|
Post by John Kerry on Oct 23, 2004 16:57:58 GMT -5
to the ones who was makeing fun of me... rumpy pumpy you punkass doll mutherrumpy pumpyers suck my dick you dolls... thank you and good day.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 23, 2004 18:31:37 GMT -5
WMDs were but ONE reason for the invasion. And John Kerry himself even admitted that knowing what we know today, he STILL would have voted for the action in Iraq. It was long overdue and the right thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 23, 2004 19:28:57 GMT -5
WMD's were but ONE reason for the invasion. And John Kerry himself even admitted that knowing what we know today, he STILL would have voted for the action in Iraq. It was long overdue and the right thing to do. If it wasn't for supposed WMD's, no way would the US have invaded Iraq last year. As for John Kerry, his main argument against Bush was how he handled the war still stands: no convincing coalition to share the burdens with and no plan to win the peace. You should note that even if Kerry has more in common with my and Europeans view than Bush has, he still has more in common with Bush than he has with Europe.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 23, 2004 20:50:20 GMT -5
If it wasn't for supposed WMD's, no way would the US have invaded Iraq last year. Sadly, if it weren't for 9/11, we wouldn't have invaded. We would have stood by with the rest of the world while Saddam continued brutalizing his own people. But in the Iraq war resolution in 2002, Saddam's mistreatment of his own people was indeed listed as one of the reasons for war (one of the many violations of countless UN resolutions). John Kerry doesn't have a main argument -- that's the problem; it keeps changing. First he supports the war, it was the RIGHT thing to do, then he's against it, then he votes to fund the war, BEFORE he votes against it, then he says Saddam WAS a threat, then he says Saddam WASN'T a threat, then he says he would have voted FOR the war, knowing what we know today, then he says he wouldn't. The man tries to have it both ways so many times, it's acutally rather amusing to see the verbal gymnastics he uses to explain his ever-shifting positions. John Kerry -- a man who has his feet planted firmly in the AIR. [Mark Levin -- WABC radio] Furthermore, in 1991, when the U.S. DID have a supposedly "convincing coalition", John Kerry voted against taking action. So the "no convincing coalition" argument John Kerry is currently using is actually a non-argument. Oh. Well THAT sure makes me feel a whole lot better. Kerry still has too much in common with the European mentality.
|
|
|
Post by SF on Oct 23, 2004 22:29:51 GMT -5
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. What about the sanctity of the mother's life? It's unimportant. Ending any life is ending a life. He should have waited to find proof. Yeah, just keep the killing of innocents "over there". Those countries' people, and the USAs', want their people out of Iraq. Many believe the war was a huge mistake.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 23, 2004 23:51:31 GMT -5
I don't think most pro-life people disagree with protecting the life of the mother; but risk to the mother is now quite rare, given the excellent medical care we enjoy today.
After 12 years of Saddam's games, foot dragging, kicking the UN inspectors out, then trying the same games again when they returned before the war? Saddam acted like someone with something to hide, and with his history -- why award him the benefit of the doubt?
Oh. I forgot -- it's better to believe in and give a tyrannical dictator the benefit of the doubt over and above Bush, who acted to protect our country and free the Iraqis from a maniac.
We're not over there to kill innocents.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 24, 2004 18:52:32 GMT -5
What about the sanctity of the mother's life? What about it? I believe in the sanctity of all life - mothers, mothers-to-be, fathers, brothers, daughters, etc. I grow weary of the argument that abortion should remain legal "for the health of the mother", when the vast majority of abortions do not occur due to maternal health concerns. Right. And it is precisely because Kerry can't give a simple answer to an "unimportant" question about eye color that it reveals something about his character. Ending any life is ending a life. Ending the life of an unborn child is simply not the same as ending the life of a convicted felon or even a soldier. He should have waited to find proof. Once again, his CIA director told him it was a "slam dunk". Many countries and leaders, including Kerry, said Saddam had to be removed even before learning about WMD's. If he had waited until "proof", I'm very sure the Democrats would have criticized him for waiting too long, much like Europe did in dealing with Hitler... Yeah, just keep the killing of innocents "over there". Terrorists are not "innocents". Please do not put words in my mouth, so to speak. Those countries' people, and the USAs', want their people out of Iraq. Many believe the war was a huge mistake. And many believe it was not a huge mistake, too. Oh, well.
|
|
|
Post by SF on Oct 25, 2004 18:04:12 GMT -5
I grow weary of the argument that abortion should remain legal "for the health of the mother", when the vast majority of abortions do not occur due to maternal health concerns. The women whose lives have been saved by it because it has been legal are thankful, as are those who love them. People I meet are not all in agreement about my eyecolor. It is unimportant when forming an opinion about Kerry's character. That is your opinion. Maybe. You misunderstood. Innocents over there are also effected. Many? Mainly Bush supporters.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 25, 2004 21:18:04 GMT -5
Many? Mainly Bush opponents.
