- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Debate 10/8
Debate 10/8Follow
I don't see how Kerry's not forcing his convictions down your throat can be seen as a lack of charecter. I think it takes a much stronger man to stand up and say I believe this, but if you don't I will work to supprt you, than one who says I believe this and if you don't then you can go get fu'cked.
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Then find someone that life has given vodka and have party.
This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
Lubey, the only thing wrong with the Crusades was that they didn't finish the job. Now we're left to mop up the dregs of those early strategic operations.
;)
Johnny, I don't know that a failure to act on your belief system or faith would equate to a lack of character, so much as a dichotomy or double standard of conduct, although it certainly could mean that. After all, if a man cannot be counted on to act on a set of core beliefs, then what in a person's life would hold him to a standard of behavior? Does that make sense? If there is nothing a person wouldn't do for political expediency (because his belief structure doesn't prevent him from any particular behavior) then anything is possible, including treason and other criminal activity.
Look, I'm not saying Kerry doesn't have some such belief system, but if his faith doesn't hold him to a certain standard of behavior, then I don't know what motivates him or drives him except naked ambition, a more dangerous emotion than devout faith ever was.
Totem
Edited, Sat Oct 9 22:05:36 2004 by Totem
;)
Johnny, I don't know that a failure to act on your belief system or faith would equate to a lack of character, so much as a dichotomy or double standard of conduct, although it certainly could mean that. After all, if a man cannot be counted on to act on a set of core beliefs, then what in a person's life would hold him to a standard of behavior? Does that make sense? If there is nothing a person wouldn't do for political expediency (because his belief structure doesn't prevent him from any particular behavior) then anything is possible, including treason and other criminal activity.
Look, I'm not saying Kerry doesn't have some such belief system, but if his faith doesn't hold him to a certain standard of behavior, then I don't know what motivates him or drives him except naked ambition, a more dangerous emotion than devout faith ever was.
Totem
Edited, Sat Oct 9 22:05:36 2004 by Totem
I see what you are saying, that a man without a core of convictions will just tell you want to hear. But I don't think that Kerry is that kind of man. He has said that he is against abortions. And that is his conviction. But he has also said that he will not allow his personal convictions to overrule yours. And I think that is important in our society, we should not have to follow the whims of our leaders. We should be allowed to live our own lives.
If life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Then find someone that life has given vodka and have party.
This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
This establishment does not serve women. You must bring your own.
It should be pointed out that a faith in god is a totally different thing than the word faith used with a specific religion.
Last time that I checked, the exact point that the thing growing inside a woman's belly became a certified human has not yet been dictated by God Himself. Its His lackeys here on earth that made up that whole steaming pile about it beginning at the point of conception.
Truth be know? I think any abortion after the first trimester is wrong (barring it having something to do with saving the woman's life, blah blah blah). And, yes, I find partial birth abortions abhorent, regardless of religious stance.
Unfortunately, the pro-life movement wants to force their view that life begins at conception. I'm sorry, I just can't buy into that. These people want to go as far as to ban the morning after pill. And in case you did not know, the morning after pill is a not abortive measure 99%* of the time. And even when it is 'abortive,' you are only talking about flushing a cluster of roughly 20 cells or less out of the woman.
* Don't quote me on the 99%. It may be closer to 100%, but as low as 95%.
Last time that I checked, the exact point that the thing growing inside a woman's belly became a certified human has not yet been dictated by God Himself. Its His lackeys here on earth that made up that whole steaming pile about it beginning at the point of conception.
Truth be know? I think any abortion after the first trimester is wrong (barring it having something to do with saving the woman's life, blah blah blah). And, yes, I find partial birth abortions abhorent, regardless of religious stance.
Unfortunately, the pro-life movement wants to force their view that life begins at conception. I'm sorry, I just can't buy into that. These people want to go as far as to ban the morning after pill. And in case you did not know, the morning after pill is a not abortive measure 99%* of the time. And even when it is 'abortive,' you are only talking about flushing a cluster of roughly 20 cells or less out of the woman.
