From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
George W. Bush did not approve this message

September 16, 2004 10:16 PM

Eighteen months ago I set out determined to do what I could to takeover the Democratic party and remove Bush from office. Since then many have joined this effort -- to the point where it almost seems like a bubble is about to burst. Recently, people have been asking for my thoughts on the Democrats' nominee. In brief, I think Iowa picked a lousy candidate, but I will be voting for John Kerry, and here's why.

I am a humanist. I believe humans are capable of making the world better and that should be our goal. Bush believes that humanity is depraved and can only be saved by God, specifically through his son Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for our sins (as depicted in The Passion of the Christ) roughly 2000 years ago.

Many Presidents have been Christians, but Bush is a true believer, even chronicling it in his autobiography, A Charge to Keep (named after a hymn). Jesus Christ changed his life, saving him from the clutches of alcoholism 20 years ago. He is what Christians call an "evangelical" -- a widely-criticized but rapidly growing cult in America.

I know what these fanatics are trying to do, because I was raised both an evangelical and a flag-waving Republican. I was taught how to sell Jesus Christ to the world at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University -- the madrassas for the culture wars.

Bush's worldview is a grave and gathering danger to America, particularly since he invaded a Muslim country under false pretenses. If the American people endorse what Bush has done since 9/11 by re-electing him, we will be in, well, deep shit, because 1) not needing to worry about re-election, it will embolden him further and 2) the rest of the world will be forced to respond since we were incapable of stopping him ourselves. This response will be bloody and will happen on U.S. soil.

If we screw up this election, humanity will pay the consequences for generations. Meanwhile, Bush is eyeing his prize in Heaven for a job well done.

More from the archive in Bush, John Kerry, Me, Politics, Religion.

George W. Bush did not approve this message (09.16.2004)

Next Entry: Re-enlist, or you're going to Iraq (09.17.2004)
Previous Entry: Outsourced Fact Checking (09.16.2004)

Read the 33 comments.


So did Bush "gather the danger" of September 11th? Or have you ever thought that Muslim nations have hated us for quite a while? Don't forget who attacked us, terrorists not "cult"-driven Republicans. Vote Bush, strong on defense, weak on mercy to murderers.

Thu Sep 16 2004 11:46 PM

raging red:

Wow. You guys really are kind of scary. Bush made mistakes before 9/11, but I don't blame him for 9/11. I blame him for AFTER 9/11. The world is unquestionably less safe now. What defenses do we have against N. Korea or Iran now?

Fri Sep 17 2004 12:14 AM

raging red:

Oh - on The Daily Show tonight, on "This Week in God," they mentioned that Liberty U. is starting a law school, and Falwell says their students will have to pass the bar exam "just like the aetheists have to." This school is sure to turn out lots of little Scalias & Thomases, only scarier.

(JG - you went to Liberty University?!?)

Fri Sep 17 2004 12:28 AM


Bush's worldview is a grave and gathering danger to America, particularly since he invaded a Muslim country under false pretenses. If the American people endorse what Bush has done since 9/11 by re-electing him, we will be in, well, deep shit, because 1) not needing to worry about re-election, it will embolden him further and 2) the rest of the world will be forced to respond since we were incapable of stopping him ourselves. This response will be bloody and will happen on U.S. soil.

Actually Kerry has endorsed, condemned, endorsed and then condemned (wait and see what happens today) the invasion of Iraq. Go back two years or more and he gave passionate speaches calling for it. Only differance is he'd be more likely to cut and run (like Somalia) which only emboldens those with opposing agendas.

As for the responce being bloody and on our soil - hadn't that happened already when the US was taking "measured" actions against embassy bombings?

Fri Sep 17 2004 6:03 AM



I would hope most people were up to date on history. The old Ottoman/British Empire I think set a lot of this in motion. The roles that we set in motion that we are supreme and your rules are not right has kept tension in those regions since the 1800's. Don't forget why they attacked us, we are not in the green of this, reasons are not baseless, but the violence is senseless.

American's by choice or media containment or government help is very simple-minded globally. I see the Republicans at least the conservative current majority as using current world events to strengthen aspects they've been eyeing for quite a while. On the other side of our two-sided coin, the Democrats put on the same show if they had the chance. The current party system we have is way off of where it should be.

You don't need to tie Bush to a strong defense. We can have a strong solid defense under any Commander in Chief. We are not faced with a new way of life and I think anyone in that position with a healthy cabinent and intelligence will do their best (I'd certainly hope) to work on making us safer (without removing our freedoms) and find ways of making the world safer through conflict resolution.

