What I have to believe to be and American.

>Things You Have to Believe to Be a Democrat Today

>-------------------------------------------------------------------->------------

>by Jay D. Dyson (Authored in response to: >http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=7800)

>-------------------------------------------------------------------->------------

Of all the replies on the bulletin board that followed this article I liked this one the most:

"While all of you are smugly trading barbs, and hurling accusations, the basic problem with American politics is starkly represented: a divided populace that cannot learn to live together. This is our "party system", and these comments are typical of those whose egos are more important, than actually offering suggestions for bridging what divides them.

Is America too cynical to learn how to be a good neighbor in the world, in a community of nations? Too immature and insensitive to understand that there's only one of these planets upon which to live?

If folks would get out of their "Me First" perspective long enough to understand that what affects one, affects all -- the world may begin to understand that we've had the better system all along - a representative democratic hybrid of government (when it's not being exploited for personal gain or the rights of those who are more "equal than others").

Praise the place you're at - and the place will seem praiseworthy. I would rather have read what is "right" about America, lending toward realistic solutions as to what was "wrong" with the place.

Lose your addiction to bad news and arguing. There's a good place to start."

(please pretend that that's all indented 5 spaces as it's more then 5 lines long)

I wonder if anyone on this board thinks that G. W. Bush is a 'bad' or 'evil' man. That he makes his decisions based on personal gain or greed or lust for power or control. How many have similar feelings about Clinton?

I do not think G. W. Bush is evil. I truly believe he is a good man. I have faith that he weighs the good of the country and all her people whenever a decision looms. I believe that he acts with the intention that we'll be better off tomorrow then we are today. I feel that were I in his shoes I would weigh my decisions on the same scales. I often find myself in disagreement with Mr. Bush's decisions. I voted for Al Gore in the last election, and find Howard Dean an intriguing choice for the upcoming one (though I must be careful to sort how much of my identifying with him comes from his career.) However, I'm not sure how much better the country would be today had Gore been elected. He would have use the same principles in all of his decision making I'm sure. I suspect he may have had a slight advantage intellectually over Mr. Bush to help make his decisions. But when all is said and done, had Mr. Gore made decisions more in line with what I believe should have been done. . . Perhaps France would still like us? The bottom line is I'm not ashamed of my president and I don't think I ever will be. I'm troubled by much of what's going on but try as I might I can't bring myself to paint him and his advisors as villains.

Only 43 people have ever been president of the United States. Each one had to endure charges painting them as some sort of despicable menace from one direction or another. None of them were or are. Right now the economy seems to be getting better. Steps, however small they may be, are being taken to insure that we are safer. Other countries that supposedly hate ask us to cancel flights based on their own intelligence. Refinements are needed and I am confident will be made. No matter who takes office at the beginning of next year these will all continue. The manner in which they continue will be an endless source of debate and bad feelings I'm sure. The economy will continue to get better, and in a few years no matter who is in office, the economy will stutter and stall again ... and then come out again. The president can't do much more about these cycles then Bill Owens can make it snow for the ski areas here in Colorado.

It seems that most of the mistakes that any leader makes and regrets are of the same character as whatever the last president of the opposite party did. Those who aren't in power try to convince us that these are vile and villainous to the point that it becomes surprising that he isn't wringing his hands and wailing MUHAHahahahaaaaaaaaa. The party in power will just as reliably strive to convince us that the mistakes are a necessary evil and actually are somehow forced upon the hapless President by the other side. Or even worse, their made up by some vast (opposite) wing conspiracy.

I'll wrap this up as I know it's already too long. There should be plenty of holes in the logic that the usual suspects can have a blast tearing it limb from limb and I anxiously await with macabre curiosity the impending death of all of my points I really am curious, though, how many of us truly think our leaders are or ever have been truly bad men or if you want to go that far, 'evil.'

