ah, Amanda.

You will probably shudder to know, you’re a woman after my own heart.

I take “moralists” as seriously as I take Buggs Bunny. They are, at best, an amusing distraction.

Kerry and Bush are pathetic candidates. We would be better off this time picking our President with a random lottery.

Whining, however, does no good. Cynicism helps no one. Accomplishes nothing productive. If you can’t manage a sense of humor, turn off your radio. Don’t watch television.

I appreciate the fact you have passsion. More (Most) Americans should feel the same way.

Anger and sarcasm, however, are counterproductive, at best. Usually, they are counter productive. They undermine the very goal you want to achieve, regardless of your passion to do so.

And, for what it is worth, I have two kids, (not my own) who know I am sincere and think the world of me because I am absolutely, no holds barred, honest with them. They know I don’t pretend to be something I am not. They know I’m not self ritghteous.

If you had kids, you might uinderstand you can’t fool them.

By Angie

October 5, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this

In response to my critics who said: “Being Christian doesn’t give you the right to hand down judgement on who will and won’t go to hell. Only God can do that.” I never said anyone on this forum was going to hell. If that’s what you thought I am truly sorry. The Bible (which I personally believe) says that one day it WILL be too late to turn to God after all the chances He gave you. But at least you just admitted there IS a God.

You said, “Going to hell (is) not God shutting the door on you. He leaves it open and you have to find it.” According to the Bible not all people will be going to heaven. That’s what the Bible says and it’s what I believe. You don’t have to believe it. I didn’t make that determination-God did. I am not the one condemming anyone to hell-that’s ridiculous. I just wanted everyone to understand that one day it WILL be too late! Don’t believe me? That’s your choice of course.

You said, “Jesus’ teachings are just one way, certainly not the only.” That’s not what Jesus taught when He said, ” I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me.”

I am sorry if you thought I was judging you. I was trying to comment after if was said/implied by several people that Jesus’ dying on the cross was stupid and that the idea of God having a son was ridiculous and crazy. When someone attacks my Lord and Saviour it does make me angry-right or wrong. I felt like I had to come to His defense. That was unnecessary because He doesn’t need me to defend Him.

You said, “If he will judge me for a comment like that, he’s as shallow as you are. I want no part of him, Angie.” I never said He would judge you for a COMMENT you made. But if you turn away from Him and deny His existence and His son then what do you think His eventual response will be?

It offends me when I hear you belittle and mock God and Jesus. I reacted out of anger. Was that Christian-probably not. Was that human-definitely. Only one person to ever walk the face of this earth was perfect-Jesus Christ. I never said I was perfect so don’t judge me either. I was only trying to explain the Bible and Jesus-just as you were trying to explain why you don’t believe in Him.

I am sorry if my words were taken the wrong way. I have no right to judge-but I do have a right to explain my beliefs (just as you do.)

By Angie

October 5, 2004 02:59 PM | Link to this

Back to the topic at hand…the presidential election. Why do you think so much is said about Kerry’s tanning preference and his Botox injections. What difference does that stuff make??? Looks has nothing to do with running a country. Do you think Kerry is a strong candidate? I keep hearing he has a plan for this and a plan for that but I’ve yet to hear any of these “plans”. Anyone know what they actually are? Thanks.

By Randy Hayes

October 5, 2004 03:21 PM | Link to this

Kerry only knows what his briefings say. Bush is actually in the seat of knowledge, he has made the decisions before, he knows where the USA stands really. He knows where the other countries stand. The only one who can know these things are the person in the “hot seat”. That is Bush. Voting for Kerry would be like voting a new person into the job you do. They are not going to know the actual situation. Inexperienced and dangerous!

By Akeya W.

October 5, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this

All previous presidents were inexperienced the first time that they were elected into office.

The only way to get experienced is to actually be enlisted into whatever work you do.

Bush was inexperienced when he began.

What’s your point, Randy?

One has to be trained in a new job. We don’t just go into our new jobs knowing what to do unless we have done the exact same work somewhere else, before…

By Angie

October 5, 2004 03:56 PM | Link to this

Randy, I agree with you! With the current terrorism threats (since 9/11) we do not need to make a change and have a new guy trying to learn the ropes. We need experience in office right now. We can’t afford the luxury of training a new president right now. I believe that would be a big mistake. It would be too large a gamble with all of our futures.

