Cindi
Senior Member
Posts: 311
|
Post by Cindi on Nov 3, 2004 12:39:21 GMT -5
They have announced that Bush won and Kerry is giving his speech at 2 pm.
|
|
|
Post by happy on Nov 3, 2004 12:41:14 GMT -5
Doin' the victory dance.....Oh yeah..... ;D
(The TV just said the speech will be at 1:00 Boston time)
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 3, 2004 14:59:14 GMT -5
Good luck with Bush! Gosh i was impressed with Kerry's speech, got even me teary eyed...sigh... I had such high hopes for him.....boohoo!
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 3, 2004 15:13:37 GMT -5
We don't need luck with bush...
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 3, 2004 15:52:16 GMT -5
From cnn.com... I'm glad that Kerry didn't try to dispute the election results and pull another 2000 scenario. From what I read at cnn.com, Kerry was "good sport" about his defeat. I guess Kerry wasn't that great of a candidate that he couldn't get more support. On the other hand, Bush couldn't have been a very good candidate either if the election ended up being so close against a "weak" candidate. I'm disappointed by the re-election of Bush. I don't have to like it, but I'll live with it. andy
|
|
|
Post by angels on Nov 3, 2004 16:12:47 GMT -5
We don't need luck with bush... We need God that is for sure!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 3, 2004 17:24:03 GMT -5
Congratulations to George W. Bush, the President of the United States, on his landmark victory last night. The President now joins an elite group of Americans to be twice elected to the highest office in our land. He surpasses the election victories of John Adams and John Quincy Adams, the only other father and son presidential team in American history. The President "redeemed" his own father's 1992 election defeat, by achieving what George Bush, Sr. was unable to achieve--a second presidential victory. Unlike the election of 2000, the President won both the popular and electoral college vote. Though the margin of victory over Senator John Kerry was nominal, high voter turnout gave the President the largest popular vote in history. American Christians have a biblical duty to pray for, love, and honor the chief magistrate in our nation. We also have a duty to help our President by holding him accountable to his oath of office to uphold the Constitution, and his non-optional, biblical duties to uphold and enforce the moral law of God. The Next Four Years We must learn from history and experience. Republicans are significantly more conservative when they are out of office. With Republican control over the Senate, House and Executive Branch, key checks and balances are absent. Christians must rise above partisan loyalties, must remain informed on the issues, and must hold our friends accountable to an objective and transcendent standard. If we love the President, we can do nothing less. Paralyzed by the fear of a Kerry victory, Christians have largely failed to speak truth to our President and to one another. We have made the issue John Kerry, rather than the objective standards of God to which all leaders are held to account. The present Administration has embraced civil unions and legal rights for sodomites, sending women into combat, the highest tax payer subsidies for Planned Parenthood in American history, and massive federal involvement in education, and he has denied the essence of the Christianity on national television by claiming that Islam can lead people to Heavan. By and large, Christians have refused to believe the truth, have refused to act on the truth, or have actively covered the truth because they have made their goal partisan outcomes rather than the righteousness of God which exalteth a nation. We can not continue down this path for four more years. We should fear the impact on our nation of Christian compromise more than the spread of humanism. Because Christians are Gods chosen people, we have a special duty to rise above partisan interests and factionalism so that we can be the Lords representatives in this nation. We must be the first to praise a leader for righteous conduct and the first to hold leaders accountable for advocating policies which are an offense to the moral law of God. We must eschew the hypocritical and idolatrous tendency often found in our camp to berate Democrats for sins, but to cover, deny and even facilitate the sins of Republicans. We must be the one group that is known as truly independent of partisan factionalism. We must be the one group that always raises the righteous standard in the land. From www.visionforum.comRobb
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 3, 2004 20:16:34 GMT -5
Well, Bush sure can use use all the help he can get working on that monster deficit and the mess in Iraq etc.
It's only fair he gets 4 more years - he breaks something, he can fix it himself! Kerry might have been doomed anyway trying to clean up his mess.
|
|
|
Post by no name on Nov 3, 2004 20:23:33 GMT -5
Rather, our whole country might have been doomed under the leadership of a man like Kerry. Thankfully, most people in the U.S. realized that; Bush received more votes than any other Presidential candidate in history -- clearing a good 3.5 million over Kerry in the popular vote, and winning by large margins (compared to 2000) in important states.
