If an Arizona man has his way, every person who votes in his state will automatically have his or her name entered in a in draw to win $1 million. Mark Osterloh, an Arizona physician and attorney, is proposing a state law that would act as an incentive to increase voter turnout.
The long-time advocate of electoral policy reform says the idea is a variation on a highly successful law in Australia, under which citizens who fail to vote are fined.
Such a penalty would be unconstitutional in the United States, since freedom of speech includes the freedom not to speak. But Osterloh believes his incentive-based system could be just as effective.
Currently, only one in four Arizona residents exercise the right to vote.
"Who do you know that doesn't want to be an millionaire?" asks Osterloh. "People tell me, 'Darn right, I'll start voting for that.'"
Osterloh is in the process of securing the 122,612 signatures he needs to land his proposal on November's election ballot. If voters say yes, his idea will become state law and, every two years, a million greenbacks will be awarded at random to an Arizona voter.
The prize will come from the Arizona Lottery's unclaimed money pool.
Osterloh maintains that the current electoral system is out of whack with the spirit of a capitalist society. As it stands, the rewards associated with voting are too convoluted to garner widespread participation. Voting - like studying for a school exam or working overtime - needs to present a more immediate and obvious benefit, Osterloh says.
"Our whole capitalist economy is based on the idea of incentives. Capitalism won out over communism because we have incentives built into our system."
But isn't this a bastardization of the democratic process? Shouldn't voters go to the polls out of a sense of duty, rather than in hopes of hitting the jackpot?
Osterloh reminds us that incentive-laden systems are consistent with the Christian paradigm.
"God says, 'Do what you're supposed to do, and I will reward you with eternal life in heaven,'" he argues. "That's what we're saying: 'Do what you're supposed to do and vote, and we will reward you with a chance to be a millionaire.'
"If incentives are good enough for God, they're good enough for the voters of Arizona."
Built into his proposal is a clever clause that would activate the lottery retroactively to the 2006 election, the one in which the proposal is on the ballot. It's an incentive to activate the incentive.
"We're going to tell everybody, 'Look, you better hurry and register and vote if you want to win that first million,'" says Osterloh. "So, you get a big increase in voters.
"By the time they go to a ballot box, they'll already know the process works."
For Osterloh, who ran unsuccessfully as the Democratic candidate for governor of Arizona in 2002, this labour of love is the latest in a string of initiatives designed to clean up the electoral process. He was a co-author of a law that made Arizona one of the few states where it's illegal for candidates to accept campaign contributions from the private sector.
"That way, you don't own anyone any favours when you're get into office," he says. "You're only there to represent the public, not campaign contributors."
Sounds like a great idea if only the people who vote has to contribute to the prize pool. Forcing non-voters to support the prize pool with their taxes would be a taxation without representation.
I think this is a BAD idea. I like playing the lottery, but I play for recreation. Voting is serious a civic duty. Voting is your voice in the government. If you were to add the sweepstakes like atmosphere of a million dollar prize, it would cause people to think of voting as some sweepstake and not a serious vote on issues or political ideas. People should vote because they feel the government should represent certain ideals. Adding this is a mistake because voter apathy is already bad enough this will make people think it's even more of a joke. Some people will vote without knowing anything about canidates or issues just to enter to win the prize. Lotteries and elections should be seperate. Just my 2cents.
I think this is a BAD idea. I like playing the lottery, but I play for recreation. Voting is serious a civic duty. Voting is your voice in the government. If you were to add the sweepstakes like atmosphere of a million dollar prize, it would cause people to think of voting as some sweepstake and not a serious vote on issues or political ideas. People should vote because they feel the government should represent certain ideals. Adding this is a mistake because voter apathy is already bad enough this will make people think it's even more of a joke. Some people will vote without knowing anything about canidates or issues just to enter to win the prize. Lotteries and elections should be seperate. Just my 2cents.
I personally don't think everyone should vote. I think the only people who should vote are the ones who have taken the proper time to understand the issues and care about them enough to go to the polls. I don't want a group of know-nothing lame-o's deciding who is going to run the government.
