<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Nov 5 2004, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Nov 5 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-wizard@psu+Nov 5 2004, 01:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (wizard@psu @ Nov 5 2004, 01:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Back to the **** marriage issue: I don't feel that marriage should be a government institution at all. It is a religious and/or personal choice and decision and attempting to regulate it only brings about problems.
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I agree with this. My question is why 11 states voted to legally define "marriage" as a bond between one man and one woman. Why should the government legislate that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> For the very same reason "Marriage" is not defined as being between a man and three women, or a man and a woman and a dog. It is viewed as an incorrect definition of marriage, and it was legislated against.
First and foremost was Kerry's Service in Vietnam. I know this is a very touchy subject, but if all you Kerry supporters can tout Freedom of Thought, then I should be able to have my own opinion on this.
And my opinion is that Kerry is spineless. In the course of -what was it- four months of combat service on the Mei Kong River, Kerry earned One Silver Star, one Bronze Star, and Three Purple Hearts, getting him out of country after only about a 1/3 of his service requirement was up. Now, the action in the Mei Kong was very hairy, to be sure, but performing above and beyond in order to get ANY of those medals usually entails a recovery period of at least 2 months to get over the wounds you recieved. What this means is, Kerry was never hit directy with a round, he was never stabbed with a bayonnet, he was never peppered head-to-toe with shrapnel from an explosion. He was scratched. He got flesh wounds. And he used those flesh wounds to get out of country, head home, and proceed to BASH his fellow comrades who sustained much more grevious harm. And not just publicly denounce the war because the US was not under attack by North Vietnam, Kerry called his fellow soldiers baby-killers, rapers, murders, destoriers of the land, and basically the workers of Satan. Now, there's alot of stigma about Vietnam. I suspect it wasn't as bad as it's been made out to be, and the reason we all think it is is because of people like Kerry. He contributed to a very dark time of our nation's history. But that's not even all!
Year's later... he uses his "brave" military service as a reason to become president of the united states! This, I simply cannot abide.
Some of my friend's ask me why I would vote for a President who is not tolerant, and who wants everyone to think like him. They tell me I'm immature because I fail to see other's view-points. They say they no longer fear being labeled "Flip-Floppers," and that this has liberated them.
To them I'd say, so, if Kerry wants people to be tolerant, isn't that wanting them to think like he does, as well? And, if you cannot vote for a candidate who share's your own views, then what's the point of an election. To them I also say:
I'm against **** marriage. Not the act of two homosexuals getting legal bonded, living happily together, and being productive members of society. But marriage, which is bestowed by the Church, NOT the state. It has been that way since the beginning, and must continue to be a union between a Man and a Woman, which realistically is the natural order of things. This is nothing dense, conservative, or simply spiteful, this is fact. A homosexual population cannot survive, thus it cannot be the natural order. There is nothing offensive in that statement, and damn us all for being so politically correct that we still yet find such biting hatred within it.
Some of you may say that to be open minded as a leader is a good thing, and it is. But -not- to the extent that Kerry is. To radically change your views on major issues, like war for example, leads only to flounding under pressure and eventually loss. You HAVE to be headstrong in a time like this. You have to have a goal, and stop at nearly nothing to reach it. In the game of war, you must stand to loose everything, or risk loosing even more. It's not pretty, but who said death is supposed to be?
Ask Robert E. Lee if the Civil War was worth it, and he would probably say "No." But still yet he fought with pride and ferocity that would make even our greatest Generals of today weep with remorse for what they had done, and in the end it destroied him, but it was still necessary.
Now I'm just rambling. Anyway, that's just a few reasons why I voted for Bush. I can go on and on, but I'll leave you in peace.
I think the OP is really asking "do Republicans exist who share some of my views."
I think the answer to that is yes. People like Pepe and Rob6264 are possibly a majority of the people that voted for Dubya, I dunno. I do know that some reasonable and educated people voted for Bush because they thought he'd do a better job.
<a href='http://www.lileks.com' target='_blank'>James Lileks</a> is one.
My father is another. He thinks that Bush's approach to economics gives the poor a better shot at economic success than Kerry's approach. You can argue that, but he thinks it is better, which is why he voted that way. He thinks the war in Iraq was something that had to be done, and doing it now, before the sanctions were lifted and Saddam's military could recover, was the best way to save both Iraqi lives and the lives of foreign soldiers. He thinks that Kerry would probably have worried more about what was good for Kerry than what was good for America. He has stated to me that he would support removing the word "marriage" from law and making everyone's unions - **** and straight - civil unions in the eyes of the state.
Can my pops argue conclusively that he was right about all of these things?
Of course not. But he sincerely believes that Bush will be the better president than Kerry would have been.
He is a kind and decent man that voted for Bush. So if that's all you want to hear, then there it is.
edit: ps, for christ's sakes, take **** out of the swear filter. Argh.
I voted for Bush because he's my only hopeful for getting rid of or reforming social security. I wanted to see tort reform. Now, onto to why I would vote republican. Essentially I want less programs, less taxes (national sales tax please) and want to get rid of the welfare state. I would have voted Badnarik if the Libertarian party wasn't so extreme. (Privatization of nearly everything, no government regulations only "liability" and essentially anarcho-capitalist).
I want the government out of non-constitutional social issues and I want the government out of my pocket book as much as possible. I think that the government does a tremendous job of making things worse by putting its hands into things. Unforunately, theres no good "republitarian" candidates, but I know that at least a republican will help with getting the government out of my pocketbook.
I won't sit here and tell you Bush is the best America can do for a president, but I don't think Kerry would have been better.
I don't think an administration change would have been a good thing for the country at this time, Kerry didn't offer any amazing alternative to Iraq or to how he would defend the country that was worth putting him in office, IMO.
Next I completely agree with the neo-con theory that spreading democracy throughout the Middle East is the only way to bring long term peace to the area, obviously Bush was the candidate of choice for this. I don't agree with how the war in Iraq was conducted in many ways, I won't go into detail now, but overall I support the war.
I also liked Bush's tax cuts and the way he handled the economy after 9/11, we were on the road to depression and he saved us from it, that alone IMO, is worth re-election.
I'm not a very religious person, and Bush's mixing of church and state does annoy/worry me, but his other aspects compared to Kerry over ride that for me.
Also Kerry flip-flops I mean omg WTH!? "I voted for it before I voted to not vote to vote for it, then I voted to vote to not vote to vote to…reporting for duty!" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-reasa+Nov 6 2004, 01:28 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (reasa @ Nov 6 2004, 01:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Also Kerry flip-flops I mean omg WTH!? "I voted for it before I voted to not vote to vote for it, then I voted to vote to not vote to vote to…reporting for duty!" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> How is somebody who "flip flops" constantly always referred to as the "most liberal senator"? If he was always flip-flopping he'd be a moderate.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
It seems to be the consensus among people that voted for Bush that tax cuts are a positive thing even if it results in enormous deficit spending. Is that accurate?
It's not quite that simple, though. Bush is an advocate of the "trickle down" model of economy, meaning you give tax cuts to companies, which in turn have more money to hire employees, expand, and so the goodness flows, or "trickles" down to the working class.
That's why he gives tax cuts to large companies. You see, his economic beliefs mean that by giving those cuts, he is stimulating those companies, and actually helping to strengthing our economy. Large taxes on the people help to bring down the national debt, however, they are not good for the economy and should only be used during a very strong economy like that of the 90's, which, by the way, was a very fake strong economy, but that's a topic for another time.
Also, it's usually the case that wars are good for economies, but we'll let the jury remain out on that one for now.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-rob6264+Nov 5 2004, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rob6264 @ Nov 5 2004, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's not quite that simple, though. Bush is an advocate of the "trickle down" model of economy, meaning you give tax cuts to companies, which in turn have more money to hire employees, expand, and so the goodness flows, or "trickles" down to the working class.
That's why he gives tax cuts to large companies. You see, his economic beliefs mean that by giving those cuts, he is stimulating those companies, and actually helping to strengthing our economy. Large taxes on the people help to bring down the national debt, however, they are not good for the economy and should only be used during a very strong economy like that of the 90's, which, by the way, was a very fake strong economy, but that's a topic for another time.
