To All Women
Find a Conversation
To All Women
| Tue, 08-03-2004 - 4:42pm |
A tiny few of women may be considering to vote Republican, but I have to ask why?
It is the Democratic Party that has given you everything, from taking care of your health care, the right to abort your fetus, your children's education and help advancing in a male-dominated world through affirmative action.
It is the Democratic Party that has given you everything, from taking care of your health care, the right to abort your fetus, your children's education and help advancing in a male-dominated world through affirmative action.
Republicans will take away every last bit of that. They destroy the environment of Mother Nature.
John Kerry and the Democratic Party need your support to stop Republicans, look at all pro-government people like Democrats have given you, consider it for a moment and then realize that all we need in return is your vote. You owe it to your country, without Democrats by your side, women today would be at the helpless leash of a male dominated society.
Vote Democrat this November! The fate of not just the country but the entire world, the entire universe depends on it!

Pages
Republicans believe life begins at conception, that which is aborted is a seperate human being, with an equal right to life as it's mother.
Why would women vote for a party which wanted slavery, didn't want women voting, would have not given equal work for equal pay and which encourages killing of unborn humans?
Edited 8/7/2004 2:53 am ET ET by truemobile
Make that *some* Republicans. It's not a litmus test for republicanism or conservatism. You'll find some Republicans are pro-choice just as some Democrats and/or liberals are pro-life.
~mark~
Until the people of this country stop jumping on the Republic or Democratic bandwagons and become informed about the real issues of the country and not just the biased propaganda that we are fed by the media, the vote for presidency is a joke.
Also remember that this country is not run by one person. The people who make the difference are those in the House and the Senate.
All I know right now is that John Kerry was in Vietnam, won three purple hearts, threw them away, protested the war and this hardly makes him a distinctive candidate. He voted for the war in Iraq and then voted against funding it. My father was also in Vietnam. He was drafted, he served and then he went back living his life. He didn't protest. Should he be president? Absolutely not, but we joke about what his slogan would be. "I went to Vietnam, and I was able to dodge the bullets!"
If JOhn Kerry can somehow impress me in the next 80 days about what he truly stands for and how he is going to solve problems in education and Iraq then I might listen. When he starts peaking the interest of my intelligence, rather than emotions (honestly I thought the whole mouth to mouth on the hamster was preposterous) I might start paying attention to him.
And lastly, I will say this: I will vote for any candidate that instead of spending millions on his convention and his television ads, invests that money in our country, and pleads with his donors to do the same. Don't you think the millions of dollars spent on the conventions, security at the conventions and the media campaigns would be much better spent on the children of our country?
Just more than my 2 cents.
Jodie
Mich
<>
The parties pay for the convention, although the campaign pays for the TV ads. Why don't you decide based on who has run positive TV ads about who they are and what they stand for as opposed to who has run a series of lies about their opponent. (Kerry would win your vote hands down.)
My father was stateside in the Air Force during the Vietnam war and turned down the chance to go more than once (three kids helped him out I'm sure.) I don't think someone's service or lack of service makes them an ideal candidate (for example, Clinton, who I think was a good President even though he didn't serve.). I think someone's attitude towards sacrificing our troops lives might have a little to do with it though. And I think that in this particular nation building war against insurgents, having an understanding of our last nation buiding war against insurgents, whether through first hand experience or through extensive reading and consulting, might be a plus. Quite frankly, I don't think Bush knows too much about the Vietnam war that wasn't in the movie Platoon, or related to him by advisors who want to push him in their favorite direction. He brought Vietnam up in his Meet the Press interview, only to say he's comfortable defering military decisions to the military, so as not to micromanage them or politicise them. Glad to hear he's comfortable delegating. That certainly does leave alot more time for raising money and clearing brush.
But I don't mean to get all cynical, because I really want to convince you to vote for John Kerry. Of course the hamster story was ridiculous. Everyone thought it was. Conventions are inherently silly. Did you see the hats? But you should know this -
John Kerry is for an America that is strong, not because of the people we threaten, but because of the people we inspire. John Kerry is for alliances not based on quid pro quo and payback, but on a mutual goal of a free and democratic world.
(Bush promised arms to most of the countries in the Coalition of the Willing, which despite reports of how mighty it was, was a third the size of the Gulf War Coalition if you counted actually doing jack s&*t as a contribution. Also, Saudi Arabia and other Iraqi neighbors payed for about 90% of the first Gulf War, whereas the American Taxpayer is footing the bill for almost all of this one, even as the richest people enjoy a massive tax cut. Now Bush's coalition is turning and running at th first sign of a hostage. That wouldn't have happened if it had been a real coalition built on common goals, instead of deals.)
You say that John Kerry voted for the war, but then voted against it's funding. Are you aware that he supported a competing bill that would have provided the funds if they were payed for by rolling back the tax cut on people earning more than $240,000 a year? He wasn't voting against funding our troops, as so many people would have you believe. He was voting in favor of fiscal responsibility and equal public sacrifice in the face of a national struggle. Mostly the poor or lower class are putting their lives on the line in Iraq. The least the privileged class could do is help pay for it (not in an increased tax, just not a tax CUT. The cut was initially suggested by Bush because of the enormous SURPLUS our country had. Somehow it was also the answer to the deficit. Huh?)
And what's your feeling on who should be on the Supreme Court for the next decade or so? Both Renquist and O'Connor are due to retire, and Ginsberg might too. How do you feel about secretly jailing American citizens with no access to lawyers or their family? Doesn't this fly in the face of what America is all about? Personally, a President threatening to alter our most precious document - the Constitution - to pander to his political base (he only did it because he was sure it would never pass - it was a ploy) is outta there in my book. Personally, as someone trying to get pregnant, and thus avoiding fish like the plague because of the incredible mercury contamination, I'm not too thrilled with Bush's idea that companies can just pay extra to pollute our air and soil. Suddenly the Republican slam that Kerry is a liberal, pro-environment Democrat doesn't seem all that bad.
