Pricescope Presidential Poll

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/27/2004 6:25:53 PM Nicrez wrote:

----------------


I don't condone or condemn anyone's actions, I am not the final judge, I have no weight in such matters. Many would say that those who look down upon others are merely looking to build themselves up higher. But if you feel the need, do so, it's a free country.


----------------

I do so appreciate being told that I may build myself up higher by denigrating others since this is a free country. I suppose you would not like to entertain the notion that I descry governments and groups that violate my principles because I wish to make the world safer, kinder, and better. That IS an alternate view of why I criticize others. As R/A will tell you, I tend to criticize fascists. I truly think they are bad for others.

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/27/2004 6:25:53 PM Nicrez wrote:

----------------


I am just sort of saddened that people can be well read, ignorant of other cultures and still have such strong opinions about them....


----------------

Again, this is supposed to be me. How you know I am ignorant of other cultures, I do not know. No one can be an expert on *ALL* cultures, of course, but you did not accuse me of not being an expert on ALL cultures. You accused me of being "ignorant of other cultures". How would you know?

 

[Nicrez]

...so many words, so little points...

 

[AGBF]

----------------
On 10/27/2004 10:46:07 PM Nicrez wrote:

...so many words, so little points...

----------------

You were a bit wordy yourself...that's why it took so long to answer you .

 

[Todd07]

Consumer guide to Political Polls


http://www.slate.com/id/2108778/




Thought this would interest the readers on this thread.




Going forward, let's limit our insults to the candidates and ideas.

 

[Momoftwo]

I never Said John Kerry didn't serve at all. What I said, was George Bush did. Serving in the reserves is still serving in the military with the risk of being activated and/or sent into war. The word was "serving". Just because some people don't agree with how some served doesn't make it less worthy. Also, words have multiple meanings in different contexts. As far as the military reserves go, that definition of defer doesn't really apply. Like I said, my husband is a reservist. Anyone else have the experience to speak from? George Bush voluntarily went into the reserves. Some people found a way to get an total deferrment, like Bill Clinton, for no reason other than he didn't want to do any miiltary time. Yet, you never heard a word about that during his campaign and he held his own "wars" while in office. Just not seen as important in the world.

Many people volunteered for the Navy when they knew they were going to get drafted because the odds of actually being on the ground in country are much lower. That is a fact.

And, my comment about Teresa Kerry is due to the nasty and rude comments she has made on more than one occasion. It was an observation. She doesn't act very lady like. And the comment about the first lady having a job is very offensive. Laura Bush has had a very important job as a wife and mother, and as a first lady to a governor and a president. Being first lady is a full time job. You should see the schedule she keeps.

Kerry also didn't just say he had other vets telling him these things. He stated he participated in these horrible acts, which if true should have gottten him convicted of war crimes.

 

[AGBF]

I agree that Laura Bush has always been a lady...and an intelligent one. Her mother-in-law, Barbara Bush, is one of my all-time favorite first ladies. I also loved Rosalynn Carter and Betty Ford.

 

[windowshopper]

Teresa Heinz Kerry is an abomination---she has no clue about the real world. she is a true elitist. The interviews that have been done with here are scary!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Todd07]

Date: 10/28/2004 7:42:16 AM
Author: Momoftwo

Kerry also didn''t just say he had other vets telling him these things. He stated he participated in these horrible acts, which if true should have gottten him convicted of war crimes.

Momoftwo,
When I first saw the swift boat ads, I lost much of my respect for Kerry. However, when I did some research I read Kerry didn''t claim to have seen the acts and was instead repeating what he heard from other vets at some other US vet convention (december something?), and the Swifties were using his comments out of context.

Do you have a link to a clear story on this one?

I think you can say both candidates "volunteered" for service but did so in ways to minimize their personal risk. To be candid, I was suprised at all the war hoopola around Kerry when I heard his tour was only 4 months and non of his injuries resulted in hospitalization.

