This is What Irks Me

[The Captain]

Things in American Politics That Bother Me:

1. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...r/democrats_68

This is exactly what makes me so disappointed in the Democrats. Instead of realizing that they all need to start standing together if they're going to beat Bush, they begin to bicker because they don't think they're getting a fair shake in things. Dean says Kerry is just another Washington bigot, claiming that he won't fix anything, complaining about being forced out of the election, etc, etc, etc. This sort of image is NOT going to win many votes if all the candidates resort to this sort of tactic. Thus far Kerry has kept his mouth shut, which is probably for the best, but Dean is slowly becoming TOO much of a complainer for my tastes. Granted, even if he wins Wisconsin, by saying he'd back Edwards, he's essentially given up.

2. What bothers me even more is the fact that people are voting Kerry just because he's not Bush. I read somewhere that it was said people would vote for Satan over Bush if they were given a choice! Satan over Bush?! This is going WAY too far. What people should be focusing on is the issues at play here, not whether or not someone is George Bush. Granted, I'm not voting for Bush, but I'm going to vote for the candidate who best supports issues I believer are important, not just because he's against Bush.

3. http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/gay.marriage/

Sure, Bush has his own values and he can believe whatever he wishes, but who is he to condemn a group of people to be forever forbidden rights like anyone else? I have a very strong belief that this specific value is entirely based upon Bush's faith and I think it would be a very wise move by the American Government to attempt to move away from the intertwining of politics and religion. As others have said here, mixing these two things is usually not a good thing because it enforces certain principles that can easily be disagreed with and while the views can be justified, cannot be proven correct.

I personally have no problem with gay marriage. Really, what is the harm here? Is anyone really being hurt? I'm a straight male dating a straight female, and we hope to one day get married. Yet, if I'm gay, I'm not allowed to marry? What certain religion says aside, we're all people first. We are defined by what species we are, not to what God we pray to or to what creed we believe in. All people deserve the same opportunity to marry in my opinion.

Is there really any reason why gay marriages shouldn't be allowed besides "The Bible says so.."?

Feel free to comment on what I've wrote and add things of your own that bother you. Don't feel obligated to just stick to American issues. I merely chose them because that is where I live and am usually most informed.

Take care all.

[edczxcvbnm]

While I do agree with what Dean said about Kerry, it certainly was not the thing to say. Kerry is just another product of washington(which is why I will not vote for him in the primary) and while most of the people who eventually try to become president can have the same thing said about them it seems as though the other canidates this time are not as far gone as Kerry. Clark has no experience(and it shows), Dean is a govenor that tries to do things through the people instead of a few huge contributors(at least from what I understand) and Edwards is pretty new in washington.

Satan over Bush? Why even vote? Just move to Canada!

[Anaralia]

Instead of realizing that they all need to start standing together if they're going to beat Bush, they begin to bicker because they don't think they're getting a fair shake in things.

This has happened more often than I care to remember, and for some strange reason, it almost always happens to the Democrats. I agree that's it's embarrassing, and it makes them look like a bunch of clowns. Oh well.

What bothers me even more is the fact that people are voting Kerry just because he's not Bush.

C'mon, give them some credit. Most people I know have at least some grasp on topics, and make voting decisions based on them. Someone who has been out of work for a year or so, and who didn't want to go to war will decide to vote against Bush because those are the most visible topics for him, and even though there are about 3 trillion important topics he's ignoring, what's the alternative? If only truly informed people voted, then elections would be decided by 125 votes to 136. And Satan over Bush? Yes, absolutely, over the top.

To balance things out, there is a group of voters who will vote for Bush only because he went to war, and will ignore the 3 trillion topics mentioned earlier. It all works out in the end. Hopefully.

This is a good website to see which candidate fits you best. (click on "Q & A")

I, personally, won't be voting for Bush, because the issues that I care most about, he disagrees with. Almost any other candidate would represent me better. Now, I know that I'm ignoring a bunch of factors when I say this, but like everyone else, I make decisions based on the topics that are most important and visible to me.

Is there really any reason why gay marriages shouldn't be allowed besides "The Bible says so.."?

No.

Edit: That sounded harsh. What I meant to say is that this is the reason most cited for preventing gay marriages, besides the "ick" factor, which is never said out loud, and the "this is the way it's supposed to be" line of reasoning, which basically boils down to "The Bible says so".

[Dr Unne]

I don't think that any politician is as sincere as he appears to be during election time. If a Democrat is elected, he WILL end up going against some campaign promises; politicians all do. Always. Remember what Bush said when he was running for President; look how much turned out to be true. They'll spout off some garbage about "more jobs, better education, less corruption", etc. etc. The same stuff every time. And when/if they're elected, they'll go off and do whatever they want / whatever will get them re-elected / whatever the party decides is good to do. In that sense, I think I understand why people would say "Anyone over Bush!" What does it matter who really becomes President? You're still getting an unknown. Bush is a known. In spite of his words during campaign time, Democrat Candidate X, whoever it may be, WILL do nothing but random and unpredictable things if elected, but at least it will be a Democrattish sort of random.

About gay marriage, I have to believe that even if some ridiculous law is passed forbidding it on a nation-wide basis, it will be struck down. I just can't help but remembering "black people are 3/5 a person". There is no justificiation for forbidding gay marriage except, as Anaralia said, the "ick factor"; that's the perfect term for it. So far as the Bible, it's worthless in terms of law. Thankfully most judges seem to see that, in this country.

[The Man]

Originally posted by Dr Unne
In that sense, I think I understand why people would say "Anyone over Bush!" What does it matter who really becomes President? You're still getting an unknown. Bush is a known. In spite of his words during campaign time, Democrat Candidate X, whoever it may be, WILL do nothing but random and unpredictable things if elected, but at least it will be a Democrattish sort of random.

Somehow, I think a Democrattish sort of random unknown would be a lot better for this country and the entire world than what we have right now. But I still agree, more or less.

Originally posted by Anaralia
I, personally, won't be voting for Bush, because the issues that I care most about, he disagrees with. Almost any other candidate would represent me better. Now, I know that I'm ignoring a bunch of factors when I say this, but like everyone else, I make decisions based on the topics that are most important and visible to me.

I agree 100%. I'm also quite likely to vote for the candidate who has the greatest chance of defeating Bush, because we wouldn't even be in the situation we're in now if all those people hadn't voted Green instead of Democrat. Not that I don't see the reasoning behind the third party mentality, but I'd rather have a rather good shot at getting a candidate who agrees at least somewhat with my ideology than a very long shot at getting exactly the candidate I want into office (with teh likelihood that the candidate I'd least prefer would win).