Lottery tickets are fun I guess, but if they seriously want a bigger turn out, try these.
*Elections free of fraud and electronic voting machines.
*Elections where the candidates and parties represent the interests of the American people, not corporations, the military, multi millionaires, Israel or Saudi Arabia.
*Elections where the two major parties won't act in collusion to toss billions of your tax dollars away in useless and vile foreign wars. Unless there are people who enjoy both losing 28% of their pay and killing Iraqis.
*Elections where all citizens can vote, even if they have been to prison and/or are black.
*Elections held on days most people have off from work or a saturday or sunday.
Lottery tickets are fun I guess, but if they seriously want a bigger turn out, try these.
*Elections free of fraud and electronic voting machines.
*Elections where the candidates and parties represent the interests of the American people, not corporations, the military, multi millionaires, Israel or Saudi Arabia.
*Elections where the two major parties won't act in collusion to toss billions of your tax dollars away in useless and vile foreign wars. Unless there are people who enjoy both losing 28% of their pay and killing Iraqis.
*Elections where all citizens can vote, even if they have been to prison and/or are black.
*Elections held on days most people have off from work or a saturday or sunday.
I disagree with just about everything you said, and here's why:
Electronic voting machines are much more accurate than manual voting methods, as shown in the 2000 Florida elections. We don't want any more "hanging chad" elections like that one, where politicos start counting votes based on "voter intent" determined by how much a piece of paper is torn. That election was an utter debacle, and it had nothing to do with Bush. We should be encouraging electronic voting machines.
The first three things you mentioned -- corporations, the military, and millionaires -- ARE ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE. Are you somehow saying that they should not be represented? People who are anti-corporation generally do not understand that their anti-corporation ways are actually harmful to themselves. Many people do not realize that when they hurt corporations, they put themselves out of a job. And then they blame the corporation for not giving them a job. Corporations are the backbone of America, and they are what makes our entire economy work. Like anything, some corporations are bad, but that is the vast minority.
You're obviously expressing your disdain for the Iraq war in your third point, and let's just say that we have completely differing viewpoints on that one. Our money is well-spent there, as we removed a mini-Hitler, who in the long run may have become just as terrible as the real Hitler. Now that we are translating the thousands of pages of documentation we discovered there, it turns out he was actively collaborating with terrorists for a long time, and things were a lot WORSE than we thought. If the USA had been as bold when Hitler came to power as George Bush has been with Iraq, World War II would have been a lot shorter and less bloody. Thank God George Bush is running the show, and thank God we all elected him.
In your fourth point, you're implying that blacks do not have the right to vote. That is not only preposterous, but it is dangerous and divisive language used by race-baters. And the criminals gave up their right to vote when they took away the rights of someone else. I don't think coddling criminals leads to a better society, it leads to anarchy.
Companies are required to give people time to vote on election day, so I don't see your point. Plus, what about the millions of people who work on the weekends? Lots of people vote on their way to or from work, and they make it a priority to get to the polls. I don't think we need to adjust the date, just because some people can't juggle 15 minutes in their busy day to go vote. If they absolutely could not make it to the polls on election day, and they really cared about voting, they would vote with an absentee ballot. But that requires caring and prioritizing about voting.
Saddam was a brutal vile dictator, but let's face it, the US is not against all dictators and does not invade a country just because it is ruled by a brutal vile dictator. I don't have time to respond to all of this, but here's a list of all the mini-Hitlers the US has had no trouble supporting over the years. http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm
That's quite a list, and it should tell you that the US has no problem with mini-Hitlers who do the bidding of the US. In fact, Saddam was supported by the US for a number of years on the CIA payroll. The US wasn't even motivated to go after Saddam when he gassed the Kurds in 1988, or taking him out of power in 1991, so apparently it takes more than a large killing of innocents to motivate the US. So supporting brutal dictators is okay with the US and mass killing is also okay with the US (in that by itself it is not enough to invade a country to stop it). We also know Saddam (and Bush knew it as well) did not have a nuclear or biological bomb, Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attacks and after the 1991 Iraq War Saddam showed no signs of invading Kuwait or any neighboring country again.
