|
Post by Robb Klaty on Oct 19, 2004 9:16:54 GMT -5
LOL. Kerry is actually his own worst enemy... he ends up looking like a person who lacks courage and conviction all by himself. I am sure you know what I mean if you have seen any of the Kerry vs Kerry bits on the internet.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 19, 2004 11:34:46 GMT -5
It's quite sad, seems anti-Kerry folks can only attack him with distortions. Bert, Could you name some of these distortions?
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 19, 2004 12:17:35 GMT -5
Even if I agreed with John Kerry's other policies (which I don't, in general), I could not vote him precisely because, even though he told the Washington Post in July that he believes life begins at conception, he is still pro-choice. Like Pontius Pilate who was "personally opposed, but", John Kerry seems to hold an even more despicable position than the intrinsic evil of abortion itself because he is essentially admitting that abortion takes human life but that he's willing to let it happen.
I happen also to believe that life begins at conception; therefore, abortion is an evil of the most pernicious kind - one that destroys helpless and innocent humans in the womb. Anyone who actively supports a person's right to "choose" this evil is participating in some way with that evil.
And, the "seamless garment" arguments about the Iraq War and the death penalty are merely attempts to divert the focus on abortion itself and do not apply to the fact that some women choose to end the life of the unborn for whatever reason.
It's just one of many reasons why I will not be voting for John Kerry - anyone who lacks even this basic amount of moral clarity should not lead my country.
fwiw,
Clay
|
|
|
Post by happy on Oct 19, 2004 17:47:15 GMT -5
I am a democrat and I'll be voting for Bush. Kerry's stance on many issues is very scarey to me. For example, he says he will keep the presidency and prayer separate. Prayer should be the guiding force in life in all matters, especially ones of such magnitude as leading a country. (one of many examples..)
About abortion. I think it is a moral, not a legal issue. However, there is a difference between the current 1st trimester abortion that is legal and the partial birth abortion. I think that needs to be pointed out. Yes, both take a life, but if abortion is going to be legal, giving a woman three months to decide is plenty. Some babies are BORN and saved at 20 weeks.
I wish every abortion protestor would take in an unwanted child or two and raise them or at least mentor them. If they would use their energy doing that instead of picketing, our country would be better off.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 19, 2004 18:42:02 GMT -5
Bert, Could you name some of these distortions? Don't tell me you took that list seriously? 1. John Kerry does not support partial birth abortion but believes there should be exceptions for example when a woman's life is in danger. 2. Suggesting John Kerry is buddies with Saddam Hussein? No comment needed. 3. John Kerry believes - like pres. Bush- that marriage is for a man and a woman, but he supports a civil union for gays that gives them the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. 4. John Kerry's stand on his global test is also often material for distortion. No, he won't let other countries decide over US security, but he believes one should be able to clearly justify one's actions to the world. 5. Not sure about that number. But here's a piece about the mischaracterization of John Kerry's healthplan, supposedly nationalized. www.factcheck.org/article264.html6. A Bush-Cheney ad says Kerry would raise taxes for 900,000 "small businesses" and "hurt jobs." It's a big exaggeration. www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@DocID=265.html7. Doesn't need too much comment either.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 19, 2004 19:12:41 GMT -5
I happen also to believe that life begins at conception; therefore, abortion is an evil of the most pernicious kind - one that destroys helpless and innocent humans in the womb. Anyone who actively supports a person's right to "choose" this evil is participating in some way with that evil. I think your wording shows the problem: you 'believe' abortion is evil and murder. It's not a belief that is commonly shared. You can't make policies based on personal religious beliefs. Bush makes exceptions for rape and incest. How do you stand on that? What about the morning after pill? Kerry wants abortion to be safe, legal and rare, Banning abortion will not prevent it from happening. And if it's going happen, it better happen safe and controlled. And education can help to keep the cases rare. Not sure if you're referring to me, but i was not trying to divert the focus. The difference is that with death penalties and pre emptive war there's no doubt about it that you are killing fullgrown human lives. So how can you be pro-life and support that?
|
|
|
Post by To bertine on Oct 19, 2004 21:01:49 GMT -5
You need to live in America and learn more about our political system before you comment .
|
|
|
Post by US citizen on Oct 19, 2004 22:06:14 GMT -5
You need to live in America and learn more about our political system before you comment and make an ass out of yourself. I take it you live in America. Bertine has shown time and time again that she has a better grasp of American Politics than the vast majority of Americans.
