|
Post by bryan2 on May 24, 2004 20:07:54 GMT -5
what would make kerry a better choice then bush?
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 25, 2004 0:05:59 GMT -5
what would make kerry a better choice then bush? This question wasn't directed to me, but I'll opine anyway. The only good thing about Kerry being elected would be that it will bring about the destruction of the democratic party. inatent
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 26, 2004 8:12:27 GMT -5
what would make kerry a better choice then bush? Even though I can't vote for either Bush or Kerry and my political opinion will be biased by my European view, I can certainly give you some points why Kerry would be a way better president for your country as well for the rest of the world. I do care about it, as I realize that the President of the U.S. is not only important for the U.S.A. but for the stability and economic welfare of everyone on this planet. Kerry takes this into account, while Bush only can categorize issues or countries either good or evil, in which he misses the nuance and the political skills to be a good president. (his roadmap to peace for the ME does not seem to work at all.) He doesn't have the capabilities to bring stability in Iraq, has apparently no view as it comes down to maintaining a proper, balanced budget, and until now I haven't seen any evidence why we should trust him on a better future for us all. Right, Kerry has to prove what he's worth. Bush was chosen over Gore, not really because of his qualities, as he stumbled through debates and interviews, more because people didn't see a worthy successor of Clinton in Gore. Bush showed his qualities when he brought the country together after 9/11 and started his war for terrorism, which I supported at that time. But in what did he succeed over these years?? Iraq is a mess, Bin Laden is still out there, Al-Qaida is alive and kicking, the economy continued to be poor for almost three year in a row (there’s still a lot of damage to be repaired), and his approval ratings are under the 50%! (Gallup Poll) Even Clinton did better during his impeachment trials. Considering this I would say that Kerry has the potential to be a far better president then Bush has been until now. It’s time for some change The president needs to acknowledge that a country cannot act on its own when dealing with international issues. That you can’t fix things on your own, without international support (Something Bush apparently found out himself lately when he asked the countries in the U.N. for prolonging their presence in Iraq.) That’s why you should consider the alternative before voting for Bush again
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 26, 2004 11:43:30 GMT -5
Even though I can't vote for either Bush or Kerry and my political opinion will be biased by my European view, I can certainly give you some points why Kerry would be a way better president for your country as well for the rest of the world. I do care about it, as I realize that the President of the U.S. is not only important for the U.S.A. but for the stability and economic welfare of everyone on this planet. Kerry does have a balanced view on this, while Bush only can categorize issues or countries either good or evil, in which he misses the nuance and the political skills to be a good president. (his roadmap to peace for the ME does not seem to work at all.) He doesn't have the capabilities to bring stability in Iraq, has apparently no view as it comes down to maintaining a proper, balanced budget, and until now I haven't seen any evidence why we should trust him on a better future for us all. Right, Kerry has to prove what he's worth. Bush was chosen over Gore, not really because of his qualities, as he stumbled through debates and interviews, more because people didn't see a worthy successor of Clinton in Gore. Bush showed his qualities when he brought the country together after 9/11 and started his war for terrorism, which I supported at that time. But in what did he succeed over these years?? Iraq is a mess, Bin Laden is still out there, Al-Qaida is alive and kicking, the economy continued to be poor for almost three year in a row (there’s still a lot of damage to be repaired), and his approval ratings are under the 50%! (Gallup Poll) Even Clinton did better during his impeachment trials. Considering this I would say that Kerry has the potential to be a far better president then Bush has been until now. It’s time for some change The president needs to acknowledge that a country cannot act on its own when dealing with international issues. That you can’t fix things on your own, without international support (Something Bush apparently found out himself lately when he asked the countries in the U.N. for prolonging their presence in Iraq.) That’s why you should consider the alternative before voting for Bush again This is amazing.... What media do you get your information from?
|
|
hinds
Junior Member
Posts: 142
|
Post by hinds on May 26, 2004 14:14:31 GMT -5
I can't say how I would do as President of the United States. It must be a most difficult position.
