Worth of Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney. - evboard.com

MetalRepublican

07-10-2004, 08:31 PM

So much worthless, anti-success specious rhetoric it is almost painful to read.

Think you can try that without it looking like an ad put on for the republican party? Perhaps something that addresses the issues and what each candidate believes (http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CNC68243), or perhaps their voting (http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=CNC68243) records (http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103).

If you want to talk about integrity then look through Edwards practice as a lawyer and lets talk specific cases he was involved in. Let's look at what Kerry has done, or not done, not how much money one of them might have access to thanks to their wife.

All the republican party does with this kind of attack (e.g., "he is rich, you should hate him") is demean themselves and push my vote even more strongly into Kerry's camp.

First off, we will always agree to disagree on these types of topics. Your tone leads me to think that you are upset.

It's that typical double standard that the democratic party has every four years. When Quayle was asked to be Bush's VP, the democrats came out saying that he lacked experience. He had 12 years. Now that your beloved Edwards is running with 5 years of experience, all is well. That is what this thread is about.

Money has always been a staple for attack the democrats because they have the minority as a base. The platforms are always geared to help those in need. That is all well and good if it does not hurt others. Larger government means more taxes. Those taxes are passed on to those who earn the most. Bush/Cheney and Kerry/Edwards and many other wealthy families have many accountants to make sure that the laws that they pass will not competely impact their bottom line. All I am saying is that people don't get caught up in the "I'm on your side" platform. He isn't and you can't argue that he is. His intergity has nothing to do with it. If it came down to him losing money or him losing his intergity, he would lose his intergity. They all would. This is not a Republican ad. It is my opinion on his platform.

If you think that he is not concerned about her money then you are just trying to argue. You know damn good and well that he would pick his wife's fortune over his intergity anyday. So don't say that it isn't important when he is running on the "I'm like you" stick. It's bullshit. Plain and simple.

Now, as far as Edwards and his legal kudos. I have not a clue. Why? Because I could care less about him or his legal wins. But I know you will tell me so go ahead. I will listen. If I am aware of certain cases that he has won, I will respond.

tMR

Llywelyn

07-10-2004, 08:51 PM

First off, we will always agree to disagree on these types of topics. Your tone leads me to think that you are upset.

Hardly, though I do detest personal attacks that have absolutely zero relevancy to how these people will do in office, e.g., that Kerry's wife is from the Heinz family.

It's that typical double standard that the democratic party has every four years.

Remove the log from your own eye before picking at the splinter in your brother's.

When Quayle was asked to be Bush's VP, the democrats came out saying that he lacked experience. He had 12 years. Now that your beloved Edwards is running with 5 years of experience, all is well. That is what this thread is about.

Really.

" Don't let [Kerry's] blue collar false front lure you in. He doesn't care if he raises taxes and then creates bigger government. Why? Because he won't feel the crunch like the rest of us. He uses that platform to get elected. Not for you but for his ego. "

Could have fooled me that this was about Edward's experience or lack thereof.

Money has always been a staple for attack the democrats because they have the minority as a base. [etc, etc]

"They are doing it so we can too" is better known as a logical fallacy.

It is also "guilt by association" unless you are going to claim that Kerry and/or Edwards have engaged in said attacks, in which case we can talk about those instances.

This is not a Republican ad. It is my opinion on his platform.

No, it is a personal attack on Kerry based on that his wife comes from the Heinz family and your personal belief that having more money than his opponents makes him less qualified to be a president.

You have come to the conclusion, independent of evidence, that Kerry would sacrifice integrity for money simply because his wife is rich. You also seem to think, again independent of evidence, that this is a critical issue that drastically affects a candidates capability in office and that it doesn't affect Bush. Am I missing something here, or is this a fair summary of your (and the republican party's) position on this?

DhammaSeeker

07-11-2004, 12:01 AM

Liberals and conservatives both suck and I'll just leave it at that. Basically, liberals have too much faith in humanity and conservatives have too little. You're my new favorite subscriber! Brilliant.

cruithne

07-11-2004, 12:35 AM

If you want to talk about integrity then look through Edwards practice as a lawyer and lets talk specific cases he was involved in.

We can definitely do that.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200401\POL 20040120a.html

Llywelyn

07-11-2004, 12:58 AM

We can definitely do that.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200401\POL 20040120a.html

We can play with that ;)

http://daubertontheweb.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107557132626903999

From the facts reported so far, there doesn't seem to be much by way of scandal here, unless it's scandalous, in itself, to be a talented and successful plaintiffs' lawyer.

http://radio.weblogs.com/0110436/2004/01/26.html#a529

I would only add that it was also his job, under the rule of "zealous advocacy", to push for admissibility of this evidence whenever possible.* A plaintiff's attorney is not expected to simply use admissible expert evidence when the law clearly allows it.* He is expected to argue for and urge the acceptance of expert evidence favoring his client whenever the circumstances would suggest it.*

el_cid

07-11-2004, 12:59 AM

"If you're not a liberal when you're young, then you have no heart. If you're not conservative when you're old, you have no brain." I heard that today and i think that there's some truth in it.

Don't let [Kerry's] blue collar false front lure you in. He doesn't care if he raises taxes and then creates bigger government. Why? Because he won't feel the crunch like the rest of us.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if the government takes more of my money as long as they use it for programs that are in the best interest of the nation. If we want better social security(hey, what happened to that trillion dollars that we were promised...? Oh, wait.......), medicare, public transportation, defense spending, etc.,etc., then the funding has to come from somewhere.

All this mudslinging is making me sick..... It makes me want to vote for Kerry even more. Or maybe help support his campaign. Or slam a sliding door on my head. either way.

MetalRepublican

07-13-2004, 11:11 AM

No, it is a personal attack on Kerry based on that his wife comes from the Heinz family and your personal belief that having more money than his opponents makes him less qualified to be a president.

You have come to the conclusion, independent of evidence, that Kerry would sacrifice integrity for money simply because his wife is rich. You also seem to think, again independent of evidence, that this is a critical issue that drastically affects a candidates capability in office and that it doesn't affect Bush. Am I missing something here, or is this a fair summary of your (and the republican party's) position on this?

What? Look at the opening statement in this thread. This thread is about those who blame Bush on being this rich guy who is only worried about his fortune. If I hear that 'rich get richer' stab anymore, I will puke. What ever Bush does to secure his fortune secures the fortunes of many, it helps Kerry and Edwards as well. If you think that Kerry isn't worried about his, (which just so happens to be his wife's) then you are wrong. They need to stop preaching to the blue collar that they are on thier side when they are not.

That is what this thread is about. Not a personal attack on Kerry for living under the security of his wife's fortune.

tMR

SangReal

07-13-2004, 11:59 AM

I, too, loathe the way that the Kerry/Edwards ticket is billing itself as the common man. Let's face it. Nobody who runs for President is ever going to be the common man. It just doesn't happen. Bush doesn't pretend to be anything he's not. He just seems a lot more genuine than Kerry. I don't know how else to say it. Personally I think Bush should drop Cheney like the hot potato he is and pick oh, I don't know, Bill Frist (http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=CNIP7879) as a running mate.

I'm not saying that the Presidential election should be a popularity contest, but I do think that the Kerry/Edwards ticket needs a nice heavy dose of genuineness, just like the Bush/Cheney ticket needs a nice dose of bye-bye Cheney. There is a certain amount of trust a voter places in a candidate to do what he says he is going to do, and how can you trust someone who seems so glaringly fake? I'm afraid that the Democratic ticket is in jeopardy because its candidate for President seems not to have a heartbeat, much less a heart. I kinda like Edwards. But he's not running for President, so he's not really the focus of this election. His voting record and positions on certain issues are almost irrelevant compared to Kerry's (http://vote-smart.org/npat.php?can_id=S0421103) . So is his money (although he did make it the hard way, taking 33% of people's settlements). I think what tMR was trying to say is that Kerry and Edwards talk about how they're going to improve life for the common man and then act like they are the common man, when they're not. Bush never pretended to be anything he's not. He's wealthy and everybody knows it. The Democratic candidates' reluctance to admit that they have almost nothing in common with the "common people" they're going to represent is frustrating.

<3 Mary

P.S. I think both Bush and Kerry should do this NPAT thing. How are we supposed to know what our candidates really stand for?

cruithne

07-13-2004, 12:45 PM

We can play with that ;)

http://daubertontheweb.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107557132626903999

http://radio.weblogs.com/0110436/2004/01/26.html#a529

Yeah, yeah. He was just being a good lawyer, just doing his job....I thought you wanted to discuss his integrity.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if the government takes more of my money as long as they use it for programs that are in the best interest of the nation. If we want better social security(hey, what happened to that trillion dollars that we were promised...? Oh, wait.......), medicare, public transportation, defense spending, etc.,etc., then the funding has to come from somewhere.
They can all be funded by charities, trade, or voluntary mutual arrangements. Large-scale defense arrangements may prove difficult, but the rest of the services you mentioned do not need funding from taxes.

I'm not arguing for Republicans--they seem to have lost interest in reducing the size and scope of government.

cruithne

07-13-2004, 12:56 PM

Frankly, I don't give a shit if the government takes more of my money as long as they use it for programs that are in the best interest of the nation. If we want better social security(hey, what happened to that trillion dollars that we were promised...? Oh, wait.......), medicare, public transportation, defense spending, etc.,etc., then the funding has to come from somewhere.
They can all be funded by charities, trade, or voluntary mutual arrangements. Large-scale defense arrangements may prove difficult, but the rest of the services you mentioned do not need funding from taxes.

I'm not arguing for Republicans--they seem to have lost interest in reducing the size and scope of government.

Blue

07-13-2004, 01:53 PM

just want to thank Lly for posting the links to NPAT. very helpful for weeding through my local, state and federal politians.