|
|
Development question
Guest
|
Post by Development question on Oct 19, 2004 22:11:58 GMT -5
I happen also to believe that life begins at conception; therefore, abortion is an evil of the most pernicious kind - one that destroys helpless and innocent humans in the womb. Anyone who actively supports a person's right to "choose" this evil is participating in some way with that evil. Because both the egg and the sperm are already alive I do not see how you can say life begins at conception. Because the single fertilized egg can eventually develop into 1, 2, 3 or more individuals it does not seem that the individual is formed at conception either. Tough to figure out just when a person becomes a person with all the rights of an individual. Anyone have any ideas?
|
|
|
Post by Reality on Oct 20, 2004 1:30:56 GMT -5
You need to live in America and learn more about our political system before you comment and make an ass out of yourself. No she doesn't. You could have made your point without the insult.
|
|
|
Post by Reality on Oct 20, 2004 1:36:21 GMT -5
I think your wording shows the problem: you 'believe' abortion is evil and murder. It's not a belief that is commonly shared. You can't make policies based on personal religious beliefs. That is part of Bush's problem. Due to how religiously diversified the US is, religious beliefs have no place in policy making.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 20, 2004 8:31:07 GMT -5
I think your wording shows the problem: you 'believe' abortion is evil and murder. It's not a belief that is commonly shared. You can't make policies based on personal religious beliefs. I fail to see the problem. If I think life begins with conception, then anything that ends that life is murder and therefore evil. This is a logically consistent position. You "believe" that you can't make policies based on personal religious beliefs, which is a "belief" of yours that you might consider examining in more detail, especially since John Kerry has said that he lets his "personal religious beliefs" dictate his policies elsewhere. Bush makes exceptions for rape and incest. How do you stand on that? What about the morning after pill? There is no room for exception for me, even in the case of rape or incest. The morning after pill is an abortifacient, so I don't "believe" using it is morally right, either. Would you care to tell us how many abortions were performed due to rape and incest last year, as compared to abortion as a form of birth control? Kerry wants abortion to be safe, legal and rare, Banning abortion will not prevent it from happening. And if it's going happen, it better happen safe and controlled. And education can help to keep the cases rare. Banning murder, theft, larceny, kidnapping, shoplifting, etc, will not prevent it from happening either. This is irrelevant to the moral question of whether abortion is intrinsically evil. And what, exactly, does "education" do? This seems to be the standard non-answer to every difficult question, i.e., "we need more education and more money"... Not sure if you're referring to me, but i was not trying to divert the focus. The difference is that with death penalties and pre emptive war there's no doubt about it that you are killing fullgrown human lives. So how can you be pro-life and support that? I'm referring to anyone who brings tries to make abortion and war deaths morally equivalent, which you do in the paragraph above. Therefore, I am referring to you, I guess. The difference is the intent involved. Abortion is the deliberate targeting of an innocent unborn human person.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 20, 2004 8:37:44 GMT -5
Because both the egg and the sperm are already alive I do not see how you can say life begins at conception. Because the single fertilized egg can eventually develop into 1, 2, 3 or more individuals it does not seem that the individual is formed at conception either. Tough to figure out just when a person becomes a person with all the rights of an individual. Anyone have any ideas? As someone who has studied human embryology at the post-graduate medical school level, I know that the single fertilized egg contains all the genetic material necessary for eventually developing into a full-grown human. This is, therefore, the most logically consistent starting point for me. Anything else is a completely arbitrary standard; for example, when does the infant become a "person" - 12 days, 2 months, 5 months, at birth, when he/she starts talking......?
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 20, 2004 8:50:14 GMT -5
1. John Kerry does not support partial birth abortion but believes there should be exceptions for example when a woman's life is in danger. If you vote against a ban on partial birth abortion, as Kerry did in 1999 (S.1692), you are supporting it. It's quite simple. In the last debate Kerry said he wants to make an exception for the "life and health" of the mother. Therefore, he supports partial birth abortion, even though he is on record as saying it's not a partial birth abortion, but rather a "late-term abortion", as if that makes a difference ( www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/11/06/kerry_hits_ban_on_abortion_procedure/)
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Oct 20, 2004 9:12:20 GMT -5
As someone who has studied human embryology at the post-graduate medical school level, I know that the single fertilized egg contains all the genetic material necessary for eventually developing into a full-grown human. Couldn't it be argued that many cells contain the genetic material needed to form a full-grown human being? Given the state of the art at this time, with the right conditions, a human could be cloned from any number of harvested cells. This also raises the question of the individual. The right conditions for the developing zygote-embryo-fetus, up to a point, are for it to be part of the mother. Although less clearly defined, doesn't it also offer a starting point? As time goes on, that starting point will move closer and closer to conception. As it stands now, conception often takes place outside of the mother. There is the question as to the status of those zygotes. What are your feelings on the many fertilized eggs, whole people by your definition, that do not implant and are aborted? Where does the Catholic Church stand regarding them? Are they considered to have souls? I believe you are well informed on both sides of this issue and I respect your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 20, 2004 17:28:15 GMT -5
I certainly will not deny that you keep a consistent logical position, and i respect that. I fully understand that you cannot vote for John Kerry due to these beliefs, and that's fair enough.