Bush: Vindicated, Validated, Victorious
|
|
|
Post by Votes on Nov 3, 2004 23:36:19 GMT -5
I'm glad that Kerry didn't try to dispute the election results and pull another 2000 scenario. From what I read at cnn.com, Kerry was "good sport" about his defeat. I guess Kerry wasn't that great of a candidate that he couldn't get more support. On the other hand, Bush couldn't have been a very good candidate either if the election ended up being so close against a "weak" candidate. I'm disappointed by the re-election of Bush. I don't have to like it, but I'll live with it. andy Bush scarcely won the electoral vote. He won by only 136,483 counted votes in Ohio. THAT was a close race. It could be closer when all the votes in that state are counted. Kerry received 55,554,114 or 48% of counted votes from voting Americans in 48 reporting states. The remaining 2 states: He received 732,483 or 49% of counted votes in Iowa. He received 353,788 or 49% of counted votes in New Mexico . The total counted votes Kerry received is 56,640,385. www.cnn.com/
|
|
|
Post by Agreed on Nov 3, 2004 23:49:15 GMT -5
Good luck with Bush! Gosh i was impressed with Kerry's speech, got even me teary eyed...sigh... I had such high hopes for him.....boohoo! Bush will only try to fix what HE thinks needs fixing. Thank god he can't run again.
|
|
Cindi
Senior Member
Posts: 311
|
Post by Cindi on Nov 4, 2004 0:08:43 GMT -5
I am happy. I didn't think Kerry would win from day one. I knew we would have four more years of George W Bush as our President.
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 7:27:36 GMT -5
I feared Bush was going to win the whole time actually. The Bush campaign was far more effective. And Kerry's nuanced views on moral issues just didn't work in America. It was in the last few days that I really got my hopes up for Kerry, especially after the last polls and then the exit polls seemed to favour him too. I watched the elections from midnight my time to 8.30am only to be soooooooooooooo disappointed Got 3 hours of sleep and spent the rest of the day stamping my feet lol. I really felt -although with reservations- that Kerry could be great for the US and be the true world leader that Bush failed to be. It's good that Bush won the majority of the popular vote for a change. But polarization has been enormous, which puts his victory in a different perspective. The other half of America was really angrily fed up with Bush as well as the rest of the world! Now we will all hold our breath and hope for the best.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 4, 2004 9:20:37 GMT -5
Nuanced?? LOL! That is one way to describe a lack of moral clarity. Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 4, 2004 9:23:34 GMT -5
Or we can pray for the best and then breathe easily. Robb
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Nov 4, 2004 9:35:16 GMT -5
Nuanced?? LOL! That is one way to describe a lack of moral clarity. Robb My thoughts exactly, Robb. There's nothing "nuanced" about believing human life begins AT CONCEPTION but also vowing to support ending that human life at the personal whim of the mother. This is not "nuance". It is personal hypocrisy, moral cowardice, and sheer arrogance.
|
|
|
Post by happy on Nov 4, 2004 9:43:53 GMT -5
What gave me the shivers about the abortion thing is that we aren't talking the normal abortion...first trimester. He was saying he would support it if the mother decided after that...partial birth. That is so very wrong. (abortion itself is, but this is even worse!) Gay marriage. Saying GW Bush prays to much. ? I think not. etc. etc. etc. I am sure he had some good points. They say the EVangelicals of America won it for Bush. Hmmmm, wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Nov 4, 2004 9:46:24 GMT -5
My thoughts exactly, Robb. There's nothing "nuanced" about believing human life begins AT CONCEPTION but also vowing to support ending that human life at the personal whim of the mother. This is not "nuance". It is personal hypocrisy, moral cowardice, and sheer arrogance. Life does not begin at conception. Both the egg and the sperm are alive. Is it possible to even say that an individual is created at conception? In the case of identical multiple births, if the individual is created at the moment of conception then when is the second or third individual created?