People attack other people because they feel they have no other choice. Those reasons need to be resolved or the world itself is going to slowly catalyze further into a war or into old sepratist closed border ideas. This isn't what I want for my kids. I want the world to be accessable to them, to learn, to explore, to fufill whatever it is they want to do. Carrying a police baton is not the method. Over the last century we have learned that negative reinforcment does not work.

At the end of the day I want a President that will listen to the people and not to his god. If you want to listen to god, become a preacher of your orthodoxy and do so that way, do not lead a country.


Fri Sep 17 2004 6:13 AM


"At the end of the day I want a President that will listen to the people and not to his god. If you want to listen to god, become a preacher of your orthodoxy and do so that way, do not lead a country"

I agree, but just who is John Kerry listening to for guidance? By your own words he's not looking to religon for moral guidance. He's not listening to "the people" unless its a small inner circle that can't make up its mind.

If he where making the decisions that people really wanted - wouldn't he be leading in the polls? Instead he finds himself ranked just ahead of OJ Simpson in approval ratings. Hardly the position of a man following "the people's" directives. As of this point the only claim to the presidency he has is that he is the democratic nominee and he's not George Bush - barring a VIABLE third party candidate that automaticly entitles him to about 42% of the vote. On his own merits he has convinced an additional 3% of the voters to swing his way - for now. Hardly the ringing endorsement of a man following "the people's" will.

Fri Sep 17 2004 6:57 AM


Its a choice between a lesser evil, and a greater evil.

"The current party system we have is way off of where it should be."

I don't like either party. I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, but as an educated objective individual I do understand that the world does not need what Bush is peddling. I do wish Kerry would plant his ideals firmer in the sand so that we could have a greater idea of where his perspective is coming from (even though again, he's apart of the Democratic machine and even if there was a good painted picture, would it be believed?).

I'd also like to see the media give all candidates for the election better coverage. Why we treat an open political system like it only has two parties always confounds me.

So you're right, Kerry has no people's ringing endorsement. I still would hedge my bet on Kerry not to lead us into some angry new world order than to see the our current administration continue to plod down a very dangerous path of self(or godly) justification of ideals, morals, and ethics especially when they are lacking most to begin with.


Fri Sep 17 2004 7:27 AM


"So you're right, Kerry has no people's ringing endorsement. I still would hedge my bet on Kerry not to lead us...."

Your statement is correct, Kerry has no ringing endorsement and he won't lead. As stated earlier we where not lead into an angry new world, it came to us and kicked in the door with 4 hijacked airliners. Before that it was bombed embassies, truck bombed WTC and suicide attacks upon unsuspecting military targets.

Measured responces and no responces by the US only brought more attacks upon the US. Other nations have stayed on the sidelines and suffered attacks, other nations have joined the US and sufered attacks. Is there some special or secret "nuance" that Kerry will bring to the office that will make the US a special exemption for being targeted? If so the rest of the world would love to hear it so they could copy it.

Fri Sep 17 2004 7:51 AM


"Your statement is correct, Kerry has no ringing endorsement and he won't lead. As stated earlier we where not lead into an angry new world, it came to us and kicked in the door with 4 hijacked airliners."

Ok, you morphed my statement and added your own. He has no full public support, neither does, bush, so your argument is null. You're addition of 'and he won't lead' is unqualified and you can not support such a statement. If you have qualified sourced material please post it on how Kerry will fail, or has failed in his career thus far.

Second idea of the war/world came to us, we had a choice in how we handled the matter. Hunt down the person and peoples that did this. How many people do we have stationed in Afganistan vs how many people in Iraq? Do we have Osama yet? Further more how far have we figured out that Iraq had nothing to do with what happened on 9/11? We are obviously not caring too much about the original travesty. So our equal and measured response has not been there, we did a tithe for the original problem maker and somehow dove headlong into another sea of problems.

Lastly, what Kerry will not bring is a belief system that tells him to do something which overrides his civic duties.

From Kerry: "And let me say it plainly: In that cause, and in this campaign, we welcome people of faith. America is not us and them. I think of what Ron Reagan said of his father a few weeks ago, and I want to say this to you tonight: I don't wear my own faith on my sleeve. But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: the measure of our character is our willingness to give ourselves for others and for our country."

Bush wants to bring his god to the masses, that in itself is a catalyst for every religion that believes in itself.

Religion is touchy and personal, and most conflicts on this globe are taking place due to it. Keep Bush in office and his gods agenda is first and foremost (see the blurring lines already started), at least Kerry has the decency to know religion is personal and stayed away from talking about it so long because it is so and in the end it isn't part of the agenda.


