Tired of Kerry propaganda?

I was just wondering if anyone else is getting tired of having all of this Kerry propaganda being forcefully pushed on them. It seems as if I can not even leave my house without someone right there to tell me how great Kerry is. In fact, I have changed my vote from Kerry to Bush for the simple fact that I am tired of everyone I see telling me to vote for him.

It's a real shame to hear that you've changed your vote simply because Kerry is getting all the normal pre-election press that he can.

In fact, I'm rather surprised that you've changed your vote solely on this.

I'm happy that you're truthful, but honestly, couldn't you lie to us, at least tell us that you had a GOOD reason to do this, other than getting your panties in a wad over a media circus?

That sort of thing is normal this time of year every four years. In fact, it's so regular and normal you could probably set your watch to it.

I honestly don't think you should have done that, but everyone is entitled to their choice, so I guess that's that, right?

Your post answers a fundamental question I have about swing voters. What goes on in their brains? If this were an election between a moderate Republican and a Democrat I could understand all of the undecided voters. But in this election undecided voters make me wonder if they look at all the issues that are facing us in this election:

1. The appointment of possibly three Supreme Court justices.

2. Abortion rights.

3. Federal funding of stem cell research.

4. The continual erosion of Social Security and Medicare.

(These two are bones of contention with Republicans. They know they can't get rid of them outright so their long term goal has been to either privatize one or both or bankrupt the nation so much with tax cuts that cutting these two will seem sensible to the average citizen. I don't buy into conspiracy theories much but I honestly feel they are doing everything they can short of honesty to get rid of them. The ghost of Roosevelt and his New Deal still haunts Conservatives to the core and probably still spit on effigies of him in deep, dark cellars somewhere.)

5. The continued threat of pre-emptive wars that will do nothing to stop terrorism and only continue to spiral our country deeper into debt.

6. Environmental reform that has either been stopped or reversed under the current administration in favor of corporate interests.

7. Outsourcing of jobs and this administrations leanings that unchecked outsourcing is a good thing for America. Limited outsourcing can be good, but the wholesale use of it is why the current economic recovery is producing few jobs or jobs that pay under $10 an hour. Other factors contribute to this but its a big problem.

Your 'blowin' in the wind' approach to deciding your vote confirms my worst fears, we live in a society that is increasingly devoid of a firm grasp on all the issues at hand.

I have more respect for Republican voters than I do undecideds at this point, at least they have taken the time to know where they stand on most of these issues.

The only group of udecideds I give a break to on this subject are young voters under 20, they probably are truly trying to sort everything out and many may not have a firm grasp yet on where they stand on the issues. The rest are just disengaged and socially unaware as far as I'm concerned.



[edit on 103131p://333 by Weller]

Originally posted by Weller
Your post answers a fundamental question I have about swing voters. What goes on in their brains? If this were an election between a moderate Republican and a Democrat I could understand all of the undecided voters. But in this election undecided voters make me wonder if they look at all the issues that are facing us in this election:

Of couse they dont look at the issues. They wonder well what's in it for me? That was a cheap shot and I hope it caused no offense but the undecided SCARE me, this election is NOT grey. It is BLACK and WHITE! ( not race but clarity)

Originally posted by Weller1. The appointment of possibly three Supreme Court justices.

This IS SO BIG.................Really most folks do not know how big this is, while we have a republican congress, we need to get conservatives on the SC and Fast!

Originally posted by Weller2. Abortion rights.

Ok lets just legalize murder in all forms, if the child is bad and 14, the parent should have the right to kill it. Is there a difference? It STOPS A HEARTBEAT.........PERIOD.

Originally posted by Weller3. Federal funding of stem cell research.

Well on this one I am biased, it might not be a bad thing but can it not be done from 'cells' other than the murdered? New reports suggest just that! Fat cells can work..........

Originally posted by Weller4. The continual erosion of Social Security and Medicare.

Erosion? WHAT? IT IS GETTING BIGGER! GW Bush is a dipstick on this one. It needs to shrink, we CAN NOT PAY for the promises aleady given by vote seakers.

GW BUSH FAILS THIS ONE BIGTIME!