Seph

07-13-2004, 02:06 PM

I would much rather see Kerry in office. Regardless of the wealth. Because that's not the reason I have so much disrespect for Bush. It's because he's a goddamn idiot. I don't know anybody that wants to see Bush back in action, because all he succeeded in was taking America to war. And over what? Religion? Politics? Revenge? Who cares, it's the sad lack of common sense and decency that makes me want to throw up when I see Bush campaigning. Personally, I could care less who gets the office. Whether it be Kerry or whoever else is running this year, as long as I don't have to deal with the incredibly moronic Dubya for another four years.

In fact, I have persuaded the following people to vote against Bush: My mother, my grandparents, my fiance, his parents, all my friends over 18, and all my relatives over 18. That, folks, is a LOT of people. Have you any clue how big my family is? In fact, I'm home alone right now because the people I live with are out registering to get this guy out of office. Yep.

Blue

07-13-2004, 02:17 PM

el_cid

07-13-2004, 02:17 PM

honestly, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with Bush if he had extracted WMDs from Iraq and had killed/captured Osama and had dealt al-qaeda(sp?) a deathblow. Unfortunately, none of that happened, so I'm reluctant to support a candidate can't get his act together.

None of those three things are easy to do, but the WMD issue is inexcusable. Look here (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040707/ap_on_go_co/sept_11_commission&cid=512&ncid=716) and here (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/07/politics/07panel.html?ex=1089777600&en=74a2fc7246cd63f1&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) for further analysis.
It doesn't look like Al-Qaeda had much to do with Iraq. Read the articles.

I'd like to see Kerry and Bush take the NPAT.

Llywelyn

07-13-2004, 04:28 PM

Yeah, yeah. He was just being a good lawyer, just doing his job....I thought you wanted to discuss his integrity.

We can if you like, but as a lawyer he is required by law to act "zealously" in the interest of the client. He is also not a scientist, and I will not hold against him not having a scientist's understanding of the subject matter that he litigates.

if you can give me legislation that he pushed for that you are opposed to (and why)

How about, instead, we talk about the legislation that he hasn't (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0801767.html) blocked. In short, all of it.

Or we can talk about the enormous number of proposed amendments to the constitution that he supports:

Among others

A ban on same-sex marriages (hello religious issue).
A ban on abortion.
A ban on flag burning.
An amendment to "write G-d into our constitution."
An amendment allowing voluntary prayer in public school.

Early proposed amendments, those in the first century or so of our nation's existence, focused on limiting the powers of the executive, to abolish the vice president position, and things of that nature. Not any longer.

if you can site examples of moronic behavior (other than in speeches because everyone already knows he's not the most eloquent public speakers),

QED.

Jokes aside, his actions and "Security Theater" have made us less secure, not more so. The War on Iraq has made us less secure, not more so. No one in his administration bothered to read their own report on terrorism before cawing it from the rooftops and it was awhile after they were called on it that they retracted.

Why were we going into Iraq, the original reason? It isn't what they are telling us now that "Sadam Hussein was a bad man." If you had come to the US public saying that "we need to take Hussein out, he is a war criminal who is every bit as bad as milosovec" we would have had a very different--and much more honest--dialogue about the entire war. In the meantime, the way that he handled the situation has made us less secure.

As it is we seem to be engaging in newspeak and revisionist history to justify ourselves. As one columnist put it: It has gotten to the point where we can't believe anything out of this administration unless it is a retraction.

That, incidentally, is all only the tip of the iceberg.

...and don't even get me started on Attorney General Ashcroft.

ToB

07-13-2004, 04:43 PM

Kerry had a 36% voting participation last year, and an even lower rating this year. If he can't be at least 50% involved in doing his damn job, then why the hell do you think he'd make a good president?

Edwards at least had a 61% voting participation rate...

Let's not forget that Edwards made his money by suing doctors based on crackpot science (ie, babies who got cerebral palsy due to the lack of a speedy Cesarian section) that has since been thoroughly refuted. He is responsible for a 30% increase in C-sections per year since the 70's, and is also almost solely responsible for the rates at which OB/GYN practitioners pay for malpractice insurance (upwards of $100,000/year)...Small town OB/GYNs can't afford to practice in the smaller towns, so they must go to large cities to make enough money to cover their malpractice insurance. During one closing statement, Edwards claimed to be channeling the spirit of the poor, dead girl, and them proceeded to tell the jury what that girl was feeling inside at that moment...WTF

This is just one example of Edwards' dishonesty before he became a politician, and if you think that being a polititian helps that, then you are sorely mistaken.

Llywelyn

07-13-2004, 05:39 PM

Kerry had a 36% voting participation last year, and an even lower rating this year. If he can't be at least 50% involved in doing his damn job, then why the hell do you think he'd make a good president?

Voting participation:

2003 36%
2002 96%
2001 98%
2000 95%
1999 99%

Edwards at least had a 61% voting participation rate...

2003 61%
2002 100%
2001 99%
2000 100%
1999 99%

Now, let me throw in someone else who at one point attempted to run on the republican ticket (John McCain), and see if we notice something:

2003 99%
2002 92%
2001 96%
2000 78%
1999 64%

Let's not forget that Edwards made his money by suing doctors based on crackpot science (ie, babies who got cerebral palsy due to the lack of a speedy Cesarian section) that has since been thoroughly refuted.

http://daubertontheweb.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107487514657705485

So it's worth mentioning that the expert evidence Edwards has been criticized for using was ruled admissible, in lawsuits in which Edwards's clients prevailed. Litigators, after all, do owe their clients a duty of zealous advocacy. It wasn't Edwards's job to adjudicate his clients' claims himself. It was his duty to present the strongest legally legitimate evidence on their behalf to a court and jury, in furtherance of the clients' interests under applicable law. There's no scandal in that. What would have been scandalous is telling a client that although expert evidence admissible under prevailing legal standards would support a verdict in the client's favor, Edwards personally disagreed with the evidence, or believed it should not be admissible, and therefore wouldn't offer it.

It may be politically relevant that Edwards chose to work as a plaintiffs' lawyer, or that he earned a pretty good living at it. But it seems to us that once he was in that role, offering admissible evidence on behalf of his client was not some moral or ethical failing. It was his job.

EDIT:

I'd like to see Kerry and Bush take the NPAT.

Write them and tell them that.

You can get some of a feel for it, however, by looking at how different interest groups view Kerry: http://vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103

el_cid

07-13-2004, 07:32 PM

Among others

A ban on same-sex marriages (hello religious issue).
An amendment to "write G-d into our constitution."
An amendment allowing voluntary prayer in public school.
*as gently as possible* seperation of church and state, anyone?

Llywelyn

07-13-2004, 09:43 PM

[/list]*as gently as possible* seperation of church and state, anyone?
No no no, you forget, to do otherwise is "taking away the rights of the majority."

Seph

07-13-2004, 10:11 PM

iHEARTMetallica, that is one of the most small minded opinions i have ever read. i've heard other people's dissatisfaction with Bush and i can respect their opinions because they are backed up with facts and are discussed in an adult, mannerly fashion. but what are you doing? ranting. if you can give me legislation that he pushed for that you are opposed to (and why), if you can site examples of moronic behavior (other than in speeches because everyone already knows he's not the most eloquent public speakers), maybe i can respect your opinion as well. if you can give me your fact based reasons (such as your agreement with his stand on the issues and approval for his voting record) for voting for Kerry, maybe i can respect your actions for persuading people to vote Bush out of office. it must be something pretty explosive if you can convince all those people intelligently to put their vote to Kerry's election rather than voting for Bush. why not enlighten the rest of us? know your candidate (Kerry in this case) before you go praising them.

the term, "anyone is better than Bush" is extremely short sighted. because that statement is inclusive of EVERYONE who isn't Bush. think about that.

Ok, fucker, you wanna get technical? First, let's start with this, shall we?

but what are you doing? ranting.

Damn right I'm ranting. You want to know why? Let's go to the next unintelligent statement to find out.

if you can site examples of moronic behavior

Let's see. The fact that he's letting millions of Americans suffer without health care is a BIG issue. Also, he keeps saying, "We're going to withdrawl our troops from Iraq." But where are they now? In Iraq. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a MORON. And that's only the first two shallow examples. You want deep? PM me, I'll give you deep. But for the sake of space, let's not get too into it here.

if you can give me your fact based reasons

Fuck the facts! Why does everyone want to go by facts? You want to know why so many people are up his ass? Because he bought them to be. Another reason? Because Daddy Dearest had it before him, and people feel that they must respect that. How anyone could possibly view him as a "good" president is fucking beyond me. Personally, I have never seen our economy so fucked in all my life. Have you even taken one little look at gas prices? Food prices? Cigarettes? He's spending American funds to fix a country that we have no fucking business being in. Those are our tax dollars, people. Wake up! Sure, America is great for helping other countries, but who the hell cares? Getting Sadaam out of office over there is NOT going to make my life any fucking easier.
it must be something pretty explosive if you can convince all those people

Not necessarily. It doesn't take much persuasion to get people to do what they already wanted to do. I convinced them to go and vote when they were just going to stay home and see how it turned out. I basically just chipped in and said, "Get off your ass." Wow. Hard work.
the term, "anyone is better than Bush" is extremely short sighted. because that statement is inclusive of EVERYONE who isn't Bush. think about that

No, I suggest YOU think about what you just said. Because that wasn't what I said. I said, "Whoever is running this year." That means ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE running against George Bush. Think before speaking, asstard.

Michelle

07-13-2004, 10:14 PM

Based on the arguments, I vote this a debate. Therefore, it shall be moved to the Debate forum.

-ChelleMod.