* Don't quote me on the 99%. It may be closer to 100%, but as low as 95%.
Quote:
And I think that is important in our society, we should not have to follow the whims of our leaders.
Well said, it is the consensus among the nation that should decide, not one man. Otherwise, we would simply be living in a democratic dictatorship. That's why I don't agree with party-lines, I understand why they are nessesary, but it leads to all the power in the hand of a few, which is not in the spirit of democracy.
Well said, by the way, Johnny.
The president can say that he is for or against something and still allow people to chose. It would be like saying that all downs-syndrome or any other birth anomoly must be aborted. For now until something better comes along, pro-choice is the only reasonable answer. Being agnostic, I don't see much of a difference between killing someone with absolutely no ties to anybody on this planet and abortion.
Is it wrong, probably, but as I have said before, we have plenty of people. This is the way I feel about it, I think it is pretty much a fact that killing a fetus is not allowing it to live it's natural course, whether it happens to be a mis-carriage, SIDS, or live until their 80. You are depriving that being a chance to live. It is only emotions that make it wrong to kill a baby, and ok to kill a fetus.
On a social level, if the parents of a fetus want to abort it, we are probably better off, since having the child and then neglecting it would just produce an ill-developed individual into society.
Quote:
I don't see how Kerry's not forcing his convictions down your throat can be seen as a lack of charecter. I think it takes a much stronger man to stand up and say I believe this, but if you don't I will work to supprt you, than one who says I believe this and if you don't then you can go get fu'cked.
Nicely said.
Johnny, I don't know that a failure to act on your belief system or faith would equate to a lack of character, so much as a dichotomy or double standard of conduct, although it certainly could mean that.
------------------------------------------------------------
what do you call a man who acts even against his core beliefs to repersent masses of people with differant beliefs reguardless of his own convictions?
i call him Mr. President.
what do you call a man who tries to force his conviction on masses of people who do not share, or want them?
history calls them, hussin, Hitler, Mousilinin, Napolian, George Bush, amoung other things like Tyrant, Dictator, Crusader....
you choose who you want standing up for the massses.
Edited, Sun Oct 10 09:30:05 2004 by shadowrelm
------------------------------------------------------------
what do you call a man who acts even against his core beliefs to repersent masses of people with differant beliefs reguardless of his own convictions?
i call him Mr. President.
what do you call a man who tries to force his conviction on masses of people who do not share, or want them?
history calls them, hussin, Hitler, Mousilinin, Napolian, George Bush, amoung other things like Tyrant, Dictator, Crusader....
you choose who you want standing up for the massses.
Edited, Sun Oct 10 09:30:05 2004 by shadowrelm
To be honest, I do not like either man's reasons for his stance on abortion. I'm pro-choice, and an atheist. I think Kerry is a sell-out, and Bush is a bible-thumper when it comes to the abortion issue.
But, I'm not voting a man into office based on his thoughts on abortion. I imagine in 2008 a democrat will be voted into office, and the topic of abortion can wait until then.
The war is happening now, and that is what I am basing my vote on for the most part.
Many of GW's domestic policies I disagree with. It's his foriegn policy that has my vote. That and the fact that Kerry has no foriegn policy to speak of.
But, I'm not voting a man into office based on his thoughts on abortion. I imagine in 2008 a democrat will be voted into office, and the topic of abortion can wait until then.
The war is happening now, and that is what I am basing my vote on for the most part.
Many of GW's domestic policies I disagree with. It's his foriegn policy that has my vote. That and the fact that Kerry has no foriegn policy to speak of.
Quote:
It's his foriegn policy that has my vote.
GWB has made America the No1 hated nation on the planet and even here in England the general consensus is that if Bush asks again we are not playing.
His Foreign policy is moronic at best and Criminal at worst.
Alienating the entire human race is not in my opinion Good policy.
It's his foriegn policy that has my vote.