 

[Momoftwo]

April 18, 1971 -- John Kerry and Al Hubbard appear on NBC''s "Meet the Press" to allege widespread atrocities by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Hubbard is introduced as a former Air Force captain who had spent two years in Vietnam and was wounded in action. Kerry seems to admit to committing war crimes, saying, "There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."

Al Hubbard was later found not to have ever been an AF captain. He lied.

This came from this webpage: http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=Timeline


I''d say that''s admitting to war crimes. It''s not from his senate testimony, but I knew I''d heard that he had made these statements.

Although that isn''t the only reason I wouldn''t vote for him. My reasons are varied and a lot more about today and our future than what he did 30 years ago. Although it does make me question his integrity. Remember, his mother had to remind him of integrity.

Volunteering still involves some risk and I think everyone would minimize personal risk. My biggest issue is that the majority of people condeming George Bush have never served a day as either a member of the military in any way or as a military spouse. And don''t know what they''re talking about.

 

[jenwill]

I am unsure if you are referring to my comment on the first lady having a job is offensive, or if you wre referring to THK comment?

If you were referring to my comment, no where did I say that being a wife and mother were not important, was just saying that there are an increasing number of wives and mothers who now have to work outside of the home full time, IN ADDITION to being a wife and mother.

It is not impossible to keep up a professional work life, motherhood and being a wife, along with performing First lady duties as a Governor''s wife- Hillary Clinton did that, and was voted one of the nations top 100 lawyers by the National Law Review in 1988 and 1991. You may be super busy- but it can be done.

She did stop working during her husbands presidential administration- probably a combination fo demands of her position and the difficulty in working private sector by being protected by the secret service.

I am just saying, that it may be more difficult for someone who had the ability to stop working upon getting engaged to understand the sacrifices that are made by people who have to work outside the home while raising children. Not impossible, just more difficult.

 

[Momoftwo]

Those of us who have "stayed at home" to raise children did not just sit at home all day believe it or not. Every mother I know who stopped her "career" to raise children, volunteered at church, school or home schooled their children, among other things.

Being a wife and mother is a "PROFESSION". Until you try it full time, don't bash it. I sacrificed the "big house" for an apartment and then a townhouse, (until now when my kids are grown) , "new, upscale car" for driving a car/minivan til it died, and other things to raise my children and not have babysitters do it. As do a lot of moms. They're my kids, not someone elses. I work now to put my kids through college, but the truth is the most rewarding time of my life was being home with them and spending hours a day with them and instilling the values they carry with them as adults. They have thanked me for being with them. They know we gave up a lot to do it. My job now, while a "career" is still just a job. The salary I receive now will never compare to being with them. On my deathbed I will never say I wish I'd spent more time at the office. We didn't have cell phones til several years after they became mainstream, we put off buying things til we could save for them and we only did Disneyworld twice while they were growning up and they appreciated it more. BTW, that's called delayed gratification.

The moms I see working do it to keep the bigger house they bought when they got married instead of buying what one salary could afford so they could stay "home" and raise their children. I was never really home though. We had play groups, day trips, and many other things to fill our days. And, I know a lot of moms who choose to be at home. It's really not that unusual. The press rarely reports that more and more moms are choosing to stay home with their children.

That said, there are those that have to work due to being single moms or having husbands that just don't bring home enough in pay, but the truth is, that's a much smaller percentage than the media will have you believe. I know moms at ALL income levels who have done it. People make that choice regardless of income and it is a choice.

Also, I've been married 23 years and am in my mid 40's so I've got lots of experience and have witnessed a lot. I'm not the least bit idealistic, but extremely realistic.

 

[Maria D]

Although I was strictly a stay-at-home mom until my daughter turned 9 (and even now work only part-time) I found nothing offensive about jenwill's post. To me it looks like momoftwo is reading sentiments that simply aren't there. I don't see how saying that a woman who is a wife and mother and who also has a career might have a better understanding of two income families in any way denigrates people like myself who make other choices.

momoftwo, where on earth do you see *bashing*? I just don't get it. Maybe you are having a rough day...take care.