Lowercountry

07-13-2004, 10:31 PM

Also, let's keep personal attacks - especially in the form of four-letter-laced diatribes - to a minimum. It makes any point that you attempt to make lost in the wash.

ZER0

07-13-2004, 10:32 PM

usually an enemy of bush is a friend of dev, but i'm thinking that it might be a good idea to take away the juggallos' right to vote.

Michelle

07-13-2004, 10:42 PM

usually an enemy of bush is a friend of dev, but i'm thinking that it might be a good idea to take away the juggallos' right to vote.

So genius it hurts...

Seph

07-13-2004, 10:48 PM

usually an enemy of bush is a friend of dev, but i'm thinking that it might be a good idea to take away the juggallos' right to vote.

Excuse me? That is a direct, unintelligent attack. My choices to be a certain way have nothing to do with politics, and your INCREDIBLY stupid remark has just officially lowered your IQ. Go check, I'm sure it has.

As if you had much of one in the first place to make that statement.

Get fucking real. I don't care who you are, be it a mod, administrator, a regular member, the ruler of the goddamn WORLD, that is downright rude. Just because you're not a Juggalo doesn't mean you have to tear down people who are. That makes you a complete asshole in my book.

ZER0

07-13-2004, 10:54 PM

Michelle

07-13-2004, 10:56 PM

Excuse me? That is a direct, unintelligent attack. My choices to be a certain way have nothing to do with politics, and your INCREDIBLY stupid remark has just officially lowered your IQ. Go check, I'm sure it has.

As if you had much of one in the first place to make that statement.

Get fucking real. I don't care who you are, be it a mod, administrator, a regular member, the ruler of the goddamn WORLD, that is downright rude. Just because you're not a Juggalo doesn't mean you have to tear down people who are. That makes you a complete asshole in my book.

Sarcasm. A good device to learn to understand. And I really don't think dev cares if that makes him a complete asshole in your book.

Look, this is the debate forum. You're not here to see how many ways you can attempt to insult people. If you're offended, fine, argue back. But I hardly consider what you've been doing fighting back. Research, analyze, and think. It's not about insulting people. Because regardless of what you think, they aren't trying to insult you. They're testing your knowledge and opinion, so start returning the favor.

-ChelleMod.

Machinehead

07-13-2004, 11:07 PM

iheartMetallica, I'm *just* trying to be nice here and help you out, but in my 12 months experience on here I would have to say you're on a path I've seen many times before leading you to a ban. Between this thread and a couple others I've seen on here it seems you're having a rough time lately. If being banned doesn't matter (evboard is definitely not the center of the universe) then I guess that's okay, but it would be awesome if everyone could get along. Try to let it roll off your back. Being negative generally gets people into a worse situation than when they started. Sorry to insert anything into your issues... just trying to help.

ZER0

07-13-2004, 11:09 PM

Sarcasm. A good device to learn to understand. And I really don't think dev cares if that makes him a complete asshole in your book.

Look, this is the debate forum. You're not here to see how many ways you can attempt to insult people. If you're offended, fine, argue back. But I hardly consider what you've been doing fighting back. Research, analyze, and think. It's not about insulting people. Because regardless of what you think, they aren't trying to insult you. They're testing your knowledge and opinion, so start returning the favor.

-ChelleMod.

actually, i kinda was insulting her.

everyone knows juggallos like having people fuck with them. i'm just doing my part. it makes them feel like they're being oppressed, which gives them an opportunity to spit out the mad drivel they're fed by their gods. these are the same people you see on jerry springer that yell, "YOU DON'T KNOW ME! YOU DON'T KNOW ME! SIT THE FUCK DOWN! I DO WHAT I WANT!" only they have a slightly larger, yet no more effective, vocabulary.

maybe that's the problem! we need to use more simple language to get our message across. ok, new game plan, chelle. no big words. no more than 4-5 words in a sentence. we'll start off small with stuff like, "you no be asshat, k?" and work our way up to, "no, really. stfu." let's give it a shot.

Michelle

07-13-2004, 11:16 PM

actually, i kinda was insulting her.

everyone knows juggallos like having people fuck with them. i'm just doing my part. it makes them feel like they're being oppressed, which gives them an opportunity to spit out the mad drivel they're fed by their gods. these are the same people you see on jerry springer that yell, "YOU DON'T KNOW ME! YOU DON'T KNOW ME! SIT THE FUCK DOWN! I DO WHAT I WANT!" only they have a slightly larger, yet no more effective, vocabulary.

maybe that's the problem! we need to use more simple language to get our message across. ok, new game plan, chelle. no big words. no more than 4-5 words in a sentence. we'll start off small with stuff like, "you no be asshat, k?" and work our way up to, "no, really. stfu." let's give it a shot.

stfu, you.

how was that?

Miles D

07-13-2004, 11:19 PM

stfu stoofoo! (five words... but combined into two character strings)

stfu 20 (five words, but combined into fewer characters). :D

axeslinger0u812

07-14-2004, 12:18 AM

ok, back on topic *shakes finger at crazy mods* :p

The reason why I'm leaning towards Bush more than kerry, is that Kerry just has no...he just doesn't have an identity. I don't know what he cares about strongly, he doesn't voice his own opinions without attacking Bush. He doesn't say what He stands for, he refutes what Bush stands for. The main thing that separates Democrates in the past and Republicans, is foreign policy. Democrats have always seemed timid when it comes to doing anything that could possibly affect foreign policy, and often times, will only suck up to other countries in hope of gaining trade. I think that shows weakness and opens us up for attack. When a republican says he's going to go do something, theres no conferring and sucking up with foreign leaders, they go do it. Action in the face danger or tragedy shows that MAerica won't take any shit from anyone. So Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. The possibility that they might've led to their invasion. I'm pretty sure other countries will thik twice before funding someone that is going to fuck with us. But, that's only if Bush remains in office. I see no democrats arguing the economy, because if you've noticed, it's on an upswing. When Clinton left, it wasn't it was going down. Changes in the economy don't happen overnight (with 9/11 being an exception) tax breaks, cutting of gov. jobs, etc. won't have an effect for a few years. Bush has done an honorable job at fixing the economy, that 8 yrs of Clinton screwed up. When it comes to benefits program, why should wealthy people have to pay for bums who don't want to work and are on welfare? Getting 400 dollars a month by working at McDonalds, or getting 400 dollars a month for sitting on your ass counting hair...Now, I hate the war just as much as everyone else, but I happened to know someone who came from Iraq. Fuck Saddam. Fuck the regime. If we didn't get his ass out of there, who was?

el_cid

07-14-2004, 12:34 AM

Back on topic:

. Democrats have always seemed timid when it comes to doing anything that could possibly affect foreign policy, and often times, will only suck up to other countries in hope of gaining trade. I think that shows weakness and opens us up for attack. When a republican says he's going to go do something, theres no conferring and sucking up with foreign leaders, they go do it.
And the rest of the world hates us. Except Australia and Canada. And even then i wonder sometimes...:D

When Clinton left, it wasn't it was going down. Changes in the economy don't happen overnight (with 9/11 being an exception) tax breaks, cutting of gov. jobs, etc. won't have an effect for a few years. Bush has done an honorable job at fixing the economy, that 8 yrs of Clinton screwed up
Our economy reached its record volume during the Clinton administration in 1999. Alan Greenspan had to raise interest rates to keep it in check from becoming dangerously inflated. Ill look for statistics.
And 9/11 was not an overnight change. We were already in a recession; 9/11 didn't help, however.

I don' see Bush taking a strong stance on his justification for the war in Iraq besides Saddam being an evil dictator. ToB posted an interesting article about the war on terrorism. It outlined how invading Iraq essentially split the Middle East in half and dealt a blow to terrorist organizations. However, i started to discredit the legitimacy of that article when the president himself wouldn't come out and promote this idea to the american public. If he has, then i haven't been looking closely enough. All of his speeches seem to be very vague and murky when it comes to dealing with the war. He doesn't seem to be laying down hard evidence that THIS was the best course of action for the nation. It seems to be more of an 'oh shit our intelligence was wrong....uh.....moral justification! w00t! For example, as I said earlier, if bin laden was dead and al-qaeda was a non-factor and WMDs had been found, along with significant evidence that Saddam had plans to either directly or indirectly blow up a dirty bomb or WMD in the US, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with Bush.

Also, about the statistics posted earlier about Kerry's voting record. Campaigning keeps you out of office because you're trying to put yourself in a greater position of power so that you can do more good for the country. A temporary pain for a greater good. The statistics are there to prove it.

Cheers.
the Cid

axeslinger0u812

07-14-2004, 12:54 AM

Back on topic:

And the rest of the world hates us. Except Australia and Canada. And even then i wonder sometimes...:D

Good. Having the world love us isn't going to help me. It didn't help that the world loved us when 9/11 happened did it. Who offered to help that actually held their word?

Our economy reached its record volume during the Clinton administration in 1999. Alan Greenspan had to raise interest rates to keep it in check from becoming dangerously inflated. Ill look for statistics.
And 9/11 was not an overnight change. We were already in a recession; 9/11 didn't help, however.

Yeah, and who do you think is responsible for that? Bush Sr. Like I said, the economy takes a little longer than a year or two or even 3 or 4 to change. The things Bush Jr. did in the beginning of his term is what's responsible for the balancing out now. Clinton's policies started to take affect towards the end of his term. and the beginning of Bush Jr. Hence...recession.

Llywelyn

07-14-2004, 01:23 AM

The reason why I'm leaning towards Bush more than kerry, is that Kerry just has no...he just doesn't have an identity. I don't know what he cares about strongly, he doesn't voice his own opinions without attacking Bush.

Is this because of what he's said in done, or is it a matter of perception because you haven't looked for the answers?