Originally posted by Weller(These two are bones of contention with Republicans. They know they can't get rid of them outright so their long term goal has been to either privatize one or both or bankrupt the nation so much with tax cuts that cutting these two will seem sensible to the average citizen. I don't buy into conspiracy theories much but I honestly feel they are doing everything they can short of honesty to get rid of them. The ghost of Roosevelt and his New Deal still haunts Conservatives to the core and probably still spit on effigies of him in deep, dark cellars somewhere.)

TDR was a communist! You do not offer things for nothing, PERIOD. It builds dependancy. IF it had been controlled, it might no t be so bad but we are already to far gone, )SEE EUROPE(.

Originally posted by Weller5. The continued threat of pre-emptive wars that will do nothing to stop terrorism and only continue to spiral our country deeper into debt.

How misguided you are! It will allow us to confront the assault on our way of life........Debt? Well that is true is is a problem. maybe we better let out economy grow without eccessive taxation for wealth redistribution!

Originally posted by Weller6. Environmental reform that has either been stopped or reversed under the current administration in favor of corporate interests.

Well that is a good thing, we dont need to be worried about a three-toe titmouse when our livelyhood is in Jeopardy. Corperate = Jobs = paycheck = less welfare

Originally posted by edsinger
Of couse they dont look at the issues. They wonder well what's in it for me? That was a cheap shot and I hope it caused no offense but the undecided SCARE me, this election is NOT grey. It is BLACK and WHITE! ( not race but clarity)

We may disagree on some individual issues, however, I'm glad we both agree that an electorate informed on the issues is the most important thing. It doesn't matter what someone's views are as long as they make their voice heard in a responsible manner...meaning voting with all the facts at hand.

Cheers!

Originally posted by Weller
1. The appointment of possibly three Supreme Court justices.

Weller, I got to admit that you have brought out all the critical points that voters need to pay attention to. I'm just going to respond to the first three and you'll know where I stand on the others.

The possible appointments of Supreme Court justices is a very big issue as far as I'm concerned. I would like justices that strictly interpret the constitution, and not be partial to special interest groups.

2. Abortion rights.

I'll never believe that a woman's body should take precedence over a human life within that body.

3. Federal funding of stem cell research.

Federal funding should not be permitted. Since we live in a country that flourishes the idea of capitalism, government control will do nothing but hinder research. Private funding will yeild more results without bureaucrats standing over researchers backs. In other words, tax money should never fund projects that the private sector can fund themselves.

Originally posted by IntelearthlingThe possible appointments of Supreme Court justices is a very big issue as far as I'm concerned. I would like justices that strictly interpret the constitution, and not be partial to special interest groups.

I'm glad you feel its important as well. Few have even mentioned it. Iraq and terrorism has taken such a big role in this election that I fear people are making choice based soley on them alone. I didn't want to necessarily give my opinion on each of the points I brought up, simply that they are important items to consider regardless of one's views.

I honestly feel that fear is masking a lot of the other issues right now and I also believe that Bush and his cohorts know this and are using the distraction (not using it as a distraction, although that is debatable.) to do things that would get more attention normally.

Originally posted by IntelearthlingI'll never believe that a woman's body should take precedence over a human life within that body.

I disagree but I respect your view none the less. Its a thorny issue but suffice it to say that a woman't right to choose is precious to me. I do not like it when women use it as a form of birth control and I am against late term abortion except in the case of saving a woman's life, rape or incest. A woman should make up her mind in the first trimester. So I do have my limits on supporting a pro-choice view.

We don't need to get into a debate on it any further, I just wanted to state my views. I can't and don't want to change yours and I know for certain you can't change mine although, again, I respect your opinion.

Originally posted by IntelearthlingSince we live in a country that flourishes the idea of capitalism, government control will do nothing but hinder research. Private funding will yeild more results without bureaucrats standing over researchers backs.

I agree with the idea that private research will yield more benefits in the long run and this particular issue will be funded greatly by the private sector. But a double standard gets put into play when the government funds some areas of research and not others. Bush is essentially using his own morals to decide whether federal funding should be granted on further lines of stem cells and thats where I have the problem. If he doesn't want to extend research funding then the federal government needs to keep its mouth shut when things happen outside of their control through private research.