By Akeya W.

October 5, 2004 04:04 PM | Link to this

“rolling eyes”

Enough with the Bush sentiments… What experience does he have that can be perceived as positive?

We haven’t won anything and we’ve only gained an increase in violence.

The last thing that we need are more enemies. It appears to me that Mr. Bush’s approval ratings went up, but our nation’s approval rating with other countries has gone down.

We need the alliances of other countries.

No man (or nation) is an island. We cannot stand alone against all of the forces of “terrorism” and evil we face.

What is wrong with you people? Do you think that America is the only country with military power and weapons?

“we need to show other countries that we will not stand down”

This is not an elementary school yard fight.

By Angie

October 5, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this

Ok, no mention of Bush…What attributes does John Kerry have that will help keep America safe and deter terrorism? He does not appear to be a very strong candidate.

Again, what are his “plans”. Still haven’t heard what they are-just that he has them. I would like to hear what he plans to do as far as terrorism is concerned and what he will do in Iraq. Unless I heard wrong, hasn’t he said he would have gone to war in Iraq but he would have done it “differently” and would have waged a more “sensitive” war? What does that mean? I’m not being sarcastic-I REALLY want to know. Thanks!

By Akeya W.

October 5, 2004 04:56 PM | Link to this

If you want information try johnkerry.com.

By norman

October 5, 2004 04:59 PM | Link to this

People want to talk about religion regardless of the topic. There is no fool like a religious fool. No fool like a Christian fool.

By Randy Hayes

October 6, 2004 07:12 AM | Link to this

Norman, Thank you for your last response. I always know I have won a discussion or debate(whatever you want to call this), when they have nothing left but to belittle and start name calling. You were not much of an opponent. Very Weak! However, the subject you chose to defend, is not now, nor has ever been, one someone could win with(to much evidence on the side of truth). So losing this discussion, is not entirely your fault. If all you guys have to defend your position, is what you have said, give it up. The truth is to important. I’m sure you will respond to this in some petty way, so go ahead, I have business to attend to and will not respond. Have a great day.

By Lyrazel

October 6, 2004 08:27 AM | Link to this

If Jesus was running in this election he would not be elected. He would be far too liberal, far too jewish and the platform would bring higher taxes.

By Akeya W.

October 6, 2004 08:58 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel- that was funny, if not a bit sacrilegious! :)

By Angie

October 6, 2004 09:03 AM | Link to this

That’s too funny!!! Now you’re going to tell me Jesus would support the liberal ideas such as the right to kill babies via abortion and the right for a woman to marry another woman, etc…??? Does “thou shalt not kill” ring a bell. What about how Sodom & Gommorah turned out? Yes, Jesus loves everybody and will forgive you if you ask Him. But there is still such a thing as right and wrong-namely sin.

But, hey, can we discuss Kerry since HE’S the one running for office? Or are we going to have another day of Bible bashing and belittling Christians?

How many women think Kerry will best provide for a safe future for their children?

By norman

October 6, 2004 09:19 AM | Link to this

To change the subject: did you see the vice=prez debate? As I looked at Cheney I saw the face of evil.

If there were a devil, Cheney would be it.

By Angie

October 6, 2004 09:46 AM | Link to this

LOL!!! Did any of you guys ever think of being full-time comedians? Too funny…

By mark wood

October 6, 2004 10:13 AM | Link to this

After offending Angie and others, I feel guilty even bringing this mundane question up, but…

How many of you even have a clue as to what republicanism (not the political party) is?

By Akeya W.

October 6, 2004 10:31 AM | Link to this

A republic, from what I understand, is a government headed by a president with elected officials exercising power.

A democracy, from what I understand, is a government by the people with elected representatives.
Democracy is more guided toward equality of treatment and equality of rights for the people.

What’s your definition of republicanism, Mark?

By mark wood

October 6, 2004 10:37 AM | Link to this

I mean, you do know we live in a republic, not a democracy.

By norman

October 6, 2004 10:40 AM | Link to this

Let’s stop with the ‘what would Jesus do.’ He wouldn’t!

By Akeya W.

October 6, 2004 10:53 AM | Link to this

Actually, we live in a mixture of both a republic and a democracy. We elect a president, as in done in a republic, but we also elect representatives that evercise power, as in a democracy.

