I'm not.  I probably never will. 

I voted for Carter.  Last time I voted for the dark side. [Pres. that is  ] But I try never to say never.

I'm a Christian and I believe in social justice.  That's why I vote for Democrats.

Because I love my country more then what is in my bank accounts and I hate what has happened to her the last 7 years.

People have a different idea of what social justice consists of.  Being pro-life, in my opinion, is social justice for the unborn.  More Republicans tend to align themselves with that position than Democrats

 Because I love my country and hate what has happened to her the last 7 years.

If Obama shared your love of country, why has he, for so many years, hung out, and apparently sympathized with so many who harbor hatred for it? 

Everyone's chickens come home to roost in an election...and there's a ways to go on this one.  This is not going to be the slam dunk that the left seems to think it will be.

Well, Doc, it's an interesting postion to want a woman to have a child but then to not provide healthcare for the woman while she is pregnant or the child once they are born.  That that same life that is so precious before it even has eyes or a heart yet isn't worth feeding once they are born is a very strange line to draw.

The Bible itself is clear on when life begins.  One hint: if a man believes his wife is cheating, he can take her to a priest for an abortion.

Give me a break BLT. Exactly who were you referring to?

Should we hold John McCain to the same standards of taking anyone he associates and applying their belief system to his? Oh goody!

If Obama shared your love of country, why has he, for so many years, hung out, and apparently sympathized with so many who harbor hatred for it?

Because, BLT, seeing the President is part of his job.

What are you talking about doc?  When he was orgainzing the disadvantage or serving his government, or as president of his college class?  Which ones?

I'll vote Democratic, because all the Republicans know how to do is screw up the economy. 

BLT, you may recall, Jesus was criticized for hanging out with those he hung out with...and they weren't the Apostles, you know?

 Well, Doc, it's an interesting postion to want a woman to have a child but then to not provide healthcare for the woman while she is pregnant or the child once they are born.  That that same life that is so precious before it even has eyes or a heart yet isn't worth feeding once they are born is a very strange line to draw.

That's why I voted for Huckabee. 

BLT, you may recall, Jesus was criticized for those he hung out with...and they weren't the Apostles, you know?

Yes, but, in the case of Christ, they didn't hate their country and they didn't sit around taking about how much they hated their country.  They simply liked to party a bit too much. 

Hey Nancy care to make a little side bet, winnings going to charity of course.

I don't get where you folks say that pregnant women and children don't have health care.  It's available to any who seek it and even WIC isn't all that hard to get. (cereal, milk etc.)  I'm amazed at this.  It may not be with a pediatrician of your choice but they are not denied health care.

Head Start program, child care for itinerant workers...  .  It's there.  All of it.  None of the poor people I knew in rural areas did without.

I'm game monfred, whatcha got in mind?

$100 bucks, if Dem's wins the White House and majority of the House and the Senate your money goes to the Presidents re-election campaign.  McCain wins and I'll donate the same to the charity of your choice, we can ask Tom to hold the money, since we both seem to get along great with him.

Nancy, here I was saying that programs like WIC and Headstart are under fire from Republicans.  When Republicans talk about "small government", they usually mean cutting chunks out of the safety net.

Nancy, darn, my wife just saw my last post, and reminded me that I can't bet on line anymore, since my experiment with online poker.

Maybe it's time to shorten the net. There were no safety nets for my mom or myself when we needed it. We simply tightened the belt and made do with what we had and looked for work - ANY work, babysitting, washing windows, mowing lawns, taking in ironing. Neither of us ever took a dime we didn't earn.  It's time people who insist on having children they know they can't afford (usually out of wedlock and about 15 or 16 yrs old) to face reality and get with the program of responsibility for ones self and ones offspring. 

I have a niece (by marriage) whos 16 yr old daughter got pregnant. She told the girl if she wanted to keep the baby and live at home that was fine but there would now be new rules. NO welfare. Get a job. Finish school. Pay rent. And, NO mom's not babysitting - pay a sitter. So far so good. It is rough on the 16 yr old but she is learning fast and furious the consequences of life when you don't play by the rules.  Oh, ya, where's the dad?  Long gone of course, so no child support.

I vote for the person NOT a party.

Two things montfred, one is that I will never donate money to ANY Democratic presidents campaign..not ever.  (If he should win)  When you said charity I thought you meant charity not a donation to someone who has already raised millions and millions of dollars.  Charity to me, is somone or some organization in need.   Mine would be the Cancer Society for research or the Alzheimers research. 