-------------------------------------------------------------
OMG
hello? have you clocked into the real world in the last 2 years?
he has isolated us from long standing allies with his foreign policies. he has made us the most despised country IN THE WORLD with his foreign policy. he has made us the greatest threat to world peace in the eyes of the rest of the world.
or did you mistate yourself? mabe he has your vote because of his LACK of foreign policy mabe? or mabe he has your vote because of his total disreguard of foreign policy? or mabe you have a white supermist mindset and think we should stand alone from the rest of the world?
please explain what you like about his foreign policy that has your vote? the rest of the world would like to know what mindset allowed him to get elected the first time.....
-------------------------------------------------------------
OMG
hello? have you clocked into the real world in the last 2 years?
he has isolated us from long standing allies with his foreign policies. he has made us the most despised country IN THE WORLD with his foreign policy. he has made us the greatest threat to world peace in the eyes of the rest of the world.
or did you mistate yourself? mabe he has your vote because of his LACK of foreign policy mabe? or mabe he has your vote because of his total disreguard of foreign policy? or mabe you have a white supermist mindset and think we should stand alone from the rest of the world?
please explain what you like about his foreign policy that has your vote? the rest of the world would like to know what mindset allowed him to get elected the first time.....
Oh, shut up with the Presidential debate already!
Every 2nd post in here is about Kerry vs. Bush.
STFU U BASTARDS! Because of your imbecile President Bush we had to listen to a guy explaining about Michael Moore's POV in Fahrenheit 9/11 for friggin 3 hours!!!
I was so bored my eyeballs fell out and my classmate next to me shot himself. The girl behind me tore out her hair and the guy infront of me cut the date 9/11 into his arm with a pencil several times.
Someone, kill Bush and elect mr. Horseface for President. Sure, he'll **** up too, but then at least we can wait another year before you start the horrifically boring debate about the jackasses running for office.
Every 2nd post in here is about Kerry vs. Bush.
STFU U BASTARDS! Because of your imbecile President Bush we had to listen to a guy explaining about Michael Moore's POV in Fahrenheit 9/11 for friggin 3 hours!!!
I was so bored my eyeballs fell out and my classmate next to me shot himself. The girl behind me tore out her hair and the guy infront of me cut the date 9/11 into his arm with a pencil several times.
Someone, kill Bush and elect mr. Horseface for President. Sure, he'll **** up too, but then at least we can wait another year before you start the horrifically boring debate about the jackasses running for office.
Speaking of politics, qoaz, when are you guys having your next King of the Trolls election?
I'm sorry, but I understand that Bush has made some bad decisions, and that things have NOT turned out the way they should have. I agree with that. I stand with Bush and here is why (I can feel the flames already ^^):
1. Regardless of WMD's (which was the basis of the war and there are none anymore), Saddam was a threat (given the intelligence we had, it was assumed (not only by Bush) that he was a world threat. Side effect of a very costly war and devistating war is Saddam has been removed from power. Was he the only world threat? Hell No, north korea, iran, and other countries.
2. We tried diplomacy for 10 years with all the sanctions, and no fly zones, and all that crap. Fact is saddam was trying to fund his army with humanitarian aid money.
3. Bush took over a recession, and then 9 months later we got hit with 9/11. The "lost jobs" that the democrats are implying...do you think that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it? He has been creating jobs since the day he took office.
4. I don't want someone in office that goes to war (like kerry and I give him kudos for goin to nam), and comes back with 3 purple hearts for MINOR injury's and then worms himself out of service because of some archaic rule. He came back and threw his medals back at the white house. Now I dont agree with nam either, but giving your country a big F' you and then asking to run it is STUPID to say the least.
5. I'm not big on the Kerry flip flop train. I look at it differently. Voting to give the pres authority to use force, knowing full well that he will based on sanctions not working, and non compliance by saddam, then saying you didn't know he was going to is stupid.
6. Kerry wants to blanket raise taxes, yeah thats a real good way to get my vote, I don't think that is the right way to pay for the deficit (don't ask me how to I'm not a polotician).
7. Bush is creating lower tax brackets that allow more indepentant buisness' to hire more workers, and gives lower income families a break.