Actually, i used to hold the same beliefs as you did. But when I heard Kerry's defense on his position, he just made sense to me. His speech about tolerance of other views may seem spineless to you, again fair enough- I can live with it.
I was just interested what your stand was on these things, and you definately are consistant. Of course the rape and incest cases are exceptions, I know that. I will tell you that if I were to be raped and impregnated, I would want to keep the baby. But I don't think I would want to force another girl to do the same.
That's true, but i think there is a difference when it comes to the safety aspect. I think prostitution is evil too, but I can be practical about it. You probably know that it is legalised here for the reason that they want to control it, since there are so many illegal women in the business that are being exploited. Makes sense to me. Kerry's stand on abortion regarding safety issues makes sense to me too.
In my opinion it might be a bit more nuanced. It's not like women who do abortions are baby haters.
I would still love to hear your view on the Iraq war and deathpenalties. Note that I wasn't speaking about just war deaths, I'm talking about a war that was started for the wrong reasons. When a war is started not as a last resort, I think it is evil. Going to war always means innocents get killed whether you like it or not. I actually don't think it's up to us to decide whether the victims were a sacrafice that just had to be made. I have great difficulties with other people thinking they can decide over life and death of others, be they innocent or not as in the case of deathpenalties.
Anyways Clay, thanks for being the first that is willing to show a grounded opinion against Kerry. It's refreshing.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 21, 2004 8:27:06 GMT -5
In my opinion it might be a bit more nuanced. It's not like women who do abortions are baby haters. I would still love to hear your view on the Iraq war and deathpenalties. Note that I wasn't speaking about just war deaths, I'm talking about a war that was started for the wrong reasons. When a war is started not as a last resort, I think it is evil. Going to war always means innocents get killed whether you like it or not. I actually don't think it's up to us to decide whether the victims were a sacrafice that just had to be made. I have great difficulties with other people thinking they can decide over life and death of others, be they innocent or not as in the case of deathpenalties. 1) Thanks, Bertine, for your understanding. I usually get called a religious zealot who wants to keep women under subjection to their wombs... :-) Anyway, what I find "spineless" about Kerry is his current position which seems to be this: "I believe that a human life begins at conception, but I'm still willing to allow a person to end that life if she chooses to". That is the way I've distilled his various statements, which to me appears like trying to pander to both sides of the issue to gain votes. In other words, the pro-life people like to hear that he thinks life begins at conception, and the pro-choice people like to hear that he respects a woman's right to choose, won't appoint a judge to the SCOTUS who would "overturn" Roe v. Wade, etc. We're talking about a guy who can't even give a straight answer on his eye color! He will stoop to anything and say anything to get a vote. 2) The death penalty for me is an easy one - I'm against it. The death penalty is not a deterrant and accomplishes little. Furthermore, there have been convictions on death row that have been overturned due to a re-examination of the case, AND, the poor/uneducated/non-English-speaking are at a greater risk of poor legal representation. 3) I've been more conflicted on the Iraq War. On one hand, war always kills the innocent (the difference between this and abortion, of course, is that in abortion the sole purpose of the act is to end that unborn's life, whereas in war noncombatants are supposed to be avoided). On the other hand, we know that Saddam resisted some 17 United Nations resolutions, the last of which did threaten "severe consequence". We know that Saddam had WMD's because he used them on his own people and that there are mass graves scattered throughout Iraq. We know that Saddam's army continuously tried to shoot down our pilots, and that he explored a way to try to assassinate Bush41. We know that he invaded another country. To me he was clearly a threat, and as part of a broad war on terror, he should have been removed from power. I have no faith whatsoever in the UN, especially as we learn more about the Food for Oil programs. However, what I don't like is how it seemed to turn from WMD's to "remove Saddam". The end result is that Bush did not know where the WMD's were. You cannot lie, if you don't know what the truth is, especially when your CIA director is telling you that it's a "slam dunk" that they're there. Those are all the thoughts I can articulate this morning...