Also, it's usually the case that wars are good for economies, but we'll let the jury remain out on that one for now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Reagan's economic advisor himself, David Stockman, dismissed "trickle-down economics" as mere rhetoric, and "a trojan horse" for lowering taxes for the wealthy. The theory has a few proponents, but it isn't held in very high regard generally. Firms are predicted to operate at their profit maximizing levels, regardless of the amount of cash they have on hand. This implies that they are unlikely to hire new labor if their current force is sufficient to reach the profit maximizing quantity of product. In order to have an effect, the tax cut would have to increase the marginal product of each additional worker above the wage rate. Furthermore, tax cuts are typically insufficient to spark investment in new capital, particularly since those companies that could realize a profit by doing so will typically borrow, or seek more private investment.
According to models of fiscal policy, an increase in taxes combined with a corresponding increase in government spending has a positive influence on aggregate demand, and thus on the level of production. It may however negatively effect allocative efficiency.
Wars are as effective at improving the economy as hiring people to dig holes and fill them back in is at increasing employment. Of all the ways to spend money, war is probably the least efficient. Suppose we spend a million dollars on a missile. That missile goes and blows something up. Now lets just assume for the time being that the intending target is something that we really did want to blow up. What have we gained? We're out a million dollars. Some people are dead. Maybe someone somewhere is a little bit safer. (This isn't even counting the cost of physically getting the artillary in place to fire the missile, the cost of the artillary itself, the cost of feeding housing and paying the people to run the artillary, the cost of the lost productivity of the crew since the technicians could be doing other more productive things.) Compare that to what a million dollars could do in fixing up inner city infrastructure, or laying fiber optic cable to rural areas, or fixing the leaky roofs in the school system I grew up in, or any number of domestic projects. Unless there is an unbelievably compelling need, war is a complete waste of money.
<!--QuoteBegin-rob6264+Nov 5 2004, 09:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rob6264 @ Nov 5 2004, 09:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's not quite that simple, though. Bush is an advocate of the "trickle down" model of economy, meaning you give tax cuts to companies, which in turn have more money to hire employees, expand, and so the goodness flows, or "trickles" down to the working class.
That's why he gives tax cuts to large companies. You see, his economic beliefs mean that by giving those cuts, he is stimulating those companies, and actually helping to strengthing our economy. Large taxes on the people help to bring down the national debt, however, they are not good for the economy and should only be used during a very strong economy like that of the 90's, which, by the way, was a very fake strong economy, but that's a topic for another time.
Also, it's usually the case that wars are good for economies, but we'll let the jury remain out on that one for now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Voodoo Economics good Sir.
How can companies expand/hire more employees if there is no increase in demand for their products/services the company provides ? Why would you hire someone if you know that there aren't enough consumers to support the wages of this new employee? It makes no sense what-so-ever.
By giving a direct tax-cut to the middle class however, you give more power to the "demand" side instead of the "supply side". The money then naturally bubbles its way up from the consumer to the business owner(s).
Nor the reagan tax cuts or the bush tax cuts are "for the weathy"
Second of all the less government interferance the more companies will grow. That's how capitalism works, <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=84825&view=findpost&p=1319095' target='_blank'>click here please.</a>
THrow all the Liberal facts you want at Republicans. We won't change our minds because he believe in the right to vote for whatever reasons we want, believe, etc.
When you think about how much negativity President Bush endored from 2000-2004, a victory like this is a landslide.
Just heard on the radio today that the number of visitors to the immigrate to Canada website has gone up by 7 times normal since the election ended.
Smooth move Democrats, leave the USA and give your party even less support <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Even though I'm Republican, I respect Democrats, there are some great ones out there. I don't respect the Liberals that hijacked the Democratic party.
By the way, about taxes....
Of course the Wealthy will benefit more. It's a Percentage that the taxes were cut. But that doesn't mean YOU didn't benefit either. Everyone benefitted, with the wealthier getting the same % back as you did.
And did anyone else notice that the Stock Market is roaring upwards after the election?
In my opinion, any form of abortion is wrong. but in my Political Science class and from life, I've learned you can't get elected if your party runs solely on pro-life. Kerry was totaly against any form of restricting abortion, but at least Bush banned partial birth abortions, which is when the baby is aborted right before you bear the child, whether it has birth defects or not. And do remember that exceptions are always being made to the unlucky who need an abortion.
And back to Kerry and being a Catholic, the Church disallowed him to partake in the Eucharist celebration because he was for abortion, but he took the Eucharist anyway. It's one thing to be disallowed, but it's another to defy the Church after a rule has been placed upon you, like Kerry did. Kerry was a bad Catholic during this campaign(And since Bush is Methodists, I can't comment on him, but I know he follows his religion).
God, Guns, and ***. Kerry failed on all three to please the majority of the US.
EpidemicDark Force GorgeJoin Date: 2003-06-29Member: 17781Members
He wasnt a bad christian though. Did you know the catholic church once were a political power factor and sold forgiving of sin? They were right then? I'd say no and include they might as well be right what they are doing now by denying Kerry Eucharist. It stands nowhere in the bible (not too sure though, have only read a simplified bible) the pope is right on everything and should be followed blindly. And Kerry wasnt Pro-Abortion in person, atleast that what he said himself. Also, can you document your liberal boo-men, I'm tired having this term trow as random. Anyway, this thread has been really helpful in understanding <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How can companies expand/hire more employees if there is no increase in demand for their products/services the company provides ? Why would you hire someone if you know that there aren't enough consumers to support the wages of this new employee? It makes no sense what-so-ever.
By giving a direct tax-cut to the middle class however, you give more power to the "demand" side instead of the "supply side". The money then naturally bubbles its way up from the consumer to the business owner(s). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->'
OOO, demand side economics = no no. from 1950 to 1980, demand side economics was based of Keynesian economics. Your basic premise is that demand creates supply. No demand does not always create supply; demand is always there. The job of producers to make aware that their product satisfies that demand and drives down prices according to the law of “supply and demand”. During the 70's, many governments tried this by increased government programs with a oppressive progressive tax. What actually occurred was galloping inflation with an increases in unemployment, also known as stagflation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-**** marriage: I, as well as many others believe that institution should be defined as being between a man and woman; I hold it sacred. I see traditional marriage as a stabilizer of society and the best way to raise kids; it should be encouraged and clearly defined. We have tried polygamy and various other forms of domestic partnership; I believe traditional marriage is best out of all the alternatives. I’m open for the states to decide civil unions and allowing 2 people to share accounts, receive benefits etc. It is important to note that the law would not take sexual preference into account. I would not mind for example sisters living together to both receive the same amount rights married couples have.
I've gathered from what you've written on the boards (and your name) that you deeply believe that individuals free to make their own decisions will produce a stable economy. It seems though that you feel government regulation is necessary in order for people to form stable relationships. What do you believe is the significant factor that makes this so? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair question. I am not a anarchist nor do I believe that regulation in a economy = bad. Certain regulation is essential, especially when it comes to environment since market forces fail in its preservation.
I believe that marriage should be defined as a man and woman and should be encouraged. I’ve held that a relationship like that is the best for society and therefore requires a clear definition. You may find that reason stupid, but it’s a little hard to explain further on how i came to this conclusion. It has to do with the way I’ve been raised, life experiences and observations ive made throughout my life (i.e. looking at various models throughout the world and in the past/present. From France, the middle east to the Philippines).
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-milton friedman+Nov 6 2004, 08:50 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (milton friedman @ Nov 6 2004, 08:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> During the 70's, many governments tried this by increased government programs with a oppressive progressive tax. What actually occurred was galloping inflation with an increases in unemployment, also known as stagflation. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Riiight, because the oil embargo and Nixon's prices controls had nothing to do with that, nothing at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe that marriage should be defined as a man and woman and should be encouraged. I’ve held that a relationship like that is the best for society and therefore requires a clear definition. You may find that reason stupid, but it’s a little hard to explain further on how i came to this conclusion. It has to do with the way I’ve been raised, life experiences and observations ive made throughout my life (i.e. looking at various models throughout the world and in the past/present. From France, the middle east to the Philippines). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's fine for you to decide for yourself, but an instinct that you can't explain generally isn't sufficient reason to warrant restricting the freedoms of other people.