By ed

October 6, 2004 11:21 AM | Link to this

‘republic’ derives from respublica, thing of the people. the distinguishing characteristic of any republic is that its supreme power rests in the electorate. i can imagine nations that ‘vote’ and that have a president but are, in fact, dictatorships.

By Akeya

October 6, 2004 11:30 AM | Link to this

Hmmm…interesting…

By RS

October 6, 2004 12:08 PM | Link to this

Do any of you “Christians” know, or care, that your arrogance is extremely offensive to those of us who are non-Christian? Not that it’s any of your business, but I try to live my life in a Godly manner & yes I do believe in God, but I am (gasp! horror!) Jewish. However, apparently you pack of ignorant, Neo-Nazi bigots have issues with people like me. Well, what do you think Jesus was?? And how do you think He’d feel about your hatred & intolerance? Duh…

By mark wood

October 6, 2004 12:44 PM | Link to this

Jesus was a Jewish carpenter.

But I still have no correct answer about republicanism (vs. democracy) (Did no one pay attention in their social studies classes?) And, yes. It makes a difference in this debate.

By Akeya

October 6, 2004 12:54 PM | Link to this

Perhaps it depends on for what definition you’re looking…

By mark wood

October 6, 2004 01:08 PM | Link to this

The definition that does not simply suit the average American’s needs and wants. The UNIVERSAL definition that is accepted everywhere. (Except, apparently, on this website)

By Lyrazel

October 6, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

Thought the Vice Presidential debates was a contest between Brittany Spears and Marlyn Manson as far as content went…lots of wind and howling; lacking substance, hard to stomach.

By Randy

October 7, 2004 07:07 AM | Link to this

Quoting from Dan Brown’s book? Norman and Mark shame on you guys(talking about the roman dictator, on the bible). Then having the nerve to call it fact. Mr. Brown’s book says clearly it is “fiction”. Confusious say: he who read from “fiction” book, never find out the truth. Weak!

By Phil H.

October 7, 2004 07:15 AM | Link to this

There is one chief reason that many woman, indeed many men as well as women are confused. It’s because Mr. Bush will stop at nothing to win this election. That includes lying. Just last night, he ran a campaign ad accusing Mr. Kerry of flipflopping and he did it in a most insideous way: he took some statements made by Mr. Kerry and presented them out of order of their occurance and without any reference to context. It is hard to respect someone who is so “ethically challenged”. It is sad that Mr. Bush cannot run a “faith-based” campaign and criticize Mr. Kerry fairly. It seems Mr. Bush does not believe enough in his viewpoints to run on them. He believes more in distorting Mr. Kerry’s statements.

By norman

October 7, 2004 07:37 AM | Link to this

Randy: I have not quoted from Dan Brown’s ridiculous novel. I have referred to what all historians of the ancient world know: Christianity as we know it for 1700 years was forged under the watchful eye of Constantine. Read the book by James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword.

You Christers will stop at nothing to support your ridiculous beliefs — not even hesitating to distort the real Jesus of Nazareth.

Bush pretends to be a Christian too and hasn’t the foggiest idea who or what Jesus was.

By Randy

October 7, 2004 09:05 AM | Link to this

Norman, Christianity to someone who has not had the life changing experience that I have had, along with millions of other people, I can see where it would seem ridiculous. I know how you feel, I felt the same way. However, once you have this change(life-changing experience). Your eyes are opened, you realize that God is very real, that this fills the void in your soul and nothing else can, not alcohol, not drugs, sex etc. Like the author of Men are from Mars, Women from Venus, says. We have 10 voids in our being, all need to be filled, that we knew God before we were born and we must find him in this life to be completely whole. I don’t have discussions like this for my benefit, I’m very sure of what I know to be true. But I am a eternal optomist and probably foolish enough to think that what I write here will touch someone and they will have the same life changing experience that I have had. If you have not had that expericence, it’s going to be hard for you to understand. How does one understand? I guess you have to be open to the possibility. What Constantine did with a religion that was already 400 years old(Christianity) and began some 4000 years before that(Jewish) is really unimportant. What is important is to bond with the creator of this universe. God Bless!

By Gil Gibson

October 7, 2004 09:09 AM | Link to this

Why do so many women think you are wrong, Diane?

Very simple: you are.

By Phil H.