I don't think the United Nations is doing such a great job either.
And how come no other country has taken it upon themselves to catch Bin Ladin? It shouldn't be left up to the leader of the United States alone...as it appears to be much of the time. Bin Ladin is out there because no one, from any country has caught him.
Just wondered....
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 26, 2004 14:47:09 GMT -5
I don't think the United Nations is doing such a great job either. You're right, the UN has its flaws. Actually I am glad that Bush is taking the UN more serious now with proposing his new resolution to the UN in seeking support for a international stabilization force in Iraq, it will probably unite the UN more. Remember that the UN was designed to solve conflicts between states, not for fighting terrorism in the first place. And as it is an enormous international institution, it will take time to respond adequately to the "new" threat of terrorism. Bush would "hunt them down and bring 'em to justice", that's what he promised in the fall of 2001.. so he took the main responsibility on his shoulders. Actually.. the U.S. isn't hunting Bin Ladin alone in Afghanistan and Pakistan.. there's an international coalition there, under American command. And that also includes European countries! As Europeans we may be critical concerning the war in Iraq, we do support the fight against terrorism.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 26, 2004 16:28:45 GMT -5
If by balanced, you mean – having one position one day, then having a totally different position the next, or – having one position when speaking before a particular “group” of people one day, then having the totally opposite position when speaking before a different “group” of people the next day . . . . If this is what you mean by balanced, then yeah, Kerry is real balanced. But here, people just call it “flip-flopping”. Kerry himself doesn't even seem to know where he stands on the issues! They may still “alive” and “kicking”, but they are doing so with the majority of their leadership killed or captured. If you know anything about the economy, you would know that it does not change/recover overnight. Bush inherited a recession that actually began in the latter part of Clinton’s 2nd term. And people too quickly forget that America suffered the most devastating attack on its soil in history. Bush’s tax cuts have brought our economy back, but perhaps this isn’t being accurately reported in the European press . . . :-\ The Facts Show Increase of Jobs Under Bush
Paige McKenzie, NewsMax.com Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004
The media and Democrats keep repeating it over and over: "2.3 million jobs lost" since President Bush took office. His could be the worst job record since before World War II, they claim.
One little problem: It's not true. Not only has there been no net loss of jobs during the Bush administration, there has been a net gain, even with the devastation of 9/11. At least 2.4 million jobs have been created since the president took office, 2 million of those in 2003. The gains more than offset the losses.
While Democrats continue to beat their election-year drums about outsourcing, manufacturing losses, unemployment and slow growth in employment, America?s economy has been steadily creating jobs.
At least 366,000 jobs have been created in the last five months, over 100,000 of those in January, White House press secretary Scott McClellan has noted. . . . . economic indicators are surprising economists and pointing toward a take-off in the recovery.
The signs:
- The 5.6 percent unemployment rate is the lowest in two years and below the average of the 1980s (7.3 percent) and '90s (5.8 percent), and still continues to drop.
- The nation's economic output revealed the strongest quarterly growth in 20 years. The data for the fourth quarter of 2003 show that the civilian labor force rose by 333,000, while the number of unemployed in the labor force dropped by 575,000. Even better, the number of so-called discouraged workers declined in December.
- Consumer spending grew between 4 percent and 5 percent last year, and real hourly earnings rose 1.5 percent. Real earnings have risen over the last three years.
- Exports doubled to 19 percent in the fourth quarter, compared to less than 9 percent in the third.
- The number of American workers is at an all-time high of 138.5 million, a level never before attained in U.S. history.
- Jobless claims are 10 percent below the average of the last 25 years and still falling.
- Hiring indices are up, even in manufacturing.
- Productivity growth is extremely high.
Now the doomsayers are criticizing the validity of the unemployment rate, which at 5.6 percent does not fit their gloomy story.
Faulty Counting
The problem is the areas of biggest job growth are usually not even being counted at all.
Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost.
This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office.
But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity.
