posted August 13, 2004 11:58 AM              

Kerry is a Sag from New England, and his family is very wealthy. How much influence do wives have? First ladies? His sun is in Sag but he has a stellium in Gemini, including his Moon, Saturn, Mars, and Uranus. He is known for being vain and unsure of himself. Venus is in Scorpio, and Pluto and North Node are in Leo. Looks like Sag Ascendant conjunct Sun. Kerry has a singleton, Mercury in Capricorn in the 1st house.

Kerry seems very conservative to me, what do you Knowflakes think?

Bush is a Cancer from Texas, another wealthy family, with a Leo ascendant, Mercury, and Venus, and Libra Moon. Saturn and his Sun are both in Cancer, the only water signs.

So far I believe one must "do" their values, not just talk about them, and compare what's said to what' s being done. I don't see much to hope for from the Kerry side and I just can't vote for "the lesser of two evils" I need more than that.

Anyone nominating Nader?
Personally I think the Democrats are leaning more towards the right economically that is they like lots and lots of money! and T and A seems big for Democrats too! Any reason I as a woman ought to trust another Democrat after Clinton? After all I have breasts but I don't see any male Democrats who value my woman power yet.

Kerry is from Boston, where men are notoriously uptight about sex.

Plus there are a lot of cute young republicans, and so now my mind is being swayed.

posted August 14, 2004 01:16 PM            

How interesting that this election comes during an ''altercation'' in the middle east. Will Kerry pull the troops out if he gets into the White House? Uh, not totally. There have been American soldiers on that soil for over 20 years, and they're not all going to pull out now, are they? Kerry does have the ''purple heart'' thing going for him, while Dubya joined the reserves and never went into active duty. I guess I feel a bit of a lean towards Kerry, he at least knows how to pronounce words properly, and uses grammar correctly. But is that the basis of my vote? That is scary....

And as far as who is more compassionate, I don't know them personally, but Dubya sure has been milking the 9/11 tragedy for the past three years... Um, yeah, we're waging a war against terrorism that just so happens to spring from going after Bin Laden to fragmentizing the Iraqi government and arresting Hussein. Does anybody else see the inconsistancy there? And for us to use the excuse that they were funding acts of terror is a bit rich... The US aided the IRA in acts of terror for years, and somehow we still have the audacity to enlist the help of British troops who lost family members because of the IRA... Sorry to have turned this into a rant, sometimes I do that... it just seems to me that our intrests in that area of the world are not about freeing their people and setting up a democracy, there's oil in them there oil fields....

I don't agree with what has transpired since this ''war against terror'' began. But I also don't think we should just leave Iraq in the chaotic state it is in now. There needs to be some kind of middle-ground here, I just wish we could find it before more people get their heads cut off by extremists....

I think I got off topic there, no big surprise coming from me, though.

Ghani

posted August 14, 2004 03:27 PM              

Lets have a look at what Mr Bush has given the world.

He launched a 'war on terror' - (well thats going to solve it isnt it) and a fictitious war in Iraq, completely flouting the UN (why was this created in the first place - read a history book dubya) only to find that there are no WMD (quel surprise) and that US corporate giants are moving in to plunder the oil and turn Iraq into a theme park. Is the world a safer place because of the 'war on terror' (whatever that actually means) and the 'war in Iraq' I ask? I dont think so. But then again dont forget that terrorist threats increase on the run up to an election - its just one of those really funny little coincidences.

America - please vote. Vote for what you sincerely believe in whatever that may be. But make that choice an INFORMED one.

posted August 14, 2004 03:32 PM              

Same goes for Kerry... I'm really not crazy about him either. He does seem very conservative to me too, Natasha.

Did you say Nader? OOOH... I love Nader. I wish he could be elected. I've never looked into his astro stuff. Know anything on him, Natasha?

posted August 14, 2004 04:25 PM              

I'm not sure about this... my dad's a Cancer, and he's no dumby. He's Cancer/Leo Moon/Leo Asc. Actually... practically everything is in Cancer and Leo 11th and 12th houses.

posted August 14, 2004 05:56 PM              

Jupiter in Libra the 8th, other people's resources,
and Pluto in the 6th, the house of service.
Moon conjunct Neptune?
and Sun, Mercury and Mars in Pisces
Venus and Saturn conjunct in Aqua.

The only other Venus and Saturn conjunct Aqua I know is also very political and absolutely determined.