Feel free to direct readers to a web site explaining more about thousands of pages of documentation. Again, atrocities and torture in and of themselves are not enough to motivate the US to invade a country.
>Thank God George Bush is running the show, and thank God we all elected him.
God may thank George Bush, but the latest polls show only 36% of Americans approve of his actions. And it has been pretty well established that Bush was elected by fraud in both 2000 and 2004.
>You're obviously expressing your disdain for the Iraq war in your third point, and let's just say that we have completely differing viewpoints on that one. Our money is well-spent there, as we removed a mini-Hitler, who in the long run may have become just as terrible as the real Hitler. Now that we are translating the thousands of pages of documentation we discovered there, it turns out he was actively collaborating with terrorists for a long time, and things were a lot WORSE than we thought. If the USA had been as bold when Hitler came to power as George Bush has been with Iraq, World War II would have been a lot shorter and less bloody. Thank God George Bush is running the show, and thank God we all elected him.
That's OK, I'm used to hearing the liberal talking points, because I hear them every time I turn on the "news".
I do not subscribe to the theory that liberals put forth about the USA being such a terrible country that goes around spreading violence.
In fact, there has never been a country in the history of the world which had so much power, but used so little of it. You should remember that the next time you read something about all the "bad deeds" that we apprently do. Because those talking points are written by people who do not like this country.
And I don't worry about the useless polls that are trumped up by the mainstream media, and the outfits like "Gallup". Those are the same polls that said that Bush would lose to both Gore and Kerry. And after 10,000 recounts, Bush still won.
Liberals take comfort in their polls, and I suppose if that's what gets you through the day, then more power to you. Myself, I only care about the results, which is that conservatism is ruling the day over the tired and wrong-headed liberalism.
tg636 "Feel free to direct readers to a web site explaining more about thousands of pages of documentation. Again, atrocities and torture in and of themselves are not enough to motivate the US to invade a country. "
___________________
This serves as a beginning point. Link will take you to a PDF, but a smart person could follow the links crumb trail to find the rest which explain Saddam's INTENT to use his WMD's on the US.
Seems intent is a step or two above being a savage torturer, murderer of his own people.
Todd, you are the chief cook & bottle washer here, and I thank you for such a wonderful website. So I'm not going to get into a political debate. The one thing I wish people would stop doing is bringing up God when talking about George Bush. We all have opinions and it is our right as Americans to voice them. However, please keep God out of political discussions. Everyone who knew Ronald Reagan says he was a very religious man who spent hours talking to God in the valley. I don't remember hearing him tell the American people that his Presidency was a calling from God. Bush, not being as eloquent as Mr. Reagan, or having the mind of a Rhodes Scholar like Mr. Clinton needed something to cover up his inadequacy and prevaricating nature, so he chose to use Christianity to mask his self-serving agenda. After all, if God chose him to lead our nation, who dare question the actions of our Lord's messenger? So anyone who is against the war in Iraq isn't a good Christian....brilliant! (Bush & brilliant in the same paragraph? How oxymoronic!) If you don't agree with an issue, then you're called a Liberal! Putting labels on people when you don't like what they say sounds more like McCarthyism than Democracy to me. I am not a very political person, but I don't see George Bush as representative of the prophets in the Bible. He was born a child of privilege, an elitist who never served our country during wartime. In fact, his National Guard records clearly shows he failed to meet his commitments (too busy partying I guess) and suffered no consequence. Yet he wears his religion on his sleeve to hide the blood stain it covers as he sends others to die. In fact, if Jesus were teaching on this Earth today, He would be one of the "have-nots" George Bush jokes about to his aristocratic buddies. I guess if being against the violation of human rights, torture, exploitation, hypocrisy and bigotry makes me a Liberal, then I welcome the title.
Sorry that God offends you, and sorry that you are one of those who are buying in to the liberal mentality that George Bush is "stupid". Your hypocracy is interesting, as you criticisize my use of God, and then take an unfair swipe at George Bush by saying how he would call Jesus a "have-not".
I used to be taken in by the hype and "coolness" of liberalism in the mainstream media, just like you are. The difference is that I figured out that it is all lies and personal attacks, and you have not.