Fri Sep 17 2004 9:22 AM


You continue to interject religon - so lets add it. Kerry's acceptance speech:

But faith has given me values and hope to live by, from Vietnam to this day, from Sunday to Sunday. I don't want to claim that God is on our side. As Abraham Lincoln told us, I want to pray humbly that we are on God's side. And whatever our faith, one belief should bind us all: The measure of our character is our willingness to give of ourselves for others and for our country.

Sounds like your getting religon shoved down your throat if you have Kerry in the Whitehouse. Or is this one of the issues you plan on him flipping on?

Fri Sep 17 2004 10:06 AM

Tom from Madison:

Kerry's acceptance speech puts religion in it's correct context. He's not shoving it down anyone's throat. He's deftly pointing out that it doesn't belong to Bush or to the Republican Party. Rather, it is something that can't be owned and should never be wielded as a weapon. Nor is faith isn't a substitute for the ability to rationally decide when to go to war OR how to prosecute a war once we're in it.

If Bush practiced his religion the way Kerry did, he might be the "uniter" he said he was. Instead he uses religion to divide the electorate. Bush's religion is too often an excuse used to avoid having to justify his bad decisions. After all, he was just doing what God told him. Apparently Bush's God hasn't been talking to my God!

Fri Sep 17 2004 11:21 AM


"You're addition of 'and he won't lead' is unqualified and you can not support such a statement. If you have qualified sourced material please post it on how Kerry will fail, or has failed in his career thus far."

As the Junior Senator from Massachusetts John Kerry has introduce only one insignificant bill in his entire 20+ year career. Could we assume that Kerry has lost the leadership abilities that he possessed for 4 months in Vietnam based on that dismal 20 year record? In addition internal sources admit he has enourmous trouble leading his staff that is attempting to get him elected. These are people that one would believe have a single stated goal and be united in that cause. If that goes beyond his management skills hows he going to lead 250 MILLION+ free thinking citizens?

You also fail miserably in explaining how the election of Kerry would somehow exempt the US from being the target terrorist attacks that the rest of the earth is subject to. Got a source to quote on that?

Fri Sep 17 2004 11:29 AM


You are correct, religon doesn't belong to the Republicans or the Democrats - but then in your next prargraph you interject that Kerry is the candidate that is a true believer and Bush is poor in his practice. Couldn't you have spaced your contradictions a little farther apart?

Hate to tell you but Kerry claims the Bible would have guide him on Iraq as well. From a speech he gave on September 9th:

"For four years, George W. Bush may have talked about compassion, but he's walked right by. He's seen people in need, but he's crossed over to the other side of the street." There were loads of other biblical citations as well:"The Bible tells us that we must sometimes see through a glass darkly. But on every issue, from Iraq to health care, from jobs to education to America's role in the world, the choice is clear."

"...Your dedication and your service live out the teaching of the Scripture: "It is not enough, my brother, to say you have faith, when there are no deeds … Faith without works is dead." As you know, my friends, we are taught to walk by faith not by sight."

So is Kerry being honest when he proclaims that his faith would guide him through issues such as Iraq? Or will he immediate substitute his faith for a Zogby Poll?

Fri Sep 17 2004 11:47 AM


Howard Dean said:
``wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,''

Two months later Kerry said:
``Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.''

Later Kerry said:
``wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time,''

Who do you believe - in Kerry's case you also have to pick a certain time period.

Fri Sep 17 2004 12:23 PM


"Could we assume that Kerry has lost the leadership abilities that he possessed for 4 months in Vietnam"

It drives me crazy when people start ripping on Kerry for spending only "4 months" in Vietnam. Are you overlooking that that 4 months was his SECOND tour of duty in the Vietnam war? Look it up. It was after he completed his first tour of duty that he volunteered to serve his second tour (which lasted 4 months) on a swift boat. If you are going to criticize someone at least get your facts straight.

Fri Sep 17 2004 1:02 PM


Drives me nuts to hear people refer to 2 tours. His "first" tour was aboard the USS Gridley, a ship that only made a single half day port call in Vietnam. She left Subic Bay 2 January 1967 for plane guard duty in the China Sea and the Gulf of Tonkin. After varied duties in the fighting zone, she sailed for Australia en route to the West Coast and arrived Long Beach 8 June to prepare for future action.

So that first "tour" was at most three months in a combat zone (given steaming time to and from). A tour is a year. The combined "tours" of Al Gore, and John Kerry are less then a single tour served by the rest of the "common" servicemen.

As for Kerry's choice of Swift Boats, he told the Boston Globe last year, "I didn't really want to get involved in the war. When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling...."