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Nov 5 2004, 02:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Nov 5 2004, 02:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Don't pretend like you know what it is like to be a women pregnant with an unwanted child none of us here do (hopefully). All pro-lifers take such a big stance on what they deem murder, yet aside from abortion they have no qualms with the death penalty, people dying in Africa, crime in the inner cities, etc., if any of you actually beleived what you preached you'd all be in the Peace Corps fighting in Iraq and South Africa, lobbying to have prisions shut down, and giving all your money to inner city programs to stop violence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> --dr. d again <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Couldnt let this little exercise in absurdity slip past.
I cant understand how anyone would equate wishing for the death penalty for a murderer (something I dont agree with anyway, but hey) as somehow conflicting with a belief that abortion is the killing of the innocent unborn, and as such is wrong. He then goes on to make the outlandish claim that they also dont care about people dying in Africa - come again? You are talking to the Christians here right - we've practically defined charity for hundreds of years, dont tell us we dont give a damn about Africans. And then the old fraud that if you honestly believed what you were saying, you'd be actually doing it yourself. If this is true, then Dr.D obviously hates hospitals that perform blood transfusions, hates researchers on diseases, doesnt care about inner city crime and doesnt support welfare because he is typing on his computer rather than giving blood, researching AID's treatments while moonlighting as a policeofficer and giving all his money to the poor.
I don't understand how people think Bush is a moral and good ole' boy to the eyes of the South.
He was a coke head and a drunk. He got busted for DUI IN THE 70'S!!! YOU KNOW HOW DRUCK YOU HAD TO BE BACK THEN TO GET ARRESTED FOR THAT? He did coke at CAMP DAVID, FFS. THEN HE SAYS HES A GOOD CHRISTIAN NOW AND EVERYONE EXCEPTS THAT?
HE WAS ALSO BORN IN CT WITH A SILVER SPOON IN HIS MOUTH, AND IN THE POCKETS OF THE SAUDIS. Those goddam people bailed him out TWICE. You know who he is fighting for, them, not us. He would never raise his hand against those hypocrits.
I don't know why people think Kerry was for g@y marriage. He said he isn't. He said it multiple times. I don't understand how people think he is for abortion, he said even if he was, you can't just stop it. He has the ideas of Clinton (live and let live) and ignore stupid crap like g@y marriage and abortion.
If the press and President would have brought up some dirt on Kerry, they would, but they couldn't. I always thought ANYONE could be more moral than Bush. I know if I went to war and have 1.25K soldiers dead from a failing forgien policy, I would feel like sh!t and sub-human, but he don't care. He don't care if we loose our democracy for now having a one party nation.
All I got to say is, this nation has hit the gotter because those toothless wonders in the South scres us. (I live in FL, but all my family is from NY)
<!--QuoteBegin-N1Rampage+Nov 7 2004, 11:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (N1Rampage @ Nov 7 2004, 11:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> He was a coke head and a drunk. He got busted for DUI IN THE 70'S!!! YOU KNOW HOW DRUCK YOU HAD TO BE BACK THEN TO GET ARRESTED FOR THAT? He did coke at CAMP DAVID, FFS. THEN HE SAYS HES A GOOD CHRISTIAN NOW AND EVERYONE EXCEPTS THAT?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can't prove he did coke, and if you can find me a kid who went through college in the 70's without touching drugs or alcohol...well you can't so don't bother. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> Also lets not steal jokes from Comedy Central....your not the only one who watches it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HE WAS ALSO BORN IN CT WITH A SILVER SPOON IN HIS MOUTH, AND IN THE POCKETS OF THE SAUDIS. Those goddam people bailed him out TWICE. You know who he is fighting for, them, not us. He would never raise his hand against those hypocrites.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you please explain how he was born "in their pockets" as you put it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know why people think Kerry was for g@y marriage. He said he isn't. He said it multiple times. I don't understand how people think he is for abortion, he said even if he was, you can't just stop it. He has the ideas of Clinton (live and let live) and ignore stupid crap like g@y marriage and abortion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He wasn't for it...or so he said, you never know with him, but I can easily see how people could get the impression that he was, or at the least not as tough on it as Bush. I however don't agree with Bush on that so I won't argue for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the press and President would have brought up some dirt on Kerry, they would, but they couldn't. I always thought ANYONE could be more moral than Bush. I know if I went to war and have 1.25K soldiers dead from a failing forgien policy, I would feel like sh!t and sub-human, but he don't care. He don't care if we loose our democracy for now having a one party nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They brought up plenty of "dirt" on Kerry, where have you been for the past 6 months? Also as we have been through here a thousand times..."given the intelligence at the time going into Iraq was the right thing to do" and there is no doubt in my mind had Kerry been president at that time with the same intelligence he would of gone into Iraq as well. I also agree that the only way to bring long term peace to the Middle East is to spread democracy, no matter how hard it is. So yes, I think he can accept those deaths as necessary, I know he feels bad about it, but what war time president wouldn't? Look how many soldiers FDR had under his belt, I don't think that?s a good way to judge someone. The last bit of your statement is ridiculous! A one party nation? The Republicans were chosen by the people, they represent the majority in this country as of now and in accordance with that have the most power, did you forget how this country works? It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I got to say is, this nation has hit the gotter because those toothless wonders in the South scres us. (I live in FL, but all my family is from NY)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep blaming it on the South...keep blaming it solely on the religious...keep setting yourselves up for defeat next election.
<!--QuoteBegin-N1Rampage+Nov 8 2004, 04:43 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (N1Rampage @ Nov 8 2004, 04:43 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't understand how people think Bush is a moral and good ole' boy to the eyes of the South.
He was a coke head and a drunk. He got busted for DUI IN THE 70'S!!! YOU KNOW HOW DRUCK YOU HAD TO BE BACK THEN TO GET ARRESTED FOR THAT? He did coke at CAMP DAVID, FFS. THEN HE SAYS HES A GOOD CHRISTIAN NOW AND EVERYONE EXCEPTS THAT? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bush did not become a Christian until he was 40. That's PRE political career. There is a reason they are called "born again" evangelicals - because once you become a Christian, its like starting a new life. That's why there is precious little judgement directed at Bush's past, because a fellow Christian's past shouldnt matter. It's what he does here and now that is important.
Christian's are accused of being selectively judgemental because of this - but I dont think they are. They are very resolute in what they believe to be right and wrong, and your previous sin only becomes a non-issue once you try to stop sinning and ask for forgiveness.
So, just to make sure I understand this, if Hitler had become a born again Christian after he did everything that he did, he should be looked at exactly the same as you or I?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Frikk+Nov 7 2004, 05:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Frikk @ Nov 7 2004, 05:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, just to make sure I understand this, if Hitler had become a born again Christian after he did everything that he did, he should be looked at exactly the same as you or I? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Who cares? All this talk just distracts people from the real problems. People can feel good saying "he's reformed/ we're forgiving him." As Benjamin Franklin once said (paraphrased) the most effective way to win an argument is to make your opponent say what they don't want to say.
Focus on the things that matter, i.e. his ability to lead, his fiscal policy, his foreign policy, his opposition to freedom of information act requests, and his lack of transparency in general.
Bush's religion will matter less than the hair on my **** if he manages to bankrupt the country, or gets us involved in another war. His college indiscretions already matter less than the hair on my ****.
<!--QuoteBegin-Frikk+Nov 8 2004, 10:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Frikk @ Nov 8 2004, 10:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, just to make sure I understand this, if Hitler had become a born again Christian after he did everything that he did, he should be looked at exactly the same as you or I? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as the Christian's are concerned - absolutely. That does not mean he should escape justice however, so just because he became a Christian does not mean we'd form a posse and bust out of the gulag. But it would make it a sin for Christian's to hate him - God forgives everyone on a non sliding scale, ask and you'll get it. Given that it only takes the smallest sin to land you in the hot seat, why should God forgive me and not him? Where do I draw the line between "major" sins and "minor" sins. God follows his justice down to the last white lie.