Gio in Denver

"Never Argue with a Fool---Those around you may not notice the Difference"

"I wonder if anyone on this board thinks that G. W. Bush is a 'bad' or 'evil' man. That he makes his decisions based on personal gain or greed or lust for power or control. How many have similar feelings about Clinton? "

Well I am happy to come up to the plate on this one Gio.

I not only think that Shrub Jr. is a "bad"and"evil"man,he is controled by masters who are even more evil than he is.

Clinton was no saint(hah)and had many faults(he was human)but those faults pale when placed next to this "evil"puppet and his masters.

Lying about an extrmarital blowjob versus lying about Iraq.One insults the voters and betray their trust.One kills hundreds of people and puts the safty of every American citizen on the line.

Which one would you be willing to forgive?

>Praise the place you're at - and the place will seem

>praiseworthy. I would rather have read what is "right" about

>America, lending toward realistic solutions as to what was

>"wrong" with the place.

>

Gio:

Unfortunately, I think the very crux of the problem is the unwillingness of American folk to look at the problems of the nation and world with some degree of introspection and soul searching. "Praising the place you're at" is the order of the day......instead of a serious attempt to understand what part we might be playing in the problems of the 21st century world. It is all too easy to externalize blame....that's why it happens so frequently. The difficult but better course is to accept the fact that no nation is always right, including our own, and to look for true common ground based on a willingness to make decisions based on justice, rather than what is most frequently selfish interests.

>(please pretend that that's all indented 5 spaces as it's more

>then 5 lines long)

>

>I wonder if anyone on this board thinks that G. W. Bush is a

>'bad' or 'evil' man. That he makes his decisions based on

>personal gain or greed or lust for power or control. How many

>have similar feelings about Clinton?

Having never met George W. Bush (although I have personally met his father) I'm not in a position to say he is a bad or evil man from personal experience. What I can say is that, in my opinion, his policies are incredibly evil. Do I think he gets up every morning and says, "Well, Laura, how can I screw the poor masses today?" I doubt it. Essentially, I don't think he thinks or cares much about the average working person at all. Dubya is a guy who has always had everything taken care of for him, including thinking. He actually revels in his own ignorance of facts and issues. He can't be bothered with reading even the headlines.....he has other people who will do that for him and tell him what to think and say. By his own admission, he likes his news filtered, so that he doesn't have to contend with differing views. That sort of perspective doesn't even rise to the level of being adolescent......it is purely childish....and dangerous.

Saying things are rosy doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it. We need less Pollyanna and more willingness to see what part we play in the ills of the world. At least that would be honest. Sadly, all too many are happy to live with delusion.

>

>I really am curious, though, how many of us truly

>think our leaders are or ever have been truly bad men or if

>you want to go that far, 'evil.'

We have many leaders and I’m sure they range from good to evil with almost all of them being somewhere in between. As far as Bush goes, I don’t believe he is an evil or even bad man, but I certainly wouldn’t go as far as saying I think he is a good man. I think he is just a self-serving politician who is concerned about his legacy and taking care of his kind of people.

I don’t know that that is unique for any person who rises to the Presidency. You obviously can’t swim with sharks if you aren’t one yourself. It’s a trite comparison, but on ‘Survivor’ this season, they asked the Boy Scout troop leader how she could lie like she did. Her response, “You either play the game or you get voted off the island.” Politics is the same way. In order to get elected, you have to play the game.

Whether you view him as good or bad probably depends most on whether you are his kind of people or not. With a few exceptions, I certainly don’t feel that he is looking out for my best interest.

>Whether you view him as good or bad probably depends most on

>whether you are his kind of people or not. With a few

>exceptions, I certainly don’t feel that he is looking out for

>my best interest.

Hey Phage - just curious - could you identify what the "exceptions" are - meaning, which best interests of yours do you think Bush is seeking to protect or advance?

Conversely, other than your status as a gay man, which best interests of yours is Bush not looking to protect?

I'm not asking you to identify the policies with regard to which you disagree with him. Bush may, for instance, be looking out for certain interests of yours but mistakenly pursue the wrong policies in trying to protect those interests.