October 7, 2004 09:45 AM | Link to this

Akeya W wrote: A democracy, from what I understand, is a government by the people with elected representatives. Democracy is more guided toward equality of treatment and equality of rights for the people.

With regard to a democracy and a republic, the former is a structure where issues are decided directly by a vote of the electorate in contrast to a republic where elected representatives vote the interests of the majority that elected them. Neither one is necessarily “more guided toward equality of treatment” etc.

ANGIE WROTE: Again, what are his “plans�. Still haven’t heard what they are-just that he has them. I would like to hear what he plans to do as far as terrorism is concerned and what he will do in Iraq. Unless I heard wrong, hasn’t he said he would have gone to war in Iraq but he would have done it “differently� and would have waged a more “sensitive� war? What does that mean? I’m not being sarcastic-I REALLY want to know. Thanks!

Here’s my take: On the home front, Mr. Kerry plans to close the gaps in our inspections of incoming freight, 95% of which is not now checked. Chemical plants that obtained favors from the Bush administration in the form of reduced security requirements would be required to upgrade security. See the following links: 1) http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/nationalsecurity/chemical.html, 2) http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/nationalsecurity/weapons.html

As far as Iraq goes, it was the wrong war and at the wrong time. No one, outside the administration, is claiming that there was any link with bin Laden nor was there any credible nuclear, biological, or chemical program in existance. This conclusion was taken from the report of Mr. Bush’s appointed investigator (Charles Duelfer): http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0904/07wmd.html. Nor was this conclusion only a recent discovery. Many people voiced considerable doubt about Hussein’s capabilities and it is one reason, most of Europe is not involved in Iraq. Without an offensive capacity, Hussein could have been left withering on the vine, choked slowly but surely by UN sanctions, until we had run bin Laden to ground and were ready to go into Iraq with the necessary resources to win both the war and the peace.

Mr. Kerry’s “more sensitive” war means that leaders in other countries and especially Arab leaders in the area would play a more important role in rebuilding Iraq. Too often, the Bush administration has only given lip service to this important consideration.

By Akeya

October 7, 2004 10:14 AM | Link to this

In escense, Phil, however it goes we have someone else deciding the “good” of the people?

By William

October 7, 2004 10:51 AM | Link to this

Well looking at Kerry’s past 20 year record, when he bothered to show up for a vote he voted wrong. Edwards has never written any bills or bothered to show up for any others. FLUSH THE JOHNS,THEY ARE FULL OF CR_P.

By Barbara Toohey

October 7, 2004 12:01 PM | Link to this

Barbara Toohey
5623 Matilija Ave. Van Nuys, CA 91401 Phone: (818) 989-0887 Fax: (818) 786-7359 e-mail: prana2@earthlink.net