Well I voted for Kerry but I can add something to this discussion. I spent the past week on one of our United States Navy's air craft carriers. I won't say which, where, or why I was on there except that it was job related.
Anyways, all (99%) of these guys and gals were voting/cheering for Bush. Now it was my impression after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 and reading the Michael Moore letters of soldiers from Iraq that these guys would be against giving Bush 4 more years. It was quite the contrary. They were very much for the president. One Senior told me pointedly that if Kerry got into office that the military would be "in a world of hurt".
When I asked some of the crewmen to clarify this, they said they were worried that what would happen is what happened the last time a Democrat took the office; Clinton. Apparently, Clinton gave all the officers close to retirement some kind of deal to save some money. He offered them $25,000 straight out, and half their pension if they would retire. A lot of officers took the deal and I'm not clear whether or not they actually had a choice in the matter. But the result was that this effectively gutted the military of a lot of its experienced leaders and talent. The military since is still feeling the hit of that deal. Don't get me wrong, they still kick lots of **** but they're also trying to rebuild to their former glory.
When the announcement was made that Bush was once again elected president, you could tell that the mood on the carrier was a lot more jovial and alive. The military apparently is firmly behind the president because in the big picture he knows the bottom line; a secure financial future after you have served your country. I can't disagree with that.
All articles about W and Mr. Coke. Those are just the first 3 I found, out of 3000 websites.
Beyond that, trying to compare FDR (one of the best world leaders, ever) to GWB should be the laughing stock of the world. It's like comparing a nun to a wh0re. I tried to find some dirt on Kerry, only to find the same old flip-flop stuff and "how he hates Vietnam Vets". They found out of about 50 of the swift boat guys, only 2 served with Kerry. And before the ads, the one of two was for Kerry, then shifted, probably being fed out of Bush's pockets.
You also asked about Bush and the Saudis, Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy. Since then, the Bin Ladens got involved in investments as the Saudi's, AGAIN, pumped investments in, $1.4 billion over a number of years. So if some one gave you 1.4 Billion bucks, would you do anything for them? Of course, especially some one as weak and corruptable as good ole' southern-man W. Great man, isn't he?
EDIT: About EVERYONE doing drugs in the 70's and such, my parents didn't, neither did some of their friends. My mother went to NYU and my father to a community college. My parents and their friends didn't touch the crap was they knew what happened to people who did. One guy who was into LSD robbed a gas station with a shotgun and a stick of TNT, he got 30 years in Attica, over about IIRC, $30.00. Oh yeah, drugs are great. But they did drink, not to the point of alcholics, but they did. Everyone has liquor.
All articles about W and Mr. Coke. Those are just the first 3 I found, out of 3000 websites.
Beyond that, trying to compare FDR (one of the best world leaders, ever) to GWB should be the laughing stock of the world. It's like comparing a nun to a wh0re. I tried to find some dirt on Kerry, only to find the same old flip-flop stuff and "how he hates Vietnam Vets". They found out of about 50 of the swift boat guys, only 2 served with Kerry. And before the ads, the one of two was for Kerry, then shifted, probably being fed out of Bush's pockets.
You also asked about Bush and the Saudis, Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy. Since then, the Bin Ladens got involved in investments as the Saudi's, AGAIN, pumped investments in, $1.4 billion over a number of years. So if some one gave you 1.4 Billion bucks, would you do anything for them? Of course, especially some one as weak and corruptable as good ole' southern-man W. Great man, isn't he?
EDIT: About EVERYONE doing drugs in the 70's and such, my parents didn't, neither did some of their friends. My mother went to NYU and my father to a community college. My parents and their friends didn't touch the crap was they knew what happened to people who did. One guy who was into LSD robbed a gas station with a shotgun and a stick of TNT, he got 30 years in Attica, over about IIRC, $30.00. Oh yeah, drugs are great. But they did drink, not to the point of alcholics, but they did. Everyone has liquor. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Try not swallowing liberal propaganda so quickly next time. You could get stomach problems and spew more crap on these forums. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
On a more serious note, it appears to me that only one real confirmed left leaning person on here is actually reading this thread. Many props to our man "Relsan." Thank you for reading and comprehending, taking the time to understand.
All everyone else is doing is trying to present "The Facts," that, in my opinion, and most Republican's opinions, are nothing more than crap.
Can you not see it? Are you simply that high up in the clouds that you don't comprehend that we are humans with opinions that are just as right as yours? My opinions of Bush are based in my perspective of facts, what sources are reliable, as well as my own personal opinion on how the U.S.A. should be run.
I believe that Bush is an honorable man, a man of integrity, and a man who aligns himself close to me on many fiscal issues. I don't care how many articles you post, how many "facts" you present, or how many times you can attack Bush in one paragraph.
Toothless rednecks didn't elect Bush; honorable, hard-working, tolerant, intelligent middle class Americans voted Bush into office by a considerable margin. Sorry, the hillbillies didn't come down from the hills this election so they could ruin your future.
In my voting opinion, I trust Bush with another 4 years in office. I don't love him to pieces, but I do like where he's taking this country. Your biased opinion and "facts" won't change a bit of that opinion.
Face it N1, you're powerless. Stop arguing and figure out what your party did wrong and what Bush did right.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Nov 7 2004, 11:23 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Nov 7 2004, 11:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Frikk+Nov 8 2004, 10:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Frikk @ Nov 8 2004, 10:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, just to make sure I understand this, if Hitler had become a born again Christian after he did everything that he did, he should be looked at exactly the same as you or I? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As far as the Christian's are concerned - absolutely. That does not mean he should escape justice however, so just because he became a Christian does not mean we'd form a posse and bust out of the gulag. But it would make it a sin for Christian's to hate him - God forgives everyone on a non sliding scale, ask and you'll get it. Given that it only takes the smallest sin to land you in the hot seat, why should God forgive me and not him? Where do I draw the line between "major" sins and "minor" sins. God follows his justice down to the last white lie. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Despite the fact that that's the answer I was expecting, I'm still shocked and horrified everytime I hear it.
[edit: As a sidenote, I'm going to back out of this thread since I can't seem to help myself from trying to derail it.]
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All articles about W and Mr. Coke. Those are just the first 3 I found, out of 3000 websites.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I asked for proof, not speculation and liberal propaganda, nice try though. Although if your going to whine about what Bush has done in his past, your not allowed to criticize anyone for using Kerry's past against him...since it matters so much to you. Do you want to be judged 40 years from now by how you lived as a young adult?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You also asked about Bush and the Saudis, Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy. Since then, the Bin Ladens got involved in investments as the Saudi's, AGAIN, pumped investments in, $1.4 billion over a number of years. So if some one gave you 1.4 Billion bucks, would you do anything for them? Of course, especially some one as weak and corruptable as good ole' southern-man W. Great man, isn't he?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is corrupt about being bailed out? It's not the best thing for your ego, but there is nothing illegal about that transaction. As for the Bin Ladens, people on the left LOVE to toss this name around as if the whole family, which is very large, are all evil terrorists who love their son Osama. They have publicly denounced Osama and kicked him out of not only his country of birth but the family its self. There’s a difference between Osama and the Bin Laden family, remember that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->About EVERYONE doing drugs in the 70's and such, my parents didn't, neither did some of their friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as you know... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited November 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Nov 7 2004, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Nov 7 2004, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you not see it? Are you simply that high up in the clouds that you don't comprehend that we are humans with opinions that are just as right as yours? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Opinions don't acquire an inherent dignity because they are claimed by someone. Some are correct, some are incorrect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe that Bush is an honorable man, a man of integrity, and a man who aligns himself close to me on many fiscal issues. I don't care how many articles you post, how many "facts" you present, or how many times you can attack Bush in one paragraph. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is downright scary, pariticularly since I take you for a pretty intelligent person. Not that you support Bush, but that your support is based on belief and is not open to revision based on facts. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of inexactness in the unknowable, (god, etc.) but to form your opinion of a man based on belief over fact, belief over well-reasoned and supported argument, belief over reality, is rediculous. I'm going to assume you don't mean these words to their full effect. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Toothless rednecks didn't elect Bush; honorable, hard-working, tolerant, intelligent middle class Americans voted Bush into office by a considerable margin. Sorry, the hillbillies didn't come down from the hills this election so they could ruin your future. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The picture you are painting of republican American voters is just as full of propaganda as the one you are trying to refute. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Face it N1, you're powerless. Stop arguing and figure out what your party did wrong and what Bush did right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We aren't powerless so long as we are still breathing. I lost this election. I believe America also lost this election. I'm not in the business of pandering to anyone, and I'm not going to change my opinion simply because a lot of people disagree with me.