Todd, you are the chief cook & bottle washer here, and I thank you for such a wonderful website. So I'm not going to get into a political debate. The one thing I wish people would stop doing is bringing up God when talking about George Bush. We all have opinions and it is our right as Americans to voice them. However, please keep God out of political discussions. Everyone who knew Ronald Reagan says he was a very religious man who spent hours talking to God in the valley. I don't remember hearing him tell the American people that his Presidency was a calling from God. Bush, not being as eloquent as Mr. Reagan, or having the mind of a Rhodes Scholar like Mr. Clinton needed something to cover up his inadequacy and prevaricating nature, so he chose to use Christianity to mask his self-serving agenda. After all, if God chose him to lead our nation, who dare question the actions of our Lord's messenger? So anyone who is against the war in Iraq isn't a good Christian....brilliant! (Bush & brilliant in the same paragraph? How oxymoronic!) If you don't agree with an issue, then you're called a Liberal! Putting labels on people when you don't like what they say sounds more like McCarthyism than Democracy to me. I am not a very political person, but I don't see George Bush as representative of the prophets in the Bible. He was born a child of privilege, an elitist who never served our country during wartime. In fact, his National Guard records clearly shows he failed to meet his commitments (too busy partying I guess) and suffered no consequence. Yet he wears his religion on his sleeve to hide the blood stain it covers as he sends others to die. In fact, if Jesus were teaching on this Earth today, He would be one of the "have-nots" George Bush jokes about to his aristocratic buddies. I guess if being against the violation of human rights, torture, exploitation, hypocrisy and bigotry makes me a Liberal, then I welcome the title.
Peace, Nancy
Shifting gears a bit to metaphysics, if you've ever read Kryon channelings they explain why President Bush is in office ... he is the only person who would get into the Middle East and stir things around to bring about changes in tribal behaviors which would otherwise take a thousand years in the future to change.
One channeling says that humanity was polled at a very high soul level as to what and who they wanted to bring those things about and selected President Bush .... then again not many people are in contact with their Higher Selves so not remembering is no surprise.
Why the Middle East and why now? Kryon calls it "scraping the foundation clean" that lasting peace on earth can come about through elimination of old energies so that new can be take their place. Also that the generation who are to implement global peace can become old enough to hold office and begin working toward it. They've been born and there are enough to bring it about.
On that basis, President Bush being in office is the result of a democratic vote of "majority rule" ....... but it seems the ones objecting the most are holding onto an very old energy mindset.
BTW, I didn't bring up the subject on this thread which is not political by its title ..... but wanted to add that there are reasons to look beyond what's happening in the world other than short term purely political or religious. Sometimes religion is the only way a person has to frame things so that they will be understood by the greatest number of people. It's sure been working for terrorists.
Peace
I'd personally love to see a national totally tax free lottery to pay off the national debt.
I never mentioned Bush in my original posting, which was just about improving voting, but the moderator here did in his response, so I guess we are free to talk about him.
Here is one more thing to think about in regard to the president. From www.tbrnews.org .
>"There is a time bomb ticking away that will do little to assist Bush in regaining political heaven and that is the treatment of the dead GIs. It seems that the faulty electrical power at the Baghdad morgue means that many of the corpses of the fallen are badly rotten when they get back to the states and the DoD is now forbidding families to open the caskets. Of course they can’t do this but that doesn’t stop them from trying. Also, the desertion rates are skyrocketing, and former military personnel are refusing to be recalled in huge numbers. They can harass and arrest a few but not a few thousand. Some of these soldiers are talking at length and in public about the horrible, deliberate atrocities they and their fellows are wreaking on Iraqi civilians and all of this is being covered by the foreign, but not the domestic, media. Bush could care less if the dead soldiers were put into a wood chipper and used as fertilizer, has never gone to any military funeral and never will. The dead were merely a means to an end and nothing more."