Fri Sep 17 2004 1:40 PM

Tom from Madison:

Mr No-name,

there is no contradiction in asserting that we all have a right to freely practice our own religion and to be inspired by it, yet policy debates belong in the secular realm. To say that ONLY Bush's religion will lead America to what is right is a corruption of both religion and our political process. Using religion to frame the debate LOGICALLY leads to an argument about whose discussions with God are the best for America.

Do we really want to debate national policy based on what God is saying to whom and who is the holier candidate? It would seem that the Bushies would rather rely on the divine right of kings [or right-wing presidents who act like them] than on the rule of reason. This is a profoundly un-American notion!

Fri Sep 17 2004 1:44 PM



What the fuck are you talking about? When has George Bush or any member of his cabinet come out and said a mistake was made because Bush got the wrong message from God? Divine right of Kings, My God isn't Bush's God, debate national policy based on what Goad said? Quit repeating platitudes and reference a fact - statement or even a rumor. Kerry had tried to bring religon to the fore front of the campaign back around Easter, then got his ass kicked by his own church. Wisely he has since dropped the issue, maybe you should too.

Fri Sep 17 2004 2:09 PM

Tom from Madison:

No need for profanity. God doesn't like it.

I'm talking about how Bush responded to Bob Woodward when Woodward asked George W if he asked his dad about Iraq. George W responded that he answered to a "higher father".

You must have heard O'Reilly, Hannity, et al discuss how Bush's religion is guiding the country against the "secularists".

Maybe you've heard Pat Robertson suggest that Bush is the holier candidate and that God told him that Bush would win in November. Bush unabashedly panders to religion at every turn.

Kerry is a Catholic who realizes that the whole country isn't Catholic. As a public official it's his job to represent ALL of his constituents. That way he isn't a pawn of the Pope. It also helps him be a uniter, not a divider. A lot of Catholics respect that. I'm an ex-Catholic who definitely respects that.

What worries me about Bush isn't so much what he says-although he's a terrible speaker. Frankly he doesn't say much, especially in a forum where it might be challenged!

It's what he does. He is waging a war which is fundamentally a crusade. Subsitute "Democracy" for Christianity and you have the basis for George's war. He's all about proselytizing. He keeps claiming that he's helping the Iraqi people.

Certainly removing Saddam helped. However killing thousands of them and planning to plunder their oil is definitely NOT helping. Last I checked, God didn't like murder.

Fri Sep 17 2004 2:32 PM



Actually I don't watch O'Reily, Hannity or Pat Robertson - 9 years of of force fed major networks only. Since I am a free thinking adult I have formed my own opinions without the "thought police" helping. Yours sound like they come directly from the DU. You admit that you have very little if nothing to support you view, but still push it under the guise "Everybody knows that...."

As for Kerry being Catholic, last I heard he claimed to be Jewish but then again maybe it has changed again since then. Kerry attempted to be the "holy" candidate early in the game and the Catholics basicly told him to shove off, even with the priest scandle he still make them look bad. Then he tried to the Vietnam War Hero. Again, other then his paid comrades, every person he was in contact with in Vietnam said he wasn't fit to be comander and chief. His crewmates on the Gridley agree, it's even part of the official Gridley web site. His fellow Senators have look upon him as lazy and ineffective - his voting record lends credenceto that opinion.

I just don't understand the left's decree that Bush is some kind of religious nut. But then again after kneeling and bobbing at the alter of Clinton, any vigorous man who doesn't use a fat intern as a cigar humidor must be some kind of fanatical monk. Most NORMAL people just consider it being a decent human being.

Sat Sep 18 2004 7:52 AM


No, I don't think he's religious at all. I think he uses that title to his advantage. Any "good Christian" knows that using a horrible tragedy as 9/11 as an excuse to go into a country that had nothing to do it, expend hundreds and hundreds of US lives, along with even more Iraqis for oil profits is wrong. Any Christian, as well as any human being knows right from wrong. I don't think he believes in anything, he just likes to use it as a reason and to get votes and support from the ignorant and blind right-wing Christians. And it makes me fucking sick.