8. Kerry wants to be REACTIVE in defending the country, whereas bush is PROACTIVE. I would prefer not to have another attack like 9/11 happen, but that's just me. I don't want someone to make sure were good bed buddies with the UN before protecting us. If someone takes a stab at us, we shouldn't have to ask for permission to swing back at 'em. (granted iraq hadn't really done anything to us directly)
So, let the flames begin ^^ I don't expect any less from the left fielders here.
1. Regardless of WMD's (which was the basis of the war and there are none anymore), Saddam was a threat (given the intelligence we had, it was assumed (not only by Bush) that he was a world threat. Side effect of a very costly war and devistating war is Saddam has been removed from power. Was he the only world threat? Hell No, north korea, iran, and other countries.
2. We tried diplomacy for 10 years with all the sanctions, and no fly zones, and all that crap. Fact is saddam was trying to fund his army with humanitarian aid money.
3. Bush took over a recession, and then 9 months later we got hit with 9/11. The "lost jobs" that the democrats are implying...do you think that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it? He has been creating jobs since the day he took office.
4. I don't want someone in office that goes to war (like kerry and I give him kudos for goin to nam), and comes back with 3 purple hearts for MINOR injury's and then worms himself out of service because of some archaic rule. He came back and threw his medals back at the white house. Now I dont agree with nam either, but giving your country a big F' you and then asking to run it is STUPID to say the least.
5. I'm not big on the Kerry flip flop train. I look at it differently. Voting to give the pres authority to use force, knowing full well that he will based on sanctions not working, and non compliance by saddam, then saying you didn't know he was going to is stupid.
6. Kerry wants to blanket raise taxes, yeah thats a real good way to get my vote, I don't think that is the right way to pay for the deficit (don't ask me how to I'm not a polotician).
7. Bush is creating lower tax brackets that allow more indepentant buisness' to hire more workers, and gives lower income families a break.
8. Kerry wants to be REACTIVE in defending the country, whereas bush is PROACTIVE. I would prefer not to have another attack like 9/11 happen, but that's just me. I don't want someone to make sure were good bed buddies with the UN before protecting us. If someone takes a stab at us, we shouldn't have to ask for permission to swing back at 'em. (granted iraq hadn't really done anything to us directly)
So, let the flames begin ^^ I don't expect any less from the left fielders here.
Lubriderm wrote:
Speaking of politics, qoaz, when are you guys having your next King of the Trolls election?
We don't elect our Kings and Queens. Their children are automatically elected as King or Queen when the old King or Queen retires.
When I saw the debate on t.v. I have to admit I was very angry. I come from Tennessee and I was brought up as a Republican. -VERY Republican-
You know the ones that...
-If you dont go to Church, you'll burn in hell.
-If you are gay, you'll burn in hell.
-If you have sex before marriage, your a ****, you'll burn in hell.
-Pretty much everything you do that I don't do, you'll burn in hell.
Suffice to say, when I reached 18. I moved the hell outta there!
I never was into politics much but after 9/11, i have payed more attention to what was going on around the economy and politics.
It is inevitable that people will disagree. People may share the same ideas but thier views on how to go about getting done what needs to be done will not be.
It took a while for me to be able to have a conversation about religon or politics. At first, I was an AVID George W. fan. Now, I am embarrassed that I stood by him and supported him. I said in a post a yesterday that I was not ashamed of Voting for Bush. I take that back.
I am very ashamed and embarrased. Not to mention, sorry. I helped put a person into office that is driven by no moral standards. Everything is $$$.
Now it is coming to re-elecetion. I am going with the lesser of two "evils" and voting Kerry.
Editing: Although I do believe Bush did make some very fine points in the debate as well. The first one, that is. I'm really not all the way for Kerry either. If anyone could be president I would defintely re-elect BILL CLINTON! But, /sigh such is life...
Edited, Sun Oct 10 15:05:31 2004 by Mlynn
You know the ones that...
-If you dont go to Church, you'll burn in hell.
-If you are gay, you'll burn in hell.
-If you have sex before marriage, your a ****, you'll burn in hell.
