Comments on: Straw Poll http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/ Decimation & Reconstruction: a weblog Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:38:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Tabitha http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-691 Tabitha Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:17:03 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-691 Or rather, the power of celebrity. Although actually this is one of the things I had in mind when I referred to progress in recent elections. Or rather, the power of celebrity. Although actually this is one of the things I had in mind when I referred to progress in recent elections.

]]> By: pete http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-687 pete Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:09:10 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-687 don't discount the power of the third party...said the guy from the state formerly governed by Jesse Ventura... don’t discount the power of the third party…said the guy from the state formerly governed by Jesse Ventura…

]]> By: basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-686 basil Thu, 30 Sep 2004 21:12:25 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-686 Tabitha, I sympathize with your sentiment. My problem is that the two parties that currently dominate have the wrong priorities on their agenda. Tabitha, I sympathize with your sentiment. My problem is that the two parties that currently dominate have the wrong priorities on their agenda.

]]> By: Tabitha http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-685 Tabitha Thu, 30 Sep 2004 20:38:55 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-685 Okay, its been a couple of days so maybe this thread is dead. But just in case anyone is listening... I think I'm all for having more political parties as serious contenders. On the other hand, voting for one of the current independents in the presidential election is not the way this needs to be done. I don't really understand politics all that well, but it seems to me that if by some unimaginable fluke one of the independents actually won the presidency this year then we would find ourselves with a decapitated head of state virtually incapable of accomplishing anything with his or her term of office. For a political party to count, it needs first to build its foundation on the local and state levels. I understand some progress has been made on these levels in recent elections. Personally I believe that until these parties can make themselves heard and felt locally they will be incapable of and unprepared for real action nationally. So register however you want, volunteer for the independent party of your choice, support their local candidates whenever you can, encourage them to keep their dollars local where they can actually reach the people they want to persuade. Build a foundation that can support the weight of national office. Until then, let your national vote be determined by today's reality. Okay, its been a couple of days so maybe this thread is dead. But just in case anyone is listening… I think I’m all for having more political parties as serious contenders. On the other hand, voting for one of the current independents in the presidential election is not the way this needs to be done. I don’t really understand politics all that well, but it seems to me that if by some unimaginable fluke one of the independents actually won the presidency this year then we would find ourselves with a decapitated head of state virtually incapable of accomplishing anything with his or her term of office. For a political party to count, it needs first to build its foundation on the local and state levels. I understand some progress has been made on these levels in recent elections. Personally I believe that until these parties can make themselves heard and felt locally they will be incapable of and unprepared for real action nationally. So register however you want, volunteer for the independent party of your choice, support their local candidates whenever you can, encourage them to keep their dollars local where they can actually reach the people they want to persuade. Build a foundation that can support the weight of national office. Until then, let your national vote be determined by today’s reality.

]]> By: basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-683 basil Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:35:44 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-683 There are other issues at stake in the choice of a president. But the only reason I would vote for a Republican is the Pro-life plank. I'm trying to determine if I'm really doing anything with that vote, or if I'm being had by oligarchs who just want to keep their hold on power. There are other issues at stake in the choice of a president. But the only reason I would vote for a Republican is the Pro-life plank. I’m trying to determine if I’m really doing anything with that vote, or if I’m being had by oligarchs who just want to keep their hold on power.

]]> By: Grace http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-682 Grace Tue, 28 Sep 2004 20:49:03 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-682 Why is abortion still legal? Because Bush isn't a king or dictator. He is personally pro-life, but the country is divided on the issue. That means to me that it is the job of the Church and all concerned pro-life people to undertake the change of heart for this country. If you don't want to vote for Bush, don't vote for Bush. But to hold it against him that he isn't able to one-handedly swing both houses, the judicial branch and the American people to his side on this issue is ludicrous. BTW, Libertarians are ambiguous at best on the abortion issue, so voting for them wouldn't make any sense. Their party platform is vague, but since the highest good they recognize is freedom, most Libertarians are pro-choice. Why is abortion still legal? Because Bush isn’t a king or dictator. He is personally pro-life, but the country is divided on the issue. That means to me that it is the job of the Church and all concerned pro-life people to undertake the change of heart for this country.

If you don’t want to vote for Bush, don’t vote for Bush. But to hold it against him that he isn’t able to one-handedly swing both houses, the judicial branch and the American people to his side on this issue is ludicrous.

BTW, Libertarians are ambiguous at best on the abortion issue, so voting for them wouldn’t make any sense. Their party platform is vague, but since the highest good they recognize is freedom, most Libertarians are pro-choice.

]]> By: pete http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-681 pete Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:12:50 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-681 that whole statement, and most of that post, is actually a quote from: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3114.html that whole statement, and most of that post, is actually a quote from:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3114.html

]]> By: lisa http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-680 lisa Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:50:30 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-680 Let me preface this comment by saying I am not trying to be sarcastic. I am looking for clarity only. Pete said "On the campaign trail, George Bush and his wife both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: “I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE or the Congress would totally ban abortions,� President Bush professed." I don't understand how the quote from Bush saying he doesn't think "Congress would totally ban abortions," supports the theory that Bush and his wife have "both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned." I find a big difference between the words "would" and "should." Pete are you using Bush's quote to back your first statement or are you basing it on other material? Let me preface this comment by saying I am not trying to be sarcastic. I am looking for clarity only.

Pete said “On the campaign trail, George Bush and his wife both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned: “I don’t think the culture has changed to the extent that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE or the Congress would totally ban abortions,â€? President Bush professed.”

I don’t understand how the quote from Bush saying he doesn’t think “Congress would totally ban abortions,” supports the theory that Bush and his wife have “both admitted that they don’t think Roe v. Wade should be overturned.” I find a big difference between the words “would” and “should.”

Pete are you using Bush’s quote to back your first statement or are you basing it on other material?

]]> By: basil http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-679 basil Tue, 28 Sep 2004 16:36:42 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-679 I think the CP's insistence on specifically Christian language in the party platform is silly and naïve. However, I think the Libertarian <i>laissez faire</i> attitude toward abortion law is unsatisfactory. The reason the CP is attractive is solely because it is libertarian, while also being Christian and pro-life. The abortion issue is the one reason I have not voted Libertarian. The religion issue may or may not be the one issue that keeps me from voting CP. I think the CP’s insistence on specifically Christian language in the party platform is silly and naïve. However, I think the Libertarian laissez faire attitude toward abortion law is unsatisfactory. The reason the CP is attractive is solely because it is libertarian, while also being Christian and pro-life. The abortion issue is the one reason I have not voted Libertarian. The religion issue may or may not be the one issue that keeps me from voting CP.

]]> By: pete http://kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/comment-page-1/#comment-678 pete Tue, 28 Sep 2004 14:14:03 +0000 http://blog.kevinbasil.com/2004/09/27/straw-poll/#comment-678 Erich, I couldn't agree more about the viability and importance of the third party in American politics--I'm just arguing that the Constitution party isn't the best such party. Erich, I couldn’t agree more about the viability and importance of the third party in American politics–I’m just arguing that the Constitution party isn’t the best such party.

]]>