Sat Sep 18 2004 8:08 AM


Looking at the blogs on the internet wether conservative or liberal, it is apparent that everyone is polarized. If you step back and look at all the discussions it seems to boil down to ‘who’s right?’. The conservatives will attack anything that smacks of liberalism. They seem to just be waiting for the chance to take point after point and discredit it. The liberals are busy defending themselves and trying to find arguments that will demean Bush. It seems as if we really hate each other.
Now if we take this as a microcosm and Iraq as the macrocosm.
Then doesn’t it seem rather apparent that the meaner the opposition gets, the more hatred you have for them? The more a liberal or conservative tries to tell you how to think the more you resent them.? The more the other side tries to diminish your ideas the more animosity festers inside of you?
Why would it be any different in Iraq. My point is this. Ultimately violence begets more violence. Isn’t this a historical lesson?
Ultimately, aren’t we fostering a hatred for America that will last generations in the arab world. Up to now America has had standards of never invading a country that wasn’t currently involved in aggressive violence toward others. Now we have broken that standard and are perceived differently because of it. Even the Israelis limit there response to terrorism. Does it matter that we have always stood for justice? That we have never been a nation that acted out of fear? That we have always been a beacon of hope and light for the rest of the world?

GW has asserted that we are killing the terrorists ‘over there’ as a preventative measure so they we don’t have to deal with them here. Is this in fact what we are doing? Or are we adding to their numbers? Is this a realistically doable goal? We have lost control of several cities in Iraq to insurgents. The Iraqi police are woefully inadequate. The armed forces are planning to take back and ‘open up’ these cities for the January elections. Do we have a plan in Iraq?

How many terrorists are there in Iraq? hundreds? thousands? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?
Are there numbers growing or diminishing?
Are Iraq’s borders secure from terrorist infiltration?
How do we plan to reconcile all the different religious factions in Iraq?
Can we impose marshal law in Iraq?
Can we confiscate all weapons from the private sector in Iraq?
Can we stop the insurgents from getting weapons?
Have we given up on winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people? (say by rebuilding their infrastructure and economy)
Are we enlisting help throughout the world to fight terrorism wherever it may occur?

I don’t think we have a coherent plan. Certainly not a well thought out plan. It almost appears as if we are taking it day by day. What is our game plan?

The incompetence of the post war operation in Iraq is such that it makes you think that there must be some other agenda and that Bush is not telling the truth. Because the reasons he gives seem somehow not to ring true. Has he omitted something? Does he need more communication skills? This is the problem with Bush since the beginning. He’s either telling the truth and he and his administration are really stupid, or he’s up to something else. No one could be this stupid right?

Sun Sep 19 2004 8:56 AM


I find it interesting how you took the broader approach the entire entry and then brought the blame down on the President at the end. Did you run out of questions or have you not considered John Kerry's possible role as a leader in this chaos?

And the post war operation, isn't it more of an ongoing battle against an unorganized group of terrorists? Do you have a solution to the Iranians fighting in Iraq, murdering countless Iraqis, and US soldiers? Many think of us as occupiers but it seems that we serve as guardians, aiding the Iraqis in a new start that is being ravaged by terrorists. The war in Iraq is over, let's look into the future and see who the truly best candidate for president is, Kerry, who promises he will not invade an attacking country without UN approval, or Bush who has defended our nation with out compromise.

And how much do you want the US to conform to The World's vision for the way we should be? No matter what we do, terrorists will claim they hate us and attack us so why should we allow them to shape us into what they want? Would that not lead to their own interests? Which is more important, the interest of an American, a terrorists, a european, someone from ________ country?

The beauty of it all is that it is YOUR CHOICE who is president, and who you believe is the best fit for our country.

P.S. Your vote does count... just look how close Florida was last year, imagine how close it would be if EVERYONE voted.

Sun Sep 19 2004 9:29 PM


I guess I don’t need to ask anymore questions because no one seems to want to address the ones I have already asked.

The questions are really for us to look at to determine who would be a better president regarding the Iraq situation. There are, of course, many other areas and topics to consider when voting for president.

I’ll try to answer your positions. I have posted in another topic comparison questions about both candidates. Maybe it is still in recent posts.

In the past few days the press has reported that the terrorists are becoming more organized rather than less organized.

They also seem to have even taken over many towns.
There is also a news report interviewing various Iraqis. Their opinion is that they hate Americans and want them to leave but don’t really want them to leave without restoring their country to some civil order because they feel there would be a civil war in which Iraqis would kill each other. This cuts down the middle.

I don’t believe Kerry said he would not invade an “attacking” country. He may be allot less likely to invade a country that is not attacking anyone however or that poses no clear and imminent danger.

The issue is not about the US conforming to a world vision. Its about the US creating a world vision for the fight against terrorism. We don’t have a vision. And how long can we go on if we decide to invade Iran or Korea. How thin can we spread ourselves before our economy weakens and we become less effective and vulnerable. What if we are spread so thin around the globe that China feels they want to take back Taiwan and gives us the finger about it. You can only go it alone so long in this type of a war.

