What will you do if Bush wins?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2004
What will you do if Bush wins?
841
Fri, 08-20-2004 - 12:02pm
I would like to know what you all will do if Bush wins? I don't know if I can handle another 4 years. Any ideas of how to reclaim our country and restore democracy and freedom? I'm worried that another 4 years will increase the authoritariansm and absolute power that Bush has come to claim and further trample on our constitution and individual liberties. I'm truly frightened.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:15pm

Welcome to the board nightinglale!


<<What I'm truly afraid of is that Bush will issue a draft.>>


That's one fear that can be put to rest. The military is meeting their recruitment & re-enlistment goals, and the troop realignment that was announced a few weeks ago was to free up units so that they can be utilized relieve the

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:17pm

<<Sorry, I stand by my use of the word....just because the bodies are not lining the streets in a pool of blood does not mean Bush has not left a path of carnage and debris in his wake...>>


I have a penchant for hyperbole, too.

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:19pm

<< I'd like to know either way both candidates' stances on the draft.>>


Couldn't say about Kerry--who could?-- but Bush is easy. The draft is not an option

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:20pm
You have a good memory.

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:23pm

Do you have a mole in the Pentagon, or what?

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:32pm

<>


"The most telling example of conservative indifference to the abortion issue occurred in California. In 1967, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan signed a bill that virtually decriminalized abortion. At the time, Mr. Reagan was troubled by the passionate lobbying against the bill by Cardinal Francis McIntyre. But on the advice of two of his most conservatives advisers, Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger, Mr. Reagan signed anyway. He persuaded himself that the measure would have little impact. Instead, it prompted a surge in abortions.


Roe v. Wade changed the terms of the abortion debate, but not instantly. At first, conservatives were more upset by the decision's dubious legal reasoning and its creation of a new constitutional right unmentioned in the Constitution itself than by the actual impact. But it soon became clear that the supposedly complicated three-trimester scheme laid out in the ruling wasn't really so complicated. It meant abortion on demand, and the number of abortions soared into the millions.

Roe v. Wade had moved America into a dark new world. Defending the decision, radical feminists insisted that an unborn child was no more valuable as human life than a wart. A lucrative abortion industry grew up. The Democratic Party endorsed an unfettered right to an abortion in its 1980 platform.

Messrs. Reagan and Hyde were among the first Republicans to have strong misgivings. Within a year after signing the abortion bill, Mr. Reagan told political writer Lou Cannon that he'd never have done so if he'd been more experienced in office. It was "the only time as governor or president that Reagan acknowledged a mistake on major legislation," Mr. Cannon writes in his new book, "Governor Reagan: His Rise to Power." By 1980, Mr. Reagan was campaigning for president in favor of banning abortion in all but rare cases.

Rep. Hyde, too, had been indifferent when initially confronted with the abortion issue. As an Illinois state representative in 1968, he was asked by a colleague to cosponsor a bill easing abortion restrictions. "I had never thought about the issue," Mr. Hyde says. The bill led him to study the matter and consult abortion opponents. He decided to oppose the bill, though not vocally. But when it came up for a vote, "I sat there and nobody rose to speak in opposition," Mr. Hyde says. "Almost by default, I spoke against it." The bill was defeated. Elected to the U.S. House in 1974, Mr. Hyde quickly concluded that the pro-life cause wasn't popular in Washington, including among Republicans. But Mr. Hyde agreed to speak against the appropriation of $50 million to pay for 300,000 Medicaid abortions. "By God, we had a vote and I won," he says. Thus was born the Hyde Amendment, which still bars the use of federal funds for abortion, and Mr. Hyde's role as the leading pro-life force in Congress." http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110004264

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-24-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:37pm
<

********Already there are signs among singles of a growing disenchantment with their benefits situation. Some single workers contend that they are stuck paying for such benefits as health care for their married colleagues. Singles also are more likely than married workers to take on extra, odd-hour work on short notice. A recent study by the Conference Board, a global management organization based in New York, reported that about 25 percent of 300 professionals surveyed believed they were having to shoulder more work with less to show for it than married workers. ********

The types of real life descriminations listed from the artical above are but one example of the descrimination we deal with as a group on a daily basis...though you refuse to accept it, my issue with school taxes are yet another example of that descrimination that you wish to be blind towards. For instance, did you know that in the IRS code alone that there are over 1100 specific tax breaks given specifically to the class of people known as married with children that are not available to those without children....sorry, but that is not justice and fairness for all, that is not a tax code/law created to afford equality for all.>>

I never said there was no discrimination going on here. As I see it you are being that way towards parents with children, but that's my opinion. As for your tax break example, I know there are tax breaks for us but I certainly don't get 1100 of them. There are lots of tax breaks business people can get that I don't get but I'm not complaining about it. Buy the way the year I got married I checked what our return would have been single compared to what it was married and we would have recieved more had we stayed single. I also would recieve more if I were poor, but I would rather live comfortably and get less tax breaks then to be poor and recieve more.

<>

I have no problem with Gay marraige, so this seems to me is irrelevant.

<>

I'm sorry but I do not see this as a dicrimination issue. The tax breaks you speak of are put there by the gov. I don't see a bunch of parents protesting for more tax breaks and to please make those without children pay a bigger share. As for the example of parents being less likely to take odd hours, of coarse they are. That doesn't mean they are trying to descriminate. Most likely they will have to find a sitter, which can not always be done on short notice. A single person doesn't have to worry about this, but at the same time the single person does not have to accept the odd hours either. My husband use to take peoples shifts for this same reason, but now that we have kids he still does it. So I'm sorry but I don't see it as discrimination.

When I was in the military, I was required to live in the billets or pay for my own rent. While those married got paid extra to live off post and were paid extra for food, but I don't care. Those are just things put in place to make things more liveable for those families. You can call that discrimination, but I think that is just petty.

Venus

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:45pm

<>


Clinton was happy to campaign on that number.


<>


Also, we have over a million more jobs now then we did when Clinton was in office. The increase in unemployment over the last few years is not due to a net loss of jobs, but to an increase in the population.


Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:53pm

<<Has there ever been a candidate who posessed all christian qualities? >>


Of course not. What's your point?


Renee ~~~

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-17-2004
Mon, 08-30-2004 - 6:55pm

<<I haven't seen anything cleaned off these boards since I've been on. But who knows maybe they do eventually. >>


Nope, every word is still here, immortalized for all time. ; )

Renee ~~~

Renee ~~~

Pages