I am sure Nader will run if he gets nominated.
"Ralph Nader (born February 27, 1934, at 4:52 am in Winsted, Connecticut), the man who worked to expose the Pinto and so much more, is running for president under the label of the Green Party. Nader’s Sun is in Pisces, and in true Piscean style, not only has Nader rooted for the underdog, he’s both been and represented the underdog. Also in Piscean fashion, he’s worn the same shoes at least since the last decade—he just keeps getting them resoled (Pisces is linked to the feet). His Pisces quest for the downtrodden now includes a presidential bid.

Oddly, Nader’s platform seems damn near perfect. He’s concerned about social care reform, education, consumer economics and the environment. This shows in his chart with his Saturn aligned with the North Node in Aquarius. Saturn’s position here in the humanitarian sign of Aquarius depicts Nader’s sense of responsibility (Saturn) for humanity (Aquarius). Combined with a sense of destiny provided by the North Node, also in the I’m-very-concerned-about-everyone, water-bearing Aquarius, his intent and heart stand indisputably in the right place. How refreshing. But is it electable?

David Meets the Giants

Nader’s policies, stemming from his Aquarian agenda benefit everyone except for those greedy, power monger sorts. This does not help his cause. Some would argue that Nader would be ill equipped to deal with foreign policy and military matters.

Ralph Nader’s horoscope contains a t-square between justice-seeking Jupiter in fairness-oriented Libra, which is opposed outspoken and pioneering Uranus in argumentative Aries, with both squared by the potent what-about-my-people Pluto in Cancer. This vibrant, finger-pointing, stick-shaking t-square takes on the powers that be (Pluto) without fear of threat or bribery (even more Pluto). He stirs things up, knowing those opposing him cannot resort to intimidation or threat. And if they do, he’ll just make even more noise.

Nader’s Leo Moon and Pisces Sun, in a loose quincunx to each other, build a strong hero/martyr complex for him. Either way, he wins. If he’s martyred in being taken down, he becomes a hero. If he’s heroic because of his ventures, his gain is even sweeter. Add to that the symbolism of the downtrodden in his campaign through his choice of running mate—a Native American woman.

Will He Get Your Vote?

Will you vote for Nader? Many fear a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Uranus retrograding near his Saturn-North Node conjunction isn’t enough to support a win. Nor do the transits of Pluto and Chiron in Sagittarius widely squaring his Sun-Mars support his victory. Simply his efforts do not seem powerful enough. And Uranus contributes to the prematurity of being ahead of his time.

Uranus still offers something quirky. A smart politician familiar with Nader’s horoscope might bring him onboard. The Uranus activity implies that someone who is pretending to be concerned will notice Nader’s genuine concern. Look for Nader to find himself examining an offer to participate within the structures he opposes. Nader’s challenge would lie in trying to determine if such an appointment would compromise his values.

Regardless, he’s clean and green. Maybe that’s just what we need. With the current planetary trends of Uranus and Neptune in Aquarius combining with Pluto and Chiron in Sagittarius, perhaps we ought to put our votes where our thoughts lie—toward the betterment of humanity. Green is good, even if it’s not just referring to money."

posted August 14, 2004 06:09 PM              

Wow... now I love him even more!!!

I'm really torn about my vote. I love Nader. I live in Washington.. we're not a swing state. We're pretty Liberal. I think, even if I vote for Nader, Kerry will still take WA... just as Gore did.

I may just wait until the last minute to see if a vote for Kerry is needed. I don't want to have to vote my fears(Kerry). I want to vote my hopes(Nader).

I've posted in GU my reasons for wanting to vote for Nader. In Star Signs, LG tells the story of Lincoln...Poorly educated and poor, wanting to be a lawyer, but no one would have him. He joined the military, then decided to go into politics. Ran for the senate... defeated HUGELY. Left politics, became a storekeeper, went bankrupt. Ran for Congress, got elected but was defeated in the next election.. again HUGELY. Applied for government positions... denied. Ran for Senate again. Defeated. Nominated for VP, lost again. Tried for the Senate again... defeated again. Finally when he was 50 he was elected as the President of the US... and look at the wonderful things he did!

posted August 14, 2004 06:59 PM            

I can also understand those with limited vision failing to understand the program to eliminate terrorism as a force in the world by going after them where they are or inviting them to assemble en masse so they can be killed far from America, Europe or Australia. Denying terrorists sanctuary in any nation is also part of the plan but I wouldn't expect Michael Moore, or the other over educated Hollywood intellectuals with a high school education to understand it either.

Our European friends seem to have a thing for dictatorships, having spawned Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Millosovic all of whom Americans had to deal with since it's apparent Europeans are totally incapable of defending themselves.....save Britain who seems to stand alone on a continent of otherwise girlie men. And yet we hear fear of dictatorship in the form of America. Go figure.