 

[AGBF]

Like you, Maria, I saw no "bashing" in jenwill''s posting. I know where she is coming from, but I also know where momoftwo is coming from.

Jenwill, like those of us who grew up in a world where women WEREN''T lawyers and doctors and dentists ("just" social workers, teachers, and librarians), would like to see a woman ABLE to be First Lady despite having a profession. I understand that. (BTW, jenwill, you wrote about McCain''s wife. Is she, also, an MD or did you mean Howard Dean''s wife?)

I feel momoftwo is also fighting an important battle, though, just as important (in my opinion) as equal rights for women. She is fighting for mothers to be able to mother their children.

Like you and momoftwo, I was a stay at home mom. I have to say, though, that being one did not involve massive sacrifice on my part. It goes without saying that we could have had "more" had I continued to work, but we were not suffering financially.

Also: by ceasing to work for a while I did not lose the ability ever to "go back" into my field. Yes, it was (and is) harder to return, but I wasn''t in a field I couldn''t leave. (A friend of mine is a radiologist at a major New York hospital. She deals exclusively with orthopedic MRIs. If she left, she would never be able to return. The technology changes too quickly in her field.)

Some women (as momoftwo said) MUST work. I have a first cousin who was one of them. Her mother cared for her son for his first 18 months, but then he had to go into daycare. (Her husband was then spreading asphalt for a living. She, not he, had a college degree. They needed health benefits.)

Many, many women work because they feel that they "should" (for feminist reasons) or they would like more financially or they want an excuse to get away from their kids! DO NOT underestimate the last reason! Staying home with children can drive you INSANE. Why do you think so few men do it? I completely empathize with women who want to flee their kids. I did (and still do!!!) want to flee mine!

The problem is that I think (and I *believe* momoftwo thinks) that children are better off staying home with their mother. Yes, I know this is heresy, but I believe it. I do not think daycare-or even one loving nanny, should anyone be lucky enough to find a loving person who stays-is as good as a mother.

I suggest anyone interested in the subject read the polemic by the late Selma Fraiberg (author of "The Magic Years") called: "Every Child''s Birthright: In Defense of Mothering". You may not agree with it, but it makes for interesting discussion. Fraiberg, a child psychoanalyst, believed children AND THEIR MOTHERS deserved more support from their society in the US than they were getting.

This is a hot topic. Women who stay home are often looked down on. Women who go back to work are often guilt-ridden.

For every woman who is sure she has a "right" to go back to work, there is one who is conflicted over it. (My friend, the radiologist, was in church and an older woman remarked that her toddler "had problems". My friend, who was terribly conflcited about working, started to cry. She was ALWAYS worried that she might be neglecting her children.)

I guess my bottom line is that we women have to be good to each other. All of us who have children share a common dilemma: how to be equal with men and also take care of our children in the best possible way.

Deb

 

[Momoftwo]

AGBF, I agree with you. And maybe bashing wasn't intended, but it came across the same as others I've seen. I know women who are terribly "torn" and want to stay home but are terrirfied it will change their lifestyle or they'll be "dependent" on a man or it will make them less than they are, whatever that means. I will never regret staying home. My boys are 18 and 20 and I still think it's the best thing I ever did. I also have two extremely polite and wonderful adult sons. We never had any problem with them since I always knew where they were and what they were doing. We talk often while they're away at school and they are fully capable adults since I spent the time I did with them. I was no June Cleaver, but as a result I taught my boys to clean, do laundry, cook, etc. They'll make great husbands. I see too many guilt ridden parents buying their kids absolutely everything. The result, I've seen in some of the younger people at work is they expect everything to be given to them because they want it. We taught out kids to wait.

Also, you're right that no babysitter or nanny will ever love your kids the way you do. Like in home day care, the providers' children will always come before yours. That's just a fact. It's a choice of giving up something to get something. We gave up a lot of new stuff to have me home. And now, we can buy pretty much what we want. I delayed my gratification to give my children the best of me, not the best of the mall.