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 21, 2004 17:20:21 GMT -5
1) Thanks, Bertine, for your understanding. I usually get called a religious zealot who wants to keep women under subjection to their wombs... :-) Lol! Well, I wouldn't put it like that. Although i admire your strong convictions, I would say you are a bit radical on this subject. But that's your right. You think abortion is murder, period, and make no exceptions. So I was wondering, do you also think women that somehow got abortions should be convicted as murderers and do prison time? You know, I think Kerry probably is a spineless Catholic ( I somehow find it hard to take him seriously when he talks about 'his faith' anyway), but I don't think he's spineless as a politician when it comes to the seperation of church and state. I just agree with him that you can't impose your own (religious) moral values on others. Like I said before, I think I wouldn't get an abortion even if i got raped, but feel I couldn't force other girls to do the same. We all have our own responsibility. Kerry is accused of wanting to have it both ways, well I think that's understandable with an issue that is not so cut and dried in my eyes too. Well, I'll still plead for him and say he's nuanced! ;D Just like eye color can be! I mean, some people have eyes that change color/ shade.. Sometimes it's hard to say they're blue or grey or green or a bit of both... Sometimes they can even be blue AND brown, and that might go for Kerry too! lol I'll show you: Would you agree that Bush's record on death penalties don't exactly harmonize with his supposed 'culture of life'? Like you I also mainly oppose how the Bush administration arguments shifted from WMDs to the removal of a brutal dictator. The thing is I would have more sympathy for the latter, although i still have big question marks about whether war would be the way to go. But I did believe that Saddam was more of a direct threat to his own people than the USA, which many Americans were lead to believe. As for Iraq being a part of the war on terror, well you probably already know that I don't agree with that at all lol. Like Kerry said, Iraq wasn't even close to the center of terror until Bush invaded it. Now terrorists are flooding in there, and Al Qaeda has seen its members increasing since the Iraq war. As for the UN, it's certainly not functioning perfectly, but there's no alternative, we need an international organisation like that. It should be improved, but we cannot do without. They still do a lot of good work. It's good to note that the UN is actually a hollow shell, just a frame work, the member states together make it to what it is and will have to make it work together.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 22, 2004 8:38:26 GMT -5
Lol! Well, I wouldn't put it like that. Although i admire your strong convictions, I would say you are a bit radical on this subject. But that's your right. You think abortion is murder, period, and make no exceptions. Thanks. I guess I would answer that if I'm "radical", it's only because I think abortion is a radical insult to the sanctity of life. So I was wondering, do you also think women that somehow got abortions should be convicted as murderers and do prison time? In an ideal world, everyone would "know" that abortion is wrong and never do it - a line that no one would be willing to cross. Of course that's never going to happen and I know this. I don't know what the solution is, but I'll tell you what I told the last person I discussed this with, who took this line of argument. He asked me if I was willing to go tell a 17-year-old girl that she was a murderer, and I told him that I'll do that just as soon as he walks into the maternity ward at the hospital and tells a husband and wife who just lost their 12 week-old baby girl to a miscarriage that they have no reason to be sad because it was "just a mass of cells"... You know, I think Kerry probably is a spineless Catholic ( I somehow find it hard to take him seriously when he talks about 'his faith' anyway), but I don't think he's spineless as a politician when it comes to the seperation of church and state. Of couse he is spineless when it comes to separation of church and state - he has even spoken in churches trying to get their votes! Can you imagine the outrage from the Democratic party if a Republican candidate did that? I just agree with him that you can't impose your own (religious) moral values on others. Like I said before, I think I wouldn't get an abortion even if i got raped, but feel I couldn't force other girls to do the same. We all have our own responsibility. It's not an easy subject, I know. But let me reiterate two things: 1) Kerry does let his faith dictate his policies - he said so in the debate. 