Your comments are sensible and mostly accurate. But I have 1 beef to pick with you.
There is no far-right fundimentalist Christian wing of the Republican party. I find it very sad that people who try to stand up for basic tenets of this country's heritage, such as the notion that the country was founded as 'one nation under God', are disregarded as far-right fundimentalists. On the contrary, it is those who strive to tear down our birthright and make it illegal to worship how we choose because it might make someone else uncomfortable that should be feared. Maybe you feel like words like 'under God' don't belong in national texts, so you support their cause. What you don't realize is that you actually empowering them to take away your freedom to choose to speak as you will, to believe as you choose, or to live as you choose.
If you were referring to those who are pro-life or who oppose giving extra rights to gays and lesbians, then you fail to realize that these views are held by vast numbers of americans and cannot therefore be described as far-right fundamentalist views.
As for me, I'm in a pickle, I agree mostly with Nader except for his views on the two or three issues most important to me. But they didn't put his name on the ballot here anyway.
Re:I'm in England and I'm not American... but...
on
Pre-Election Discussion
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
I think it's freaking hilarious when non-americans voice their opinion about american politics. Except that I don't comprehend their interest. What difference does it make to a brit who will be the American president for the next 4 years? Why do you even have an opinion? Don't you have better things to do with your time than follow an election that doesn't involve you?
On the flip side, I'd bet there's nigh zero Americans that give a shit about the next brit election. What does that tell us?
Obviously only metaphorically.
This really isn't the right place to discuss this so I'll say it simply: While neither candidate's views are close to what I would, I can think of no case where Kerry's views are closer to mine that Bush's.
In tandem, pointing out any flaw that Bush has is meaningless as he is still the better of the only two viable options. I'll not argue he is without flaws.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comments are sensible and mostly accurate. But I have 1 beef to pick with you.
There is no far-right fundimentalist Christian wing of the Republican party. I find it very sad that people who try to stand up for basic tenets of this country's heritage, such as the notion that the country was founded as 'one nation under God', are disregarded as far-right fundimentalists. On the contrary, it is those who strive to tear down our birthright and make it illegal to worship how we choose because it might make someone else uncomfortable that should be feared. Maybe you feel like words like 'under God' don't belong in national texts, so you support their cause. What you don't realize is that you actually empowering them to take away your freedom to choose to speak as you will, to believe as you choose, or to live as you choose.
If you were referring to those who are pro-life or who oppose giving extra rights to gays and lesbians, then you fail to realize that these views are held by vast numbers of americans and cannot therefore be described as far-right fundamentalist views.
As for me, I'm in a pickle, I agree mostly with Nader except for his views on the two or three issues most important to me. But they didn't put his name on the ballot here anyway.
I think it's freaking hilarious when non-americans voice their opinion about american politics. Except that I don't comprehend their interest. What difference does it make to a brit who will be the American president for the next 4 years? Why do you even have an opinion? Don't you have better things to do with your time than follow an election that doesn't involve you? On the flip side, I'd bet there's nigh zero Americans that give a shit about the next brit election. What does that tell us?
Obviously only metaphorically. This really isn't the right place to discuss this so I'll say it simply: While neither candidate's views are close to what I would, I can think of no case where Kerry's views are closer to mine that Bush's. In tandem, pointing out any flaw that Bush has is meaningless as he is still the better of the only two viable options. I'll not argue he is without flaws.
Honor and similar words use the 'u' for british spelling and do not use it for american spelling.
I concur. Kerry is infinitely worse than Bush.