-Pretty much everything you do that I don't do, you'll burn in hell.
Suffice to say, when I reached 18. I moved the hell outta there!
I never was into politics much but after 9/11, i have payed more attention to what was going on around the economy and politics.
It is inevitable that people will disagree. People may share the same ideas but thier views on how to go about getting done what needs to be done will not be.
It took a while for me to be able to have a conversation about religon or politics. At first, I was an AVID George W. fan. Now, I am embarrassed that I stood by him and supported him. I said in a post a yesterday that I was not ashamed of Voting for Bush. I take that back.
I am very ashamed and embarrased. Not to mention, sorry. I helped put a person into office that is driven by no moral standards. Everything is $$$.
Now it is coming to re-elecetion. I am going with the lesser of two "evils" and voting Kerry.
Editing: Although I do believe Bush did make some very fine points in the debate as well. The first one, that is. I'm really not all the way for Kerry either. If anyone could be president I would defintely re-elect BILL CLINTON! But, /sigh such is life...
Edited, Sun Oct 10 15:05:31 2004 by Mlynn
I agree that Bush can't really be blamed for the economic woes. I don't like his "solution" of tax cuts for the rich, but the economy is too big to be ontrolled by the Gov't anyway
clearly, disagreeing with a decision made by a country makes one unfit to lead. Trying to get the country to change the decision is even worse.
someone's been wathing too many Swift Boat Veterans fo Truth commercials (which have been debunked as crap BTW http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=244.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=231.html)
5. I'm not big on the Kerry flip flop train. I look at it differently. Voting to give the pres authority to use force, knowing full well that he will based on sanctions not working, and non compliance by saddam, then saying you didn't know he was going to is stupid.
agreeing the dishes are dirty, and disagreeing with turning a firehose on them is not a flipflop.
Also, Bush presented that bill more as a way of leveraging Saddam, and presented actually going to war as an unlikely last resort. Factcheck.org will back me up here http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=272.html
6. Kerry wants to blanket raise taxes, yeah thats a real good way to get my vote, I don't think that is the right way to pay for the deficit (don't ask me how to I'm not a polotician).
That's not true. Kerry, in the second debate promised a tax cut for those making below 200,000 a year, and a tax raise to pre Bush tax cut levels for those above 200,000 a year
7. Bush is creating lower tax brackets that allow more indepentant buisness' to hire more workers, and gives lower income families a break.
Kerry has tax cuts planned too
8. Kerry wants to be REACTIVE in defending the country, whereas bush is PROACTIVE. I would prefer not to have another attack like 9/11 happen, but that's just me. I don't want someone to make sure were good bed buddies with the UN before protecting us. If someone takes a stab at us, we shouldn't have to ask for permission to swing back at 'em. (granted iraq hadn't really done anything to us directly
I'm not sure where you're getting this "kerry wants to be reactive" stuff, I have not heard him say anything like that.
As for the U.N. thing, yes Kerry is for a more alliance building approach, but it's less of asking for permission, and more reducing the blame, casualties, and costs the US has to pay.
the approach certainly has it's disadvantages too, but portraying it as asking for permission is inaccurate
Edited, Sun Oct 10 15:15:58 2004 by Taber
Quote:
4. I don't want someone in office that goes to war (like kerry and I give him kudos for goin to nam), and comes back with 3 purple hearts for MINOR injury's and then worms himself out of service because of some archaic rule. He came back and threw his medals back at the white house. Now I dont agree with nam either, but giving your country a big F' you and then asking to run it is STUPID to say the least.
clearly, disagreeing with a decision made by a country makes one unfit to lead. Trying to get the country to change the decision is even worse.
someone's been wathing too many Swift Boat Veterans fo Truth commercials (which have been debunked as crap BTW http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=244.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=231.html)
Quote:
5. I'm not big on the Kerry flip flop train. I look at it differently. Voting to give the pres authority to use force, knowing full well that he will based on sanctions not working, and non compliance by saddam, then saying you didn't know he was going to is stupid.
agreeing the dishes are dirty, and disagreeing with turning a firehose on them is not a flipflop.