Calling things "Facts" does not help your argument. It is patronising, and allows you to avoid actually addressing them, because you do not have to commit to putting the statements in some other category.
<!--QuoteBegin-moultano+Nov 8 2004, 12:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Nov 8 2004, 12:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Nov 7 2004, 10:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Nov 7 2004, 10:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you not see it? Are you simply that high up in the clouds that you don't comprehend that we are humans with opinions that are just as right as yours? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Opinions don't acquire an inherent dignity because they are claimed by someone. Some are correct, some are incorrect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is NO incorrect opinion. Simply because opinions don't work that way.
Just as there is no incorrect one, there is no correct one. There's simply no concept of right and wrong tied to opinion. And you don't even have to base them on "facts" of any sort! You can make them up all by yourself!
But saying that we republicans can't form an opinion about our own damned candidate without doing it using only the so called "facts" that the liberals provide us is downright Un-American. That's what's wrong here.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-rob6264+Nov 7 2004, 11:43 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (rob6264 @ Nov 7 2004, 11:43 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Just as there is no incorrect one, there is no correct one. There's simply no concept of right and wrong tied to opinion. And you don't even have to base them on "facts" of any sort! You can make them up all by yourself! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is getting into the area of the moral relativism thread, but I think we can agree on a distinction. It is difficult to say for certainty what goals we should be pursuing. One could make the case that this is outside the realm of facts. However, once some set of goals is chosen, the direction one should take to achieve them is a matter to be decided by facts, and in this venue, some opinions will be wrong and some will be right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But saying that we republicans can't form an opinion about our own damned candidate without doing it using only the so called "facts" that the liberals provide us is downright Un-American. That's what's wrong here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You should be forming your opinion based on everything you have available to you, weighting everything accordingly.
Comments
For economic purposes there should exist civil unions or even household unions (for multiple individuals who live/work together) simply for the purposes of simplified redtape (deaths, power of attorney, etc) and taxation. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree with this. My question is why 11 states voted to legally define "marriage" as a bond between one man and one woman. Why should the government legislate that? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the very same reason "Marriage" is not defined as being between a man and three women, or a man and a woman and a dog. It is viewed as an incorrect definition of marriage, and it was legislated against.
First and foremost was Kerry's Service in Vietnam. I know this is a very touchy subject, but if all you Kerry supporters can tout Freedom of Thought, then I should be able to have my own opinion on this.
And my opinion is that Kerry is spineless. In the course of -what was it- four months of combat service on the Mei Kong River, Kerry earned One Silver Star, one Bronze Star, and Three Purple Hearts, getting him out of country after only about a 1/3 of his service requirement was up. Now, the action in the Mei Kong was very hairy, to be sure, but performing above and beyond in order to get ANY of those medals usually entails a recovery period of at least 2 months to get over the wounds you recieved. What this means is, Kerry was never hit directy with a round, he was never stabbed with a bayonnet, he was never peppered head-to-toe with shrapnel from an explosion. He was scratched. He got flesh wounds. And he used those flesh wounds to get out of country, head home, and proceed to BASH his fellow comrades who sustained much more grevious harm. And not just publicly denounce the war because the US was not under attack by North Vietnam, Kerry called his fellow soldiers baby-killers, rapers, murders, destoriers of the land, and basically the workers of Satan. Now, there's alot of stigma about Vietnam. I suspect it wasn't as bad as it's been made out to be, and the reason we all think it is is because of people like Kerry. He contributed to a very dark time of our nation's history. But that's not even all!
Year's later... he uses his "brave" military service as a reason to become president of the united states! This, I simply cannot abide.
Some of my friend's ask me why I would vote for a President who is not tolerant, and who wants everyone to think like him. They tell me I'm immature because I fail to see other's view-points. They say they no longer fear being labeled "Flip-Floppers," and that this has liberated them.
To them I'd say, so, if Kerry wants people to be tolerant, isn't that wanting them to think like he does, as well? And, if you cannot vote for a candidate who share's your own views, then what's the point of an election. To them I also say:
I'm against **** marriage. Not the act of two homosexuals getting legal bonded, living happily together, and being productive members of society. But marriage, which is bestowed by the Church, NOT the state. It has been that way since the beginning, and must continue to be a union between a Man and a Woman, which realistically is the natural order of things. This is nothing dense, conservative, or simply spiteful, this is fact. A homosexual population cannot survive, thus it cannot be the natural order. There is nothing offensive in that statement, and damn us all for being so politically correct that we still yet find such biting hatred within it.
Some of you may say that to be open minded as a leader is a good thing, and it is. But -not- to the extent that Kerry is. To radically change your views on major issues, like war for example, leads only to flounding under pressure and eventually loss. You HAVE to be headstrong in a time like this. You have to have a goal, and stop at nearly nothing to reach it. In the game of war, you must stand to loose everything, or risk loosing even more. It's not pretty, but who said death is supposed to be?
Ask Robert E. Lee if the Civil War was worth it, and he would probably say "No." But still yet he fought with pride and ferocity that would make even our greatest Generals of today weep with remorse for what they had done, and in the end it destroied him, but it was still necessary.
Now I'm just rambling. Anyway, that's just a few reasons why I voted for Bush. I can go on and on, but I'll leave you in peace.
I think the answer to that is yes. People like Pepe and Rob6264 are possibly a majority of the people that voted for Dubya, I dunno. I do know that some reasonable and educated people voted for Bush because they thought he'd do a better job.
<a href='http://www.lileks.com' target='_blank'>James Lileks</a> is one.
My father is another. He thinks that Bush's approach to economics gives the poor a better shot at economic success than Kerry's approach. You can argue that, but he thinks it is better, which is why he voted that way. He thinks the war in Iraq was something that had to be done, and doing it now, before the sanctions were lifted and Saddam's military could recover, was the best way to save both Iraqi lives and the lives of foreign soldiers. He thinks that Kerry would probably have worried more about what was good for Kerry than what was good for America. He has stated to me that he would support removing the word "marriage" from law and making everyone's unions - **** and straight - civil unions in the eyes of the state.
Can my pops argue conclusively that he was right about all of these things?
Of course not. But he sincerely believes that Bush will be the better president than Kerry would have been.
He is a kind and decent man that voted for Bush. So if that's all you want to hear, then there it is.
edit: ps, for christ's sakes, take **** out of the swear filter. Argh.
I want the government out of non-constitutional social issues and I want the government out of my pocket book as much as possible. I think that the government does a tremendous job of making things worse by putting its hands into things. Unforunately, theres no good "republitarian" candidates, but I know that at least a republican will help with getting the government out of my pocketbook.
I won't sit here and tell you Bush is the best America can do for a president, but I don't think Kerry would have been better.
I don't think an administration change would have been a good thing for the country at this time, Kerry didn't offer any amazing alternative to Iraq or to how he would defend the country that was worth putting him in office, IMO.
Next I completely agree with the neo-con theory that spreading democracy throughout the Middle East is the only way to bring long term peace to the area, obviously Bush was the candidate of choice for this.
I don't agree with how the war in Iraq was conducted in many ways, I won't go into detail now, but overall I support the war.