I would think even if you think Mr. Bush is a great man and the cause is just, you would have a hard time explaining his lousy treatment of soldiers and their families, the repeated recalling of honorably discharged servicemen and his refusal to attend a single military funeral. Is this all just "liberal propaganda", "lies and personal attacks"? Is Bush in fact treating soldiers and the dead with respect?
It is obvious they need all the good men and women they can find over there. I would hope anyone who believes in Bush, God, and fighting mini-Hitlers wherever they pop up on the planet will join the military and help out.
This is exactly what I mean. Where did I say that? What I find offensive is when people who do not share the same beliefs are accused of being anti-God and anti-American. We were once a country that supported free speech and fresh ideas. There are many soldiers serving our country who do not support the war. I personally spoke to a few of them when employed at a certain job. Are they unAmerican? I'm sure you've heard of soldiers like Al Lorentz who was deployed in Iraq and wrote many articles against the war. He was accused of being anti-American even though he served our country for over 20 years. (Bush didn't even show up for duty!) He wrote:
"Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is historic and un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn."
I could send you letters written by many ministers, rabbis and priests who feel this war is immoral and illegal, but it wouldn't do any good. I guess you'd just say they don't love God either. You can call me anything you want, but when people are committing acts of war and violence in His name, while profiting from the death & suffering of others, I would imagine God is the one who is offended.
You sound defensive. Where did I acuse you of being anti-American? It's really not my fault if that's the way you feel. Frankly, if I took an opposing view to my country's main mission (defeating terrorism around the world), I guess I would feel the same way. But I support our mission, so I don't feel that way.
Sorry, but I think God would be far more offended at Saddam Hussein, torturing children in front of their parents, rape rooms, summary executions, mass exterminations, and so on, than He would be at George Bush ridding the world of that monster.
As long as God could overlook the 34,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths, the 2,353+ U.S. military deaths, the far higher numbers of grievously injured and damaged on both sides, the long term poison effects of depleted uranium and white phosphorous on both Iraqis and U.S. soldiers, the replacement of Saddam's torture by U.S. military torture at Abu Gharaib and other places, and all the many lies told by Bush and his cronies to con the American public, I'm sure God will be much less offended. That must be the Old Testament fire and brimstone God.
Would the $1 million be lump sum, annuity-only, or with a cash option?
You only need to be 18 to vote. AFAIK all forms of gambling in AZ require the participant to be 21.
Sounds like a great idea if only the people who vote has to contribute to the prize pool. Forcing non-voters to support the prize pool with their taxes would be a taxation without representation.
Maybe it would be not considered a lottery if people did not have to put up money. Many sweepstakes say "no purchase necessary".
I think this is a BAD idea. I like playing the lottery, but I play for recreation. Voting is serious a civic duty. Voting is your voice in the government. If you were to add the sweepstakes like atmosphere of a million dollar prize, it would cause people to think of voting as some sweepstake and not a serious vote on issues or political ideas. People should vote because they feel the government should represent certain ideals. Adding this is a mistake because voter apathy is already bad enough this will make people think it's even more of a joke. Some people will vote without knowing anything about canidates or issues just to enter to win the prize. Lotteries and elections should be seperate. Just my 2cents.
I think this is a BAD idea. I like playing the lottery, but I play for recreation. Voting is serious a civic duty. Voting is your voice in the government. If you were to add the sweepstakes like atmosphere of a million dollar prize, it would cause people to think of voting as some sweepstake and not a serious vote on issues or political ideas. People should vote because they feel the government should represent certain ideals. Adding this is a mistake because voter apathy is already bad enough this will make people think it's even more of a joke. Some people will vote without knowing anything about canidates or issues just to enter to win the prize. Lotteries and elections should be seperate. Just my 2cents.
Lottery tickets are fun I guess, but if they seriously want a bigger turn out, try these.
*Elections free of fraud and electronic voting machines.
*Elections where the candidates and parties represent the interests of the American people, not corporations, the military, multi millionaires, Israel or Saudi Arabia.
*Elections where the two major parties won't act in collusion to toss billions of your tax dollars away in useless and vile foreign wars. Unless there are people who enjoy both losing 28% of their pay and killing Iraqis.
*Elections where all citizens can vote, even if they have been to prison and/or are black.