Abigail Bartlet � Teresa Heinz Kerry: Parallel Lives? By Barbara Toohey

As the election campaigns shift into high gear, the wives of the candidates assume an ever greater role. In popularity polls Laura Bush always comes out ahead of Teresa (Laura 53% favorable vs. Teresa’s 27%.) But I suspect that they’ve been asking the wrong people. There are 18 million who would give Teresa a rousing pro vote on any poll . These are the viewers of The West Wing on which the first lady, played by Stockard Channing, rapidly became so popular that what started out as a minor character, after the first seasons became more major because the viewers love her. And why do they love her? Because she’s strong, interesting, independent, confident, controversial, free-spirited and even sexy. And guess what. So is Teresa. In fact, it turns out Abby and Teresa are sisters under the campaign buttons. For example: Both are extremely intelligent and well-educated. Abby graduated from Radcliffe College and received her medical degree from Harvard. (She probably also did some undergraduate work in England since she married Bartlet when he was attending the London School of Economics.) She is licensed in thoracic surgery and internal medicine, is adjunct professor of thoracic surgery at Harvard Medical School and is on the staff of both Boston Mercy Hospital and Columbia. Teresa was born and grew up in Mozambique where her father was a doctor. She often served as her father’s nurse when he saw patients in the bush. He wanted her to become a doctor and she seriously considered it but was afraid she would never marry and have children if she did. (Now she thinks she could have handled both.) She still has a great interest in medicine. In fact it was she�not the doctors� who monitored Kerry’s prostate-specific antigen test results and diagnosed the problem, possibly saving his life. She graduated from the University of Witwatersan in South Africa and went on to the University of Geneva where she attended the Interpreter’s School and not incidentally met her first husband the late Senator John Heinz. As her son said when he introduced her at the Democratic Convention “and she speaks�holding up his palm-open hand�five languages. She is a tough head of the 1.3 billion dollar Heinz Family Endowments working six days a week on projects protecting the environment, children, the rights of women, human rights, reducing the cost of prescription drugs, supporting the arts, and helping women achieve financial/economic security. The whipped cream on her public service sundae is that she has 10 honorary degrees, an Albert Schweitzer Gold Medal for humanitarianism, and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Along with their active professional lives, both women are loving and conscientious mothers of three children. Abigail all girls; Teresa all boys. Plus for good measure there are a few grandchildren (Theresa one, Abby two.) Each is outspoken�some might say to a fault. When Abigail was asked by an aide if her husband was going to be ready for the campaign, her terse reply was “You bet your a* he will.� Teresa said her famous “Shove it� to a reporter who deliberately misquoted her. (She considers swearing a tension reliever.) Both are devout Catholics. They even have a strong physical resemblance to each other. They are about the same size, dress in a similar semi-tailored fashion, but mainly it’s gotta be the hair. Neither has succumbed to the hair styles of the day, favoring what has been described as “a 1980’s hairdo with its waves and fullnesses.� Teresa’s is a tad more wavy and full and tousled than Abby’s but then she doesn’t have the operating room regulations to contend with. They are both attractive in the extreme. Stockard Channing in her Abby role has been described as “A great actress and a fine-looking older woman.� Writer Christopher Buckley says of Teresa “At 65 she’s utterly sultry.� How are things with their husbands? Perfectly fine, although neither wife is much for public displays of affection whether of the cloyingly coy kind or the more robust Al and Tipper variety. Both staunchly support their husbands but neither hesitates to get in his face and deliver a reality check when needed. Theresa has been known to tap on her husband’s arm in mid speech to correct him. But friends of the Kerrys remark on the intense bond between them, not to mention the sexual chemistry. They try to be together several nights a week and to have one weekend a month for the two of them to do nothing together.� He says, “I love her the way she is � and “Teresa gives me a sense of confidence about relationships .� As for President Bartlet and Abby, when they’re apart they talk on the phone three times a day and he says, “I miss her very much.� In one episode when there was a crisis and he chided her for rushing back to Washington against his wishes, she said, “How could I have stayed in New Hampshire tomorrow, Jed. We’ve faced everything else together, we’ll face this. � Even so the husbands recognize their wives are often challenging to deal with. When Bartlet was lying in the hospital after a gunshot wound, and he heard Abby was on her way, he said to an aide, “Tell her not to frighten the doctors.� Kerry has been quoted as saying, “Teresa is pretty high maintenance.� And “being married to her might call for some fortitude,� Abigail doesn’t have to worry about her First Lady job (not that she would worry). Teresa is still out on the hustings, but from all reports she’s a big hit with a demographic that both parties are thirsting after: the 22 million unmarried women who didn’t vote in the last election, Married career women also have a natural affinity for her just as they have for Abbey. Elizabeth Edwards, when she and Teresa were appearing together on a TV interview, was asked about John Kerry’s supposed lack of charisma. Her immediate reply was, “Well, he had enough charisma to get this incredible woman to marry him, so he can't be completely out of charisma," Research suggests that “women with advanced degrees have become one of the Democratic Party’s most reliable voting blocs,� It goes without saying that Teresa will only solidify that bloc. When she was asked what she could contribute as First Lady, she replied, “Age and wisdom.� She went on to say that one of her goals is “to make women not afraid of their age.� That alone should cause a significant bump in her female popularity polls. But what of men? How do they feel about Teresa? Well, it depends on the individual man. A man who can appreciate and relate to a woman who is as strong and confident and capable as he is would be immediately attracted to a woman like Teresa just as he is attracted to her TV alter ego. But if he requires a woman who stands silently beside her man fondly gazing at him “with a sheep’s eye and a lickerish tooth,� if he’s�dare I say it�something of “a girlie man, � then she is definitely not the candidate’s consort for him. It will be fascinating to see how it all plays out, but despite what the polls are saying at the moment, I have a feeling that the outcome will be a big surprise. and I suspect that one of the hands pulling the rabbit out of the electoral hat will belong to Teresa.