I also liked Bush's tax cuts and the way he handled the economy after 9/11, we were on the road to depression and he saved us from it, that alone IMO, is worth re-election.
I'm not a very religious person, and Bush's mixing of church and state does annoy/worry me, but his other aspects compared to Kerry over ride that for me.
Also Kerry flip-flops I mean omg WTH!? "I voted for it before I voted to not vote to vote for it, then I voted to vote to not vote to vote to…reporting for duty!" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
How is somebody who "flip flops" constantly always referred to as the "most liberal senator"? If he was always flip-flopping he'd be a moderate.
That's why he gives tax cuts to large companies. You see, his economic beliefs mean that by giving those cuts, he is stimulating those companies, and actually helping to strengthing our economy. Large taxes on the people help to bring down the national debt, however, they are not good for the economy and should only be used during a very strong economy like that of the 90's, which, by the way, was a very fake strong economy, but that's a topic for another time.
Also, it's usually the case that wars are good for economies, but we'll let the jury remain out on that one for now.
That's why he gives tax cuts to large companies. You see, his economic beliefs mean that by giving those cuts, he is stimulating those companies, and actually helping to strengthing our economy. Large taxes on the people help to bring down the national debt, however, they are not good for the economy and should only be used during a very strong economy like that of the 90's, which, by the way, was a very fake strong economy, but that's a topic for another time.
Also, it's usually the case that wars are good for economies, but we'll let the jury remain out on that one for now. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reagan's economic advisor himself, David Stockman, dismissed "trickle-down economics" as mere rhetoric, and "a trojan horse" for lowering taxes for the wealthy. The theory has a few proponents, but it isn't held in very high regard generally. Firms are predicted to operate at their profit maximizing levels, regardless of the amount of cash they have on hand. This implies that they are unlikely to hire new labor if their current force is sufficient to reach the profit maximizing quantity of product. In order to have an effect, the tax cut would have to increase the marginal product of each additional worker above the wage rate. Furthermore, tax cuts are typically insufficient to spark investment in new capital, particularly since those companies that could realize a profit by doing so will typically borrow, or seek more private investment.
According to models of fiscal policy, an increase in taxes combined with a corresponding increase in government spending has a positive influence on aggregate demand, and thus on the level of production. It may however negatively effect allocative efficiency.
Wars are as effective at improving the economy as hiring people to dig holes and fill them back in is at increasing employment. Of all the ways to spend money, war is probably the least efficient. Suppose we spend a million dollars on a missile. That missile goes and blows something up. Now lets just assume for the time being that the intending target is something that we really did want to blow up. What have we gained? We're out a million dollars. Some people are dead. Maybe someone somewhere is a little bit safer. (This isn't even counting the cost of physically getting the artillary in place to fire the missile, the cost of the artillary itself, the cost of feeding housing and paying the people to run the artillary, the cost of the lost productivity of the crew since the technicians could be doing other more productive things.) Compare that to what a million dollars could do in fixing up inner city infrastructure, or laying fiber optic cable to rural areas, or fixing the leaky roofs in the school system I grew up in, or any number of domestic projects. Unless there is an unbelievably compelling need, war is a complete waste of money.
That's why he gives tax cuts to large companies. You see, his economic beliefs mean that by giving those cuts, he is stimulating those companies, and actually helping to strengthing our economy. Large taxes on the people help to bring down the national debt, however, they are not good for the economy and should only be used during a very strong economy like that of the 90's, which, by the way, was a very fake strong economy, but that's a topic for another time.
Also, it's usually the case that wars are good for economies, but we'll let the jury remain out on that one for now. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Voodoo Economics good Sir.
How can companies expand/hire more employees if there is no increase in demand for their products/services the company provides ? Why would you hire someone if you know that there aren't enough consumers to support the wages of this new employee? It makes no sense what-so-ever.
By giving a direct tax-cut to the middle class however, you give more power to the "demand" side instead of the "supply side". The money then naturally bubbles its way up from the consumer to the business owner(s).
Nor the reagan tax cuts or the bush tax cuts are "for the weathy"
Second of all the less government interferance the more companies will grow. That's how capitalism works, <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=84825&view=findpost&p=1319095' target='_blank'>click here please.</a>
THrow all the Liberal facts you want at Republicans. We won't change our minds because he believe in the right to vote for whatever reasons we want, believe, etc.
When you think about how much negativity President Bush endored from 2000-2004, a victory like this is a landslide.
Just heard on the radio today that the number of visitors to the immigrate to Canada website has gone up by 7 times normal since the election ended.
Smooth move Democrats, leave the USA and give your party even less support <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Even though I'm Republican, I respect Democrats, there are some great ones out there. I don't respect the Liberals that hijacked the Democratic party.
By the way, about taxes....
Of course the Wealthy will benefit more. It's a Percentage that the taxes were cut. But that doesn't mean YOU didn't benefit either. Everyone benefitted, with the wealthier getting the same % back as you did.
And did anyone else notice that the Stock Market is roaring upwards after the election?
In my opinion, any form of abortion is wrong. but in my Political Science class and from life, I've learned you can't get elected if your party runs solely on pro-life. Kerry was totaly against any form of restricting abortion, but at least Bush banned partial birth abortions, which is when the baby is aborted right before you bear the child, whether it has birth defects or not. And do remember that exceptions are always being made to the unlucky who need an abortion.
And back to Kerry and being a Catholic, the Church disallowed him to partake in the Eucharist celebration because he was for abortion, but he took the Eucharist anyway. It's one thing to be disallowed, but it's another to defy the Church after a rule has been placed upon you, like Kerry did. Kerry was a bad Catholic during this campaign(And since Bush is Methodists, I can't comment on him, but I know he follows his religion).
God, Guns, and ***. Kerry failed on all three to please the majority of the US.
Also, can you document your liberal boo-men, I'm tired having this term trow as random.
Anyway, this thread has been really helpful in understanding <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
By giving a direct tax-cut to the middle class however, you give more power to the "demand" side instead of the "supply side". The money then naturally bubbles its way up from the consumer to the business owner(s). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->'
OOO, demand side economics = no no. from 1950 to 1980, demand side economics was based of Keynesian economics. Your basic premise is that demand creates supply. No demand does not always create supply; demand is always there. The job of producers to make aware that their product satisfies that demand and drives down prices according to the law of “supply and demand”. During the 70's, many governments tried this by increased government programs with a oppressive progressive tax. What actually occurred was galloping inflation with an increases in unemployment, also known as stagflation.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->-**** marriage: I, as well as many others believe that institution should be defined as being between a man and woman; I hold it sacred. I see traditional marriage as a stabilizer of society and the best way to raise kids; it should be encouraged and clearly defined. We have tried polygamy and various other forms of domestic partnership; I believe traditional marriage is best out of all the alternatives. I’m open for the states to decide civil unions and allowing 2 people to share accounts, receive benefits etc. It is important to note that the law would not take sexual preference into account. I would not mind for example sisters living together to both receive the same amount rights married couples have.
I've gathered from what you've written on the boards (and your name) that you deeply believe that individuals free to make their own decisions will produce a stable economy. It seems though that you feel government regulation is necessary in order for people to form stable relationships. What do you believe is the significant factor that makes this so? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair question. I am not a anarchist nor do I believe that regulation in a economy = bad. Certain regulation is essential, especially when it comes to environment since market forces fail in its preservation.
I believe that marriage should be defined as a man and woman and should be encouraged. I’ve held that a relationship like that is the best for society and therefore requires a clear definition. You may find that reason stupid, but it’s a little hard to explain further on how i came to this conclusion. It has to do with the way I’ve been raised, life experiences and observations ive made throughout my life (i.e. looking at various models throughout the world and in the past/present. From France, the middle east to the Philippines).
Riiight, because the oil embargo and Nixon's prices controls had nothing to do with that, nothing at all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I believe that marriage should be defined as a man and woman and should be encouraged. I’ve held that a relationship like that is the best for society and therefore requires a clear definition. You may find that reason stupid, but it’s a little hard to explain further on how i came to this conclusion. It has to do with the way I’ve been raised, life experiences and observations ive made throughout my life (i.e. looking at various models throughout the world and in the past/present. From France, the middle east to the Philippines). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's fine for you to decide for yourself, but an instinct that you can't explain generally isn't sufficient reason to warrant restricting the freedoms of other people.