Also, Bush presented that bill more as a way of leveraging Saddam, and presented actually going to war as an unlikely last resort. Factcheck.org will back me up here http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=272.html
Quote:
6. Kerry wants to blanket raise taxes, yeah thats a real good way to get my vote, I don't think that is the right way to pay for the deficit (don't ask me how to I'm not a polotician).
That's not true. Kerry, in the second debate promised a tax cut for those making below 200,000 a year, and a tax raise to pre Bush tax cut levels for those above 200,000 a year
Quote:
7. Bush is creating lower tax brackets that allow more indepentant buisness' to hire more workers, and gives lower income families a break.
Kerry has tax cuts planned too
Quote:
8. Kerry wants to be REACTIVE in defending the country, whereas bush is PROACTIVE. I would prefer not to have another attack like 9/11 happen, but that's just me. I don't want someone to make sure were good bed buddies with the UN before protecting us. If someone takes a stab at us, we shouldn't have to ask for permission to swing back at 'em. (granted iraq hadn't really done anything to us directly
I'm not sure where you're getting this "kerry wants to be reactive" stuff, I have not heard him say anything like that.
As for the U.N. thing, yes Kerry is for a more alliance building approach, but it's less of asking for permission, and more reducing the blame, casualties, and costs the US has to pay.
the approach certainly has it's disadvantages too, but portraying it as asking for permission is inaccurate
Edited, Sun Oct 10 15:15:58 2004 by Taber
Quote:
6. Kerry wants to blanket raise taxes, yeah thats a real good way to get my vote, I don't think that is the right way to pay for the deficit (don't ask me how to I'm not a polotician).
I would ask an economist, not a politician. So you either cut spending, or raise revenue(taxes). Hmmmm so what has bush been spending a lot of money on lately? I don't know, might as well dig into health care, and education. Good one.
Boo, my mom came over soon after my last reply so I haven't been able to come back to reply til now.
I don't know whether Bush is against it except when the life of the mother in danger, but going according to his 30 second rebuttal I have to assume that he is against it no matter what. Voting no, even against a ban that has no exceptions, is still no? Yes, in very simple terms. But it's not the same thing as supporting abortions as a whole.
I'm sorry but I don't consider this inconsistency. I consider it recognizing that a mother has the right to live as well.
For the record, I find partial birth abortion disgusting and agree that it should not be practiced UNLESS it threatens the life of the mother.
If I were 40 and having a baby that I did fully intend to have but suddenly came into a very high risk pregnancy and it meant my death, are you going to stand there and tell me that I have to DIE because the baby deserves the hope that it might not die along with me? What do you tell my other children and my husband? "We can save your mommy but President Bush doesn't think it's right, so you'll have to do without her for the rest of your lives."?
What gives him the right to determine whether I live or die?
Quote:
Pikko, disagree with Bush on abortion, fine. At least he is consistent with where he stands on the issue. He is against it except when the life of the mother is in danger.
I don't know whether Bush is against it except when the life of the mother in danger, but going according to his 30 second rebuttal I have to assume that he is against it no matter what. Voting no, even against a ban that has no exceptions, is still no? Yes, in very simple terms. But it's not the same thing as supporting abortions as a whole.
Quote:
I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.
I'm sorry but I don't consider this inconsistency. I consider it recognizing that a mother has the right to live as well.
Quote:
You and I can agree to disagree if you believe abortion is your right, but only if you can honestly say that baby isn't human, thus possesing the same rights as you and I.
For the record, I find partial birth abortion disgusting and agree that it should not be practiced UNLESS it threatens the life of the mother.
If I were 40 and having a baby that I did fully intend to have but suddenly came into a very high risk pregnancy and it meant my death, are you going to stand there and tell me that I have to DIE because the baby deserves the hope that it might not die along with me? What do you tell my other children and my husband? "We can save your mommy but President Bush doesn't think it's right, so you'll have to do without her for the rest of your lives."?
What gives him the right to determine whether I live or die?