The End

By norman

October 7, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this

The candidates wives are not running but looking at them is instructive. Heinz-Kerry is intelligent, worldly, cultured, and strong. Bushie is a Methodist librarian right out of The Music Man — still needs a man who is not a con artist. Heinz-Kerry is someone to admire. Bushie is a product of small-town southwestern American life — petty, puritanical, dumbly pious, and without anything more than a cookie to offer. Which would you rather spend time on a desert island with? And a desert island might be a good metaphor for what the Bushies are doing to America.

By Zack

October 7, 2004 01:35 PM | Link to this

Angie:

Your truthful comments inspire nonsensical comments from those who wish they disagreed. As you see, people get quite defensive and become offensive when they hear what makes them feel uneasy. Please continue with your statements, and disregard their ill tempers. Norman’s comments against the Bible deserve no response. These comments are typical of someone who has very serious issues.

By Lyrazel

October 7, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

We are not electing wives and certainly to compare them to actresses playing roles for television is as ludicrous as cookie recepies. I would focus on who the candidates cabinet would be. Wish we knew who Kerry would be putting into authority—dont give a rudy buffalo who their pelvic affiliates are.

By norman

October 7, 2004 04:10 PM | Link to this

Zack: if you believe the Bible is anything more than a collection of poems, stories, delusions, and exhortations with no connection with any existing real god, then you are truly foolish.

Dissent from Christian nonsense makes believers awfully nervous. I guess their belief is so shallow that they need people to agree with them, need them desperately.

By Akeya W.

October 7, 2004 04:25 PM | Link to this

Can we stay on the topic?

Are there any other women out there that are for/against Kerry? If so, please give specific reason why you are or are not for him…

By norman

October 8, 2004 07:43 AM | Link to this

Overheard on the street: “Hey, are you coming to tonight’s Bush rally?” “Sorry, my blackshirt is being washed.”

By Randy

October 8, 2004 08:05 AM | Link to this

Norman, With all due respect, don’t you think you are the one being foolish. Let me explain. Let’s look at this from a logical standpoint. First, Christians live 7 years longer, than those that are not Christian in the USA. Why, because the are fulfilled, they are complete. Second, look at all the possibilities one has at death. My worse case scenerio is your best. If I’m wrong, I become dust, I cease to exist, when people I know all die, for all intent and purpose, no memory or anything of me exist. This is your best case scenerio. My best case scenerio, I go to heaven for eternity to be with Jesus. You say, where is heaven, it’s not on this dimension for sure. But I know more about heaven now, than I knew about this world before I came into it. So I have a very great upside. Your downside if you don’t accept Jesus as your lord and savior is not appealing, I sure you don’t believe in it, however, you have a eternal soul and it has to go somewhere, to me hell would be separation from the Creator. A complete void, a place where you never have a moment of peace. What would someone pay for the possibility to get to go to heaven. Everything they have, but it is a free gift. One other point, when someone tells me they are a agnostic or a buddist or whatever. I don’t call them foolish, it really creats no response or passion in me. I go OK. If a creator doesn’t exist why do you have the response you have, toward Christians. Then you offer no proof. It’s a passionate response on something you think doesn’t exist? A human being doesn’t respond to something that doesn’t exist unless down deep they feel that it does exist and needs to fight it off. Think about it. Your position is a lose/lose situation.

By norman

October 8, 2004 09:59 AM | Link to this

Randy: living a lie is living a lie. My passion about Christians is not because I worry there may be a God. It is because I am flabbergasted that so many people for so many centuries have been alienated from themselves by superstitious belief without any rational foundation whatsoever.

By Zack

October 8, 2004 10:06 AM | Link to this

I would like to think the sacreligious posts made by Hugh Jorgan and Norman Ravitch won’t be made in the future. (If they were attacking any other religion, their posts would be considered politically incorrect. Of course, this IS the devil’s world, which is why Christians are the ones receiving persecution.) The Bible was written by eyewitnesses of Jesus, and it is 100% consistent. People say the Bible is “too hard” to live by. If God were to tolerate one sin, He would not be perfect but instead an accomplice to evil. Think about it. Reason and wisdom support the Bible in full. Are you really willing to throw away your soul just because you can’t see God? Don’t let the lies of some sociology professor poison your mind. Seek the truth.