I could go on and on, but I won't. Or I have. I don't know. I just can't understand how someone could vote for Gore in 2000 and then vote for Bush in 2004. The reasons you've sighted all sound very personal, in that they revolve around some criteria that you've set. I would say that you don't have the luxury of being so individualistic this time. This isn't a statement of personal style. This is a choice between two very, very different agendas. Sadly, it's your job to figure out which one you agree with DESPITE the media barrage. It's not easy. Kerry hasn't appealed to your intellect but Bush has? From where do you get your news?
You said "Personally I am an independent. I vote my conscience. I vote with my intellect, not my emotions. " I wanted to be an independent. Who wouldn't? It's much cooler. But when I went to register at the age of 18 I realized that in my state, I wouldn't get to vote in the primary if I wasn't registered. So I had to put the cool thing aside and jump into the fray if I wanted to have any real voice in politics. And I've been there ever since.
I remember I was thirteen and in Catholic school when I saw that and I went around humming the song all the time. I also refused to go on an abortion protest that year and consequently flunked religion class and had to go to summer school where I met eighth grade girls who'd HAD abortions.
Hey Jodie!
Welcome to the board!
Miffy - Co-CL For The Politics Today Board
Wow, well neither Bush nor Kerry is gonna do that...
<>
***That's precisely my point. Neither of them consider it because they feel they have to sell themselves to us. If only they realized they'd get more respect by funneling money away from their campaigns. Maybe someday.....
The parties pay for the convention, although the campaign pays for the TV ads. Why don't you decide based on who has run positive TV ads about who they are and what they stand for as opposed to who has run a series of lies about their opponent. (Kerry would win your vote hands down.)
***I would never vote based on TV ads. TV ads are hardly truth. Anybody can endorse a product or idea that they truly hate or will have nothing to do with once the commercial is over. And what is it that Kerry stands for? I'm with him on the no school voucher thing but other than that and his pro-choice stance (which personally I am against) I really don't know what he's going to do for this country
And I think that in this particular nation building war against insurgents, having an understanding of our last nation buiding war against insurgents, whether through first hand experience or through extensive reading and consulting, might be a plus.
***I really don't think you can't compare the two wars. The agendas were different, the amount of lives lost per year (comparatively speaking is much less) and we got our man this time. I don't necessarily think knowing about the Vietnam (which we undeniably lost) makes running this war better.
John Kerry is for alliances not based on quid pro quo and payback, but on a mutual goal of a free and democratic world.
***Regardless of what other countries think of the US war machine, they still would never do without our market economy. Wars are primarily fought by US troops, and if someone else at the table disagrees and doesn't send troops, it doesn't have a huge effect. And as far as I can tell, the only impact of France's disagreement with the war is a dislike of Bush and Americans eating "Freedom Fries" And I'd still rather my taxes go towards a war that has a goal of giving democracy to a dictatorship than to programs that enable people to stay in poverty levels. And Bush has not only cut rich peoples taxes, but everyones. (Didn't you get a few hundred dollars back a couple of years ago?)
You say that John Kerry voted for the war, but then voted against it's funding. Are you aware that he supported a competing bill that would have provided the funds if they were payed for by rolling back the tax cut on people earning more than $240,000 a year?
***This doesn't seem right to me either. He's playing politics. If I roll back tax cuts on the wealthy then the middle class will like me. Why should the doctors and lawyers and CEO's of America have to pay for the war? I have great respect for the wealthy people of this country. Many of them have worked hard to get where they are today (unlike Kerry, who got most of his money from his wife)
Mostly the poor or lower class are putting their lives on the line in Iraq. The least the privileged class could do is help pay for it (not in an increased tax, just not a tax CUT. The cut was initially suggested by Bush because of the enormous SURPLUS our country had. Somehow it was also the answer to the deficit. Huh?)
***Unless these people are drafted, this argument won't hold water for me. When you make a concious choice to go into the army, you can't classify the soldiers economically. They didn't have to go. They had a choice. If they didn't it would be a totally different argument. I've known plenty of suburbanites who have gone into the army as well as lower class. But the bottom line is they have a choice.
How do you feel about secretly jailing American citizens with no access to lawyers or their family? Doesn't this fly in the face of what America is all about?
***Depends. Are they a threat to national security. Are they funding terrorist cells. Do they have terrorist connections? IF so, then I'm fine with that. Yes, America is about Freedom, about unalienable rights. But if someone in this country has ties to a group that wants to kill Americans, then I feel my rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are in danger!
Personally, a President threatening to alter our most precious document - the Constitution - to pander to his political base (he only did it because he was sure it would never pass - it was a ploy) is outta there in my book.
****I'm all for the gay marriage amendment. I think that if gay marriage laws are passed in this country then we will be seeing more and more people without health insurance. Insurance companies will be legally bound to accept spouses of homosexuals for fear of discrimination. However, companies can decide to cut benefits as they see fit and I don't think they are willing to pay the bill for that many more people who could come onto healthcare. The result: The average person will end up paying for his own health insurance, which is astronomically high. This is just my speculation, but I can't see how it won't happen.
Thanks for your comments. I'm always open for debate. I'm not 100% Bush 0% Kerry, I'm just waiting for the debates.... Right now I'm about 80% Bush 20% Kerry (and I'm using very unintellectual means for this 20%
Take care,
Jodie
Pages