He was first elected in 1984 and last elected in 2002, he holds the junior seat for Massachusetts. He has been rated with different interest groups (http://vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=S0421103) in that time and has an extensive voting record (http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103) that you can peruse. You can also look at his speeches and public statements (http://vote-smart.org/speech.php?can_id=S0421103) and decide what his stance is from there.

He has been saying what he stands for, for years, you just need to be willing to pay attention to more than the commercials and what appears at night on CNN.

He doesn't say what He stands for, he refutes what Bush stands for.

What does Bush stand for? Summarize.

Security? He's botched it. Repeatedly.

Making decisions and providing a legitimate check to the Senate and Congress? Considering the only I've even heard him threaten to use his veto power is when he didn't believe the revised version of the patriot act went far enough.

Turning us into a theocracy? Well, he might be managing that.

The main thing that separates Democrates in the past and Republicans, is foreign policy. Democrats have always seemed timid when it comes to doing anything that could possibly affect foreign policy, and often times, will only suck up to other countries in hope of gaining trade.

"A nation of traders we'll show what we are, freedoms crusaders who war against war."

I think that shows weakness and opens us up for attack. When a republican says he's going to go do something, theres no conferring and sucking up with foreign leaders, they go do it.

Attack from what? "opens us up for attack" is as vague as the department of homeland's security last announcement that an attack was planned. Meanwhile the cost of just acting out of hand without regard for international opinion lessens our support when we do need to draw on our allies (such as in Iraq and Afghanistan) and increases the odds of a terrorist attack on US soil because more people hate us.

I'm pretty sure other countries will thik twice before funding someone that is going to fuck with us.

Why? Because we bombed the hell out of Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia, one of the largest supporters of terrorism in the world? Not attacking the guilty parties doesn't make a strong statement in our favor of attacking countries that support terrorism.

Fuck Saddam. Fuck the regime. If we didn't get his ass out of there, who was?

If you had come to the American public and said "we are going to spend 200 billion dollars and a thousand lives to oust Saddam" we would have had an entirely different discourse than the one we did have before going into Iraq. The cost in international relations would have been different as well, because we could have talked to them in terms, not of Saddam's nonexistant threat, but of Saddam's abuses against his own people.

The UN has gone in for that reason before and, at a minimum, I think support at home would have been lower and support abroad would have been higher.

el_cid

07-14-2004, 01:45 AM

Good. Having the world love us isn't going to help me. It didn't help that the world loved us when 9/11 happened did it. Who offered to help that actually held their word? Great Britain

Yeah, and who do you think is responsible for that? Bush Sr. Like I said, the economy takes a little longer than a year or two or even 3 or 4 to change. The things Bush Jr. did in the beginning of his term is what's responsible for the balancing out now. Clinton's policies started to take affect towards the end of his term. and the beginning of Bush Jr. Hence...recession. Clinton was elected in 1992. Even by those estimates his first term policies would be in effect by 1999, and Bush Sr.'s would have come and gone by 1996 from your estimates.

axeslinger0u812

07-14-2004, 01:55 AM

...touche good sirs, touche....

I shall now hope someone with more education and a better grasp of whats going on to defend Bush. I'm man enough to admit when I've been pwned, and...I've been pwned.*bows*

Machinehead

07-14-2004, 02:40 AM

You know, something I haven't seen come up... perhaps I've overlooked it, but I don't think I have... I believe that Saddam knew full well that he never had a glimmer of a chance at defeating the United States in war. This is obvious. I also think it's fair to say that Saddam hates us with all his heart. For him to be in such a great position of power, he has to be intelligent. So, when I put it all together, I think that if I was in his postion I would destroy, hide or do whatever it took to make it look like I had no weapons of mass destruction after the Americans invaded and scoured my country for them.

Look at what it's done. What's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, gripe about President Bush? No WMD's. He deceived America. He made up the WMD story to further his own moral agenda started by his father, which was to destroy Iraq. That lack of WMD's has certainly come back to bite him in the ass, hasn't it? Saddam knew he had no chance, and I believe that destroying America's and President Bush's credibility in the eyes of the world is the one final and biggest blow he could have dealt. How different would the world opinion of these issues be had we found masses of chemical, biological, and possibly even the beginnings nuclear weaponry in Iraq? This whole theory would have made excellent sense to me had I been dictator of Iraq as the American warships were sailing into the Persian Gulf.

So, did you ever consider the possibility that Saddam planned this? Not directing this at anyone, just seeing if people are thinking about it.

Paradise

07-14-2004, 07:22 AM

Fuck the facts! Why does everyone want to go by facts?

Yeah, facts are so overrated anyway!!!1. :cool:

ToB

07-14-2004, 09:27 AM

Our economy reached its record volume during the Clinton administration in 1999. Alan Greenspan had to raise interest rates to keep it in check from becoming dangerously inflated. Ill look for statistics.
And 9/11 was not an overnight change. We were already in a recession; 9/11 didn't help, however.

Actually, right now we are seeing one of the biggest economic booms in quite some time. Here are some numbers that help to justify that:

In the 80s, the average GDP was +2.9%. In the 90s, the average GDP growth was 3.1%. Over the last three quarters, the average GDP growth of the economy has been a sizzling 5.4%.

Also:
Productivity is probably the single most important economic statistic. Productivity is what determines our standard of living. In the long run, productivity is what determines how much workers are paid.

...

The 17 percent productivity growth from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2004 stands head and shoulders above the growth rate for any comparable period. In fact, it is better than any eight-year period since 1976. In the first 13 quarters of the Bush Administration, the basic determinant of our standard of living increased by almost as much as during the entire 32 quarters of the Clinton Administration.

Productivity is up 7.5% since 2000 an 12.1% since 1999. For more information about this, check out http://www.techcentralstation.com/070804D.html

Another great quote about the economy, cited from an AP article (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040706/D83LFTV00.html):
"We are moving into a sweet spot for the economy with interest rates not too high, jobs coming back and business investment providing strength," said Diane Swonk, chief economist at Bank One in Chicago, who is predicting GDP growth of 4.8 percent this year.

I don' see Bush taking a strong stance on his justification for the war in Iraq besides Saddam being an evil dictator. ToB posted an interesting article about the war on terrorism. It outlined how invading Iraq essentially split the Middle East in half and dealt a blow to terrorist organizations. However, i started to discredit the legitimacy of that article when the president himself wouldn't come out and promote this idea to the american public. If he has, then i haven't been looking closely enough. All of his speeches seem to be very vague and murky when it comes to dealing with the war. He doesn't seem to be laying down hard evidence that THIS was the best course of action for the nation. It seems to be more of an 'oh shit our intelligence was wrong....uh.....moral justification! w00t! For example, as I said earlier, if bin laden was dead and al-qaeda was a non-factor and WMDs had been found, along with significant evidence that Saddam had plans to either directly or indirectly blow up a dirty bomb or WMD in the US, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with Bush.

This is the unfortunate thing about Bush. I'm almost positive that he'd have much more support even amongst liberals if he'd actually come out and defend himself and simply explain to the American people what he and his administration are up to. If he were to simply come out and state that there are 5,000 al-Qaeda operatives in each of the country's 5 largest cities, and outlined a clear plan of how he was going to protect the citizens from further attack, I'm sure that he'd win much more support.

There has been a recent press release from bin Laden's press secretary about his desire (and belief that it's his right) to murder 1,000,000 Americans, including women and children, and to further maim and cripple 100,000 more. Why hasn't Bush come out and given us this information straight from his mouth, and explain what he is going to do about it?

Also, about the statistics posted earlier about Kerry's voting record. Campaigning keeps you out of office because you're trying to put yourself in a greater position of power so that you can do more good for the country. A temporary pain for a greater good. The statistics are there to prove it.

The statistics I posted earlier are from 2003, not from 2004. Kerry wasn't even campaigning at that point, afaik. If you or I were absent from work 64% of the time, would we still have our jobs?

el_cid

07-14-2004, 12:15 PM

Look at what it's done. What's one of the biggest, if not the biggest, gripe about President Bush? No WMD's. He deceived America. He made up the WMD story to further his own moral agenda started by his father, which was to destroy Iraq. That lack of WMD's has certainly come back to bite him in the ass, hasn't it? Saddam knew he had no chance, and I believe that destroying America's and President Bush's credibility in the eyes of the world is the one final and biggest blow he could have dealt. How different would the world opinion of these issues be had we found masses of chemical, biological, and possibly even the beginnings nuclear weaponry in Iraq? This whole theory would have made excellent sense to me had I been dictator of Iraq as the American warships were sailing into the Persian Gulf.

So, did you ever consider the possibility that Saddam planned this? Not directing this at anyone, just seeing if people are thinking about it. Yeah I did think about that possibility a little bit. I discredited it when I thought that Saddam would much rather nuke a hundred thousand american soldiers who tore his country apart a decade ago than make our president look like an ass. I doubt that Saddam was terribly concerned about damaging his reputation in the international community;)

ToB

07-14-2004, 12:20 PM

el_cid

07-14-2004, 12:26 PM

machinehead007 makes a very interesting statement, one that I personally have never thought about before. What if Saddam thought he could get away with it? Remember that in the muslim world, if you die a martyr, you get your virgins when you get to heaven. Maybe he is working on martyrdom? I don't understand what you're trying to convey. How would he be a martyr by destroying his own weapons?