*Elections held on days most people have off from work or a saturday or sunday.
Lottery tickets are fun I guess, but if they seriously want a bigger turn out, try these.
*Elections free of fraud and electronic voting machines.
*Elections where the candidates and parties represent the interests of the American people, not corporations, the military, multi millionaires, Israel or Saudi Arabia.
*Elections where the two major parties won't act in collusion to toss billions of your tax dollars away in useless and vile foreign wars. Unless there are people who enjoy both losing 28% of their pay and killing Iraqis.
*Elections where all citizens can vote, even if they have been to prison and/or are black.
*Elections held on days most people have off from work or a saturday or sunday.
I disagree with just about everything you said, and here's why:
Saddam was a brutal vile dictator, but let's face it, the US is not against all dictators and does not invade a country just because it is ruled by a brutal vile dictator. I don't have time to respond to all of this, but here's a list of all the mini-Hitlers the US has had no trouble supporting over the years. http://www.omnicenter.org/warpeacecollection/dictators.htm
That's quite a list, and it should tell you that the US has no problem with mini-Hitlers who do the bidding of the US. In fact, Saddam was supported by the US for a number of years on the CIA payroll. The US wasn't even motivated to go after Saddam when he gassed the Kurds in 1988, or taking him out of power in 1991, so apparently it takes more than a large killing of innocents to motivate the US. So supporting brutal dictators is okay with the US and mass killing is also okay with the US (in that by itself it is not enough to invade a country to stop it). We also know Saddam (and Bush knew it as well) did not have a nuclear or biological bomb, Saddam was not involved in the 9/11 attacks and after the 1991 Iraq War Saddam showed no signs of invading Kuwait or any neighboring country again.
Feel free to direct readers to a web site explaining more about thousands of pages of documentation. Again, atrocities and torture in and of themselves are not enough to motivate the US to invade a country.
>Thank God George Bush is running the show, and thank God we all elected him.
God may thank George Bush, but the latest polls show only 36% of Americans approve of his actions. And it has been pretty well established that Bush was elected by fraud in both 2000 and 2004.
>You're obviously expressing your disdain for the Iraq war in your third point, and let's just say that we have completely differing viewpoints on that one. Our money is well-spent there, as we removed a mini-Hitler, who in the long run may have become just as terrible as the real Hitler. Now that we are translating the thousands of pages of documentation we discovered there, it turns out he was actively collaborating with terrorists for a long time, and things were a lot WORSE than we thought. If the USA had been as bold when Hitler came to power as George Bush has been with Iraq, World War II would have been a lot shorter and less bloody. Thank God George Bush is running the show, and thank God we all elected him.
That's OK, I'm used to hearing the liberal talking points, because I hear them every time I turn on the "news".
I do not subscribe to the theory that liberals put forth about the USA being such a terrible country that goes around spreading violence.
In fact, there has never been a country in the history of the world which had so much power, but used so little of it. You should remember that the next time you read something about all the "bad deeds" that we apprently do. Because those talking points are written by people who do not like this country.
And I don't worry about the useless polls that are trumped up by the mainstream media, and the outfits like "Gallup". Those are the same polls that said that Bush would lose to both Gore and Kerry. And after 10,000 recounts, Bush still won.
Liberals take comfort in their polls, and I suppose if that's what gets you through the day, then more power to you. Myself, I only care about the results, which is that conservatism is ruling the day over the tired and wrong-headed liberalism.
tg636 "Feel free to direct readers to a web site explaining more about thousands of pages of documentation. Again, atrocities and torture in and of themselves are not enough to motivate the US to invade a country. "
___________________
This serves as a beginning point. Link will take you to a PDF, but a smart person could follow the links crumb trail to find the rest which explain Saddam's INTENT to use his WMD's on the US.
Seems intent is a step or two above being a savage torturer, murderer of his own people.
http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/documents-docex/Iraq/Released-20060315/ISGQ-2003-M0004667.pdf
My blog has plenty of links regarding WMD's should you care to inform yourself.