By norman

October 8, 2004 10:11 AM | Link to this

No respectable biblical scholar holds that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses of Jesus. And the earliest New Testament writings are by Paul of Tarsus who never met Jesus. His knowledge of Jesus were based on his own delusions.

Zack seems to think that if he calls people he disagrees with “sacrilegious” they will crouch in fear and trembling. Sacrilege is another name for rational truth.

By Zack

October 8, 2004 10:43 AM | Link to this

Norman, wrong again, my friend. Rational truth? Hardly. In the short time I’ve viewed this forum lately, all you seem to have is bigotry against Christians, you and some other forumers on here. It’s time Christians got out and shaped society again. We’ve sat back and let people with your world view influence society way too long (one second was too long), and society has gotten far worse as a result. To think liberals blame the “Christian right” all the time. Yes, imagine people having the “audacity” to stand up against the killing of the unborn, just to give one example. By the way, I’m not sure female voters are ambivalent about John Kerry. I’d say the ones who are fine with abortion will vote for him and the ones who are against it won’t. Thankfully, the women in society who think abortion is justifiable aren’t as commonplace as the liberal media would have you believe. As for the posts by RS, I’m tired of her bigotry against Christians as well. I wonder if it ever occurred to her that Christians are offended by the world views of non-Christians. The Christian world view violates no one else’s freedom. The non-Christian world view violates everyone else’s freedom, in many different ways. It’s time we got society back in order. We USED to be a great country when we acknowledged God. Now, the only reference to God we hear is in this manmade myth that all religions are correct.

By Randy

October 8, 2004 10:48 AM | Link to this

Norman, This must be a very lonely world for you. I go down the street seeing thousands of signs of people who believe, the census bureau puts it at over 200 million in the USA and just below 2 billion worldwide. If you want to look at something and see the evidence, Christianity has a thousand times more evidence that it is true, than you or anyone else had ever shown(trying to disprove it). However, it think the best saying here is a sign I saw on a Church billboard yesterday. FAITH is caught not taught. So I feel sorry for you and hope one day you will open your eyes and give it a chance. It absolutely exists!

By Zack

October 8, 2004 10:50 AM | Link to this

Norman, why do you have such extreme bigotry against Christians? Calling us “Christers” is like calling Black people the “n” word.

This, again, is just one of many examples of how Christians today are persecuted. It seems like you and RS are perfectly fine with anything that’s against Christianity. It’s scary that you two have the right to vote.

By norman

October 8, 2004 11:57 AM | Link to this

Just saw a local production of the musical “Little Shop of Horrors.” It occurs to me that it is a perfect parody of the Bush administration being consumed by its own little faults which have burgeoned into monstrous proportions.

By Akeya W.

October 8, 2004 12:04 PM | Link to this

As it seems I will be one of the very few women to stay on topic, I would like to say that Kerry has my vote for the following reasons:

Kerry believes that the ridiculous amount of money used to fund this “war” was too much for us to bear, and he’s right. I believe we need to handle the financial and economical problems in our country before we try rebuild Iraq.

Also, Kerry believes that specific reasons should be given before someone’s business records are obtained. He also believes that we need to coordinate with other countries (we DO live in this world with other countries)

Kerry proposes negotatiating lower drug prices. This is especially important to me since I work in social services and see elderly people who have to make a choice between paying bills or paying for medication.

Unless those who are opposed to abortion are going to take in women who want to have an abortion and provide all 21 years of monetary responsibilities(we want children to go to college, right?), I’m with Kerry. Let women make their own choices about how they will handle their unwanted preganancies. It’s not my life and I don’t care if someone else wants to have an abortion.

Kerry also believes that immigrants should be able to be legal after they have worked in the states for a certain amount of time.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know the argument against terrorists. The fact of the matter is that you cannot punish everyone for what some do. It’s not just….