People are called at home and asked if they have jobs, or if they are in the market for a job. In contrast to the Payroll Survey, the Household Survey shows that 2.4 million jobs have been created so far during Bush's time in office.
As Economy.com writer Haseeb Ahmed recently wrote, "something is amiss in the [Payroll] survey."
Credit Where Credit Is Due That’s not all. When doomsayers, and media spoiling for a fight in an election year, laughed at Bush’s prediction of 2.6 million new jobs this year, not everyone was scoffing.
Ahmed, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others hardly batted an eye. Greenspan said it was "probably feasible" the economy would reach the Bush administration's forecast of adding 2.6 million jobs this year, provided growth continues and the productivity rate slows to more typically levels.
"I don't think it's 'Fantasyland,'" Greenspan said.
"I agree with him," said John Ryding, chief market economist at Bear Stearns. "I think that we will create 2.5 million, possibly more, jobs over the balance of the year."
Ahmed is convinced that "the revision patterns of the early-1990s recovery cycle" will be repeated. A total of 1.4 million job gains were revised upward to 2.9 million in the first 21 months after the end of the last recession, just after Bush Sr. was voted out of office.
If elected, will John Kerry get credit for the jobs created under the Bush administration? And find out why so many workers are not being counted.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 26, 2004 16:30:56 GMT -5
You mean, when dealing with a corrupt UN that was in Saddam’s pocket? You mean, dealing with Germany, France, and Russia being in Saddam’s pocket? This is why the “world” wasn’t “behind” the coalition actions in Iraq . . . it was not because they were taking some sort of “moral” high ground about “war”. ========================= How the U.N. Helped Saddam Buy Allies By Evan Coyne Maloney Posted: 17 February 2004 www.brain-terminal.comUnited Press International recently reported the discovery of documents from Saddam Hussein's oil ministry that show the Iraqi dictator "used oil to bribe top French officials into opposing the imminent U.S.-led invasion of Iraq."And according to ABC News, allies of Saddam Hussein profited by pocketing the difference between the price of oil under the U.N.'s "Oil for Food" program and the price of oil on the open market. Some of these allies included "a close political associate and financial backer of French President Jacques Chirac", "Russian political figures" including "the Russian ambassador to Baghdad" and "officials in the office of President Vladimir Putin", "George Galloway, a British member of Parliament", and even some– gasp!--"prominent journalists". Because the U.N. allowed Saddam Hussein to decide who received contracts under the "Oil for Food" program, he was able to use it as a personal slush fund to pay off his defenders. France and Russia were two of the most stubborn supporters of the Hussein regime, and their friendship was rewarded well: Russian interests got the biggest cut of the loot, while the French came in second. British politician George Galloway, who likes to refer to Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice as "the three witches", personally pulled in nearly $10 million while defending Saddam. In all, some 270 companies, organizations and individuals in 50 countries profited through the arbitrage of Saddam Hussein's oil, the price of which was fixed below market by the United Nations. Crickets and a Faint CoughSounds pretty scandalous, right? Kind of makes you wonder why you're not hearing a little more about it... Meanwhile, scarcely a day passes without news coverage of our apparent intelligence failures in locating Iraqi weapons. Certainly, we must investigate why we haven't found anything yet, because we desperately need to plug the holes in our intelligence network before a foe like al Qaeda gets its hands on some devastating weapon. We'd damn well better fix our intelligence apparatus before a suitcase nuke is set off in Times Square. But it isn't exactly news that our intelligence is sorely lacking. If I recall correctly, a certain event in the fall of 2001 demonstrated quite vividly the inadequacies of our intelligence systems. It is news, however, when our so-called allies are caught stabbing us in the back while patting Saddam Hussein on his. But instead, the nightly newscasts prefer to focus on President Bush's service in the National Guard, something that's been investigated thoroughly in two previous election cycles even though nobody has produced one credible shred of evidence showing that the president failed to serve any of his obligations. You'd think Peter, Tom or Dan could take just one night off that non-story to investigate why our former allies sold us out. At least then we'd be hearing something new on the news. In Business with Saddam Since long before the start of the war, there was plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein had many beneficiaries in France, Russia and Germany, the three countries that fought hardest to prevent his removal. Our networks just chose not to cover it:Not only did the French help the Iraqi nuclear program as recently as 1990, they actively undermined the U.N. weapons inspection team, and they even kept the Hussein regime informed of discussions between Jacques Chirac and President Bush. And last October, when 40 rockets were fired at an American government office in Baghdad, it appeared that at least half of them were made by France after the U.N. weapons embargo went into effect in the wake of the first Gulf War. In other words, someone was sneaking French weapons to Saddam Hussein after the U.N. declared it illegal. Who would have done that? Could it have been the French?