Yes your vote does count and so we all better think about it very seriously and take off the blinders and look beyond the spin and look to the future of our country so we can make it a better and more noble country of which we can be proud.

I believe in a mix of conservative and liberal values. The old conservative values of responsibility and accountability. The liberal values of protecting the environment against corporate interests. As well as protecting the elderly and the young from being taken advantage of. (this gets into money scams, health care, insurance, medicine, etc.) There are people who need our help in this country as well as people who take advantage or become reliant on that help. Its not all one way. Big business needs to thrive but so does small business without being stifled or swallowed by big business. I guess I’m straying here from the original topic so I’ll get off my soap box.

Regarding the last statement about Bush. Do the things he says, like, ‘we are over there to destroy terrorism before it gets here’.
Does that actually ring true to you. Do you feel ‘yes this is really what its all about, what a great patriot my president is’?

And the case they made for invading Iraq. Weren’t you a little skeptical that the arial photos of the trucks that they said were mobile wmd labs was the best evidence they had for going to war. Sure, they made up more reasons later, (actually some better reasons) but that was in hindsight.

My case for Kerry is that he would be more likely to form coalitions against terrorism so that we wouldn’t have to take the whole burden. The case for Bush is that he will take a harder line with other countries and because of his hard line they may acquiesce to negotiations more easily.

On most other issues I prefer Kerry.

Anyhow hmm. What do you think? or does hmmm just = skeptical of liberal ideas.

Sun Sep 19 2004 11:30 PM



Sorry for not answering your initial questions. The answers to those may lead to world peace... :)

I find it unfortunate that we received misleading intelligence about the WMD's in Iraq, but it is important that the President did not allow time to pass for a possible attack on the US to occur. I am sure you may agree that at that time, any evidence conveying the possibility of terrorist action against the US demanded attention and immediate action. At that time, the President took a pre-emptive action to avoid a future attack, how would the criticism fall if the media found out he had not taken action on a truly imminent threat? ( and just imagine the campaign ads had there been a chemical terrorist attack)

So basically... from the information at hand, the President chose the action that seemed best for the safety of the nation, which we have now learned may have been avoided.

Don't get me wrong, I am deeply grieved by the loss of over 1000 US families that suffer as a result, but their loved ones gave their lives for the hope of avoiding such an attack as that on 9/11 and now aid in establishing order in a once Murderously-ruled Iraq.

My doubt for Kerry is that he seems undetermined of his position in Iraq, not to mention on his defensive policies. I would rather have a President who is ready to take action than one who would wait and never make up his mind.

And as for hmmm = skeptical of liberal ideas, that may be correct. If Kerry ever makes those ideas clear, I will tell you what I think of them. Don't you think there is a steadfast liberal out there capable to express his/her opinions to the US and where he/she stands?

Anyhow, I am afraid of the liberal idea of gun-bans. The moment the Constitution is perverted any one of my rights is compromised, I lose faith in the intentions of the perpetrator. My gun is my only defense against an oppressive government, such as the progressive government supported by many liberals. My reasoning:

First comes tax hikes for the "rich" ($200,000+ ?, gimme a break, thats what any successful business owner/doctor makes a year)

Second, there comes the gun laws demanding innocent Americans to give up their Constitutionally protected firearms
(I do not accuse John Kerry of
Totalitarianism, but if he is not careful,
his actions could ease the uprisal of such

Finally, who knows how far that is away from totalitarian government. What is stopping the government if the honest, hard-working American cannot fight a greedy government? First it is for "our safety" (gun-bans) then it turns into the government's profit (unnecessary tax raises). I'm for little government influence on my financial, family, personal life, but for large government influence for foreign affairs and defense.

That is my stand.

Mon Sep 20 2004 2:23 PM



Well your premise about GWs reasons for going to war with Iraq is based on good faith with GW. So we’re assuming he made some blunders of judgment on the reasons for going to war and also on the postwar assessment of installing a democracy in Iraq. The only other option would be that he is extremely sly and up to something else that he is not telling us. You can see how many liberals might believe this as they have a hard time believing that people in power with all their resources could be that (wrong, stupid, etc).

Although I believe Kerry might re-instigate the ban on automatic weapons, I don’t believe he would screw with the ‘right to bear arms’. Realistically, what use would automatic weapons be if the armed forces turned against us, or even the police force for that matter?