Quote:
What gives him the right to determine whether I live or die?
Evidently, he has been ordained by God.
Quote:
I would prefer not to have another attack like 9/11 happen, but that's just me.
My husband is still a stubborn non-voter because he says it doesn't matter who is elected when it comes to further attacks. He believes they're just waiting to see who is elected to determine the most effective way to turn America upside down. He'd been ranting to me and my father-in-law a whole week about how our most valuable asset is something we don't even guard and that we have to hope that the terrorists aren't smart enough to hit us in the most vulnerable place. Then they announced that stuff about school blueprints on a Bahgdad terrorist's computer. It was creepy.
Pikko, the president's position has always been if the mother's life is in danger, then an abortion is a moral choice. I also agree with this position. While he may not have specifically said that that night, it has been his belief and domestic platform for a long, long time.
There has been no change on this issue for him.
Totem
There has been no change on this issue for him.
Totem
Quote:
1. Regardless of WMD's (which was the basis of the war and there are none anymore), Saddam was a threat (given the intelligence we had, it was assumed (not only by Bush) that he was a world threat. Side effect of a very costly war and devistating war is Saddam has been removed from power. Was he the only world threat? Hell No, north korea, iran, and other countries.
2. We tried diplomacy for 10 years with all the sanctions, and no fly zones, and all that crap. Fact is saddam was trying to fund his army with humanitarian aid money.
3. Bush took over a recession, and then 9 months later we got hit with 9/11. The "lost jobs" that the democrats are implying...do you think that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it? He has been creating jobs since the day he took office.
4. I don't want someone in office that goes to war (like kerry and I give him kudos for goin to nam), and comes back with 3 purple hearts for MINOR injury's and then worms himself out of service because of some archaic rule. He came back and threw his medals back at the white house. Now I dont agree with nam either, but giving your country a big F' you and then asking to run it is STUPID to say the least.
5. I'm not big on the Kerry flip flop train. I look at it differently. Voting to give the pres authority to use force, knowing full well that he will based on sanctions not working, and non compliance by saddam, then saying you didn't know he was going to is stupid.
6. Kerry wants to blanket raise taxes, yeah thats a real good way to get my vote, I don't think that is the right way to pay for the deficit (don't ask me how to I'm not a polotician).
7. Bush is creating lower tax brackets that allow more indepentant buisness' to hire more workers, and gives lower income families a break.
8. Kerry wants to be REACTIVE in defending the country, whereas bush is PROACTIVE. I would prefer not to have another attack like 9/11 happen, but that's just me. I don't want someone to make sure were good bed buddies with the UN before protecting us. If someone takes a stab at us, we shouldn't have to ask for permission to swing back at 'em. (granted iraq hadn't really done anything to us directly)
2. We tried diplomacy for 10 years with all the sanctions, and no fly zones, and all that crap. Fact is saddam was trying to fund his army with humanitarian aid money.
3. Bush took over a recession, and then 9 months later we got hit with 9/11. The "lost jobs" that the democrats are implying...do you think that had ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it? He has been creating jobs since the day he took office.
4. I don't want someone in office that goes to war (like kerry and I give him kudos for goin to nam), and comes back with 3 purple hearts for MINOR injury's and then worms himself out of service because of some archaic rule. He came back and threw his medals back at the white house. Now I dont agree with nam either, but giving your country a big F' you and then asking to run it is STUPID to say the least.
5. I'm not big on the Kerry flip flop train. I look at it differently. Voting to give the pres authority to use force, knowing full well that he will based on sanctions not working, and non compliance by saddam, then saying you didn't know he was going to is stupid.
6. Kerry wants to blanket raise taxes, yeah thats a real good way to get my vote, I don't think that is the right way to pay for the deficit (don't ask me how to I'm not a polotician).
7. Bush is creating lower tax brackets that allow more indepentant buisness' to hire more workers, and gives lower income families a break.