In January 2003, two German businessmen were convicted of supplying weapons-making equipment to Saddam Hussein in violation of the U.N. embargo. Apparently, this was just the tip of the iceberg: according to an Iraqi weapons report to the U.N., over 80 German companies were involved in supplying Saddam's military, some of which were still doing so just months before the war. "Of further embarrassment to Germany is that [...] German companies make up more than half of the total number of institutions listed in the [Iraqi weapons] report," the BBC noted.
Not surprisingly, Russian military hardware also found its way into Saddam's hands despite the U.N. ban. Days after the war started last March, President Bush called Russian leader Vladimir Putin to voice concern over evidence that recently-made Russian military equipment was being used against U.S. forces. If true, it wouldn't be the first time that Russia violated the arms embargo. According to a 1998 article in The Washington Post, "[an] investigation by Russian and American nonproliferation specialists" showed that "top missile experts from Iraq went on a shopping trip to Russia in late 1994 and signed documents to acquire missile engines, technology and services despite the U.N. sanctions against Iraq [...]"
They Were Called Weasels for a Reason
Did Iraqi oil money pay for Russia's opposition to the U.S.? Is it possible that German businesses lobbied their government to go easy on Saddam? Could it be that Saddam's payoffs ensured the French would never have supported taking him out, no matter what the circumstances?
If so, then it's quite a flimsy argument to say that "inept diplomacy" on the part of the Bush Administration is the reason these governments didn't help us rid the world of one of the most brutal men in human history. Yet the Democratic opposition continues to criticize President Bush for not convincing Saddam Hussein's trading partners to get off the gravy train. If a President Kerry would have been any more successful at corralling the weasels, I'd like to know how. Bigger bribes? His wife doesn't have that much money.
Face it: sometimes the interests of other nations are quite different from ours, no matter how much diplomatic hand-shaking and ego-stroking is applied as a lubricant. That's why it's so dangerous to follow politicians who think we should let the rest of the world veto our foreign policy decisions.
The United Nations will not defend you. Nor will the Russians, French or Germans. Only the United States will, and only if we continue to control our own destiny. When you pull the lever next November, keep that in mind.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 26, 2004 16:50:10 GMT -5
. . . Kerry does have a balanced view on this, . . . Well, I suppose if you run fast enough from one end of the see-saw to the other and then back again before it has a chance to fall, it might be possible to maintain balance. That is what Kerry does better then anything else. In fact, it is the only thing I can think of that he does well at all! inatent
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 26, 2004 17:34:22 GMT -5
If by balanced, you mean – having one position one day, then having a totally different position the next, or – having one position when speaking before a particular “group” of people one day, then having the totally opposite position when speaking before a different “group” of people the next day . . . . If this is what you mean by balanced, then yeah, Kerry is real balanced. But here, people just call it “flip-flopping”. Kerry himself doesn't even seem to know where he stands on the issues! Okay, this is not what I meant by "balanced". I can see if I can edit my post. About flip-flopping: you're not referring to that incident about lying about his SUV, right? That was indeed pretty stupid of him. They're still dangerous, that's what I wanted to say. This news item was posted 30 minutes ago: "U.S. Faces Possible Al-Qaeda Attack, Ashcroft Says". They're organized in cells, not in an hierarchical structure. You're right. Pretty easy to bring an economy back with interest rates at 1% and so many tax cuts. Wow.. money for nothing! Did inflation already pick up? 2,300,000 job losses + 2,400,000 newly created jobs = 100,000 new jobs. That's not much
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 26, 2004 17:58:47 GMT -5
Talking about flip-flops So Bush has a site somewhere that tracks Kerry's "flip-flops". Reader TK probably spent three seconds coming up with this list of Bush flip flops. It's not like they're hard to find: *Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
*Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
*Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
*Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
*Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
*Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
*Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
*Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
*Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
*Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
*Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
*Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
*Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
*Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
*Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
*Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
*Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
*Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 26, 2004 20:30:03 GMT -5
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Nope. I totally agree with this. All of them are still dangerous. Well, they are organized in cells, but there was a hierarchy to their “group” as well. Osama was definitely #1, then there was a #2 man and someone just under him, etc., etc. Al-Queda definitely had leadership levels to the group as a whole. With many of the official leadership killed or captured, the remaining members are forming their own separate/individual groups that will maintain the goal of all Militant Islamic terrorist groups – and that would be Islamic rule over all people; destruction of the U.S., Britain, Israel, etc. This is ultimately what they want. Yep. The recovery has been pretty good – thanks to the tax cuts. More $$ in people’s pockets = the more $$ they will spend = recovering economy and increased tax revenues. New jobs, even after: * Recession * Worst attack on U.S. soil in history * Afghanistan war * Iraq war Bush opponents have been saying there was an overall job loss under Bush. Not true. John Kerry's WafflesIf you don't like the Democratic nominee's views, just wait a week.slate.msn.com/id/2096540/Kerry's Original Position (KOP) vs. Kerry's Revised Position (KRP): - Welfare Reform
KOP: In 1988, Sen. Kerry voted against a proposal to require at least one parent in any two-parent welfare family to work a mere 16 hours a week, declaring the work requirement "troublesome to me."
KRP: During his 1996 re-election campaign, when his Republican challenger, Gov. William Weld, was calling him soft on welfare, Kerry voted for the much stricter welfare reform law that Clinton signed into law.
- Mandatory Minimums
KOP: In 1993 and 1994, the senator from liberal Massachusetts voted against mandatory minimum sentences for gang activity, gun crimes, drug trafficking, and drug sales to minors, explaining in an impassioned speech that long sentences for some dealers who sell to minors would be "enormous injustices" and that some convicted drug offenders were "so barely culpable it is sad." He also said congressionally imposed mandatory minimums made no sense and would just create turf battles between federal and local prosecutors.
KRP: Today, presidential candidate Kerry strongly supports mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, including the sale of drugs to minors.
- Affirmative Action
KOP: In 1992, Kerry created a huge stir among liberals and civil rights groups with a major policy address arguing that affirmative action has "kept America thinking in racial terms" and helped promote a "culture of dependency."
KRP: Today, Kerry's campaign Web site vows to "Preserve Affirmative Action," noting that he "consistently opposed efforts in the Senate to undermine or eliminate affirmative action programs, and supports programs that seeks to enhance diversity." It doesn't mention any downside.
- Death Penalty
KOP: During one of his debates with Weld in 1996, Kerry ridiculed the idea of capital punishment for terrorists as a "terrorist protection policy," predicting that it would just discourage other nations from extraditing captured terrorists to the United States.
KRP: Kerry still opposes capital punishment, but he now makes an exception for terrorists.
- Education Reform
KOP: In a 1998 policy speech the Boston Globe described as "a dramatic break from Democratic dogma," Kerry challenged teachers unions by proposing to gut their tenure and seniority systems, giving principals far more power to hire and fire unqualified or unmotivated teachers.
KRP: Today, Kerry once again espouses pure Democratic dogma on education. His Web site pledges to "stop blaming and start supporting public school educators," vowing to give them "better training and better pay, with more career opportunities, more empowerment and more mentors." It doesn't mention seniority or tenure.