Edit: I could be mistaken, but I think that its 30 virgins when you go to heaven:cool:

Machinehead

07-14-2004, 12:29 PM

Yeah I did think about that possibility a little bit. I discredited it when I thought that Saddam would much rather nuke a hundred thousand american soldiers who tore his country apart a decade ago than make our president look like an ass. I doubt that Saddam was terribly concerned about damaging his reputation in the international community;)

I have no doubt that Saddam would have liked to nuke many americans, I just think the war barging in didn't give him enough time to really get it off the ground. I think the long term effects of the world hating the hell out of America (not just President Bush) may have been more destructive to us than anything he could have done with low quality weapon technology. Also... what happened the last time an overt terrorist attack took several thousand american lives? In short, we blew up two countries, and President Bush's approval rating was at 90% shortly thereafter. I know there's no facts really to go either way on this, and I'm not shoving it at people saying it MUST be true... It just seems really likely to me.

ToB

07-14-2004, 12:33 PM

I don't understand what you're trying to convey. How would he be a martyr by destroying his own weapons?

Edit: I could be mistaken, but I think that its 30 virgins when you go to heaven:cool:

I'm not trying to convey anything, simply thinking out loud is all. ;)

Yeah, and you know how hard it is to find just ONE virgin here on earth! They must be running low in heaven.

el_cid

07-14-2004, 12:36 PM

I have no doubt that Saddam would have liked to nuke many americans, I just think the war barging in didn't give him enough time to really get it off the ground. I think the long term effects of the world hating the hell out of America (not just President Bush) may have been more destructive to us than anything he could have done with low quality weapon technology. Also... what happened the last time an overt terrorist attack took several thousand american lives? In short, we blew up two countries, and President Bush's approval rating was at 90% shortly thereafter. I know there's no facts really to go either way on this, and I'm not shoving it at people saying it MUST be true... It just seems really likely to me. Ok, this logically does make sense. However, I've posted in several other threads how nukes aren't toys; they require some high-end facilities to house and space-level rockets to launch. Destroying the weapons in a hurry wouldn't be easy, especially with chemical agents such as Sarin, VX, and Tabun. Breaking them down safely would be just as big a job, if not bigger, than building them.
Plus, you can't just 'destroy' a nuclear weapon. Refined Plutonium sticks around for a long, long time(a half-life of something like 5600 years comes to mind). If they'd tried to 'destroy' them, there would be radioactive evidence for hundreds of miles around the site.
Transporting them out of the country would seem nearly impossible. You can't just throw a nuke in the back of a jeep and drive off with it. they require the utmost care to keep stable and otherwise not explode.
As for destroying his weapons:
Chemical weapons, maybe.
Nukes, nearly impossible.

Edit: something else:
In the 80s, the average GDP was +2.9%. In the 90s, the average GDP growth was 3.1%. Over the last three quarters, the average GDP growth of the economy has been a sizzling 5.4%.
Still, thats only over three quarters.

Rapid expansion is not always good for the economy. Steady, long term growth is the way to go. The late 90s were a result of careful economic growth that eventually climaxed in a very big way.

Machinehead

07-14-2004, 12:47 PM

Ok, this logically does make sense. However, I've posted in several other threads how nukes aren't toys; they require some high-end facilities to house and space-level rockets to launch. Destroying the weapons in a hurry wouldn't be easy, especially with chemical agents such as Sarin, VX, and Tabun. Breaking them down safely would be just as big a job, if not bigger, than building them.
Plus, you can't just 'destroy' a nuclear weapon. Refined Plutonium sticks around for a long, long time(a half-life of something like 5600 years comes to mind). If they'd tried to 'destroy' them, there would be radioactive evidence for hundreds of miles around the site.
Transporting them out of the country would seem nearly impossible. You can't just throw a nuke in the back of a jeep and drive off with it. they require the utmost care to keep stable and otherwise not explode.
As for destroying his weapons:
Chemical weapons, maybe.
Nukes, nearly impossible.

Hmm... I do remember at the beginning of the war seeing where some large convoys of trucks were seen crossing into Syria out of Iraq. I was always really suspicious of that. It really seems to me that if he had a nuclear program it would have been very infantile and that chem and bio were his main cups of tea. I really doubt he had to dispose of actual nukes. He probably would have found it much easier to get another american enemy like North Korea to sell him some nukes they developed instead of trying to make his own. However, I can totally see 6 Iraqis hanging out of a 1985 Toyota pickup with ak-47's in hand with a warhead rolling around in the bed. :D Seriously.

el_cid

07-14-2004, 12:54 PM

However, I can totally see 6 Iraqis hanging out of a 1985 Toyota pickup with ak-47's in hand with a warhead rolling around in the bed. :D Seriously.
lol true. Reminds me of Afghanistan a little.

Hmm... I do remember at the beginning of the war seeing where some large convoys of trucks were seen crossing into Syria out of Iraq. I was always really suspicious of that. It really seems to me that if he had a nuclear program it would have been very infantile and that chem and bio were his main cups of tea. I really doubt he had to dispose of actual nukes. He probably would have found it much easier to get another american enemy like North Korea to sell him some nukes they developed instead of trying to make his own.
I don't remember hearing about that but hey, its possible that he did try to remove his nukes. He also may have thought that he would someday be back in power and would have a chance to get a real nuke that he could use against the mainland:eek: Just an idea.

I've also heard from a few sources(people and tv) that building and using a nuclear weapon was considered cowardly by many Arabs. Doesn't explain militant faction's thirst for mini-nukes and chemical bombs, but hey, even moderate Muslims don't support the militants. Somehow I don't see Al-Qaeda and company caring what other people think of them.

Head

07-14-2004, 01:24 PM

Lowercountry

07-14-2004, 01:56 PM

Head, I wouldn't be surprised if you were correct there.

el_cid

07-14-2004, 02:09 PM

Here's something else to consider -

Saddam wanted the world to be under the impression that he DID have weapons of mass destruction? OK, he didn't have anything heavier than a really big catapult, but wouldn't he seem like a more imposing figure on the World Stage if everybody thought he had the muscle to take out a few major cities or lay waste to Israel?

It's certainly right for his idiom... his government were still declaring they were winning the war against the coalition as our tanks were rolling up the path of the palace. (which, by the way, was some of the funniest footage I have EVAR seen :D)

Isn't it reasonable to assume that he was just puffing out his chest to look like the Big Man?

That's my take on it. And if so, you can't really get mad at Bush and Blair for buying it. Especially if he regularly drove lorries with big missile-shaped things on the back of them to fool the satellites...

(sorry - I've got this hilarious image of a cardboard cut-out missile silo in my head now... :D) Thats a good point. He may have simply wanted to scare us out of attacking.
btw the defense minister explaining how the footage of Abram tanks rolling through downtown Baghdad was simply a "hollywood fabrication" had me in stitches.

I thought that those missles that he was toting around were old scuds?

Edit: Wait, coach.....er....... isn't that a double negative?:confused: *runs and hides*
Head, I wouldn't be surprised if you were not on to something there.
/no offense

Lowercountry

07-14-2004, 02:14 PM

Edit: Wait, coach.....er....... isn't that a double negative?:confused: *runs and hides*
Ambiguous at the best that is for sure... I fixed it. LOL - No more posting while eating. :)

MetalRepublican

07-15-2004, 11:32 AM

Head point is a very valid assumption of why. But, I think that he had the weapons and then shifted them to Syria or buried them in the sand to achieve that goal of being the bully without the might.

Back to the topic at hand.

Kerry/Edwards are not in this for you. If they were, then they would be doing thier jobs instead of running around the country trying to get elected on a platform that has no real strong points. Do the job that you were elected to do and when you have a leg to stand on then join the race.

tMR

Llywelyn

07-15-2004, 01:26 PM

Kerry/Edwards are not in this for you. If they were, then they would be doing thier jobs instead of running around the country trying to get elected on a platform that has no real strong points. Do the job that you were elected to do and when you have a leg to stand on then join the race.

Yet more propaganda...

Kerry and Edwards are physically incapable of being at two places at once. They cannot campaign for the white house and at the same time be present to vote on a predominantly republican agenda, these items are mutually exclusive.

That said they have both been "doing the job they were elected to do" for a good long time. I've posted their voting records since 1999 or so, check it out.

Tell me truthfully, in 2000, would you have used this same line of attack on John McCain?

el_cid

07-15-2004, 03:25 PM

MetalRepublican

07-15-2004, 11:45 PM

Voting participation:

2003 36%
2002 96%
2001 98%
2000 95%
1999 99%

Quote:

Edwards at least had a 61% voting participation rate...

2003 61%
2002 100%
2001 99%
2000 100%
1999 99%

Now, let me throw in someone else who at one point attempted to run on the republican ticket (John McCain), and see if we notice something:

2003 99%
2002 92%
2001 96%
2000 78%
1999 64%

Yes, I do notice something. McCain ran for the 2000 election and he had a 64% in 1999, the year before the election. Kerry is running for the 2004 election and he has a 36% in 2003, one year before the election. Kerry is a slacker. No doubt about it.

I understand that he can't be two places at once but he can certainly come back and vote on issues that are important. And I can assure you that more than 50% are important and he has only voted on 36%. That is a problem to me. If he can't hold up his elected office now what makes you think that he can if he is elected? He can't. He wants to be President plain and simple. Not for you or me but for himself. That is it.

tMR

Llywelyn

07-16-2004, 01:25 AM

Yes, I do notice something. McCain ran for the 2000 election and he had a 64% in 1999, the year before the election. Kerry is running for the 2004 election and he has a 36% in 2003, one year before the election. Kerry is a slacker. No doubt about it.

McCain withdrew. Kerry did not.

I understand that he can't be two places at once but he can certainly come back and vote on issues that are important. And I can assure you that more than 50% are important and he has only voted on 36%.

Can you find one issue he didn't vote on where his vote would have changed the outcome?

You do realize he has a great run of attendance since 1984. Why do you weight last year so heavily?

That is a problem to me.

I'll venture a guess only because he is a democrat.

If he can't hold up his elected office now what makes you think that he can if he is elected?