I'm not 100% sure that McCain will win and my comment was that it won't be a slam dunk as the left keeps saying it will.  (If the Dems win) but, I'll still bet on the election as you stated it if you can revise the part about the charity and make it 50 bucks.  I never bet more than I can afford to lose should there be some national disaster or calamity.

Dang, we need a contract with terms and provisions.  I am perfectly willing to donate 50 bucks should I lose the bet.  I just don't think I will.  But then, neither do you.  :-)

Gads, we have thousands of witnesses don't we? 

ROFL montfred...it's ok, we can just bet without money.  Too funny.  Thanks for the big chuckle.

edited...Tell your wife she's a smart lady.  Gambling can be addictive ya know...LOL.

NANCY: We did it again!  Same time same place!!!!

The "safety net" is often just used as a hammock for a lifetime.

My pleasure, Nancy. 

Yup Vanity, I have seen so much of it I want to throw up.  I actually threatened to turn in a family member who was getting welfare and foodstamps because she also had a boyfriend who was hauling in $1,000 a week in the oilfields. We were eating hamburber - they were eating steak - NOT!  She actually offered me some of the food stamps! Not a chance. Within the week she advised welfare of her "additional" income.

The safety net also saves lives.  Real human lives.

Wait, back to Nancy's question.  Although registered independent (long before Lou Dobbs went nuts with it) I tend to vote democratic because it is more aligned with my values.  Health care and education are tops. 

I received a poll called "Which candidate are you aligned with?"  It asked questions about budgets and social issues.  Then it ranked how high a percentage you were connected to ALL the candidates (this was back in the fall when lots of fingers were grappling for the pie).  It proved my values are screamingly liberal.

Of course I knew that anyway--it was just an interesting experiment.

MONT: A "temporary" safety net is fine. However, there are those who totally use and abuse that net - they are the ones who should get 90 days to shape up or ship out. CPS can take the kids and drug mama can go on her way WITHOUT the safety net. 

I have also known of women who accepted the safety net, got part time jobs, went back to school, got their degrees, got a job and let go of the net. They now work full time, own homes, and still manage to take care of their kids, who are not out on the street.

Gee Superman. Where have you been the last 8 years? Krypton? Your North Pole retreat?

Record debt. Record spending. Record for biggest government. Record oil prices. Record foreclosures. Shall I go on?

Think about this administration's appointments. One cabinet member left from original cast. His best cabinet member leaving in disgust (Powell). A horse trainer running Fema. Bush wanted his personal lawyer to be a Supreme Court Justice. Military commanders who the Republicans praise till they are ousted or quit in disgust, then when they are able to speak frankly they are villified. Then there is New Orleans. One month of money spent on this useless war could fix the levees. Oh wait, those lazy blacks had it coming. They should have all gotten into their Lincoln Navigators and left town. I like where the religious right claims that God created the hurricane to punish the new Sodom and Gomora. Really? Is God that bad a shot that the floods missed Bourbon St. and the French Quarter? That's sorta like God hitting the Phoenicians by mistake when he was aiming for the Babylonians.

The guy now in office acted surprised that anyone would say we have 4 buck a gallon gas. Really, the President of the United States is so out of touch he doesn't know how much a gallon of gas costs? An alleged oil guy? The guy who lamblasted Clinton 8 years ago because oil was 28 bucks a barrel, and now it's almost 150? Of course, the Bushes made all their money off NOT finding oil, but that's a whole other debacle. I mean, can anyone really equate Republican with conservatism? It just ain't so no matter how ya spin it.

I mean, you couldn't write a Hollywood script that could have demonstrated more incompetence than this administration has shown. WMDs. Really?

Then there are all the Republican leaders who on one hand deny Gay rights while on the other hand playing footsie with one in the bathroom. I mean the list is just mind boggling. Republican Family values? You mean like what McCain, Gulianni, Gingrich, and a handful of others did to their wives. They have cancer, or were in an auto wreck, and were traded in like a used car? Remember how much grief was given to Clinton for his unfortunate lapse in judgement, but guess what, he's STILL married to the wife he disrespected.

The question really is.....after the last 8 years, why would ANYone not vote Democrat.

Lol, witterpitters ... I too have seen my share of system abuse that has made me want to vomit as well. Try working for a summer at a certain market in Oildale. This was back in the 80's when I was in highschool. I'm sure it's much worse now. Ohhhh, the things I witnessed. Those poor children.