Rather, I'm asking you to identify your personal interests which you believe he is interested in safeguarding or advancing, and which personal interests of yours he isn't interested in - which, as I understand it, was the topic of your post.

Oh, and phage - in the spirit of the new code here, permit me to express to you in advance my profound appreciation for the time you generously devote to what I know will be your illuminating and thoughtful reply.

e-Heimlich to the Rescue

>Oh, and phage - in the spirit of the new code here, permit me

>to express to you in advance my profound appreciation for the

>time you generously devote to what I know will be your

>illuminating and thoughtful reply.

http://www.ezshots.com/members/blueman/images/blueman-147.gif

>Conversely, other than your status as a gay man, which best

>interests of yours is Bush not looking to protect?

You can’t just sweep this away because it’s a huge part of it. At best he thinks I’m a sinner and at worst a second class citizen. He is a huge obstacle to me obtaining a full range of life choices. Choices about whom I will marry, whether I can adopt children, whether my mate can join me if I have the bad luck of falling in love with a foreigner. He has either executive power over these issues or the power of the bully pulpit, and I don’t like my fate being in his hands.

>I'm not asking you to identify the policies with regard to

>which you disagree with him. Bush may, for instance, be

>looking out for certain interests of yours but mistakenly

>pursue the wrong policies in trying to protect those

>interests.

I think you’re splitting hairs here a little. He doesn’t get credit for working in my best interest if he is pursuing the wrong things. If I get killed in a police high-speed chase, I am no less dead just because it was an honest mistake in the pursuit of some bad guy. If the conditions were not safe, the police were not operating in my best interest.

>Rather, I'm asking you to identify your personal interests

>which you believe he is interested in safeguarding or

>advancing, and which personal interests of yours he isn't

>interested in - which, as I understand it, was the topic of

>your post.

Not sure I can do this without talking about specific policies, but I’ll try. (Anything for you.) Keep in mind that my interests are not limited to me personally, but also include issues that affect the ones I love. Abortion rights being an obvious example.

I feel he is interested in the personal safety of Americans and that includes me even if I am just a big ol’ sinner. I approve of the steps he is taking with regards to homeland security and I disagree with these people who seem to think complete privacy and unrestricted travel are of ultimate importance. This is getting specific, but I really resent people who think their right to easily cross a border supercedes my right to live free of terror.

Along those lines, I believe it is in my best interest to live in a country with a strong military, and that military should be used to further our national interests and increase the safety of American citizens and our allies.

That’s about the extent of where I see common interests. Where we diverge is a longer list.

I would like to live in a country that is admired for its diplomacy and respect for other nations. Either Bush does not believe in statesmanship or he is completely incapable of making it happen. He seems to have no regard or appreciation for the resentment our arrogance creates in the world. He has no finesse, and a little bit of statesmanship might go a long way to making Americans safer in the long run.

I think it is in my best interest to live in a country without a permanent under class that goes without basic medical care and then drains the medical system with catastrophic problems. I can’t recall a peep out of Bush on this subject and I do not consider limited prescription drug coverage for seniors (key voters) as a major step in this direction.

I want to live in a country where medical science is not hindered by stupid, reactive and pandering policies about research. A country where the President shows my living, breathing sister as much concern as he does fetuses.

On a very personal note, I wish that he would show more interest in the technology jobs being sent overseas en masse. I know that might require some actual regulation of big business, but I wish he would show a little more concern for safeguarding the welfare and economic security of the working people – even if it comes at the expense of the multinationals.

There’s more but this is getting too long.

I have personally met with and talked to GW Bush on more than one occasion (before he was Prez) and I know others who know him much better than I do. I can promise you BigGuy that you are mistaken about him. He is doing what he thinks is right for the country's future. Even if you disagree with him, I feel very, very deeply that he is anything but an evil man.

His administration has made missteps, but I believe his motives are pure. (Well ok, maybe "pure" is too pure a word. There are political complexities behind every policy.) That may make me naive, but I have personal experience that he has a great deal of genuine sincerity behind his actions.