He's held it up just fine since 1984.

He can't. He wants to be President plain and simple. Not for you or me but for himself. That is it.

I trust someone who wants it for himself over someone who wants it for my benefit. People who are out for their own self-interest are more dependable.

Now let's talk about about a few reasons you should vote for Bush.

You believe the US should be a theocracy in agreement with Bush's religion.

Where "Freedom of Religion" only extends to those religions Bush personally agrees with.
Where amendments are passed writing monotheism and school prayer into the Constitution.
Where homosexual marriage is outlawed in the Constitution.
Where destruction of a single cell or small cluster of cells is banned by the Constitution.

You believe that the writ of habeas corpus can and should be suspended without any check or balance in the system.
You believe "Freedom of the Press" goes too far.
You think that the rules about "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" and things like the "Geneva Convention" apply only to US citizens who are not suspected of terrorism.
You are in favor of someone who doesn't read newspapers or listen to people who know more than he does about economics making decisions that affect global events and economics.
You believe in "preemptive wars" to prevent terrorism against groups that have nothing to do with the main groups of terrorists we are interested in, aren't a top funder of terrorism in the world, and in spite of UN Weapon Inspectors failing to find anything interesting.
You believe that pursuing one war before the last one is finished is a Good Idea�.
You believe in exchanging protection from your own government for security theater that doesn't protect you from anything.

el_cid

07-16-2004, 01:50 AM

I trust someone who wants it for himself over someone who wants it for my benefit. People who are out for their own self-interest are more dependable.
They're all politicians, so of course they're self-interested. The real question here is whether or not they can help the country via their self-interest.

The religion issue bothers me because it exists primarily because of the number and type of people that vote. Generally speaking, I believe that the largest voter group in the nation is middle-class, middle-age/senior citizen Christians. Whoever is running for office can appeal strictly to this category and, since the majority of people from other age/idea groups aren't voting, they aren't having their opinion voiced in how the government should be run. Hence, appeal to the most people who vote and you'll win the election.
If more people voted from different demographics, politicians wouldn't have to appeal so strongly to one group of people.
I don't agree with a damn thing that George Bush has done about religion. You believe the US should be a theocracy in agreement with Bush's religion.

Where "Freedom of Religion" only extends to those religions Bush personally agrees with.
Where amendments are passed writing monotheism and school prayer into the Constitution.
Where homosexual marriage is outlawed in the Constitution.
Where destruction of a single cell or small cluster of cells is banned by the Constitution.
Not long ago, the issue was whether or not white people should be allowed to marry black people. Today, this issue seems completely rediculous to the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this nation. however, at one point it was just as hot of a topic as gay marriage was, and here we are, 50 years later, looking back and stratching our heads thinking, what the hell were we thinking?

Personally, I feel that the choices that are most important to the individual should be made by the individual, as much as possible.

More people need to vote. Damnit.

ToB

07-16-2004, 02:04 PM

el_cid

07-16-2004, 02:33 PM

The voting record debate can be summed up simply by saying that Kerry (or any candidate, for that matter) should have a 100% voting record at all times. If you showed up to your job 36% of the time, would you still have one? And furthermore, if you spent the other 64% of the time interviewing for another job, you'd have your ass canned so fast you wouldn't know what hit you.

Elected representatives are elected to represent their constituents, not campaign for other positions while "on the clock"... Its not uncommon for the opposing political party to hold important votes during days that they know the candidate won't be available to make the vote. It makes for good propaganda and, unfortunately, a lot of people believe it.

Edit: we also don't really have fair ground to make comparisons on. how often would Bush have voted if he was a senator? How often does Bush take vacations? Getting hard numbers isnt that easy.

SangReal

07-16-2004, 05:52 PM

Lly, you know I love ya, but those reasons were kinda biased. As an example

Reasons you should vote for Kerry:

1. You believe it's fine to kill an unborn child, even if it is old enough to conceivably survive outside the womb.

2. You believe it's okay to elect a leader who regularly changes his position on issues just for political gain.

3. You trust a man who is a gazillionaire to fight for the rights of the economically underprivileged.

4. You think that it's okay to authorize military action that you're not willing to fund.

5. You think it's wrong to add an amendment to the Constitution to reaffirm freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) or wrong to add one banning homosexual marriage (which the great majority of adult citizens don't agree with), but just fine to add one raising Congress's salary.

6. You think it's okay for unions to give campaign funds to a candidate without the permission of the union members.

7. You challenge the validity or purpose of the 1st, 2nd, and/or 10th amendments.

Had to bias it both ways, I guess. Many of the comments you made were personal attacks, I think. Has Bush ever said that he doesn't read the newspaper? And does he want to add amendments banning free exercise of any religion other than Christianity? I've certainly never heard him say so. Does he support amending the Constitution to ban stem cell research, or does he simply want laws passed against it? I don't think he would necessarily change the Constitution just to outlaw something. But I could be wrong. I have an open mind. Inform me.

<3 Mary

Llywelyn

07-16-2004, 06:46 PM

[color=deepskyblue][font=garamond][size=3]
1. You believe it's fine to kill an unborn child, even if it is old enough to conceivably survive outside the womb.

If it is unborn then it isn't a child.

2. You believe it's okay to elect a leader who regularly changes his position on issues just for political gain.

One of the most persistent arguments against Kerry from the Bush camp is his �flip-flop� attitude regarding every issue known to man. Indeed, for a person to change his stance on important issues in order to win an election would make him a verifiable, grade-A douchebag. The website linked to above contains a very long and detailed list, no doubt the hard work of two dozen political science undergrads looking to justify their existence. I read perhaps the first two thirds and skimmed the rest, because, as you're sure to notice, patterns begin forming very quickly. Some of the deception attempts are clever, even downright sneaky. Others are less well disguised. Let's take a look at a few of the ploys used by this page:

** Observe the liberal usage of paraphrasing. In bending words to fit situations, the �...� is mans best friend. Perhaps it's that... excluding... certain pieces... [makes] excerpts more... convincing. Granted, it could be the case that these are earnest summaries of what was said, but it seems that many times the ellipsis is heading off in a different direction (Affirmative Action, Raising Taxes During Economic Downturn, Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees, Federal Health Ben efits, Burma Sanctions, 1991 Iraq War Coalition). Also, there are abundant examples of paraphrasing not involving our three-dotted friend that are clearly quotes taken far out of context, or that have a misleading title that does not at all match the quote listed below (Iraq War, Gay Marriage Amendment, Attacking President During Time of War, Death Penalty for Terrorists, Cuba Sanctions, Health Coverage, Ballistic Missile Defense).

** Additionally, there are a number of �flip-flops� that do not appear to be �flip-flops� at all. At best, they are minor shifts in opinion, and some of them are not even shifts, but two different opinions about two separate issues (Tapping Strategic Petroleum Reserve, War on Terror, Military Experience as Credential For Public Office, Medical Marijuana, Cuba Sanctions, Gay Marriage Amendment, Both Sides on the First Gulf War).

** Of all these accusations, there are a few I would hope that John Kerry and any sensible person would �flip-flop� over, given events that have transpired since the original quote and the more recent one. For starters, I am happy that Kerry and many others are actively trying to do away with the Patriot Act, despite the fact that it was passed almost unanimously. Shortly following 9/11, the general sentiment around America was a desire to hunt down terrorists at all costs, even at the expense of a violation of personal privacy. Times have changed between then and now, and while the Patriot Act may have served its purpose in fighting terrorism, it's now being abused for non-terrorism causes, and that needs to stop. Also among notable �I would'da changed my mind too� scenarios:
* *Death Penalty for Terrorists (One quote was taken before 9/11, the other was taken after)
** No Child Left Behind (Kerry voted for this act, and now thanks to gross mishandling by the Bush administration, it is largely a failure... even Republicans disapprove of how Bush has handled No Child Left Behind)
*** NAFTA (Originally voting for this in 1993, after witnessing its less-than-stellar outcome, Kerry has expressed regret ten years later)
** Leaving Abortion Up to the States (Originally for this approach in 1972, Kerry changed his stance in 1985. I think 13 years is a fair time to re-evaluate one�s position.)
** Litmus Tests for Judicial Nominees (With the original quote from 1986, I think it�s fair to slightly change one�s position over the course of almost two decades.)

** This is not even to mention the numerous �flip-flops� that show Kerry supporting or not supporting something based on how he voted on a particular resolution. I have not the time nor the energy to look up and read through years-old legislation to find the true purpose of each resolution, but we can just assume that the Bush website has properly paraphrased these for us, right?

Besides, I'd rather a leader who switches positions than one who sticks to his guns even when he's wrong.

3. You trust a man who is a gazillionaire to fight for the rights of the economically underprivileged.

See above.

4. You think that it's okay to authorize military action that you're not willing to fund.

* Did John Kerry really vote against Kevlar jackets for our soldiers? Could a person be such a ruthless monster? Technically yes, but in reality, no, not really. All of the issues listed in the advertisement were part of an 87 billion dollar proposition for money to be set aside for the war in Iraq . *Kerry supported these provisions that in turn supported our soldiers; what he didn�t support, however, was the method of paying for all of these provisions. In its final inception, which Kerry did indeed vote against, all of the funding would come directly from the pockets of taxpayers. There was, however, a previous version of this bill that drew some funding from oil revenues in Iraq , which just so happens to be the nation we�re pouring our money and lives into rebuilding. This is the version that Kerry supported, and rightfully so.

http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.c om/

5. You think it's wrong to add an amendment to the Constitution to reaffirm freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) or wrong to add one banning homosexual marriage (which the great majority of adult citizens don't agree with), but just fine to add one raising Congress's salary.

What freedom of religion are you affirming, again? Please, tell me what amendment does this.