|
|
|
Post by Ahhhh on Oct 25, 2004 23:02:27 GMT -5
Many? Mainly Bush opponents. And some Bush supporters believe the Iraqi war has been a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Oct 25, 2004 23:43:04 GMT -5
Some, perhaps -- not many.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Oct 26, 2004 8:03:59 GMT -5
What about it? I believe in the sanctity of all life - mothers, mothers-to-be, fathers, brothers, daughters, etc. I grow weary of the argument that abortion should remain legal "for the health of the mother", when the vast majority of abortions do not occur due to maternal health concerns. Very true. But there are cases when the mother does need to be protected. How is the exception kept if all abortions are illegal? It means a step back to the time when doctors had to fabricate (lie) on medical records to get abortions approved. Back to the time when abortions are done behind closed doors making criminals out of people seeking medical treatment. It certainly does. There are frequently more than a few simple options. those who live in a black and white world have a very east time of making a choice. Others with a little more insight seethe world in color and the number of choices available to them make the decision process somewhat more involved. Eye color is a very good example. It changes with the day. I have eyes of very different and distinct colors. One changes more than the other. To give an accurate answer to the eye color question I would have to check a mirror. It is not a matter of not being able to make a decision but rather knowing there are a number of variables and having to resolve them in order to give an accurate answer. Certainly "BLUE" would work but if someone asks I assume they want an accurate answer and not just a pat answer that may or may not be true. Having a very limited worldview makes answering questions easy. You are corrent. The difference is that in an individual there is the internal realization that they exist but in the unborn fetus that realization has not yet come into existance. You get the answers you ask for and the ones you have set the expectation to get. Before learning of WMDs? When would that have been? what makes a terrorist really depends on the side of the issue you are standing on. From the establishment's side most freedom fighters are looked at as terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Oct 26, 2004 8:19:33 GMT -5
I don't think most pro-life people disagree with protecting the life of the mother; but risk to the mother is now quite rare, given the excellent medical care we enjoy today. And just what is the risk? Say in for a woman 35+. How does it compare to other risk factors? You say rare but what does that mean? What group of women? Those with a support system or those living in abject poverty? Maybe not, but they are just as dead. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 26, 2004 9:13:45 GMT -5
The women whose lives have been saved by it because it has been legal are thankful, as are those who love them. That's beautiful. May I assume, then, that you're willing to make an exception to legalized abortion, such that ONLY those women whose physical health is in mortal danger may have abortions? People I meet are not all in agreement about my eyecolor. It is unimportant when forming an opinion about Kerry's character. You have a wonderful grasp of the obvious. The issue is not what color his eyes are, the issue is that Kerry chose to embark on a "nuanced" explanation of his eye color instead of simply saying "they're blue". No one cares what color his eyes are except, apparently, him. I have yet to see a coherent argument to the contrary. You misunderstood. Innocents over there are also effected. And do you think I don't know this? Many? Mainly Bush supporters. Perhaps, but there are "many" Bush supporters....
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 26, 2004 10:01:08 GMT -5
Very true. But there are cases when the mother does need to be protected. How is the exception kept if all abortions are illegal? It means a step back to the time when doctors had to fabricate (lie) on medical records to get abortions approved. Back to the time when abortions are done behind closed doors making criminals out of people seeking medical treatment. Whew! For a minute there I thought I'd have to hear about those infernal "back-ally coathanger abortions" again. It certainly does. There are frequently more than a few simple options. those who live in a black and white world have a very east time of making a choice. Others with a little more insight seethe world in color and the number of choices available to them make the decision process somewhat more involved. Eye color is a very good example. It changes with the day. I have eyes of very different and distinct colors....Having a very limited worldview makes answering questions easy.... As I stated earlier, my eyes are hazel. Sometimes they're quite green and other days they're more brownish. The issue for me is that Kerry's answer was an exercise in pointless narcissism at best, and paralyzing indecision on a simple question at worst. As a resident physician in training, I've seen some of my colleagues get overwhelmed by all the clinical information - not being able to see the proverbial forest for the trees, so to speak. This is one of my concerns about Kerry, in that he gets overwhelmed by facts and is paralyzed by fear of losing votes. You are corrent. The difference is that in an individual there is the internal realization that they exist but in the unborn fetus that realization has not yet come into existance. Fascinating. Please demonstrate to me that a newborn that just had its umbilical cord cut has "realization of its existence". You get the answers you ask for and the ones you have set the expectation to get. Again, the answers he got were shared by his allies, including John Kerry until it became politically expedient to disagree with Bush in the election. Before learning of WMDs? When would that have been? Oh, I don't know - how about when Saddam gassed his own people? what makes a terrorist really depends on the side of the issue you are standing on. From the establishment's side most freedom fighters are looked at as terrorists. Yeah, yeah, yeah. "One man's terrorist is another man's patriot", I know.