Didnt know this was a political forum lol
Todd, you are the chief cook & bottle washer here, and I thank you for such a wonderful website. So I'm not going to get into a political debate. The one thing I wish people would stop doing is bringing up God when talking about George Bush. We all have opinions and it is our right as Americans to voice them. However, please keep God out of political discussions. Everyone who knew Ronald Reagan says he was a very religious man who spent hours talking to God in the valley. I don't remember hearing him tell the American people that his Presidency was a calling from God. Bush, not being as eloquent as Mr. Reagan, or having the mind of a Rhodes Scholar like Mr. Clinton needed something to cover up his inadequacy and prevaricating nature, so he chose to use Christianity to mask his self-serving agenda. After all, if God chose him to lead our nation, who dare question the actions of our Lord's messenger? So anyone who is against the war in Iraq isn't a good Christian....brilliant! (Bush & brilliant in the same paragraph? How oxymoronic!) If you don't agree with an issue, then you're called a Liberal! Putting labels on people when you don't like what they say sounds more like McCarthyism than Democracy to me. I am not a very political person, but I don't see George Bush as representative of the prophets in the Bible. He was born a child of privilege, an elitist who never served our country during wartime. In fact, his National Guard records clearly shows he failed to meet his commitments (too busy partying I guess) and suffered no consequence. Yet he wears his religion on his sleeve to hide the blood stain it covers as he sends others to die. In fact, if Jesus were teaching on this Earth today, He would be one of the "have-nots" George Bush jokes about to his aristocratic buddies. I guess if being against the violation of human rights, torture, exploitation, hypocrisy and bigotry makes me a Liberal, then I welcome the title.
Peace, Nancy
Sorry that God offends you, and sorry that you are one of those who are buying in to the liberal mentality that George Bush is "stupid". Your hypocracy is interesting, as you criticisize my use of God, and then take an unfair swipe at George Bush by saying how he would call Jesus a "have-not".
I used to be taken in by the hype and "coolness" of liberalism in the mainstream media, just like you are. The difference is that I figured out that it is all lies and personal attacks, and you have not.
Todd, you are the chief cook & bottle washer here, and I thank you for such a wonderful website. So I'm not going to get into a political debate. The one thing I wish people would stop doing is bringing up God when talking about George Bush. We all have opinions and it is our right as Americans to voice them. However, please keep God out of political discussions. Everyone who knew Ronald Reagan says he was a very religious man who spent hours talking to God in the valley. I don't remember hearing him tell the American people that his Presidency was a calling from God. Bush, not being as eloquent as Mr. Reagan, or having the mind of a Rhodes Scholar like Mr. Clinton needed something to cover up his inadequacy and prevaricating nature, so he chose to use Christianity to mask his self-serving agenda. After all, if God chose him to lead our nation, who dare question the actions of our Lord's messenger? So anyone who is against the war in Iraq isn't a good Christian....brilliant! (Bush & brilliant in the same paragraph? How oxymoronic!) If you don't agree with an issue, then you're called a Liberal! Putting labels on people when you don't like what they say sounds more like McCarthyism than Democracy to me. I am not a very political person, but I don't see George Bush as representative of the prophets in the Bible. He was born a child of privilege, an elitist who never served our country during wartime. In fact, his National Guard records clearly shows he failed to meet his commitments (too busy partying I guess) and suffered no consequence. Yet he wears his religion on his sleeve to hide the blood stain it covers as he sends others to die. In fact, if Jesus were teaching on this Earth today, He would be one of the "have-nots" George Bush jokes about to his aristocratic buddies. I guess if being against the violation of human rights, torture, exploitation, hypocrisy and bigotry makes me a Liberal, then I welcome the title.
Peace, Nancy
Shifting gears a bit to metaphysics, if you've ever read Kryon channelings they explain why President Bush is in office ... he is the only person who would get into the Middle East and stir things around to bring about changes in tribal behaviors which would otherwise take a thousand years in the future to change.
One channeling says that humanity was polled at a very high soul level as to what and who they wanted to bring those things about and selected President Bush .... then again not many people are in contact with their Higher Selves so not remembering is no surprise.