I don't see it. All I see is an attempt to shove someone else's religion into my life.

7. You challenge the validity or purpose of the 1st, 2nd, and/or 10th amendments.[/b]

First and Tenth you are going to have to cite how he is worse than Bush on, because I can show you a mound of First and Tenth amendment violations that Bush is an advocate of (hello homosexual marriage issue).

2nd I will grant you, but he is being balanced out by Edwards, who states "I believe the right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. I also support reasonable measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, including closing the gun show loophole and vigorously enforcing gun laws."

You might want to cite where you are having these issues.

Had to bias it both ways, I guess. Many of the comments you made were personal attacks, I think. Has Bush ever said that he doesn't read the newspaper?

His Wife has.

And does he want to add amendments banning free exercise of any religion other than Christianity?

He has stated outright that he does not believe my religion to be a religion deserving of first amendment protections. He has also attempted to "write G-d into the constitution," circumvent court rulings on prayer in school, and has had a list of other issues in this regard.

Does he support amending the Constitution to ban stem cell research, or does he simply want laws passed against it?

A better question is "if such laws are ruled unconstitutional would he then attempt to pass a constitutional amendment."

I don't think he would necessarily change the Constitution just to outlaw something.

Like homosexual marriage?

Machinehead

07-16-2004, 07:16 PM

If it is unborn then it isn't a child.

I'm not bothering with the rest of the post, but this part just irritates the shit out of me. My aunt started her infant life 6 months after conception. So, was she still a fetus until 9 months, or did she become a child when her physical location moved from the interior to the exterior of her mother's body? Is this physical location the only difference between fetus and child? Survival is obviously quite possible at that age on the inside or outside. Where's the line there? You callously state it like it's such a cold hard undeniable fact. Are you capable of emotion?

Lowercountry

07-16-2004, 07:31 PM

He has also attempted to "write G-d into the constitution..."
Your constant writing of "God" that way is silly; if you don't believe in a deity then just use the small "g"; you won't write a three-letter word that offends you but you will write other words that might offend others.

Llywelyn

07-16-2004, 08:02 PM

Your constant writing of "God" that way is silly; if you don't believe in a deity then just use the small "g"; you won't write a three-letter word that offends you but you will write other words that might offend others.

Since you do not know or understand my beliefs, do not judge the way I practice them.

Lowercountry

07-16-2004, 09:15 PM

Since you do not know or understand my beliefs, do not judge the way I practice them.
That flows both ways you know. You have a tendency to slam the beliefs of others pretty regularly.

Head

07-16-2004, 09:48 PM

I'm not bothering with the rest of the post, but this part just irritates the shit out of me. My aunt started her infant life 6 months after conception. So, was she still a fetus until 9 months, or did she become a child when her physical location moved from the interior to the exterior of her mother's body? Is this physical location the only difference between fetus and child? Survival is obviously quite possible at that age on the inside or outside. Where's the line there? You callously state it like it's such a cold hard undeniable fact. Are you capable of emotion?
Let's not turn this into a debate about abortion, people... we tried that before. It doesn't work. try to keep it at least Party Political... That way no-one gets hurt... Your constant writing of "God" that way is silly; if you don't believe in a deity then just use the small "g"; you won't write a three-letter word that offends you but you will write other words that might offend others.Trust me, Coach.. in this context, it's just a word. Let's not stymie discussion over something so small. You know what you believe God to be, so does Llywelyn. That isn't the point of this debate

And with that, the atheist steps out of American politics... Please try to realise the irony of that, folks...

hellokitty52

07-17-2004, 12:27 AM

Lowercountry

07-17-2004, 08:24 AM

One of the biggest attacks on Kerry that Bush has launched is his "back-and-forth-ingness". Honestly, I wish he would do a little more of it. It would be music to my ears to hear SOMEONE say that the war was a mistake
The debate about his flip flops has had little to do with his stance on the war but rather the perception that he has flip-flopped on a variety of issues.

el_cid

07-17-2004, 01:43 PM

It helps considerably to not believe a word that the opposing political party says about your candidate and vice versa. Most of that talk is tailored(is that the right tailor? I haven't had my fourth cup of coffee yet....) to people who will believe anything because they heard or saw it on tv so it must be true.

Lowercountry

07-17-2004, 03:12 PM

Most of that talk is tailored... to people who will believe anything because they heard or saw it on tv so it must be true.
Which is, unfortunately, about 95% of the population now. :(

SangReal

07-20-2004, 01:54 PM

Lly, I have no problem with your religious beliefs, and neither does the President. I just don't believe that Bush thinks any religion is unworthy of 1st amendment protections. If you can give me references, I might believe you, but otherwise I am left wondering. I refuse to believe something just because somebody I respect told me so. I won't be a sheep.

I did not mean to turn this into an abortion debate, but this is an issue that I consider to be VITAL to this election.

If it is unborn then it isn't a child.
That offends me. It annoys me how minorities want us to tolerate them and be nice to them and be all PC and try not to "offend" them, but won't give us the same consideration.

What freedom of religion are you affirming, again? Please, tell me what amendment does this.
Duh. The. First. Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment protects the right to do a lot of things, including freely practice religion. Show me how it doesn't.

Um, and how does banning gay marriage violate the first amendment? I must have missed the part about "the freedom to be married to anyone one wishes." Didn't notice that in that amendment, or any other one for that matter. Hmm...maybe I'm illiterate.

but just fine to add one raising Congress's salary.
You didn't address this. I think you are doing some "..." ing yourself.

Oh, and show me where Laura Bush has said that her husband doesn't read the newspaper. Maybe it's because he can't stand the liberal slant, who knows? But a candidate who was uninformed and out-of-touch with the issues would not have gotten elected in the first place, so I'd like to see a reference for that.

That said, Llywellyn, I respect your religious beliefs and your right to shape the Divine into whatever you need it to be. This is not a personal attack on you at all. I respect you very much as a person. But to accept what you tell me without proof would be irresponsible, and I am not an irresponsible person.

<3 Mary

DhammaSeeker

07-20-2004, 02:20 PM

The First Amendment protects the right to do a lot of things, including freely practice religion. Show me how it doesn't.

Um, and how does banning gay marriage violate the first amendment? I must have missed the part about "the freedom to be married to anyone one wishes." Didn't notice that in that amendment, or any other one for that matter. Hmm...maybe I'm illiterate.
What if it's a tenant of my religion that it is okay for same sex couple to be married? If Congress passed a law (or the country adopted a constitutional amendment) prohibiting that, then wouldn't that infringe on the free exercise of my religion. * (There's a Supreme Court case on peyote that might be instructive here. I'll try to dig it up.)

Oh, and show me where Laura Bush has said that her husband doesn't read the newspaper. It appears that both of you are correct - to a degree...

Q Now, didn't I read your husband says he doesn't read the newspapers? Because I've done a lot of jokes about that.

MRS. BUSH: He only reads -- he does read the newspaper, of course. Just not the reporters that follow him.

Q Oh, okay. (Laughter.) Now, why is that?

MRS. BUSH: Because he says he doesn't want to be mad at them the next day. Also, because he was there at the event, so he doesn't need to really read their coverage of it.
-source- (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040519-18.html) *EDIT: After briefly looking into it, I think they could pass such a law and have it pass constitutional muster. I make that statement after skimming this case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/95%2D2074.html), but I wouldn't stake my life on it. I got out of the law for a reason, and I'm not getting back into it without good cause.

Fallen Angelia

07-20-2004, 03:13 PM

Lly, I have no problem with your religious beliefs, and neither does the President. I just don't believe that Bush thinks any religion is unworthy of 1st amendment protections. If you can give me references, I might believe you, but otherwise I am left wondering. I refuse to believe something just because somebody I respect told me so. I won't be a sheep.
What do you call a president that takes away your freedom to make even the most basic decisions (such as whom you marry)? That is a direct detriment of the first amendment, actually. Doesn't it seem odd to you that the only people who are against gay marriages (atleast as far as a political standpoint goes), are also the people whom claim to be true christians. Which in my opinion, is the same thing as enforcing a specific religion on a wide group of people. I think it is important to note that the only reasons against gay marriages are because of religious condonations. It is fine if a church refuses to practice such as it is their prerogative to do so, but to step in as a high power and put political dominance over it, is utter bullshit.

That offends me. It annoys me how minorities want us to tolerate them and be nice to them and be all PC and try not to "offend" them, but won't give us the same consideration.Since when is someone who has an abortion a minority?

The First Amendment protects the right to do a lot of things, including freely practice religion. Show me how it doesn't.It does, which is exactly why it shouldn't be tampered with. It was set in place for a reason, to protect everyones right, even if the government may happen to be against it. A political figure stepping in and re-structuring the amendment goes against everything it stands for.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Whose religion? His religion? Certainly not my religion..

Um, and how does banning gay marriage violate the first amendment? I must have missed the part about "the freedom to be married to anyone one wishes." Didn't notice that in that amendment, or any other one for that matter. Hmm...maybe I'm illiterate.Perhaps you are?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I really don't see how much more place this can get..

That said, Llywellyn, I respect your religious beliefs and your right to shape the Divine into whatever you need it to be. This is not a personal attack on you at all. I respect you very much as a person. But to accept what you tell me without proof would be irresponsible, and I am not an irresponsible person.What exactly is he telling you here, that you have a hard time accepting? He has simply stated facts and his point of view, and everyone seems to take a great offence to this. If someone not believing in christianity is a great offence to you, try being a part of a minority religion.

SangReal

07-20-2004, 03:46 PM

What do you call a president that takes away your freedom to make even the most basic decisions (such as whom you marry)? That is a direct detriment of the first amendment, actually.