|
|
|
Post by SF on Oct 26, 2004 10:30:46 GMT -5
That's beautiful. May I assume, then, that you're willing to make an exception to legalized abortion, such that ONLY those women whose physical health is in mortal danger may have abortions? Ideally, yes. Exactly why he answered as he did can only be guessed by others and still seems like an unimportant matter. Simply put, I believe that everyone's life matters to one or more people. A problem that arises is that everyone does not agree on when life begins. Yes. My unclear point was that you came across harsh in your original statement even though I understand why you made it. We will see on election day if there were "many" in this country. If people in other countries could vote, Kerry would win by an even larger margin than he will.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 26, 2004 12:12:42 GMT -5
I appreciate and admire your attempt to find a middle ground on this issue, and I know that this is where a lot of people are. I'm also aware that my position is more "radical".... Exactly why he answered as he did can only be guessed by others and still seems like an unimportant matter. I agree that it was an unimportant question, in which most people would have provided an unimportant answer instead of a dissertation on the daily variables affecting eye color. Simply put, I believe that everyone's life matters to one or more people. A problem that arises is that everyone does not agree on when life begins. I agree that a crucial question is determining when life begins. I happen to believe that human life begins at conception, believing that any other standard is completely arbitary. This is also why I am not more disgusted by late-term ("partial-birth") than than I am any other kind of abortion - because they're both equally immoral. We will see on election day if there were "many" in this country. If people in other countries could vote, Kerry would win by an even larger margin than he will. Right. As my momma used to say, "if your friend jumped over the cliff, would you?" In other words, just because a majority of people are for or against something doesn't mean it's right or wrong. The majority of Germans supported Hitler early on....
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Oct 26, 2004 13:08:36 GMT -5
Fascinating. Please demonstrate to me that a newborn that just had its umbilical cord cut has "realization of its existence". Exactly. When does a human become an individual with all of the rights and privledges that other human beings have. I do not have the answer. But I do not think a 32-cell blastula should have the same rights as a 2 year old. The information everyone got was the information that Bush requested. The conclusions were indeed shared by everyone until the true facts became known. Then some people were able say they had made a mistake and re-evaluate the situation, known as flip-flopping to those who have a single track mind and cannot admit they were in error.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 26, 2004 16:44:36 GMT -5
Exactly. When does a human become an individual with all of the rights and privledges that other human beings have. I do not have the answer. But I do not think a 32-cell blastula should have the same rights as a 2 year old. Exactly. You have no way of determining when an individual has "rights" without resorting to arbitrary definitions. Is it 5 weeks gestation, 14 weeks gestation, 39 weeks gestation, when the umbilical cord is cut, 18 months old, 5 years old..........? The "realization of one's own existence" as criteria fails, because a person in a coma is not aware of his existence but is still a person. My point is this: if you're talking about a human life (i.e., we know it ain't no dog, horse, or pig life) but you're not sure when it "has rights", it is morally and logically consistent to start at the very beginning. The information everyone got was the information that Bush requested. The conclusions were indeed shared by everyone until the true facts became known. I disagree with your implication that Bush "asked" for only the evidence pointing toward WMD's. He didn't "ask" all the other countries to make up false information. Then some people were able say they had made a mistake and re-evaluate the situation, known as flip-flopping to those who have a single track mind and cannot admit they were in error. Admitting that no concrete evidence of WMD's have been found yet does not mean Bush "lied", because we know Saddam had them in the past, nor was it wrong to remove Saddam from power. No war goes perfectly to plan, but for Bush to admit an error would be to have Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the DNC crow with delight and then try to politicize the war to their advantage. This is different than someone saying "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it."
|
|
|
Post by SF on Oct 26, 2004 20:10:10 GMT -5
Right. As my momma used to say, "if your friend jumped over the cliff, would you?" If checking out the pros and cons resulted in it seeming like the better choice, I would jump! I didn't intend to indicate otherwise. There were those among them who naively did. They didn't know enough about him and his policies. There has been a lot of information out about Bush and Kerry, and our country has already experienced Bush as president for nearly a full term. Many people have had enough of him and are willing to give Kerry a chance.
|
|
|
Post by SF on Oct 26, 2004 20:16:38 GMT -5
No war goes perfectly to plan, but for Bush to admit an error would be to have Terry McAuliffe and the rest of the DNC crow with delight and then try to politicize the war to their advantage. Admitting an error seems like the honest, courageous thing to do regardless of possible political consequences.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 27, 2004 5:41:05 GMT -5
And guess how that came about...
Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, Hitler's 2nd man at the Neuremberg trials:
"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
Sounds familiar?
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 27, 2004 9:00:45 GMT -5
Yup. Especially the part about being attacked - like the World Trade Center in 1993, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1997, the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, the Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983, the embassy in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001...............
|
|
|
Post by Bertie on Oct 27, 2004 9:05:42 GMT -5
Yes but when did Iraq attack you? That's the point. I know you know very well what I meant. The American people all backed Bush and his Iraq war plans becos they were scared of WMD's. No more no less.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 27, 2004 9:09:13 GMT -5
Yes but when did Iraq attack you? That's the point. I know you know very well what I meant. The American people all backed Bush and his Iraq war plans becos they were scared of WMD's. No more no less. That's not why I backed Bush on Iraq. I backed George Bush's plan for Iraq because it is part of an overall war on Terror. I've outlined the many times the United States has been attacked, and George Bush has decided to engage the terrorists on their own ground, rather than treat the next attack on Americans like a "nuisance" law enforcement issue. Also, Iraq threatened the stability of the entire Middle East (and therefore the United States and the rest of the world) when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Iraq threatened the U.S. by continuing to fire missiles at our pilots over the No-Fly zone Iraq threatened the U.S. by pursuing an assassination attempt on George H.W. Bush. Iraq threatened its own people by gassing them with WMDs. TWELVE YEARS of sanctions and weapons inspectors accomplished little to nothing, especially since the UN was in bed with Saddam anyway. It was time for the "serious consequences" that the UN promised but failed to live up to its own resolution.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 27, 2004 9:18:25 GMT -5
Argh Clay - why am i being tempted into this discussion again lol.. i shouldn't be here. Anyways, did you know that those plans to invade Iraq go back to 1995 or something? It's not like they were made up in response to 9/11 or whatever. And as far as the 'nuisance' issue... You're parroting the Bush campaign machine again, I expect more from you! Kerry said he wanted to bring terrorism *back* to being a nuisance, not that it is a nuisance now... He knows he can never fully eradicate terrorism. Bush knows that too, he said it in an interview, although his usual cowboy lingo would indicate otherwise... And if you read the article you would know by now that 'serious consequences' did not include war. The Iraqi people have suffered enough from Saddam himself and all the sanctions, I really didn't feel they could take it to have a war going on in their land now too.
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Oct 27, 2004 9:57:42 GMT -5
If I'm "parroting" the Bush campaign, then you're "parroting" the Kerry campaign.
John Kerry was wrong about Communism in the 80's, he was wrong about the first Iraq War, he's been wrong about not strengthening the military on multiple occasions, he refused to support the 87 billion due to an objection to legislative minutiae.
This tells me that he actually believes that global terrorism is simply a "nuisance", whereas George Bush recognizes it for what it truly is - a menace to peace-loving nations everywhere.
Please tell me, also, what "serious consequences" there were. That the UN would, for the 18th time, say "we really, really, really, really want to do more inspections this time" ?
Don't make threats you can't back up - this only emboldens terrorists.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Oct 27, 2004 13:45:55 GMT -5
You still believe Iraq is part of the war on terror when there are no WMD's and no links with Al Qaeda? That's how they presented this war in the beginning! You think the remaining reasons justify the invasion? Sure, Saddam's gone and we're glad about that. Question is: what does the American taxpayer think about that, so many billions of dollars (and American blood) pumped into regime change and nation building, but no grounds for the reasons that concerned their safety and scared them into supporting this war.... Are Americans really that charitable? I never doubted that Saddam hated the US, but I wasn't so sure whether he really had the means to do the harm to your country that would call for a preventive war. You use war as a last resort. This was not a case of a last resort. Bush may have believed so, the rest of the world didn't. As for the 'serious consequences', I don't know, they didn't define them, but it didn't include war so don't try to get legitimacy by referring to UN resolutions, when you pick and choose what you want to follow anyway... Sure International Law and the UN are no waterproof guarantee for peace and prosperity, but it's still many, many times better than George Bush's law of the jungle. (Here I'm parroting that guy from the article now, the President of the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy ) And I'm speaking for myself now, not John Kerry who did approve for the use of armed force (but not how it was handled) Kerry still has more in common with Bush than he has with me.
|
|