I once overheard a mother holding an infant tell her friend that diapers were so expensive that she only changed him once a day. This while buying hooch, cigarettes, and junk food.

The 1st and the 15th of the month were always crazy busy, and the welfare moms would come in to cash their checks with their baby daddys loving all over them, arm around the shoulder, etc. After cashing the checks they would buy alcohol and tobacco. And just like clockwork, those same women would come in seven days later, alone and bruised, buying groceries with food stamps. Then, seven days later, welfare check, loving baby daddy, hooch, tobacco ... and so it went.

Well, since I'm not voting Democrat or Republican, I'll tell you why I usually do not vote Republican:

• I completely disagree with Republican style international relations. I'm extremely anti-NeoCon (I'm talking Paul Wolfowitz NeoCon here..).  Trying to convert people to Democracy with the sword is just as effective as converting people to your religion by the same methods. We should always have a powerful military, but we should also use caution before using that military.
• Contrary to popular belief, evidence suggests that the vast majority of our founding fathers were not Christians; many were Deists, Unitarians, etc.  While most (if not all) did believe in a Supreme Being and upheld a moral character, it is evident to myself and many Historians that this country was not founded upon Christian Principles.  Instead, we were founded on principles of freedom, and eventual equality (though it took a long time for that to happen).  The current Republican agenda is garnered towards forceful acceptance of Christianity, and I completely disagree with it, as both a Christian and an American.  It was under a Republican (Eisenhower) that our National Motto was accepted as "In God We Trust," as well as "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience. 
• I used to support Pro-Choice thinking, however now I understand and to an extent agree with Pro-life; however I disagree with a complete ban of abortion, as there are extreme cases when I believe it to be acceptable
• While I enjoy the right to bear arms, I also understand the context in which this right was originally given, and I believe that effective yet restrained gun control is crucial to the health and well being of our citizenry.
• I am a strong believer in a complete overhaul of the current Healthcare system.  While I agree with a Laissez-faire approach to our economy, I believe that such things as healthcare should not be steered as a profitable entity.  There's no reason that anyone shouldn't be able to get quality healthcare at an affordable price.
• I entirely disagree with the war on drugs - it's ineffective, hypocritical and a complete waste of our time and resources
• To add to some of my statements above, what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their business, so long as it doesn't harm any person (or animal). 
• I want my future children, and their future offspring to be able to enjoy this earth. Many Republicans seem to care more about lining their pockets and getting re-elected than ensuring the future of this planet. (At the same token, some Democrats are too scared to do anything negative to the environment that they wind up doing more damage in the process.)
• Drilling for more oil isn't going to solve the energy crisis. Investing in renewable resources/energy will.

God.. I could go on.. and on.. and on..

Montfred, the safety net is abused in my opinion. Public assistance is flawed in its administration, and while it might save "real" human lives (is there any other kind?), it is only perpetuating the problem.

New conditions and requirements for those receiving assistance are anemic at best and only create a whole other drain on taxpayers because staff must be on payroll to enforce (babysit) said conditions.

A temporary use of aid is fine ... it is the chronic system-sucker I take issue with.

I vote for people who I believe share more of my views.  I am not a fan of  the American military industrial complex. I am not a fan of torture, and I do not belive any of my civil liberties need to be abridged by my government. I am not a fan of  having the largest percentage of people in jail among all major nations. I am for programs  that  give people a chance to succeed, and that offer a social safety net when they fail.  I am for people who will work hard for universal health care and removing any possibilty  of patient bankruptcy through illness or accident.  I am for people  who strongly believe in the sanctity of privacy, and allowing people choices.

BLT, pro-life is a misnomer. It simply means pro-birth with no choice. Do the crime, and do the time is the party platform of Republicans.  Mistakes are viewed as sins by too many in the grand old party. How can anyone endorse candidates from the political party that stripped away Habeas Corpus, condoned torture and who continually fight against living wages for working people?

 BLT, pro-life is a misnomer. It simply means pro-birth with no choice.

So is pro-choice.  With a single act of abortion, you eliminate all possibilties of future choices for the life that could have been.  Furthermore, most men are excluded from decisions involving the offspring they helped create in situations in which a woman opts for abortion.  No choice for them either. 