Is it? Where does the first amendment guarantee this right? Highlight it for me, will you? And if it does, I will go marry my father so I can inherit his money tax-free.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the only people who are against gay marriages (atleast as far as a political standpoint goes), are also the people whom claim to be true christians. Which in my opinion, is the same thing as enforcing a specific religion on a wide group of people. I think it is important to note that the only reasons against gay marriages are because of religious condonations.

While you have a point, I respectfully disagree. Nowhere in history has any society condoned or allowed homosexual marriage until VERY recently. I am not anti-homosexual. I don't question these people's lifestyles. I even support civil unions. But gay marriage goes a tiny bit too far for me.

It is fine if a church refuses to practice such as it is their prerogative to do so, but to step in as a high power and put political dominance over it, is utter bullshit.

The church is a political power in America. People who call themselves Evangelical Christians make up more than a fourth of our adult voting population, a greater proportion than African Americans. Democrats are so all-fired determined that the majority vote rules. The truth is that the majority of America does not support gay marriage, including your precious John Kerry.

Since when is someone who has an abortion a minority?

I certainly hope that less than 50% of the population has had abortions, since 50% of it or so is male. That's the definition of minority, right?

Whose religion? His religion? Certainly not my religion..
By the way, what is your religion?

Perhaps you are [illiterate]?
Find it in the amendment, then we'll talk.

What exactly is he telling you here, that you have a hard time accepting? He has simply stated facts and his point of view, and everyone seems to take a great offence to this. If someone not believing in christianity is a great offence to you, try being a part of a minority religion.

I'm not offended by his religion. I think I already said that. I haven't taken offense to anything except his assertion that "if it is unborn, then it is not a child." That's all. But we're not here to debate abortion. I disagree with Lly, but that doesn't mean I'm offended by him.

What if it's a tenant of my religion that it is okay for same sex couple to be married? If Congress passed a law (or the country adopted a constitutional amendment) prohibiting that, then wouldn't that infringe on the free exercise of my religion?

No (oh, and by the way, Congress already did pass that law, under Bill Clinton). It wouldn't violate your freedoms because your religion would be free to perform marriages inside itself, even if they would not be recognized by the state.

Oh, and not that I'm comparing this, but what if MY religion said that it was okay for adults to have sexual relations with children. Wouldn't laws against that violate my freedom of religion? Hmm. Worth thinking about... *ponders*

DhammaSeeker

07-20-2004, 04:11 PM

No (oh, and by the way, Congress already did pass that law, under Bill Clinton). It wouldn't violate your freedoms because your religion would be free to perform marriages inside itself, even if they would not be recognized by the state.

Oh, and not that I'm comparing this, but what if MY religion said that it was okay for adults to have sexual relations with children. Wouldn't laws against that violate my freedom of religion? Hmm. Worth thinking about... *ponders*
I apologize. Perhaps I was less than clear. When I used the words "such a law", I was referring to the proposed constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage (or any hypothetical and subsequent legislative attempt to do the same). When you use the words "that law", I'm guessing you are referring to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). The RFRA is what the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in the case I referenced above (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/000/95%2D2074.html).

Point of order: Should we continue this here, or shall we move to a more appropriate thread (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?t=1783)?

Fallen Angelia

07-20-2004, 04:30 PM

[color=deepskyblue][font=garamond][size=3]Is it? Where does the first amendment guarantee this right? Highlight it for me, will you? Heh, I was pretty sure I did in my previous post. ;) Okay, I underlined it but still..

While you have a point, I respectfully disagree. Nowhere in history has any society condoned or allowed homosexual marriage until VERY recently. I am not anti-homosexual. I don't question these people's lifestyles. I even support civil unions. But gay marriage goes a tiny bit too far for me.Why does it go to far for you? Infact, what does it have to do with you? Quick! Try and come up with something without a religious formality wrapped around it.

The church is a political power in America. People who call themselves Evangelical Christians make up more than a fourth of our adult voting population, a greater proportion than African Americans. Democrats are so all-fired determined that the majority vote rules. The truth is that the majority of America does not support gay marriage, including your precious John Kerry. Just because you have an exceeding religion in America, does not mean it should be pushed on to everyone else.

I certainly hope that less than 50% of the population has had abortions, since 50% of it or so is male. That's the definition of minority, right? Both female and males should have a say in an abortion. It may be a womens right, but that does not exclude a man from voicing his own creed on the subject.

By the way, what is your religion?As I've told Lly, Angieism. :p

I'm not offended by his religion. I think I already said that. I haven't taken offense to anything except his assertion that "if it is unborn, then it is not a child." That's all. But we're not here to debate abortion. I disagree with Lly, but that doesn't mean I'm offended by him.You shouldn't be offended by that though.

SangReal

07-20-2004, 04:35 PM

Point of order: Should we continue this here, or shall we move to a more appropriate thread (http://www.evboard.com/showthread.php?t=1783)?

Good point. *giggles* I almost forgot I wasn't in the gay marriage thread. Oops. Sorry, y'all. I don't think this thread is really about its topic anymore, but that's just me.

Both female and males should have a say in an abortion. It may be a womens right, but that does not exclude a man from voicing his own creed on the subject.
Um sure he can voice his opinion, but she also has the "right" to have an abortion without his permission.

Why does it go to far for you? Infact, what does it have to do with you? Quick! Try and come up with something without a religious formality wrapped around it.
My objection to homosexual marriage is not really religious at all, even though marriage was originally instituted by religious people. Therefore, my objection to it cannot be construed as forcing my religion on someone. Marriage was meant as a union between two people who can naturally produce offspring. Homosexual marriage has never been a right granted even in societies that embraced homosexuality (Greece, for instance). The idea of homosexual marriage would have been absurd to our forebears, because they defined marriage this way. Homosexual union is one thing, marriage quite another.

Another thing. The government restricts who we can marry in many ways. Most states won't allow marriage between close relatives, between children and adults, or between more than two people. It is necessary to define marriage, so let's define it. Give me one reason why gay marriage should be allowed and marriage between close relatives shouldn't that doesn't have to do with reproduction, which I've already said defines marriage for me.

*licks Angie*

Fallen Angelia

07-20-2004, 05:07 PM

It is necessary to define marriage, so let's define it. Give me one reason why gay marriage should be allowed and marriage between close relatives shouldn't that doesn't have to do with reproduction, which I've already said defines marriage for me.

*licks Angie*
That is not a fair question to ask me, since you took away something that was imperative to my reply.

Anyways, other then what we know of incest and screwing with recessive genes, there really isn't a reason to stop such a thing. Well, other then the fact that it grosses me out. But that is just a person opinion, and has no value on the question asked anyways. ;)

*likes licks* ^_~

DhammaSeeker

07-20-2004, 05:17 PM

Um sure he can voice his opinion, but she also has the "right" to have an abortion without his permission. Only until the U.S. Supreme Court changes balance, which I suspect it will, and makes new precedent.

*want's licks too:(*

SangReal

07-20-2004, 05:21 PM

That is not a fair question to ask me, since you took away something that was imperative to my reply.

Anyways, other then what we know of incest and screwing with recessive genes, there really isn't a reason to stop such a thing.
Right. But what if the couple gets sterilized? What if they know the risks and agree to never have children?

Fallen Angelia

07-20-2004, 05:23 PM

Right. But what if the couple gets sterilized? What if they know the risks and agree to never have children?

Then why not? :)

Seriously, who am I to stop two consenting adult getting married to eachother?

SangReal

07-20-2004, 05:33 PM

Then why not? :)

Seriously, who am I to stop two consenting adult getting married to eachother?

That's right. Why not? And why not three consenting adults, or adult-with-consenting-child marriages, and heck? Who even says we can't marry animals? Who can tell me who to love? (Disclaimer: this is a hypothetical. I'm not in love with one of my furry friends.) And why, oh, why, can't I marry myself? Then I'd be married filing jointly and get a higher income protection allowance. I am against gay marriage not because of its spirit, but because it will all snowball afterwards. That and, it's legal in Canada and the Canadian government has forbidden the church to preach against homosexuality within its own walls under the anti-hate act they just passed. It's a direct infringement on the practice of religion and should be stopped. Not that I'm against homosexuality, but if a church decides to preach against blue-eyed people, it's perfectly entitled to do so as long as it doesn't act against them. Talk should be protected. We should be able to say whatever the hell we want to say. That infringes on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Grr.

cruithne

07-20-2004, 07:54 PM

To go way back to the original purpose of this thread, when people say "the rich are getting richer, etc" they refer to the tax cuts that Bush pushed for earlier. That really doesn't relate directly to the wealth of the candidates themselves, does it? What matters is how the tax cut affects the general population. And the truth is that, sorry tMR, but the rich DO get a bigger break and the poor are facing a bigger problem. I don't really understand what that has to do with the personal wealth of the candidates in question.

Has a poor person ever offered you a job? When rich people pay lower taxes, they have more money to invest and create jobs.

That's right. Why not? And why not three consenting adults, or adult-with-consenting-child marriages, and heck? Who even says we can't marry animals?

Animals can't enter into contracts, since we can't determine whether or not they consent to the arrangement.

[color=deepskyblue]Who can tell me who to love? (Disclaimer: this is a hypothetical. I'm not in love with one of my furry friends.) And why, oh, why, can't I marry myself? Then I'd be married filing jointly and get a higher income protection allowance.

That gives me an idea... ;) Besides tax reasons, marriage to oneself would have no meaning.

[color=deepskyblue]I am against gay marriage not because of its spirit, but because it will all snowball afterwards. That and, it's legal in Canada and the Canadian government has forbidden the church to preach against homosexuality within its own walls under the anti-hate act they just passed. It's a direct infringement on the practice of religion and should be stopped. Not that I'm against homosexuality, b