What is considered rich and what is considered middle income?
What concerns me more is that America’s entrepreneurship will be stifled by big business. I mean really big business over 1M profit a year. With big businesses getting the breaks, small companies don’t stand much of a chance. The big ones break them or gobble them up. A big company could afford to sell at no profit for a period of time to bankrupt a small company. I believe in free trade and competition but it doesn’t thrive if everyone is forced into the corporate world. Even the big banks now treat everyone impersonally. I incurred an overdraft fee from the B of A. My account was overdrawn for one day. 5 or 6 small charges came through the account before I could cover it from another account, which is in the same bank and has plenty of money in it. These charges were all under $20.00 each, the overdraft fees were $132.00. I have been banking there for 14 years. So I called the bank and asked for a supervisor. I got a young woman who may as well have been a recording. My banking loyalty and good record made no difference. The abundance of cash in my other account made no difference. Only bank rules and policy mattered. Its about as smart as strip searching the 80 year old white grandma from Iowa while the arab terrorists board the plane as their number wasn’t called due to the fear of racial profiling. My point is that the world is becoming more impersonal. Large corporations foster these ideas. Its ruthlessly you go, up the corporate ladder and let the weak and infirm perish. This does not foster honorable people nor honorable intentions.
One of the most exciting sports is professional football. The main reason for this is the parody experienced by all the teams. Because of the parody rules and socialist type profit sharing by the league teams, every town fielding a team can have a chance at winning the big one, and everyone makes money. This is an example where sharing, cooperation and a dose of common sense, creates a win win situation. And its big business too.
I guess my greatest fear would be that we all turn suspicious of each other and that there is no good will fostered between people. This is why, although Independent, I usually vote Democratic. I have seen taxes go up, but I have seen budgets balance. And I know most sensible democrats do not want outrageous taxes either. I am fearful that a Republican Government will polarize the country and turn us all into fearful mean spirited antagonists caring nothing for the environment, or people who really need our help, or small businesses, or new ideas beyond the status quo, or even just fair-play in business, but rather grow big business with no restrictions which will lead us into a realm of privately owned monopolies that manipulate our lives for their self interest. Examples are media companies that are owned by people with political agendas. (i.e. what the conservatives call the ‘liberal media’ [New York Times and CBS] and what the liberals call the ‘conservative media’ [Fox News and the Radio Talk Shows]. What ever happened to objective news reporting. Well I’ll tell you what happened to it. Capitalism happened to it. Unrestrained capitalism leads to self serving monopolies. It’s an idealistic dream to think that, left alone, unrestrained big business will lead to a better life for us all. It won’t. Preserving the rights of small businesses and the fostering of an environment supportive of new ideas, inventions and positive change, will.

Mon Sep 20 2004 11:13 PM


In regards to the comment below, don't you read? Iraq has nothing to do with the terrorists. There is no link between Iraq and the terrorists(I'm speaking of Al Quaida). That's the problem. Why do so many people make that huge mistake? The fact is that the war Bush has dragged us into has nothing to do with 9/11 and everything to do with Halliburton making billions of dollars off of it and an opportunity for a gazillion dollar oil enterprise. Bush strong on defense? Well, yes..but this war was an offensive war.Now we HAVE to beef up our defense because we've pissed off a lot of people. The fact is that we were never threatened or murdered by Iraqis and Bush's strike was preemptive.That fact has been accepted and printed by mainstream media. So as far as weak on mercy to murderers, that would pretty much deny mercy to our current administration because we have murdered thousands of Iraqis and now over 1000 of our own enlisted have been killed. I recommend you go back and regather your facts and then make an educated comment instead of a comment that is blindly supportive of Bush without any knowledge of what has been going on. It's not unpatriotic to gather information.In fact, if you really loved your country you would take the time.

Wed Sep 22 2004 1:30 AM


Bush at it again
Bush's line:
In all we do to improve health care in America, we will make sure that health decisions are made by doctors and patients, not by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

antitrust rules have further consolidated the power of government-backed managed care organizations (MCOs) and employer-sponsored health insurance plans.
Bush's administration is prosecuting 21 physicians groups for price fixing because they negotiated as groups better contracts with manage care companies which upset the large managed care companies.

full story:

Once again do not believe what Bush tells you because its BS. Misleading at best and lies at worst. Just like he did last election. Remember fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Wed Sep 22 2004 9:33 AM


Jim, you say on this site that you're a humanist. Secular Humanism is a nice, warm & fuzzy-feeling concept, but the problem is, this worldview doesn't jibe with the world realities we face as a country. Some of the tenets of Humanism I can agree with, but there are serious problems with it. Let's look at the list of "elements and principles" on the "Council for Secular Humanism" site..

** A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Yes. Sort of. I would agree that we should not be sheep. We should not be Jim Jones "Kool-Aid drinkers", blindly following beliefs promulgated by others. However- do you like the standard of living we enjoy in the U.S.? Where almost all people, even the poorest, have at least one T.V. and one car? Look around the world and see what the standard of living of the average person is. We have a pretty good system here. Because of our religious, political, and social traditions and beliefs. Would anarchy be better? Would socialism or communism be better? Look at the dismal failure of the Soviet Union- would you like to live there?

** Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers
to important human questions.

Yes. I can agree with this idea. Mostly. However, not everything can be explained by "critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry". Human behavior, for one thing. Do all people act on the basis of logic? Look at the fanaticism of the Islamo-fascists bent on destroying Western Civilization, for example. I found an article with a little insight on the true nature of the Islamic extremists..

After reading this, these folks sound like they are capable of being reasoned with, right?

** A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Sure. Why not! These sound like noble ideas. Even though that "fulfillment" thing sounds a little narcissistic.. As far as helping humankind in general goes, the U.S. historically has helped out a lot of countries. Take post-war Germany and Japan, for example. Two of the strongest democratic, economically-powerful, *free* societies in the world. How many other countries can you name that, after defeating their enemies, pick them up and help them rebuild? That's what we do.

** A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

Okee dokee. Let's contemplate our navels and expect enlightenment. Everybody constantly acquires new knowledge and experience, their entire lives. Yet, we each have our own worldviews, personalities, and skills. I think that there are a limited number of "objective truths". Objectivity is overrated, anyway. They tell me that the speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 m/s (meters per second). Of course, I have never measured it.. have you? I *believe* that light travels exactly 299,792,458 m/s. I take it on *faith* that this is a correct figure, subject to further knowledge and analysis. The sky is blue. Oh, really? I see it as sort of an azure tone. Okay, I'll agree to call it 'blue'.

** A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Yes. A concern for THIS life. A respect for the lives of others. Unlike the Islamic extremists, whose goal is to die for Allah, while killing The Infidel (us), and going to live with 72 virgins in heaven. Yeah, right. There's logic. I can agree that this life is important; even precious. Every day is a gift- we never know how many more tomorrows there will be. It's interesting that some people have no respect for this life, that they want to commit suicide for their ideology, killing us in the process, but keep that stuff the hell away from me! Understand them? Yes, to the extent to understand that they hate us enough to fly airplanes into tall buildings and kill thousands of people, in the name of their god.. I
try to understand somebody else's outlook, but if they're coming at me with an AK-47, or WMD, I take 'issue'.

** A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Again, the U.S. was founded upon religious principles, and it has made us the most powerful,
most benevolent, most successful country in the world- in fact, in the HISTORY of the world. We already have viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct. However, the ACLU and other secularist entities are trying to remove these principles, and the symbols of them, from society. I'm not saying that one should follow any particular religion (I'm not religious, but I have a respect for those who are). However, we ignore our roots as a country at our peril. Religious fanaticism is a bad thing, yes.. in fact, religious fanaticism is the enemy we now face. There are fanatics on both ends of the political spectrum. Most of us are not.

** A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance,
progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

Yes. All the while looking over our shoulder and defending our way of life, when necessary. We can sit here and have this discussion due to the First Amendment to the Constitution. Somebody explain these concepts to Al Qaeda. Good luck- they have their own ideas.. pretty strong ones, in fact!

Jim Gilliam, et al, wake up and smell the world coffee. Humanism can only operate in a vacuum; not in the real world.


Wed Oct 13 2004 12:20 PM


A little prudence goes a long way, many words spoken in anger bares a cost to pay.
Every man is his own politician, never wrong, always right, loosing site of a path very long, all the day and all the night.

"A house divided against itself shall surely fall"

Fri Oct 15 2004 9:58 PM


Here is a comment to "db":
The Marshall Plan wasn't only a give away. The West European countries (mostly Italy and France) were very close to a communist take over. It was very important for the USA to avoid it. George C. Marshall was a very smart politician. The Bush administration should study this historic solution. More about this:


Sat Oct 23 2004 7:07 PM


More Jim CRAP!!!

Stand on your head maybe some sense will come out the other end.

Sat Oct 30 2004 8:12 PM


Intolerance is the New Normal.
Don't complain, Organize! McCauliffe has got to go. Howard Dean for DNC Chairman! Democrats - Back and to the Left!
If the US is an empire, then our Emperor has no clothes, which is appropriate since after the Rapture the earth will be "clothing optional"....
"Perpetual War and Endless Fear. But we're opening a Walmart in Fallujah next year...."

Wed Nov 3 2004 7:28 AM

Jim Gilliam
Jim Gilliam


Add to My Yahoo!

Last week's soundtrack:

jgilliam's Weekly Artists Chart