We hear a lot about compassion and that's a real problem....we hear about it. We hear about it yes but that doesn't seem to translate into action. The President and a coalition of other leaders on the other hand put their compassion into action, so far freeing 50 million or so citizens of other nations from the reign of terror of thugs, murderers and genocidal tyrants.

Now, I promise I will never seek to coerce any Europeans who are in the grip of terror of a dictatorship to come to America's shores. Conversely, I promise to never impede any here who wish to flee America. We have no fences to keep anyone here and it's a big world.

Time to talk now about ignorance. The NY Times, The Washington Post or was it the Times and CNN conducted a 6 months review of the Florida vote and concluded, much to their chagrin that Bush won Florida. So, are those who continue to repeat the lie that Bush didn't win Florida merely ignorant, or is it more a genetic problem?

jwhop

posted August 14, 2004 07:39 PM              

limited intellectual capacity ... hope this isn't directed at me

I fully understand their stance... I just personally don't agree with it. I am an idealist through and through. I don't claim to have all of the answers... or ANY of them, for that matter. I think it's a Libra trait, but I have very strong feelings about brutality and bloodshed. The suffering of others touches me deeply. The invasion of Iraq was stated to be for one reason... then that reason changed, and somehow Osama was made to fit into it.

I want Bush out for two major reasons. #1 He (and his homies) misled the American people to believe they were invading for noble reasons. #2, his religious fanaticism frightens the sh@t out of me. I'm not a Christian. America IS NOT a Christian country, and I do not want that dogmatic crap shoved down my throat. Since when is politics the proper forum to express Jesus Christ is your lord and savior?!

quote:

---

Throughout the world, people of all religions recognize Jesus Christ as an example of love, compassion, sacrifice and service. Reaching out to the poor, the suffering and the marginalized, he provided moral leadership that continues to inspire countless men, women and children today.
To honor his life and teachings, Christians of all races and denominations have joined together to designate June 10 as Jesus Day. As part of this celebration of unity, they are taking part in the 10th annual March for Jesus in cities throughout the Lone Star State. The march, which began in Austin in 1991, is now held in nearly 180 countries. Jesus Day challenges people to follow Christ's example by performing good works in their communities and neighborhoods. By nursing the sick, feeding the poor or volunteering in homeless shelters, everyone can play a role in making the world a better place.

I urge all Texans to answer the call to serve those in need. By volunteering their time, energy or resources to helping others, adults and youngsters follow Christ's message of love and service in thought and deed.

Therefore, I, George W. Bush, Governor of Texas, do hereby proclaim June 10, 2000, Jesus Day in Texas and urge the appropriate recognition whereof, in official recognition whereof, I hereby affix my signature this 17th day of April, 2000.

---

quote:

---

God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them

---

It seems to me that Bush is driving the US into the Christian Revelation End Times theology.

Jimmy Carter:

quote:

---

"As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology."

---

posted August 15, 2004 01:28 AM            

Interesting too that the biggest critic of Bush and the source of a lot of the disinformation about Bush is the New York Times whose publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr, couldn't pass the entrance exam for the Harvard Business School and therefore did not get in. Stupid?

Given that you're an idealist and hate brutality and bloodshed it seems a contradiction that you would prefer to see Saddam Hussein and his sons still in power in Iraq brutally raping, torturing and murdering Iraq citizens. Could you please explain that to me?

Note, however, that Governor Bush did not simply decide to create an arbitrary 'Jesus Day' for the State of Texas. His proclamation was issued in support of a national celebration of Jesus Day, an annual event supported by proclamations from other governors and mayors throughout America as well. http://www.snopes.com/religion/jesusday.htm

If you are using this as a quote by George W. Bush, it would be helpful if you would include the source.
quote:
God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them

The vast majority of Americans think America is a Christian nation. A nation that does not interfere with the religious worship of other religions nor specify an official government sanctioned religion nor does government attempt to force religion on people.

America’s #1 Hero in 2001 was Jesus Christ, according to The Harris Poll. A nationwide cross-section of 1,022 adults were asked to name people they thought of as heroes, without reviewing a list or having any names suggested to them. The person mentioned most often was none other than Jesus Christ. The reasons most often given for naming people as heroes were “doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences,” “doing more than what other people expected,” and “not giving up until goals are accomplished.”