Couldnt let this little exercise in absurdity slip past.
I cant understand how anyone would equate wishing for the death penalty for a murderer (something I dont agree with anyway, but hey) as somehow conflicting with a belief that abortion is the killing of the innocent unborn, and as such is wrong. He then goes on to make the outlandish claim that they also dont care about people dying in Africa - come again? You are talking to the Christians here right - we've practically defined charity for hundreds of years, dont tell us we dont give a damn about Africans. And then the old fraud that if you honestly believed what you were saying, you'd be actually doing it yourself. If this is true, then Dr.D obviously hates hospitals that perform blood transfusions, hates researchers on diseases, doesnt care about inner city crime and doesnt support welfare because he is typing on his computer rather than giving blood, researching AID's treatments while moonlighting as a policeofficer and giving all his money to the poor.
He was a coke head and a drunk. He got busted for DUI IN THE 70'S!!! YOU KNOW HOW DRUCK YOU HAD TO BE BACK THEN TO GET ARRESTED FOR THAT? He did coke at CAMP DAVID, FFS. THEN HE SAYS HES A GOOD CHRISTIAN NOW AND EVERYONE EXCEPTS THAT?
HE WAS ALSO BORN IN CT WITH A SILVER SPOON IN HIS MOUTH, AND IN THE POCKETS OF THE SAUDIS. Those goddam people bailed him out TWICE. You know who he is fighting for, them, not us. He would never raise his hand against those hypocrits.
I don't know why people think Kerry was for g@y marriage. He said he isn't. He said it multiple times. I don't understand how people think he is for abortion, he said even if he was, you can't just stop it. He has the ideas of Clinton (live and let live) and ignore stupid crap like g@y marriage and abortion.
If the press and President would have brought up some dirt on Kerry, they would, but they couldn't. I always thought ANYONE could be more moral than Bush. I know if I went to war and have 1.25K soldiers dead from a failing forgien policy, I would feel like sh!t and sub-human, but he don't care. He don't care if we loose our democracy for now having a one party nation.
All I got to say is, this nation has hit the gotter because those toothless wonders in the South scres us. (I live in FL, but all my family is from NY)
You can't prove he did coke, and if you can find me a kid who went through college in the 70's without touching drugs or alcohol...well you can't so don't bother. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Also lets not steal jokes from Comedy Central....your not the only one who watches it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->HE WAS ALSO BORN IN CT WITH A SILVER SPOON IN HIS MOUTH, AND IN THE POCKETS OF THE SAUDIS. Those goddam people bailed him out TWICE. You know who he is fighting for, them, not us. He would never raise his hand against those hypocrites.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Could you please explain how he was born "in their pockets" as you put it?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know why people think Kerry was for g@y marriage. He said he isn't. He said it multiple times. I don't understand how people think he is for abortion, he said even if he was, you can't just stop it. He has the ideas of Clinton (live and let live) and ignore stupid crap like g@y marriage and abortion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He wasn't for it...or so he said, you never know with him, but I can easily see how people could get the impression that he was, or at the least not as tough on it as Bush. I however don't agree with Bush on that so I won't argue for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the press and President would have brought up some dirt on Kerry, they would, but they couldn't. I always thought ANYONE could be more moral than Bush. I know if I went to war and have 1.25K soldiers dead from a failing forgien policy, I would feel like sh!t and sub-human, but he don't care. He don't care if we loose our democracy for now having a one party nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They brought up plenty of "dirt" on Kerry, where have you been for the past 6 months? Also as we have been through here a thousand times..."given the intelligence at the time going into Iraq was the right thing to do" and there is no doubt in my mind had Kerry been president at that time with the same intelligence he would of gone into Iraq as well. I also agree that the only way to bring long term peace to the Middle East is to spread democracy, no matter how hard it is.
So yes, I think he can accept those deaths as necessary, I know he feels bad about it, but what war time president wouldn't? Look how many soldiers FDR had under his belt, I don't think that?s a good way to judge someone.
The last bit of your statement is ridiculous! A one party nation? The Republicans were chosen by the people, they represent the majority in this country as of now and in accordance with that have the most power, did you forget how this country works?
It's not the first time, and it won't be the last.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->All I got to say is, this nation has hit the gotter because those toothless wonders in the South scres us. (I live in FL, but all my family is from NY)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep blaming it on the South...keep blaming it solely on the religious...keep setting yourselves up for defeat next election.
He was a coke head and a drunk. He got busted for DUI IN THE 70'S!!! YOU KNOW HOW DRUCK YOU HAD TO BE BACK THEN TO GET ARRESTED FOR THAT? He did coke at CAMP DAVID, FFS. THEN HE SAYS HES A GOOD CHRISTIAN NOW AND EVERYONE EXCEPTS THAT? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bush did not become a Christian until he was 40. That's PRE political career. There is a reason they are called "born again" evangelicals - because once you become a Christian, its like starting a new life. That's why there is precious little judgement directed at Bush's past, because a fellow Christian's past shouldnt matter. It's what he does here and now that is important.
Christian's are accused of being selectively judgemental because of this - but I dont think they are. They are very resolute in what they believe to be right and wrong, and your previous sin only becomes a non-issue once you try to stop sinning and ask for forgiveness.
Who cares? All this talk just distracts people from the real problems. People can feel good saying "he's reformed/ we're forgiving him." As Benjamin Franklin once said (paraphrased) the most effective way to win an argument is to make your opponent say what they don't want to say.
Focus on the things that matter, i.e. his ability to lead, his fiscal policy, his foreign policy, his opposition to freedom of information act requests, and his lack of transparency in general.
Bush's religion will matter less than the hair on my **** if he manages to bankrupt the country, or gets us involved in another war. His college indiscretions already matter less than the hair on my ****.
As far as the Christian's are concerned - absolutely. That does not mean he should escape justice however, so just because he became a Christian does not mean we'd form a posse and bust out of the gulag. But it would make it a sin for Christian's to hate him - God forgives everyone on a non sliding scale, ask and you'll get it. Given that it only takes the smallest sin to land you in the hot seat, why should God forgive me and not him? Where do I draw the line between "major" sins and "minor" sins. God follows his justice down to the last white lie.
Anyways, all (99%) of these guys and gals were voting/cheering for Bush. Now it was my impression after seeing Fahrenheit 9/11 and reading the Michael Moore letters of soldiers from Iraq that these guys would be against giving Bush 4 more years. It was quite the contrary. They were very much for the president. One Senior told me pointedly that if Kerry got into office that the military would be "in a world of hurt".
When I asked some of the crewmen to clarify this, they said they were worried that what would happen is what happened the last time a Democrat took the office; Clinton. Apparently, Clinton gave all the officers close to retirement some kind of deal to save some money. He offered them $25,000 straight out, and half their pension if they would retire. A lot of officers took the deal and I'm not clear whether or not they actually had a choice in the matter. But the result was that this effectively gutted the military of a lot of its experienced leaders and talent. The military since is still feeling the hit of that deal. Don't get me wrong, they still kick lots of **** but they're also trying to rebuild to their former glory.
When the announcement was made that Bush was once again elected president, you could tell that the mood on the carrier was a lot more jovial and alive. The military apparently is firmly behind the president because in the big picture he knows the bottom line; a secure financial future after you have served your country. I can't disagree with that.
<a href='http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/230275p-197775c.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/sto...5p-197775c.html</a>
<a href='http://www.sundayherald.com/44773' target='_blank'>http://www.sundayherald.com/44773</a>
_________________________________________
All articles about W and Mr. Coke. Those are just the first 3 I found, out of 3000 websites.
Beyond that, trying to compare FDR (one of the best world leaders, ever) to GWB should be the laughing stock of the world. It's like comparing a nun to a wh0re. I tried to find some dirt on Kerry, only to find the same old flip-flop stuff and "how he hates Vietnam Vets". They found out of about 50 of the swift boat guys, only 2 served with Kerry. And before the ads, the one of two was for Kerry, then shifted, probably being fed out of Bush's pockets.