8. Kerry wants to be REACTIVE in defending the country, whereas bush is PROACTIVE. I would prefer not to have another attack like 9/11 happen, but that's just me. I don't want someone to make sure were good bed buddies with the UN before protecting us. If someone takes a stab at us, we shouldn't have to ask for permission to swing back at 'em. (granted iraq hadn't really done anything to us directly)
1.- NO. That attitude will guarantee more enemies, more enemies = more hate.
2.- NO. He DID NOT use every possible means of diplomatic resource.
3.- NO. Recession did not start with 9/11, the lost jobs thing started since the day he got in.
4.- LOL. Bush avoided going to Vietnam with his influences.
5.- NO. Precaution is a virtue.
6.- HAHAHA. And where do you think that deficit comes from?
7.- YES, but with no substantial results. Actually, the opposite is happening.
8.- Sure, and continue deteriorating your international image beyond imagination. US has lost a lot of respect and credibility, and I believe that's something Kerry will give you.
Quote:
Zoe, yes, he signed the partial birth abortion bill because he believes that entire procedure is wrong. I agree with him.
So this was the bill that had no exceptions right? If he believes in the exception, but signs a bill that has none, where is the consistency in that?
Mistress Pikko wrote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe, yes, he signed the partial birth abortion bill because he believes that entire procedure is wrong. I agree with him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So this was the bill that had no exceptions right? If he believes in the exception, but signs a bill that has none, where is the consistency in that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe, yes, he signed the partial birth abortion bill because he believes that entire procedure is wrong. I agree with him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So this was the bill that had no exceptions right? If he believes in the exception, but signs a bill that has none, where is the consistency in that?
Pikko!! The consistency is in the fact that, much like the Clear Skies and No Child Left Behind Acts, he claims to do one thing and then either doesn't push to make sure it's in the law, or underfunds it and kills it before it's ever born.
Zoe, yes, he signed the partial birth abortion bill because he believes that entire procedure is wrong. I agree with him.
-----------------------------------------------------------
i am also an anti abortion believer.
but....
i also believe no man has the right to make a decision about the choices of any women. personally, i would support giving every adolesent teen boy a vasectomy, which is reversible now, and be done with the whole problem of unwanted pregnacies all together
but the moral outcry of the rights of men being taken away would be so huge, especially from our mostly male government, it would never fly.
so, lets all stand on our soap box and condem the women of this country for the mistakes of both men and women alike. not offer them any solutions, mind you, like taking care of them at taxpayers expense while they are pregnant, or after the babe is born if they choose to keep them, and paying for her education while she goes to school, and free day care fro the child.......
lets just call her a murderer, and FORCE her to pay for the mistake all by herself.....you know, ...kind of like the way the middle east treats their women....
offer me a viable alternative, and i will support an anti abortion bill to my last breath. untill then, i will support the freedom of choice, especially when it is not my rights in question.
president bush wants to deliver a hard right wing policy for ALL americans.
persident bush has forgotton he works for ALL OF US, not just the reght wingers.
lets remind him in november.
-----------------------------------------------------------
i am also an anti abortion believer.
but....
i also believe no man has the right to make a decision about the choices of any women. personally, i would support giving every adolesent teen boy a vasectomy, which is reversible now, and be done with the whole problem of unwanted pregnacies all together
but the moral outcry of the rights of men being taken away would be so huge, especially from our mostly male government, it would never fly.
so, lets all stand on our soap box and condem the women of this country for the mistakes of both men and women alike. not offer them any solutions, mind you, like taking care of them at taxpayers expense while they are pregnant, or after the babe is born if they choose to keep them, and paying for her education while she goes to school, and free day care fro the child.......
lets just call her a murderer, and FORCE her to pay for the mistake all by herself.....you know, ...kind of like the way the middle east treats their women....
offer me a viable alternative, and i will support an anti abortion bill to my last breath. untill then, i will support the freedom of choice, especially when it is not my rights in question.
president bush wants to deliver a hard right wing policy for ALL americans.
persident bush has forgotton he works for ALL OF US, not just the reght wingers.
lets remind him in november.
Recent Visitors: 326
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (326)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Debate 10/8
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC