[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Nate Duehr]

David L. Willson wrote:

> I'm counting.  This is the N'th time that someone has accused GWB of
> lying us into this war, and AFAIK there is no proof.  Last several times
> I accused anyone of lying, I had proof.  Last time we, as a nation,
> called our President a liar, we had plenty of evidence, which he lied
> about, until we came up with a girl's dress with his semen on it.  Is
> there a blue dress here, or is it still possible that the things GWB has
> said are true?

I'm not taking sides on this one, but there has been PLENTY of testimony 
to Congress that the decision-makers had information that showed Iraq 
was NOT the source of "terrorism" long before 9/11 and since.

If it's a "War on Terror", they're in the wrong country, and we all know 
it.  Reaching into Afghanistan (just a place for terrorist to hide) is 
just fighting the symptom.

The terrorists live in other countries.  Most were/are citizens of Saudi 
Arabia, which for various reasons we'd never go to war with, nor demand 
anything of.

Bush's family fortune and the fortunes of others around him, flow from 
Saudi oil.  Plain and simple.  I've worked in the oil industry, and 
there's no such thing as a rich "Texas" oil man with oil only from 
Texas.  That's horse-shit.  Follow the money.

Ironically, Bush Jr's personal money didn't come from oil -- his company 
he ran went bust.  His money was in brokering the Houston Astros stadium 
deal, which netted him his first millions, and he was not required to 
invest to profit.  The investors were happy, and he got the skim.  A 
stadium on taxpayer dollars, about as "Democratic/Liberal" as one could 
get, really.  In the "party line" view of the world.  Funny, really. 
But he made Republicans in Texas rich, not Democrats, so... which side 
is he on?  Then he fell in with the neo-cons, most of which dodged 
Vietnam just as hard as the Dems they flame-broil for doing so.

If voting is about finding character, NONE of the candidates for many 
years has had much.  The only consistent theme is a very "American" one 
for all of the canidates, "Playing to win."  They're all sociopaths in 
this desire to win at all costs.

The most effective leaders in world history were *usually* those forced 
into power who didn't want it.  By definition, this means that anyone 
willingly running for the Presidency, probably isn't who you want to 
follow, ever.

> Is "flag-burning" a stupid issue to a man who has risked his life to
> defend what the flag represents.  Is the definition of "human life" a
> stupid issue to an infertile couple?  How about a couple struggling to
> have children?  How about a 40 year old man who has loved his life, and

As a member of an "infertile couple" I'm insulted that you think you 
know what is important to me.  Please feel free to ask if you'd like to 
really know what I think of activist groups using my perfectly natural 
(infertility happens in nature) situation as a political crutch to gain 
empathy for their causes sometime.  After we cover that, you can ask 
what I think of the topics themselves.

But trust me, most infertile couples don't need/want radical groups out 
  distracting politicians and the public with religious debates, and we 
find it appalling that they do it "in our name"... like we're not here, 
with our own opinions.  Feel free to stop using me to make points in 
your arguments about YOUR religious beliefs.   :-)

Nate