The Harris Poll taken in February 2003 of 2,201 U.S. adults found that 80% of the people polled believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. In fact, the poll found that 26% of non-Christians surveyed believe in the resurrection of Jesus.
(www.harrisinteractive.com, February 26, 2003) http://www.eternalanimals.com/Is%20Anyone%20Thinking%20About%20Jesus%20Today.htm

Your statement Bush stated only one reason to remove Saddam Hussein is wholly inaccurate nor did the President transition to another reason at any point. The official position of the United States government has been that Saddam must be removed from power in Iraq and a resolution to that effect was passed by the United States Congress in 1998.

The authorization for the President to use force to remove Saddam was passed by Congress, including Senator John. F. Kerry and John Edwards. The text of that Resolution is linked and that resolution states several reasons. http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

Please don't quote Jimmy Carter to me. Without question, Carter was the most inept, bungling, meddler who ever sat in the White House. The man directly responsible for the spread of radial Islamic Fundamentalism throughout the Middle East. The man directly responsible for North Korea now having nuclear weapons. The man directly responsible for the mess Reagan had to clean up in Central America. Frankly, I don't give a damn what Carter has to say about foreign policy or religion.

posted August 15, 2004 05:22 AM              

On the other hand Kerry seems pretty souless, all though his wife has the same Sun/Moon combo as John Lennon-Libra/Aqua and she seems pretty smooth. If Nader didn't run would Kerry watch himself so well? Both Gore and Kerry have a chance, which is more than the previous candidates had before Clinton and before Nader starting running. So Nader is putting some fear into the democratic party.

I love that line from Bulworth with Warren Beatty "Are you saying the Democratic party doesn't care about us?"
"Well, isn't that obvious?"

posted August 15, 2004 08:35 AM              

The actual words I used were 'The United States are already progressing towards a dictatorship in my opinion'. I did not say that the country was a dictatorship. What I meant was that a combination of a wide spread paranoia, a mainstream culture of high patriotism and religious fundamentalism, an entertainment industry that permeates the world with historical inaccuracy (arguably more potent than book burning)and a censored press is a rich bed with which to cultivate the masses towards a collective view. It has been done before you know.

I also find 'since the Europeans are totally incapable of defending themselves' a rather confusing comment - defending themselves against whom? Nazi Germany? They were Europeans. Also the use of language the Americans had to 'deal' with it. I assume this is with reference to WW2, of course it is undisputed that American intervention helped bring about the end of the war but again, please, they didnt 'deal' with, it wasnt solely down to their help. How insulting do you think that statement is to a nation of people who had faught a difficult war on all fronts, a war that affected each and every citizen in this country on a daily basis for years only to be viewed as 'rescued'. NO.

Just for the record the US did not deal with Stalin.

Why if the USA government is keen to rid the world of evil and replace them with compliant governments have they ignored political hotspots such as Chile, China who has one of the worst human rights records across the world. Where was their involvment in Rwanda? Why did they not get involved in South Africa under aparteid? Why are they not involving themselves in Burma? Why are the Tibetan people not rescued from the tyranny of the Chinese? These are genuine open questions, please feel free to comment.

The state of Texas will always vote for things like 'Jesus Day', in their droves, when high school teachers remark on the question of introducing foreign languages into schools, and I paraphrase...If English was good enough for Jesus then its good enough for us, well then anyone can see that the 'democracy' is working well there. Im afraid I cannot quote the details of the source of that statement other than I saw it on the BBC.

There are a couple of points I would like to make regarding religion and politics. Firstly, the current bible was re written by King James VI&I under intense political unrest. I was decreed that 'you would not be saved unless you read the King James version'. The same King was the subject of a plot to overthrow the government and blow up the houses of parliament with gunpowder. The United Kingdom will celebrate the 400th anniversary of this event on 5th November this year. The current bible that some Americans take as absolute law is in fact a manuscript rewritten with the political interests in mind of a 17th Century British King. The attempt to mix politics and religion are nothing new and our culture has 'evolved' over a long twisting sometimes bitter history to finally reach an inherent understanding through experience that politics is politics and religion is religion and they do not mix.

Finally, a genuinely open question. Does anyone have any thoughts on how Mr Bush will deal with the Irish Rebuplican Army in his war against terror?

I look forward to your comments.

posted August 15, 2004 08:58 AM            

I would go on to express in what ways, but you pretty much hit the nail on the head.

posted August 15, 2004 09:19 AM              

I really like the way that Jwhop voices disagreement with the Presidents policies.

'We've had some real arguements on GU mainly because there are some who cannot contain themselves and insist on attacking the President on a personal level instead of voicing disagreement with the Presidents policies'

'Carter was the most inept, bungling meddler whoever sat in the Whitehouse'

posted August 15, 2004 09:36 AM            

But when people have their opinions on things, they will compile data to support their point, disregarding data that proves otherwise.... debates are always interesting!