Vanity: My mom saw it too.....................she worked in the welfare dept. She retired at age 62 as she said if she waited until 65 she'd drop dead! She hated it when these women would come in and "demand" their money!!!

vanity - I'll agre with that.. way too many people abuse the system.  The problem I see is that those who really do deserve the aid are oftentimes denied.  My Aunt had a brain tumor removed about 15 years ago.  About 5 years ago she started having issues with her eye - it was literally bouncing around in the socket.  It turns out the tumor ate away at the back of her eye socket, hence when the eye ball is moving.  She can no longer work due to this and so applied for Federal disability.  She's been denied numerous times, all because there's no official medical condition that she can claim as a disability.

I share much of that viewpoint Floridastategrad.

I don't see it so much as a democrat vs republican thang. I see it as corporations taking over public policy. Lobbys are killing us and making us totally polarized. All you have to do is see all the flip flopping nowadays to know that getting elected is the ONLY goal for these guys. Beholding to corps usually means impotence, and this country needs a big dose of Viagra right now. Is Obama the answer? Who knows, maybe not. Do we go down the same road? Obviously it's not working well, so let's give the other side a shot. I may be railing on him in a year too, but after being shot to death, I'm willing to try a knife fight now.

DOC: Sad as it is.................most men don't give a sh**. Most of them are out playing around without a thought of what they might be creating in the process. As soon as the playmate announces she's pregnant, dude is otta here. So, the female is left with the decision - one which she alone can/has to live with. Many other men may stick around but want the playmate to get an abortion and even pay for it - so they can play some more, they don't give a damn about the baby.  Granted there is a very small percentage who actually care and marry the lady and try to make a go of it.

witter - unforunately, it's cultural.

FSG:  a whole lot of cultures all over the planet! There are countries we keep seeing in "starving children" commercials who haven't a clue to not have any more! There are countries we keep seeing in HIV/Aids commercials who haven't a clue to not have sex! The starvation and aids would possibly come to a screeching halt after a couple of generations if they would just STOP!

or not.

I guess if all those starving/HIV people wait long enough, some politiction will send more money and supplies (paid for by USA taxpayers) to "take care of them" International welfare.

witter - a major part of the problem is a lack of education.  I've been to 3rd world countries and I've seen not only the poverty, but the health problems.  Blame a lot of this on European Colonialism, which completely destroyed most of these countries.

As far as "not having sex," abstinence education is proven to be ineffective.  If you want these people to procreate less, educate them on proper safe sex practices using condoms and contraception.

FSG ... I agree that there are legitimate claims that are denied. It has been my observation that anyone with assets of any kind is denied. So, even though one might have paid into the programs over the years, one cannot receive any assistance until one drains every last bit of savings, retirement, property.

I'm sorry to hear about your aunt. Sounds like she might consider hiring an attorney for medical malpractice!

Oh, she's been there, done that - no dice.

baby...what question was that?

I'm a Democrat and I'm Pro Life but I'm not anti-contraceptive. I think a mature woman ought to be able to say she has control over her body and I'm not talking about woman who want to have an abortion just because a child would be an inconvenience. I'm talking about a woman whose life may be endangered by giving birth, either physically or emotionally. Witness, friends, the woman in Houston, Texas who drowned her third children by driving them into a lake in her car.  She told her husband over and over again she was not emotionally able to handle more children, but he insisted on punching out more because he felt it was his religious duty. He reserved the nonsensical right to be the head of his home under the premise that God automatically grants that status to men. What happened? His wife was so emotionally overburdened by her husbands need to be fruitful and multiply, he drove his wife to madness.

Abortion is a dispicable act when done in selfish context. But until I'm a female, I'll grant woman the choice to decide what is and is not appropriate for their health.

Voting Democrat, like voting Republican, is often a reaction against something rather of in favor it something.  I vote Democrat because I'm a god damned tax paying citizen of this country, have served my country in the armed forces, served my state, community and family with honor, served my God until I was shunned from my own faith and the Republicans want to deny my citizenship by constitutional amendment. I pay my share of taxes for every benefit any American reaps and when people find out I'm a homosexual, they will tell me to my face that I'm no patriot, am sick, that my contributions are worthless and that the wished I'd die with AIDS.