You also asked about Bush and the Saudis, Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy. Since then, the Bin Ladens got involved in investments as the Saudi's, AGAIN, pumped investments in, $1.4 billion over a number of years. So if some one gave you 1.4 Billion bucks, would you do anything for them? Of course, especially some one as weak and corruptable as good ole' southern-man W. Great man, isn't he?
EDIT: About EVERYONE doing drugs in the 70's and such, my parents didn't, neither did some of their friends. My mother went to NYU and my father to a community college. My parents and their friends didn't touch the crap was they knew what happened to people who did. One guy who was into LSD robbed a gas station with a shotgun and a stick of TNT, he got 30 years in Attica, over about IIRC, $30.00. Oh yeah, drugs are great. But they did drink, not to the point of alcholics, but they did. Everyone has liquor.
<a href='http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/230275p-197775c.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/sto...5p-197775c.html</a>
<a href='http://www.sundayherald.com/44773' target='_blank'>http://www.sundayherald.com/44773</a>
_________________________________________
All articles about W and Mr. Coke. Those are just the first 3 I found, out of 3000 websites.
Beyond that, trying to compare FDR (one of the best world leaders, ever) to GWB should be the laughing stock of the world. It's like comparing a nun to a wh0re. I tried to find some dirt on Kerry, only to find the same old flip-flop stuff and "how he hates Vietnam Vets". They found out of about 50 of the swift boat guys, only 2 served with Kerry. And before the ads, the one of two was for Kerry, then shifted, probably being fed out of Bush's pockets.
You also asked about Bush and the Saudis, Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy. Since then, the Bin Ladens got involved in investments as the Saudi's, AGAIN, pumped investments in, $1.4 billion over a number of years. So if some one gave you 1.4 Billion bucks, would you do anything for them? Of course, especially some one as weak and corruptable as good ole' southern-man W. Great man, isn't he?
EDIT: About EVERYONE doing drugs in the 70's and such, my parents didn't, neither did some of their friends. My mother went to NYU and my father to a community college. My parents and their friends didn't touch the crap was they knew what happened to people who did. One guy who was into LSD robbed a gas station with a shotgun and a stick of TNT, he got 30 years in Attica, over about IIRC, $30.00. Oh yeah, drugs are great. But they did drink, not to the point of alcholics, but they did. Everyone has liquor. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try not swallowing liberal propaganda so quickly next time. You could get stomach problems and spew more crap on these forums. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
On a more serious note, it appears to me that only one real confirmed left leaning person on here is actually reading this thread. Many props to our man "Relsan." Thank you for reading and comprehending, taking the time to understand.
All everyone else is doing is trying to present "The Facts," that, in my opinion, and most Republican's opinions, are nothing more than crap.
Can you not see it? Are you simply that high up in the clouds that you don't comprehend that we are humans with opinions that are just as right as yours? My opinions of Bush are based in my perspective of facts, what sources are reliable, as well as my own personal opinion on how the U.S.A. should be run.
I believe that Bush is an honorable man, a man of integrity, and a man who aligns himself close to me on many fiscal issues. I don't care how many articles you post, how many "facts" you present, or how many times you can attack Bush in one paragraph.
Toothless rednecks didn't elect Bush; honorable, hard-working, tolerant, intelligent middle class Americans voted Bush into office by a considerable margin. Sorry, the hillbillies didn't come down from the hills this election so they could ruin your future.
In my voting opinion, I trust Bush with another 4 years in office. I don't love him to pieces, but I do like where he's taking this country. Your biased opinion and "facts" won't change a bit of that opinion.
Face it N1, you're powerless. Stop arguing and figure out what your party did wrong and what Bush did right.
As far as the Christian's are concerned - absolutely. That does not mean he should escape justice however, so just because he became a Christian does not mean we'd form a posse and bust out of the gulag. But it would make it a sin for Christian's to hate him - God forgives everyone on a non sliding scale, ask and you'll get it. Given that it only takes the smallest sin to land you in the hot seat, why should God forgive me and not him? Where do I draw the line between "major" sins and "minor" sins. God follows his justice down to the last white lie. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Despite the fact that that's the answer I was expecting, I'm still shocked and horrified everytime I hear it.
[edit: As a sidenote, I'm going to back out of this thread since I can't seem to help myself from trying to derail it.]
I asked for proof, not speculation and liberal propaganda, nice try though.
Although if your going to whine about what Bush has done in his past, your not allowed to criticize anyone for using Kerry's past against him...since it matters so much to you. Do you want to be judged 40 years from now by how you lived as a young adult?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You also asked about Bush and the Saudis, Bush ran Arbusto nearly into the ground, as he did every other company he was involved in until finally one of his companies was bought by Harken Energy. Since then, the Bin Ladens got involved in investments as the Saudi's, AGAIN, pumped investments in, $1.4 billion over a number of years. So if some one gave you 1.4 Billion bucks, would you do anything for them? Of course, especially some one as weak and corruptable as good ole' southern-man W. Great man, isn't he?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is corrupt about being bailed out? It's not the best thing for your ego, but there is nothing illegal about that transaction. As for the Bin Ladens, people on the left LOVE to toss this name around as if the whole family, which is very large, are all evil terrorists who love their son Osama. They have publicly denounced Osama and kicked him out of not only his country of birth but the family its self.
There’s a difference between Osama and the Bin Laden family, remember that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->About EVERYONE doing drugs in the 70's and such, my parents didn't, neither did some of their friends.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As far as you know... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Opinions don't acquire an inherent dignity because they are claimed by someone. Some are correct, some are incorrect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe that Bush is an honorable man, a man of integrity, and a man who aligns himself close to me on many fiscal issues. I don't care how many articles you post, how many "facts" you present, or how many times you can attack Bush in one paragraph. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is downright scary, pariticularly since I take you for a pretty intelligent person. Not that you support Bush, but that your support is based on belief and is not open to revision based on facts. I'm willing to accept a certain amount of inexactness in the unknowable, (god, etc.) but to form your opinion of a man based on belief over fact, belief over well-reasoned and supported argument, belief over reality, is rediculous. I'm going to assume you don't mean these words to their full effect.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Toothless rednecks didn't elect Bush; honorable, hard-working, tolerant, intelligent middle class Americans voted Bush into office by a considerable margin. Sorry, the hillbillies didn't come down from the hills this election so they could ruin your future. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The picture you are painting of republican American voters is just as full of propaganda as the one you are trying to refute.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Face it N1, you're powerless. Stop arguing and figure out what your party did wrong and what Bush did right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We aren't powerless so long as we are still breathing. I lost this election. I believe America also lost this election. I'm not in the business of pandering to anyone, and I'm not going to change my opinion simply because a lot of people disagree with me.
Calling things "Facts" does not help your argument. It is patronising, and allows you to avoid actually addressing them, because you do not have to commit to putting the statements in some other category.
Opinions don't acquire an inherent dignity because they are claimed by someone. Some are correct, some are incorrect. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is NO incorrect opinion. Simply because opinions don't work that way.
Just as there is no incorrect one, there is no correct one. There's simply no concept of right and wrong tied to opinion. And you don't even have to base them on "facts" of any sort! You can make them up all by yourself!
But saying that we republicans can't form an opinion about our own damned candidate without doing it using only the so called "facts" that the liberals provide us is downright Un-American. That's what's wrong here.
This is getting into the area of the moral relativism thread, but I think we can agree on a distinction. It is difficult to say for certainty what goals we should be pursuing. One could make the case that this is outside the realm of facts. However, once some set of goals is chosen, the direction one should take to achieve them is a matter to be decided by facts, and in this venue, some opinions will be wrong and some will be right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But saying that we republicans can't form an opinion about our own damned candidate without doing it using only the so called "facts" that the liberals provide us is downright Un-American. That's what's wrong here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You should be forming your opinion based on everything you have available to you, weighting everything accordingly.