- Double Taxation
KOP: In December 2002, Kerry broke with Democratic dogma yet again in a Cleveland speech, calling for the abolition of the unfair "double taxation" of stock dividends in order to promote more investment and more accurate valuations of companies.
KRP: Five weeks later, after President Bush proposed a second round of tax cuts that included an end to this double taxation, Kerry changed his tune. He voted against the dividend tax cuts that were ultimately enacted by Congress and now hopes to roll them back as president, along with Bush's other tax cuts for upper-income Americans.
- Gas Taxation
KOP: In 1994, when the Concord Coalition gave Kerry a failing rating for his deficit reduction votes, he complained that he should have gotten credit for supporting a 50-cent increase in the gas tax.
KRP: Today he no longer supports any increase in the gas tax.
- Social Security
KOP: During the 1996 campaign, Kerry told a Globe reporter that the Social Security system should be overhauled. He said Congress should consider raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits and called it "wacky" that payroll taxes did not apply to income over $62,700. "I know it's all going to be unpopular," he said. "But this program has serious problems, and we have a generational responsibility to fix them."
KRP: Kerry no longer wants to mess with Social Security. "John Kerry will never balance the budget on the backs of America's seniors," his Web site promises.
- Trade
KOP: Kerry has been a consistent supporter of free trade deals, and as late as December, when reporters asked if there was any issue on which he was prepared to disagree with Democratic interest groups, Kerry replied: "Trade." Slate editor Jacob Weisberg came away impressed by the depth of Kerry's commitment to the issue: "Unlike Edwards, he supports international trade agreements without qualification." But that was three months ago!
KRP: In recent weeks, when Kerry has talked trade, he has talked nothing but qualification, calling for "fair trade" rather than "free trade," claiming to agree completely with the protectionist Edwards on trade issues, and vowing to "put teeth" into environmental and labor restrictions in agreements like NAFTA.
For more "balancing" of the see-saw: www.flipflopper.com/Flipflops.asp
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 27, 2004 12:21:39 GMT -5
Don't you get it on this flip-flopping issue?? I can't deny Kerry changed his positions about issues, but Bush did the same during his last term, and you don't even try to deny it.. So why should we trust Bush instead of Kerry?
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 27, 2004 14:07:00 GMT -5
Don't you get it on this flip-flopping issue?? I can't deny Kerry changed his positions about issues, but Bush did the same during his last term, and you don't even try to deny it.. So why should we trust Bush instead of Kerry? there is less of a chance out children will die in a bus bombing with bush in office.... also, for us Christians the idea of kerry being the leader of the free world isn't the best thing in our minds...
|
|
Kerry IS a Christian
Guest
|
Post by Kerry IS a Christian on May 27, 2004 15:14:00 GMT -5
Kerry is a Christian. Christians are people who believe that Jesus Christ is their saviour. Christians are not perfect..if so there would have been no need for the cross. Christianity isn't about legalisms or morals or someones idea of what a Christian is to do, say, think. And, Kerry is running for Presidential office of the United States....he is not and never has attempted to become a church leader. So, the fact of whether he is Christian or not is irrelevant. Can he do the job? Well..I'll say he can't do worse than Bush...or God help us all!
|
|
|
Post by hi on May 27, 2004 15:19:59 GMT -5
I wonder how many Kerry supporters are for him because they LIKE his policies or because they don't like the Bush administration. Once Kerry is in office, they will have to confront this issue.
Kerry is pro-choice which means he believes in ripping babies out of the womb, sticking scissors in their skulls and having their brains sucked out. He is for gun control. He is for gay marriage.
Bottom line: I wonder if Kerry's policies has driven a rise in the polls OR IF it is because of Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 27, 2004 15:21:44 GMT -5
of course he is.....