Where do I hear this attitude coming from? Virtually *always* from Republicans and virtually *never* from Democrats.  Here we are in the grips of the age of AIDS, a time when personal responsibility is an imparative for gay men. We look at social statistics on the spread of sexually transmitted disease and see how the rate of STDs is far, far lower among married people than single people - especially gay men.  There's a reason for that and it's not merely about religious belief. It's also about the financial consequence a couple faces if they file for divorce.  Divorce is financially devestating and when men and women look at those consequences and realize the cost involved, the know they are about to toss away the stablity their marriage created.  THAT'S why straight married men have such low rates of STDs. They have to rethink their desire to turn and walk away from marriage because of the damage it will do, and it forces them to act like grown ups and work for a solution to their marital difficulties.

Gay men? Hell. Republicans act like they have memory loss when it comes to gay men. Gay men are exactly and precisely the ones who NEED to grow up and embrace responsibility. But in the majority of these United States, the only encouragement they get to settle into a committed relationship is a domestic partner registry.  What kind of society do American want; a stable one or one in which gay men are like ships that are always at sea, with no anchor, just drifting from one port to another with no hope of finding anchorage?

You can complain all damn day about the gay person who disgust you, but just remember, when you vote to prevent a gay person from marrying, you are voting to prevent that man from finallly accepting his adult responsibilities.  You are voting to continue a culture of death for people who have had the relationship trivalized their entire lives. At some point, when people will not acknowledge that you've joined responsible Americans by embracing marriage, you finally just say To Hell With It. I'll screw whomever I want to.

You. Yes you Republicans! Choose death for gay people by keeping them forever drifting. This is a group of men who date at least back to pre Jewish and Christian history. Do you think if you continue to build a wall between a homosexual and his acceptance of responsibility via marriage, that gays will just disappear? You'd be sadly mistaken if you did, just as all of your religious ancestors who heaped condemnation on gays for centuries did.

We are in a literate and enlightened society now. Why, in the age of AIDS would you add fuel to the fire of this disease by denying gays the same status of marriage any Californian takes for granted? Don't you already BELIEVE that marriage has the power domesticate men? If you don't, then what is all this gushing about the value of marriage?

Look! We hear someone every single day talk about the historic religious significance of marriage and they don't even seem to know what that HISTORY was!  Look to your bible, Christians! Show me the ONE and ONLY depiction of monogamous marriage in that holy scripture. Never mind. I'll tell you what it was. It was Rebecca's marriage to Isaac. It's the ONLY monogamous marriage and here's the irony.  When Isaac give Rebecca a ring, he didn't put it on her finger. He put it through her NOSE. Why?  Because Rebecca's father wasn't merely giving her in marriage. He was TRANSFERRING OWERSHIP of his DAUGHTER to another man who was not blood kin?  Is THAT the holy matrimony that is so historic?  Rebecca was fortunate to have a husband who took only her. But she was his SLAVE and "Chattel" (property) and so, too, would the female children of that marriage be. Just as with Rebecca, the females were essentially SOLD into marriage.

That's the HISTORY of marriage. It existed into the Middle Ages. It wasn't until then that Jews abandoned polygamy and that abandomentment has more to do with local rule than religious tradition. Want a more recent example of holy matrimony? I've been a genealogy research for 37 years and it is so easy to see the status of married women in the documents and wills of early colonial and post American Revolutionary times. Women could not own or inherit their husbands property all the way up into the early 20th century in THIS country. The typical will written by a husband said, "I live my property to my son James, but my wife has use of it and my household furnishings until her death."  Imagine THAT! No even the pots and pans belonged to the wife.  Is that the holy matrimony religious people are citing as so sacred?

Are we STILL of that time?

It seems so and Republicans are the principle proponents of keeping some wall or another always erected to keep others out.  Five years ago you didn't hear religious people making daily utterances about the sanctity of marriage. Five years ago the birthrate among black unwed mothers was 70 PERCENT!  Where was the sanctity of marriage then? Where was the full frontal attach on sexual promiscuity and the bastardization of marriage THEN?  I know where it was.  It was waiting for gays who finally had a chance to buy into responsibility.  But NO! The million headed hydra of sanctified marriage would not have it. That's because Republican PREFER instability in gay people in the hope they will miraculously be un-gay.  It's an absurdity that has RUINED the GOP.

The Republican Party had it's chance with me.

It NEVER will again!

Why do people vote for republicans?  Why do people vote independent or green?  They do it, hopefully, because they've studied the candidates and alligned themselves with the one who best meets their expectations and values.  Why would anyone need to justify their vote to you (original poster)?   It's between the voter and the ballot. 

Why do people vote??  I'm not convinced it really counts anymore.