Why the Middle East and why now? Kryon calls it "scraping the foundation clean" that lasting peace on earth can come about through elimination of old energies so that new can be take their place. Also that the generation who are to implement global peace can become old enough to hold office and begin working toward it. They've been born and there are enough to bring it about.
On that basis, President Bush being in office is the result of a democratic vote of "majority rule" ....... but it seems the ones objecting the most are holding onto an very old energy mindset.
BTW, I didn't bring up the subject on this thread which is not political by its title ..... but wanted to add that there are reasons to look beyond what's happening in the world other than short term purely political or religious. Sometimes religion is the only way a person has to frame things so that they will be understood by the greatest number of people. It's sure been working for terrorists.
Peace
I'd personally love to see a national totally tax free lottery to pay off the national debt.
I never mentioned Bush in my original posting, which was just about improving voting, but the moderator here did in his response, so I guess we are free to talk about him.
Here is one more thing to think about in regard to the president. From www.tbrnews.org .
>"There is a time bomb ticking away that will do little to assist Bush in regaining political heaven and that is the treatment of the dead GIs. It seems that the faulty electrical power at the Baghdad morgue means that many of the corpses of the fallen are badly rotten when they get back to the states and the DoD is now forbidding families to open the caskets. Of course they can’t do this but that doesn’t stop them from trying. Also, the desertion rates are skyrocketing, and former military personnel are refusing to be recalled in huge numbers. They can harass and arrest a few but not a few thousand. Some of these soldiers are talking at length and in public about the horrible, deliberate atrocities they and their fellows are wreaking on Iraqi civilians and all of this is being covered by the foreign, but not the domestic, media. Bush could care less if the dead soldiers were put into a wood chipper and used as fertilizer, has never gone to any military funeral and never will. The dead were merely a means to an end and nothing more."
I would think even if you think Mr. Bush is a great man and the cause is just, you would have a hard time explaining his lousy treatment of soldiers and their families, the repeated recalling of honorably discharged servicemen and his refusal to attend a single military funeral. Is this all just "liberal propaganda", "lies and personal attacks"? Is Bush in fact treating soldiers and the dead with respect?
It is obvious they need all the good men and women they can find over there. I would hope anyone who believes in Bush, God, and fighting mini-Hitlers wherever they pop up on the planet will join the military and help out.
Todd writes: "Sorry that God offends you,"
This is exactly what I mean. Where did I say that? What I find offensive is when people who do not share the same beliefs are accused of being anti-God and anti-American. We were once a country that supported free speech and fresh ideas. There are many soldiers serving our country who do not support the war. I personally spoke to a few of them when employed at a certain job. Are they unAmerican? I'm sure you've heard of soldiers like Al Lorentz who was deployed in Iraq and wrote many articles against the war. He was accused of being anti-American even though he served our country for over 20 years. (Bush didn't even show up for duty!) He wrote:
"Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is historic and un-Constitutional.
It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn."
I could send you letters written by many ministers, rabbis and priests who feel this war is immoral and illegal, but it wouldn't do any good. I guess you'd just say they don't love God either. You can call me anything you want, but when people are committing acts of war and violence in His name, while profiting from the death & suffering of others, I would imagine God is the one who is offended.
justxploring,
You sound defensive. Where did I acuse you of being anti-American? It's really not my fault if that's the way you feel. Frankly, if I took an opposing view to my country's main mission (defeating terrorism around the world), I guess I would feel the same way. But I support our mission, so I don't feel that way.
Sorry, but I think God would be far more offended at Saddam Hussein, torturing children in front of their parents, rape rooms, summary executions, mass exterminations, and so on, than He would be at George Bush ridding the world of that monster.
As long as God could overlook the 34,000+ Iraqi civilian deaths, the 2,353+ U.S. military deaths, the far higher numbers of grievously injured and damaged on both sides, the long term poison effects of depleted uranium and white phosphorous on both Iraqis and U.S. soldiers, the replacement of Saddam's torture by U.S. military torture at Abu Gharaib and other places, and all the many lies told by Bush and his cronies to con the American public, I'm sure God will be much less offended. That must be the Old Testament fire and brimstone God.