Kerry believes in raising the minimum wage. Can we say “living wage”? However, I don’t really know that minimum wage will ever really pull most people out of poverty, it’s am effort to be lauded…

I don’t agree with Bush’s handling of education. The fact of the matter is just that some children are getting the push they need at home to excel in school. The teachers can’t teach because of some of the students they have disrupting classes, uncaring parents who feel that school is the babysitting center, the fact that a man who can hit a baseball gets paid more than the teachers who are attempting to educate our young…

I just cannot support Bush. He has run this country into the ground long enough…

By RS

October 8, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this

Zack, I agree wholeheartedly that Christians are offended by not only the world view but by anyone who is non-Christian. Believe me, I’ve been the victim of enough hurtful comments by people who claim to have been “saved”. And, yes, all religions are correct if they worship God. To state that any one religion is the right one & everyone else will go to Hell is unspeakably arrogant. And I must admit I had a good laugh over your disgust that I & my fellow forumer should be allowed to vote. Gee, why? Should only Christians be accorded that privilege? It should come as no surprise to you that support Kerry. I’d love to see this country led by someone who’s not brainwashed by (ugh!) fetus-worship.

By Shannon

October 8, 2004 04:40 PM | Link to this

I absolutely agree with Diane!

I am not a mother nor am I married, but I am desperately worried about the safety of my nieces and nephews and I feel that Senator Kerry is much more apt to a better job at keeping them (and the rest of us) safe.

President Bush has had 4 years to prove himself and in my opinion he has failed miserably.

I don’t feel any safer today than I did on September 12th, 2001. Just because we have not had an attack on our soil in 3 years doesn’t prove to me that we are any safer. I am not even sure that when and if we ever do catch Osama Bin Laden that will make us any safer. Personally, I don’t think it will - there are too many other people out there who dislike American and who are all too willing to step to the plate. However that said, I would like a President who is at least willing to try to truly catch the guy. As for Saddam Hussein, I do agree that the world is a much better place without him in power, however that said I thought all along that he never was truly a threat to the American people. I want a President who can realize the differences between who is a real threat (Osama Bin Laden and countries like North Korea and Iran who have admitted that they have or are trying to make WMD’s, but are all but ignored by President Bush) and those who are just more or less just a pain (Saddam Hussein) to the American people and who is willing to go after those who are truly threats.

I’m sorry, but if I have to choose between a President who wants to protect the American people against people like Osama Bin Laden and countries that are true threats as opposed to a President who wants to protect other countries over his own, then I choose the one is going to protect the American people, so therefore I choose John Kerry (not to mention he is going to be much better at handling domestic issues than President George W. Bush could ever be).

By Angie

October 8, 2004 04:59 PM | Link to this

First, thank you Zach and Randy for presenting your viewpoints with respect to Christianity. Let a Christian explain their beliefs and suddenly we are “judging” everyone who doesn’t believe what we do. Heaven forbid we express our opinions and share our beliefs with anyone-that makes us a “bigot”. Just like I’m a “bigot” unless I embrace homosexuality.

I must have missed the posts where anyone said anything against the Jewish community. I am a Christian and I am pro-Jewish and pro-Israel.

The last post stated, “yes, all religions are correct if they worship God. To state that any one religion is the right one & everyone else will go to Hell is unspeakably arrogant.”

Well, actually not all religions worship the SAME God. My God has a son named Jesus and He is the only way to heaven. None of the other religions’ God’s have a son named Jesus and that’s the biggest reason they are not worshipping the SAME God. There are lots of FALSE Gods as mentioned in my favorite book the Bible. Believe it or make fun of it, one religion HAS to be right because they ALL can’t be right. It isn’t logically possible. The truth is still the truth whether you choose to see it or believe it. So, is it arrogant to believe what is 100% true? Something that has turned your life (and millions of other’s lives) completely around, an eye opening experience that has forever changed your destiny and saved your very soul.

It was also said, “I’d love to see this country led by someone who’s not brainwashed by (ugh!) fetus-worship.”

I must have also missed the headlines that showed a new religion of “fetus-worship”. What do they do? Have a giant fetus statue that they pray to? That’s just ridiculous. Why is it so hard for people to understand it’s not right to murder (yes, I said “murder”) innocent babies via the unspeakable torture of abortion? I’m not talking about a clump of cells, I’m talking about a human being with ten fingers and ten toes. A human being that’s heart began beating 3 weeks after conception. A human being that very early on is capable of feeling pain. Abortion and abortion methods are inhumane at best.

I agree with another poster who said it’s only politicaly correct to bash Christians. If you had made the same remarks about Hindus or Buddists it would have probably been frowned upon by most of this list. But, hey, as usual it’s open season on Christians.