My point was that you don't have to have a full time career to know what work is. Which first lady exactly hasn't had an understanding of what families go through? Jenwill's statement might have made sense if there was a reason for it. My original point was that Laura Bush is what a First Lady should be and Teresa Heinz Kerry comes across as less than lady like in her actions. She also has lived her entire life in comfort with millions in the bank. She definitely can't identify with the middle class as she's never had to even live near that level or even in the same neighborhoods. A career had nothing to do with it. And I don't think that having your name as a volunteer on a board that disperses money is exactly a career. See the quote below.

Fire and ice wrote:
"I have enormous amount of respect for both Laura Bush & Lynn Cheney. I find T. Heinz rather common w/ very little class. "

"To issue of T.Heinz's experience: both of us are on the board of trustee's of separate charitible organization/insitition. Our experience has shown us that many people are on the board in name only. So, just because they list your name & you speak about it once in a while, doesn't translate to active participant. Believe me, there's a lot of praise and glory for the non participants, especially when said "name only" carry's some weight. And, positions can be bought. It's the nature of the beast. In all fairness, I don't have any direct experience w/ her (T.H.) involvement. But, I can form an opinion based on several appearances/interviews. And, maintain my opinion about T. Heinz."

BTW, Weekly Reader does a mock election every four years since 1956 and the kids have picked the correct winner everytime. This year they chose George W. Bush with over 60% of the vote. Kids tend to vote what they hear at home. Kerry only won among the 10th graders and that's probably an issue of rebellion since most kids at that age are really pulling away and will disagree just to disagree. And over 400,000 students participated, much larger numbers than any other poll uses.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/29/2004 9

0:58 AM
Author: Feydakin
It is just inconceivable to many people that the roles can be reversed

When I say, "mother" I mean loving, sole caretaker. Someone who is there all the time and someone who is there for love, not money. Obviously a father fits that description . If that person is an alert and loving grandmother, I think a child can do beautifully, too.

 

[jenwill]

In no way was I bashing stay at home moms.

And, I live in an area where it can be very difficult to have even a moderate lifestyle on one income. Townhouses run 600k for a 2 bedroom/2bath TH. That is not living lavishly. I drive a 7 year old car- before that I drove a 10 year old nissan sentra that was the leader car in the paper...only one at this price type of car. I didn't have a cell phone at all until the company I work for gave me one for work purposes. I still do not own a computer of my own- thank goodness I have a laptop for work.

The reality is, in this area, if you are not making AT LEAST 80-90k/year, as a young couple you don't have any way to think about purchasing a home (by home I mean TH or condo- not single family home). A couple that are newly married friends of mine are looking to buy a house. They have 60k to put down, and are looking at 2/2 TH's that are listing at 525k-565-k. They have bid on 5 so far, and each time the selling price has been for over 620k (whichis their personal cap). They are both children of stay at home mothers, and are seraching for a way to make it work for them in the future- but are faced with the fact hta it may not be possible. Those that purchased their houses 10 years ago may be able to make it on one income, but on the Peninsula, it isn't realistic unless one person makes a very good living. Yes, we could move to the East Bay or very far down into the South Bay region to find a house that would be 500k, but then the wage earner (whoever he/she might be) would be facing a 2 hour commute each way to work. In that case, you are sacrificing one parents ability to really see their kids at all.

It is almost funny that you feel that I am bashing, because I read into your comments a bit of bashing for those that work and have kids- that we are not 'self-sacrificing' enough to really have kids. That perhaps if we loved our kids as much as you love yours, we would be willing to make the sacrifice of an income to stay home. For many more people than you would realize- that is not an option. I work in a field that is dominated by female workers- the medical field is filled with women who have to work- nurses, LVN's, housekeepers. Most of them are not living lavishlifestyles- they are struggling to pay rent/mortgage/bills, save to send their kids to school, invest in a retirement program to help support them in their older years- as there is no guarantee that social security will be around to support them.

 

[Momoftwo]

Home prices run high where incomes run high. Demographic fact.