2) Abortion seems to be an exception to point #1, even though he has said he believe life begins at conception. Either he is too blinded by stupidity or pride to take this position to its logical conclusion (i.e., abortion ends a human life that began at conception), or he does know that logical conclusion and is just pandering to the pro-choice people out there. Kerry is accused of wanting to have it both ways, well I think that's understandable with an issue that is not so cut and dried in my eyes too. Well, I'll still plead for him and say he's nuanced! ;D Just like eye color can be! I mean, some people have eyes that change color/ shade.. Sometimes it's hard to say they're blue or grey or green or a bit of both... Sometimes they can even be blue AND brown, and that might go for Kerry too! lol I'll show you: Oh, come on! He can't give a straight answer on eye color on a drivers license? My eyes are hazel - sometimes they're really green, and sometimes they're more brown - my license says one word, "hazel" (actually, I think it just say "HZ"). Why do I get the feeling that Kerry was too afraid he might offend all the brown and green-eyed voters out there if he put "blue" on his drivers license??? :-) Would you agree that Bush's record on death penalties don't exactly harmonize with his supposed 'culture of life'? Yes, I would agree with this. :-) However, this is where the temptation to emply the so-called "seamless garment" argument can be strong. The ending of an alleged "guilty-in-a-court-of-law" life by the death penalty is NOT the moral equivalent of ending the innocent life of the unborn. Like you I also mainly oppose how the Bush administration arguments shifted from WMDs to the removal of a brutal dictator. The thing is I would have more sympathy for the latter, although i still have big question marks about whether war would be the way to go. But I did believe that Saddam was more of a direct threat to his own people than the USA, which many Americans were lead to believe. Right. But we didn't know for sure, and we just underwent the worst terrorist attack in our history that killed almost 4,000 of our innocent citizens. We knew that Saddam had used WMD's in the past, had failed to cooperate with not one, not 2, not 3, but some 17 U.N. Resolutions (the actions of someone who has something to hide), had actively pursued ways to assassinate Bush41, had invaded another country, etc. The point is that Bush felt that given this information (and the fact that most of our allies thought Saddam had WMD's, too), he had to act. As for Iraq being a part of the war on terror, well you probably already know that I don't agree with that at all lol. Like Kerry said, Iraq wasn't even close to the center of terror until Bush invaded it. Now terrorists are flooding in there, and Al Qaeda has seen its members increasing since the Iraq war. Kerry actually was on the TV talk shows talking about how dangerous Saddam was before he started running for president. Funny how once he became the Democratic candidate that it became the "wrong war at the wrong time". As far as the terrorists go - I'd rather keep them busy there than on Main Street, U.S.A. As for the UN, it's certainly not functioning perfectly, but there's no alternative, we need an international organisation like that. It should be improved, but we cannot do without. There was an alternative, and Bush took it. He acted in the best interests of the country he was elected to protect even in the face of incomprehensible opposition by our so-called allies, and even managed to build a coalition of his own, including Britain, Australia, Poland, etc - a group that future President Kerry disrespected by calling them "a coalition of the bribed". Now, that's a great way to build alliances! They still do a lot of good work. It's good to note that the UN is actually a hollow shell, just a frame work, the member states together make it to what it is and will have to make it work together. "The UN is a hollow shell" - I like that statement. :-)
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 22, 2004 8:51:53 GMT -5
You what it comes down to with my vote?
Sure, I think Kerry is a flip-flopper on most issues. He's a Catholic-in-name-only (a CINO) who should support the rights of the unborn but doesn't. He's a privileged New England blue-blood who twice married rich women but tries to act like an "average guy". He first asked for a student deferrment from the Vietnam draft, but when rejected he enlisted in the Navy reserves where he thought he could avoid combat. He served maybe 12 total weeks out of his two tours in actual combat and received 3 questionable wounds and then took advantage of a little-used clause that allows three-time Purple Heart recipients to go home. Upon his return he then proceeded to lie about the actions of the soldiers in Vietnam and has his picture in a place of honor in a Communist Museum.
Sure, he doesn't understand the global war on terror. He can't make his mind up and then tries to act like we're all too stupid to understand his "nuanced" positions. He's married to a loudmouthed, classless woman who very recently said that she didn't think Laura Bush ever held a "real job" in USA Today newspaper (nevermind that Laura Bush was a teacher, and nevermind that being a mother to two daughters is very much a "real job" in and of itself)
Sure, he wants to raise taxes, even thought tax cuts have stimulated the economy and unemployment is at 5.4%, which is lower even than when the so-called glorious 90's under Bill Clinton. Sure, he plays the usual class warfare card to create votes.