Yet another thorny issue but people look at it differently I suppose. I am completely agnostic and do not think humans are anymore special than any other animal (or any form of life for that matter) species on the planet. We turn a blind eye towards animal testing and the wholesale destruction of the rest of the living ecosystem in our pursuits for resources and development but when it comes to aborting a human or using stem cells to possibly cure diseases some people's double standard in this area comes into full view. You do not have to agree with me, I just wanted to take the time to illustrate why I feel the way I do about both issues.

Originally posted by IntelearthlingFederal funding should not be permitted. In other words, tax money should never fund projects that the private sector can fund themselves.

Then you don't believe in government grants to research vaccines for the flu or cures for cancer either? One of the best options for achieving both ends is a combination of federal funding and private sectore research. Private sector research is needed but its usually motivated by making a profit and I just don't trust them to actually cure anything, just manage problems the way the pharmaceutical companies love to do to ensure that the money rolls in.

Government funding provides the one area of research that is, hopefully, not tainted by a desire to make a profit. Its a situation of having ones cake and eating it to. I just do not trust the private sector to do anything worthwhile that doesn't involve a profit.

Cheers.


[edit on 093131p://444 by Weller]

Originally posted by Kyle72
I have changed my vote from Kerry to Bush for the simple fact that I am tired of everyone I see telling me to vote for him.

Respectfully............that's a poor reason to not vote someone that you had previously decided on. You must of chosen him for a reason and just because others agree and may voice ther opinion....is no reason to vote opposite him....that's very Sorta like cutting your nose off, to spite your face.

I've caught Rush and Sean for entertainment, and believe me, hard as I tried, I cannot get "Hannitized". To change your opinion on who to vote just because of someone telling you who to vote for is silly and shallow.
Cant you form an opinion?

Originally posted by Weller
I'm glad you feel its important as well. Few have even mentioned it. Iraq and terrorism has taken such a big role in this election that I fear people are making choice based soley on them alone.

Your replies deserve recognition Weller. They are very well thought out. Getting back to the Supreme Court, I believe a lot of people don't take the time to consider that the Supreme Court is one of the three branches of our government. During presidential elections I believe they just concentrate on the Executive Branch, not even taking any thought about the Legislative or Judicial parts and to me, that's sad not to know the differences in each branch and their duties.

I know the war is probably on the minds of a majority of the nations people. I can say that this war will come to an end eventually, but the problems at home will still be here unless they're addressed and solutions implemented to fix the problems that exist here. And we both know there's an awful lot of them.

As for the other replies, I can respect your choice. Your replies are sensible and educated responses. I can sit and talk with someone with your attitude and learn a thing or two from you.

Take care and check you later.

Originally posted by Intelearthling
I can sit and talk with someone with your attitude and learn a thing or two from you.

Take care and check you later.

Right back at your my friend. I learn more from sensible debate with people of opposing views than I ever do from those who agree with me on everything. It helps one challenge their views, adjust them if new information is worthy of doing so and know for sure that what they believe is indeed what they truly believe.

Cheers!

In fact, I have changed my vote from Kerry to Bush for the simple fact that I am tired of everyone I see telling me to vote for him.

Another well-informed voter!

Though I might have a tendency to agree with you friend MKULTRA (btw, how you been?), how many Kerry supporters are out there in America today that are only supporting and voting for him based on the mere stance and inclination of Anybody/Anyone But Bush?

Would they not fall under what you have remarked above pertaining to well-informed voters, also?



seekerof

[edit on 8-10-2004 by Seekerof]

Though I might have a tendency to agree with you friend MKULTRA (btw, how you been?), how many Kerry supporters are out there in America today that are only supporting and voting for him based on the mere stance and inclination of Anybody/Anyone But Bush?

Would they not fall under what you have remarked above pertaining to well-informed voters, also?

Hey Seeker! I've been well, but extremely busy! The patients as well as my numerous "side projects" (*cough*) have been incredibly active and increasing in demand for resources. Such is the state of the world's affairs.

In terms of this issue, I agree with you: The "anybody but Bush" bumper sticker-types are distressing. They do seem to advertise and encourage a mindset of ignorance. I'm sure a great many Kerry supporters couldn't coherently explain Kerry's foreign policy plan. My belief is that there is a very low proportion of well-informed voters participating in this election. Of course, this has direct implications for the outcome (and beyond), whichever candidate happens to win.