And we've never counted on social security. Anyone who counts on that alone and doesn't make allowances for anything else is forgetting that social security is intended as a supplement to you retirement. We haven't always had the money. So, when you first get married, rent, that's what couples did for years before dual incomes became the thing to do. There's nothing wrong with renting til you establish yourself in your career and have the money to buy something. We lived in an apartment and then bought two townhouses before we bought our first single family home. We're on our second and our dream home after 23 years. My kids did not suffer growing up in townhomes, which is how some people look at it. They were more concerned with having their parents around than where they lived.

Ever see "Barefoot in the Park". Robert Redford and Jane Fonda in a very small apartment. That was the norm in the 60's and 70's. You rent a small apartment and work your way up. There's nothing wrong with that. Once again, delayed gratification.

 

[jenwill]

Whatever.

Yes, salaries are higher where home costs are higher...but that does not mean all salaries are higher. Or even commensurately higher. Our salaries may be double, but our cost of living is more than double. Tell teachers, people who work in all of the stores we shop in, and many of the people who work in the hospital I used to work in that they make 5 times more than people in OKlahoma where a house can be bought for 100k.

They don''t. I was in the hospital today, visiting friend, and the job posting for LVN''s (licensed vocational nurses) was listed at starting salary of 15.81. Not nearly enough to buy a condo on.

Hardly enough to rent- my rent on my 2 bedroom 2 bath apartment was 2295/month. And that isn''t really outrageous here.

I never said it was a shame to grow up in a townhouse. My mother and I took a Greyhound bus to CA in 1973 from Oklahoma. We slept in the walk-in closet of a studio apartment for 2 years, while her best friend and her friends son slept in the ''living room'', then slowly moved our way up- not ashamed of it, in fact proud that we made it to where we did.

By the way- my mother worked 2 jobs to take care of me.

And I grew up just fine.

I know about doing without- and am not afraid to do without again, if need be.

But you mentioned in the above post that your kids cared more about being with their parents than being in a big house. Did you not notice my statement that to afford to live on one salary, many people would have to live very far away from where their work was? That it is not uncommon for people to have a TWO HOUR commute here? Not even that uncommon to have a 3 hour commute. That adds up to people leaving there houses at 6:30am, and getting home at 8:pm or later. Not really being there for the kids and family life is it?

Hey, if people can afford it- I think it is great to have a parent stay ''home'' (yes, I know they are not just sitting at home...I never said stay at home parents did nothing all day..you were the one to bring that up), just don''t put those of us who will work when we have kids on the ''why did you have kids if you were just going to hand them to someone else to raise'' platform of shame.

My mother raised me- while she worked 2 jobs. Yes I went to daycare. Yes, I was involved in afterschool programs for underprivileged kids until my mom got off of work to pick me up. But the person I remember is not my daytime caretaker, it is my mother.

She set the rules, she taught me how to deal with life, SHE SHOWED ME HOW TO SURVIVE.

That is the real reason that I get upset when people say you should just sacrifice to stay home. My mom sacrificed alot, and she worked- and I really can''t imagine having a better childhood than the one I had. I had all the love I could handle, I knew that I was the most important person in her life, and I knew that everyting she did was for me. That is a terrific thing to know as a child.

 

[Momoftwo]

And my point is I know a lot of people who can afford to do it on one salary if they would just downsize their life and quit putting so much emphasis on having EVERYTHING. I wasn''t talking about you. I also pointed out earlier that there are single moms and moms in situations where dads don''t make enough to live on that moms do work. I was talking like I said above about those who can do it if they''d just sacrifice for now. Those are the ones I don''t get. Having to work to surivive is very different than feeling you have to work to be someone or to pay for your new Lexus, (very selfish reasons.) I work with some moms whose husbands make very good money yet they work for their very large homes and new cars, and yet when their child calls their day care provider mommy, they lose it. All any child really wants from their parents is their time.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/30/2004 3

6:33 AM
Author: jenwill

Whatever.