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 27, 2004 16:59:23 GMT -5
also, for us Christians the idea of kerry being the leader of the free world isn't the best thing in our minds... Bryan, I am a Christian too. Still I do not support Bush. Do you pretend to speak for all Christians in the free world?
|
|
|
Post by bryan2 on May 27, 2004 17:52:19 GMT -5
Bryan, I am a Christian too. Still I do not support Bush. Do you pretend to speak for all Christians in the free world? I never said I did... However there is no doubt most Christians would look at both men's records and choose bush over kerry. do you believe kerry's stands and record is that of a Christian?
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on May 28, 2004 7:58:32 GMT -5
do you believe kerry's stands and record is that of a Christian? I thought that the presidency is a secular position in which it shouldn't matter wether the president is a Christian or not. You may or may not agree with me on this, but in my opinion the president should represent all the American people (or all the people in the free world as being a world leader). whether they're Christian, Hindu, Muslim or atheist. Therefore I don't think it is right when Bush wants to put down Christian values concering abortus and gay marriage into the U.S. constitution. By doing this he is actively discriminating minority groups and shows a lack of respect for people not having the same principles in life as he does. I feel that Christianity is a tolerant religion and therefore it's impossible for me to support Bush in these issues.
|
|
|
Post by inatent on May 28, 2004 11:37:52 GMT -5
. . . . Therefore I don't think it is right when Bush wants to put down Christian values concering abortus and gay marriage into the U.S. constitution. By doing this he is actively discriminating minority groups and shows a lack of respect for people not having the same principles in life as he does. I feel that Christianity is a tolerant religion and therefore it's impossible for me to support Bush in these issues. Yes, and while we're at it, we should also purge the constitution of such Christian values as the right to "life, liberty, and the prursuit of happiness". In fact, let's scrap the constitution completely, because it was written and defended principlly by men (only men!) who considered themselves "Christian". Let's get together a group of people from all religions represented in this country, and let them set up a new government where all can participate - something like the one we are trying to create in Iraq, for example. inatent
|
|
|
Post by no name on May 30, 2004 17:50:06 GMT -5
I don't know that Kerry has had that dramatic of an increase in the polls . . . . For many, Kerry’s support comes from nothing more than people who just want someone other than Bush . . .
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 1, 2004 16:00:07 GMT -5
For many, Kerry’s support comes from nothing more than people who just want someone other than Bush . . . That's democracy, right? The privilige to vote for change and a better future. unless you're satisfied, off course. You can wonder how a aristocratic newbie like Kerry scores as high in the polls as he does now. Maybe a lot of Americans are really disappointed with the Bush administration.
|
|
|
Post by kw on Jun 1, 2004 16:42:05 GMT -5
There is no wonder about it. The reason Kerry is scores high is because he is the only other choice.
Anyone in his shoes would score high.
People just hate bush.
Bush is a good man and the media paint him as the devil.
how sad.
|
|
Guarp
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by Guarp on Jun 1, 2004 17:25:41 GMT -5
Bush is a good man and the media paint him as the devil. Just blame the media... that's a very easy way out.
|
|
|
Post by kw on Jun 1, 2004 17:43:25 GMT -5
Just blame the media... that's a very easy way out. Blame is not the issue. Accountability and being unbiased in reporting are the issues. There is no question the main media is biased against Bush. There is no easy way out of it.
|
|
|
Post by botany on Jun 1, 2004 22:31:21 GMT -5
Kerry is just as much of an i d i o t (spaced b/c of the auto censor) as Bush is. For the Bush-lovers, Kerry is just as good as Bush and would do the same fine quality work that Bush has done for the past 3.5 years. For the Bush-haters, Kerry is just as much of a screw up as Bush is. Kerry would drag America into just as much of a hellhole as Bush has done. The Republican and Democratic parties and their followers have stagnated into debating whether or not one party is better than the other and will fling mud at each other trying to dirty up the other's name. Well, what about actual issues?? Oh yeah, I forgot. They don't really matter compared to arguing about which political party is better. andy
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Jun 1, 2004 23:27:36 GMT -5
Just blame the media... that's a very easy way out. OK, we'll blame you too. That better? ;D
|
|