The media trend of encouraging people to engage in dichotomous thinking has been amusing to observe. Now, its either Kerry or Bush. If one criticizes Bush, most people assume that the individual is voting for Kerry (and vice versa).

This has developed into an interesting general pattern: Expose people to a limited range of strong opinions, throw in a few 'hotbutton' issues (and events) to increase the viewing public's overall affective response, and saturate the public with the stereotyped candidates who appear to have completely different (yet similar) perspectives. A subtle manipulation appears to be occurring, and just as with the principles of stage magic, mass attention can be efficiently diverted as the manipulation is taking place.

In other words, the average range of stimuli available to incorporate into individual decision-making has been pathetic, at best. Distractions (both real and contrived) require cognitive resources to process. As cognitive fatigue increases, it leads one to conclude: "Anybody but ....", and "I'm tired...".

I suppose my "well informed voter" comment was more a remark of sarcasm, since under the current conditioning paradigm it is highly difficult for the average citizen to arrive at a decision based solely on rational means. We are definitely living in interesting times.

Kind Regards,
MK

Originally posted by Seekerof
Though I might have a tendency to agree with you friend MKULTRA (btw, how you been?), how many Kerry supporters are out there in America today that are only supporting and voting for him based on the mere stance and inclination of Anybody/Anyone But Bush?

Would they not fall under what you have remarked above pertaining to well-informed voters, also?



seekerof

[edit on 8-10-2004 by Seekerof]

Yes maybe your right Seekerof But don't forget you and all the other Bush supporters support this.


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."
- Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
- George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world."
- Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
- Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
- George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
- Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons."
- George Bush, February 8 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
- George Bush, March 17 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes."
- Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them."
- Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003.

"Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."
- Bush in October 2002.

"Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda."
- Bush in January 2003 State of the Union address.

"Iraq has also provided Al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training."
- Bush in February 2003.

"sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al-Qaeda terrorist network."
Powell in his U.N. speech prior to the Iraq War.

"We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda."
Bush in May 2003.

Stated that the Iraqis were "providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."
- Cheney in September 2003.

"Saddam had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional weapons."
- Cheney in October 2003.
.......

Cheney said Saddam "had long established ties with Al Qaeda."
- June 14, 2004.

Bush said, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda."
- June 17, 2004.

Originally posted by Weller
Right back at your my friend. I learn more from sensible debate with people of opposing views than I ever do from those who agree with me on everything. It helps one challenge their views, adjust them if new information is worthy of doing so and know for sure that what they believe is indeed what they truly believe.

Cheers!

I can see that you're not into the kind of bashing and lashing out at people with opposite views, and that's a kind of quality in a person. I know that my views are viewed by many as being harsh or maybe a little inflexible to a lot of people, but I try to compromise on things that others believe in and don't like to be forced into something that I'm initially against. That just makes me that much more determined not to see the other persons view. Weller, I find it relaxing and pleasurable to have dialogue with you.

My brother-in-law, he works with handi-capped individuals, and he's voting for Kerry and never once have I said that he shouldn't. He knows I'm voting for Bush and knows my reasons and he's never told me that I shouldn't.

We were talking one night about our reasons and he said that the feild of work he's in, is under-funded and to meet the demands of care that he's giving the people he works with, they need more federal and state support and he believes that Kerry will be able to get bills passed in Congress to meet the needs he's talking about. I can say that I sympathize with the problems that he faces, but he understands that it's not a reason to change support of the candidate I'm supporting and vice versa.

I support Bush because I feel that he'll support laws that's going to make it tough for people who wish to inflict harm on the innocent citizens of this nation and I believe that it's important to do all we can do to protect the American people at any cost, because if we start getting attacked on a regular basis, then health-care and the economy won't matter a whole lot. I believe if we can protect ourselves and keep the American people safe, the benefits of lower costs of health-care and higher wages will be next in line and I'm willing to wait for the benefits as soon as we are secure in our safety.

I wish we could have it both ways, but you know as well I do, some things just have to give.

Hats off to you and as always, take care my friend.


[edit on 9/10/04 by Intelearthling]