Real Pithy response.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/30/2004 8:36:26 AM
Author: Momoftwo
And my point is I know a lot of people who can afford to do it on one salary if they would just downsize their life and quit putting so much emphasis on having EVERYTHING. . Having to work to surivive is very different than feeling you have to work to be someone or to pay for your new Lexus, (very selfish reasons.) I work with some moms whose husbands make very good money yet they work for their very large homes and new cars, and yet when their child calls their day care provider mommy, they lose it. All any child really wants from their parents is their time.

This really is way too simplistic a view. Regardless of whether one works or not, many of these people are going to be like this regardless. Some will go into debt to provide said lifestyles if the income wasn''t coming in.

My point - working mother doesn''t equal - person driving around in lexus
non working mother doesn''t equal loving stay at home mother

As a generalization, I do believe children are better off with a stay at home parent. But, sometimes even this isn''t ideal. I have seen some women so consumed with sacrificing for their children that they loose themselves. Sometimes their marriage suffers. While it is a natural instinct to want your children to be happpy, *you* have to be happy first. Perhaps not the norm, but I know a few of these stay at home moms on prosac.

We have to have a healthy & happy balance in life. I don''t think many things in life are black & white. I think connection & guidance to be paramount to sheer volume of time spent.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/30/2004 1:40

5 PM
Author: fire&ice

My point - working mother doesn't equal - person driving around in lexus

non working mother doesn't equal loving stay at home mother
...


We have to have a healthy & happy balance in life. I don't think many things in life are black & white.

The sentences I chose from F&I's posting are ones with which I completely concur. [Of course there were more sentences I *didn't* quote, F&I, lest you let down your guard with me .]

A mother who does not work outside the home can be an abusive mother. A mother who must work (like jenwill's) can be a great mom. As I said, I think we women have to be good to each other. That doesn't mean that each of us cannot have her own point of view about what is *IDEAL*, but we have to understand that the world is complex and many women face difficult choices. Many women manage to make things work for their families through hard work and sacrifice.

Deb

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/30/2004 1:22:35 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 10/30/2004 3

6:33 AM

Author: jenwill


Whatever.

Real Pithy response.

F&I,

I just want to let you know that there is a bit more below that sentence. Sorry you missed it the first time. It might be your age.

Deb, who can say that since she is older

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/30/2004 2:11:37 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 10/30/2004 1:22:35 PM
Author: fire&ice

Date: 10/30/2004 3

6:33 AM

Author: jenwill


Whatever.

Real Pithy response.

F&I,

I just want to let you know that there is a bit more below that sentence. Sorry you missed it the first time. It might be your age.

Deb, who can say that since she is older

I read the rest; but, why the "whatever"? Perhaps I am wrong; but, I read it - Well, whatever to what you think. But here''s the *real* truth.

Black & white can apply to many statuses of the spectrum of liberal vs conservatives.

I haven''t been able to post since the new design. I finally upgraded my AOL software & it seemed to solve my problem. Of course for a time being I thought it was a left-wing conspiracy.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/30/2004 3:26:28 PM
Author: fire&ice




I haven''t been able to post since the new design. I finally upgraded my AOL software & it seemed to solve my problem. Of course for a time being I thought it was a left-wing conspiracy.

It was. I engineered it myself. That''s why you were able to hack in so easliy .

Deb

 

[Momoftwo]

This whole thing started because I said just because a First Lady didnt' have a "CAREER" outside the home didn't mean she couldnt' identify with anyone else. But since, as far as I know, Teresa Heinz Kerry has never had a paying job she was way out of line with what she said as well as not being able to identify with 99.9% of the world. She's been independently weatlhy her whole life.

You find abuse on both sides and you find good mothers on both sides. That means nothing in this discussion. My whole point was that I chose to stay home because my children came first over everything, except my relationship with my husband. We've been very happily married for 23+ years and I raised two very wonderful sons, so I speak from experience. I also mentioned people I currently work with to show examples of inbalance.

I never said all moms who drove Lexus' were not there for their children, what I said was I've seen those that place those THINGS over their children. The fact is, there are moms who work because they think they have to,not because they need the money to survive.