All those things are of secondary importance to his most heinous failings - in baseball. First, his flimsy opening pitch earlier this year couldn't even make it to home plate. Then, recently, he said he was so "giddy" about the Boston Red Sox win in the American League Championship Series, applauding the heroics of Manny Ortez. The problem is that there is no player named Manny Ortez!!! There's a David Ortiz and there's a Manny Ramirez, and anyone who claims to be from Massachusetts should know the difference.
Aside from demonstrating how out of touch with reality Kerry is, it only confirms to me that, when faced with a decision betwen a man who obviously knows little about baseball and a man who can actually throw a ball (and used to own a baseball team), the baseball guy (Bush) wins, hands down.
:-) :-)
Clay
|
|
|
Post by Real Sportsman on Oct 22, 2004 12:03:19 GMT -5
Aside from demonstrating how out of touch with reality Kerry is, it only confirms to me that, when faced with a decision betwen a man who obviously knows little about baseball and a man who can actually throw a ball (and used to own a baseball team), the baseball guy (Bush) wins, hands down. Yes, A real sportsman. Cheerleader, wasn't it? Own a team? At the start he was a 1.8% partner. Later the other owners gave him 10% more. "He had a well-known name, and that created interest in the franchise," Tom Schieffer, the Rangers' former president, said last year. "It gave us a little celebrity." But give credit where credit is due. Under his leadership a Texas city did climb to number one! The city in the US with the worst air pollution.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 22, 2004 12:58:24 GMT -5
Unable to recognize sarcasm, I see...
Maybe the U.S. government under Kerry will use tax funds to buy you a sense of humor.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 22, 2004 13:27:12 GMT -5
Law is exactly that -- imposition of moral values on society. Without them, chaos would rule. Was it WRONG for various figures in our country to impose their religious/moral values on the country when they fought for elimination of slavery? What about civil rights? Women's rights? All of those movements were the result of religious and moral values being "imposed" on others. Was that wrong?
Actually, it didn't shift. Both elements were officially listed in our government's resolution for action in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 22, 2004 19:23:15 GMT -5
Oh Clay get a clue! You should vote for the guys with the best hair! ;D Give us something nice to look at when watching the evening news lol Btw, I've read that most major journalists personally support Kerry, but think he would be a bore for the news and think Bush/Cheney is much more fun. I think that Heinz-Kerry/Laura job story is spun out out of context by the Bush campaign machine. Can't believe you're parroting them Clay. Laura herself - bless her soul- wasn't bothered, she knows how it works. Besides, Teresa has been a full time mum herself too. I'd like to see her as a 1st Lady. An American First Lady that speaks 5 languages... WOW ;D Those examples are all based on the notion that all men are equal. It gets tricky when people don't agree on when something gets considered a person. You mention women's rights. Some think abortion is part of women's rights. The main reason to invade Iraq -especially as part of a war on terror-was WMD's, that's why the American people supported it too. *Yawn* It's passed 2am here. This girl needs to quit posting and upsetting Americans and get in bed.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Oct 22, 2004 19:34:58 GMT -5
And some think they've been abducted by aliens…
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 23, 2004 10:12:44 GMT -5
Oh Clay get a clue! You should vote for the guys with the best hair! ;D Give us something nice to look at when watching the evening news lol Hey, that's not fair. Dick Cheney barely has any hair. Do you seriously want to disenfranchise all the bald voters out there? :-) Btw, I've read that most major journalists personally support Kerry, but think he would be a bore for the news and think Bush/Cheney is much more fun. I think Kerry and his marital mouthpiece would keep it very interesting for four years, but the stakes are too high for mere entertainment.... I think that Heinz-Kerry/Laura job story is spun out out of context by the Bush campaign machine. Can't believe you're parroting them Clay. Laura herself - bless her soul- wasn't bothered, she knows how it works. Besides, Teresa has been a full time mum herself too. Laura Bush has too much class to be bothered by a person who whines about "un-American" people but then tells a reporter to "shove it". She also would never stoop to bringing up Dick Cheney's daughter's sexuality (twice). That's the difference between the Bush camp and the Kerry camp. I'd like to see her as a 1st Lady. An American First Lady that speaks 5 languages... WOW ;D It's not quantity, but quality :-)
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 23, 2004 10:24:14 GMT -5
I'm on call and rushed, so I don't know why I called him "Richard" instead of "Dick" Cheney. For some unknown reason it won't let me modify my post....
Oh, well...
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 23, 2004 10:25:03 GMT -5
Wait a minute, I think I figured it out - it's a censorship thing.
|
|