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Nov 4, 2004 10:00:18 GMT -5
Life does not begin at conception. Both the egg and the sperm are alive. Is it possible to even say that an individual is created at conception? In the case of identical multiple births, if the individual is created at the moment of conception then when is the second or third individual created? First, if you are so positive that life does not begin at conception, please do me the favor of telling me when life does begin? Is it at 14 days, 2 weeks, 3 months gestation? Is it at birth, is it when the umbilical cord is cut, is it when the baby develops existential self-awareness? In other words, if you're so dogmatic about life NOT beginning at conception, perhaps you could be consistent enough to be dogmatic about when life does begin. Second, "both the egg and the sperm" do not individually contain all the genetic material necessary to be called a human being. The newly fertilized egg does. Third, my opinion of life/concception is irrelevant to Kerry's own position. Kerry doesn't even bother to argue about "when" life begins, which is even more pathetic. In other words, he is on record as saying that he DOES believe life begins at conception (and then says he supports the right to end that human life).
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Nov 4, 2004 15:44:48 GMT -5
First, if you are so positive that life does not begin at conception, please do me the favor of telling me when life does begin? The egg is alive. The sperm is alive. Live is already up and running. If the sperm die that is the end of the story (without in vitro fretilization). If the egg dies that is the end of the story. Conception is a continuation of life that already is not the creation of life. As I said, it is not life starting that is the issue here because it already is. Whether the egg and/or the sperm could continue to exist/develop is not relevent. The fact is they are as alive as the zygote they produce. The question at hand is when is a new individual produced. No they do not. But some humans do not either and some contain an excess yet we still treat them as humans. A strict chromosome count is probably not a good test of an individual. Yes it does. Sometimes. But many times it does not. Many times the genetic code is so wrong there is no development at all. At other times there is development but with serious errors. How far off does the genetic code have to be before you stop calling the developing zygote a human? Of course. Each of our opinions are our own. Is this inconsistent? There are many things that are legal that some consider unethical. In the near future it will be possible to "grow" humans in artificial wombs. It will be possible to create humans that are not the result of the combination of the DNA from an egg and a sperm. These developments will raise ethical questions that will make the abortion issue pale in comparison. We need to be thinking about answers to today's questions that will carry us into the future. Stopping the research, like stopping any progress, is not a viable option.
|
|
|
Post by Heather on Nov 4, 2004 16:56:52 GMT -5
I, for one, am so thankful that Bush won. I feel that our country has been blessed by God. This country was founded on religous freedom and God has played an important role. As long as America is blessing God than we can pray with conviction "God bless America".
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 17:28:20 GMT -5
yes.. .and maybe because of the Bush win one day Roe. v. Wade will be overturned...
Let us hope!
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 17:51:57 GMT -5
Although Bush has been critisized for not excersizing the seperation of church and state, I guess he still is the right president for a nation with a strong Christian majority for whom Christian moral values are a priority. Many have voted for Bush becos they somehow gathered that Kerry supported abortion and gay marriages. There have been whispercampaigns about this too. Even though Kerry doesn't support either, Bush still is tougher on abortion and gays which appeals to them.
Fair enough that these Christians vote for Bush for these reasons, but it would certainly not be a priority for me (and I'm a Christian too). Gays and abortion seem like minor issues to me compared to the economy, Iraq, and the war on terror. I think abortion and homosexuality are both private affairs of specific groups, I don't support either, but individuals will have to carry their own responsibility. I personally find Iraq, the war on terror and the economy more pressing issues for a government. And then the choice would be Kerry for me. (And most Americans for 2 out of the 3 issues.)