Interesting fact, more moms are staying home today than have in more than 20 years. These are women who's own moms worked and they're coming back home because they want their chidren to have what they didn't. There was recently a story on I think it was 48 hours. We're talking lawyers, vps of large companies, etc. They discovered the important things in life weren't in the boardroom.

BTW, what does Happy really mean? People leave marriage because they're not "happy". That is also a really selfish move.

 

[fire&ice]

Date: 10/30/2004 11

5:36 PM
Author: Momoftwo
in life weren''t in the boardroom.

BTW, what does Happy really mean? People leave marriage because they''re not ''happy''. That is also a really selfish move.

Well, at least I can say, I *know* what happy really means. And, it certainly doesn''t involve believing that what I choose to be & do is the word.

 

[Todd07]

Busin is edging up in the Polls.
Latest Haloween mask purchases shows Bush mask at 53% vs. 47% for Kerry mask sales. (unknown margin of error)
Newsweek: Bush 50%; Kerry 44% (within margin of error)

Kerry had a good chance to win my vote but he failed.

- At the DNC, he spent too much time on Vietnam instead of the issues or his past two decades in public service. This was stupid on his part. He get''s the check box for service in Vietnam but he wasn''t a War Hero during the conflict. A John McCain type record makes the standard of war hero and pulls votes. Neither Bush nor KErry have a military record that shouts "vote for me" Kerry should have know this and not squandered the DNC opportunity. -1 point for Kerry stupidity

- Iraq war. Whether you are for or against it now, our leaders were unaminously for it when it started. The DC crowd had access to classified info to justify their votes. I believe they made the right decision at the time based on the info available and the mood of the coutry. Hindsight tells us Sadam was paying a game where he disarmed WMD but also wanted the world (i.e. Iran) to still fear him. He thought he had bought off the UN Sercurity council and was safe. Sadam miscalculated and everyone is paying for his mistake. I considered it a tie for getting into Iraq.

- Iraq Nation building. Kerry loses a point for his current Iraq strategy. He says he will train the Iraqi forces (military/police) faster than Bush to get us out quicker? I see this as empty rhetoric: Either president is dependent upon State Dept and Military career professionals to get the job done. Changing the president and a few political appointees doesn''t impact execution unless you change the overall strategy and direction. Kerry has the same strategy as Bush of training local resources to replace american Military presence. Saying he will do it faster is a groundless statement. I also belive an expanded Internation presence would mean more lost lives (fewer American but more overall) since the project of occupation and nation building will be much more complex with more strategic players.

Economy & Deficit: I believe a deficit is natural when you have a war combined with major spending on Homeland security and a huge drop in the stock market. Going forward, I feel Kerry wants to spend more than Bush on Healthcare and services. I give them a tie on this one. The real Czar behind the economy is Greenspan.

Gay Marriage/etc. Kerry squeaks out a point on this one. I would have put my heart and vote behind someone like Dean who spoke with conviction and courage on the issues.

 

[ClownFishFunk]

Date: 10/30/2004 11

5:36 PM
Author: Momoftwo

BTW, what does Happy really mean? People leave marriage because they''re not ''happy''. That is also a really selfish move.

So are you saying that people should stay in a miserable marriage just because it would be selfish to consider a divorce? You talk a lot about being selfish vs. selfless, and seem to think that everyone should be completely selfless - and hey that is great if you have managed to live your life that way and have no regrets - but what about doing something for yourself? If I were to spend years and years in an unhappy marriage, I owe it to myself to make myself happier and leave that marriage. Of course, some people give up too soon and without effort, but this is not the case for everybody. You also talk about being selfless and staying home with your kids, but I think a stable balance can be made between a working life and spending enough time with your children, if working is something you really love to do (assuming you have enough finances to make such a decision). If a person loves to work, why not let them? Why must they have to spend every moment with their child? People are selfish, and every now and then, why shouldn''t they be? Don''t get me wrong, its great to want to spend time with your children, but its not necessarily bad to want a few hours away.