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Nov 4, 2004 17:57:10 GMT -5
The egg is alive. The sperm is alive. Live is already up and running. If the sperm die that is the end of the story (without in vitro fretilization). If the egg dies that is the end of the story. And if the embyro/zygote dies the end of the story is the death of a human person; if intentional through abortion, it is a murder... Conception is a continuation of life that already is not the creation of life. This fascinating definition of "conception" is unlike any I've ever seen during my medical school or residency training. An egg or a sperm cannot be considered a human life, whereas if a fertilized egg can be. As I said, it is not life starting that is the issue here because it already is. Whether the egg and/or the sperm could continue to exist/develop is not relevent [sic]. The fact is they are as alive as the zygote they produce. No, they are not as alive as the zygote they produce, because they have only half the genetic material, respectively. The question at hand is when is a new individual produced. Fine. Please tell me when a new individual is produced. Is it at 14 days, 2 weeks, 3 months gestation? Is it at birth, is it when the umbilical cord is cut, is it when the baby develops existential self-awareness, or is it when mommy dearest decides? No they do not. But some humans do not either and some contain an excess yet we still treat them as humans. A strict chromosome count is probably not a good test of an individual. So......when, exactly, did these extrachromosomal humans become human? Yes it does. Sometimes. But many times it does not. Many times the genetic code is so wrong there is no development at all. At other times there is development but with serious errors. How far off does the genetic code have to be before you stop calling the developing zygote a human? When the developing zygote is a horse, dog, cow, purple Amazon tree frog, etc. The only difference is that the developing zygote was a person who did not survive naturally. For those following along, this is opposed to not surviving because someone vacuumed it or flushed it out with medications on purpose because they didn't "want" it. Of course. Each of our opinions are our own. No kidding. I guess I'm saying I'd have more respect for Kerry if he would at least make a pretense at straining himself embryologically. Is this inconsistent? There are many things that are legal that some consider unethical. Yes, it is quite consistent to say that you believe a human's life begins with the union of sperm and egg, yet insist that it is morally acceptable to kill it at any stage in its development. These developments will raise ethical questions that will make the abortion issue pale in comparison. We need to be thinking about answers to today's questions that will carry us into the future. Stopping the research, like stopping any progress, is not a viable option. Nothing can "pale in comparison" to the intentionial genocide of unborn humans, and it certainly does not qualify as "research".
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on Nov 4, 2004 18:10:26 GMT -5
Bingo!
All 11 of the gay marriage bans passed… Thank God!
Abortion is a minor issue?
Oh let me see… In America alone there have been how many abortions since 1973? How does 44 million sound?
So the economy, Iraq, and the war on terror are more important to you then 44 million souls?
So even though you say you don’t support abortion, please do not act like murder (abortion) should be up to individuals to be carried out in their own responsibility…
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Nov 4, 2004 18:27:30 GMT -5
To Bertine's post: While Kerry may not directly support gay marriage and abortion, he is a member of the political party that does support both. In the past, Kerry has appeared more concerned with what others think than his own moral compass. As far as the economy goes, I cannot understand why anyone would criticize the actions of the Bush administration on their handling of the economy. They took office six months after the economy began heading into a recession, and nine months later, our economy was handed a devastating blow by the 9/11 attacks. Our government responded by cutting taxes--across the board. Now we are getting back on track. Home ownership is at record levels. In fact, in the area where I reside, the home construction business is BOOMING! Obviously, in spite of consumer confidence statistics, people have money to spend. Our monetary policy is unchanged from the previous administration. Yes, we have incurred a large deficit. That is to be expected with the downturn in the economy. I don't really understand your criticisms or else you don't really understand the issues. But if you come over to the UN, I'm sure we can hash it all out over a few Starbucks beverages.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 4, 2004 18:35:08 GMT -5
Right on Bryan and Clay.
I agree that these moral issues are far more important that the economy or even the war in Iraq.
I for one would gladly give up my business/income/wealth/etc if it would mean that abortion would stop in this country. The economy is such an insignificant issue when compared to our duty before God to stand for and do what is right.
I only regret that Bush will most likely not go far enough in the fight to save these defenseless unborn babies. I think that this issue of abortion is not seen as a priority because of a lack of perspective. I know a few former pro-abortion people who were given the proper perspective by viewing actual abortions on the web. I encourage each of you to view these images... it may change your life and move you to rally to the side of these innocent babies. Just type in "abortion videos" in your search engine, pick a site and get prepared to be shocked and outraged.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Bertine Louise on Nov 4, 2004 18:37:27 GMT -5
Bingo! All 11 of the gay marriage bans passed… Thank God! Right, so Kerry could have easily left it up to the states. There's clearly not much animo for gay marriage. Hmm i was already anticipating reactions like yours Bryan. Thing is I'm not sure zygotes or embryo's have souls, and I'm not sure about defining abortion as murder either. What I do know for sure is that Iraq, the war on terror and the economy do deal with fullgrown human beings that have souls. PS: Brick, does Starbucks have tea? I feel abortion is not a cut and dried issue, and can find myself in Kerry's stand. If ppl think I don't have a moral compass then either so be it. As for the economy, no I'm certainly no expert, but I like Kerry's rhetoric of "fighting for the middle class and those struggeling to get in it". And a majority of Americans do trust Kerry more than Bush on the economy.
|
|