|
|
| Author |
Message |
Syke
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 2976
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
|
 Posted: 10/09/04 - 15:53 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Trebel wrote: | You know what really bugged me last night and in the first debate is when Bush asked Kerry about the 87 Million. Kerry both times replied by saying "I made a mistake in talking about how I voted, but he made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?" That is the most asinine statement I have ever heard. Kerry voted FOR the war. Not only did he vote for the war, but he looked at the EXACT SAME intelligence as Bush. So if Bush made a mistake invading Iraq then so did he. Its not like Bush misled the Congress into thinking it was something it wasn't. Congress saw the same briefs he did, saw the same satellite images, the same CIA intelligence, the same everything. So for him to call the invasion a mistake is to admit he made an error in judgement also.
On a side note, I laughed my ass off when Kerry tried to talk about Bush's supposed timber company, and Bush replied with, "I own a Timber Company? That's news to me. Want some wood?"
Also, Kerry's response on abortion is what led Bush to say that he didn't get what Kerry was saying. To say you are Catholic and in the same sentence say you condone killing an unborn child is hypocritical at best. Kerry tried to say that he didn't want to legislate his theological views, however we legislate morality in all we do. Where do you think the basis for all laws in America came from? The Ten Commandments, and other guidelines laid down in the Bible, because despite what people would have you believe, the founding fathers were Christian. |
The timber company was a technicality, which was "cleared up" after the debate. I forget which reporter, but he was commenting on the debates, and mentioned that Bush did indeed "own" a timber company, since he profited some net like 24 dollars or some b******t like that. Ya, it was just one of those statements I believe Kerry was throwing out there at Bush because he probably thought that Bush didn't have the audacity to overlook the 24 measely dollars. Nice try but no Cigar I guess...
And dude, the laws in our country my have been based on the commandments as a guideline (years and years ago), but you have to remember that seperation of Church and State is still in place, and you can't muddle the two together. Just because some prefer abortion be illegal, doesn't mean that a majority believe it should be. If the PEOPLE believe, in the majority, that abortion should be legal, then it will be legal. One man, or one administration cannot overrule the majority of citizens opinions and block that right, because THAT would be unconstitutional. It's all about equality, and Kerry seems to understand at least that much about being a leader. He's against abortion, but he won't let his own convictions stand against what the people feel is right. If he did that, he would be more or less a dictator than a president. This is how I understand it at least, correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
Obmar
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1934
|
|
Posted: 10/09/04 - 16:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
well said
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Qaldyin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1346
|
|
Posted: 10/09/04 - 16:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Actually, the basis of all laws in American came from the first leaders who were Masons, and the 10 commandments had absolutely nothing to do with anything. You can be religious and be pro abortion, what the hell is wrong with that? Institutionalized religion is a joke. Which brings us to another point: stem cell research - Bush is against it because of his religious values, yet if he wasn't so narrow minded he would realize it could vastly change science.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Conqueso
Luke Warm
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 388
|
|
Posted: 10/09/04 - 17:05 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | And dude, the laws in our country my have been based on the commandments as a guideline (years and years ago), but you have to remember that seperation of Church and State is still in place, and you can't muddle the two together. Just because some prefer abortion be illegal, doesn't mean that a majority believe it should be. If the PEOPLE believe, in the majority, that abortion should be legal, then it will be legal. One man, or one administration cannot overrule the majority of citizens opinions and block that right, because THAT would be unconstitutional. It's all about equality, and Kerry seems to understand at least that much about being a leader. He's against abortion, but he won't let his own convictions stand against what the people feel is right. If he did that, he would be more or less a dictator than a president. This is how I understand it at least, correct me if I'm wrong. |
Let's do some "devil's advocate" here. The seperation of church and state also means that the state does not interfere with the church. Catholics along with many others view abortion as murder of an innocent. Taxpayers dollars, including the dollars of Catholics, are being used to support abortion. The government is interfering with the church. The woman that was originally involved with Roe vs. Wade is now pro-life and wants appeal the verdict. What does that tell you? Another argument is that the constitution applies equally to everyone (protection of life, liberty, and persuit of happiness etc). Who protects the rights of unborn children when they can not defend themselves?
There is a reason the framers of the Constitution based the document on Christian principles (and no they werent all masons or deists etc). Just because the Constitution is old does not mean that its principles are not applicable today.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Qaldyin
Sir Postalot
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 1346
|
|
Posted: 10/09/04 - 17:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
I'll agree that the abortion issue is also a religious issue. Not all Catholics are against abortion. And just because a Catholic that is against abortion is putting in a % of his tax money into abortion clinics that doesn't mean that the government is interfering with the church. A lot of taxpayers end up paying for things they don't want. Ex, not everyone supports the war in Iraq, but they still payed their taxes.
I can see what you are coming from with abortion, but not allowing stem cell research is a crime.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Brael
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 2122
|
|
Posted: 10/09/04 - 18:37 Post subject:
|
|
|
Simple enough, remove taxpayer dollars, legalise it, let people choose if they want to have an abortion or not. If they believe its wrong theres nothing that says they have to, if they feel it's ok... then let them.
As for stem cells, thats the only point where I agree with Kerry and I feel dirty saying that.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Conqueso
Luke Warm
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 388
|
|
Posted: 10/09/04 - 19:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Qaldyin wrote: | | I can see what you are coming from with abortion, but not allowing stem cell research is a crime. |
Yea, I am in between arguments. I look at the after effects of the abortion issue and then think how things might come about with stem cell. Personally, I dont think embryo stem cell should be done even though adult stem cell is not as "versatile". Life has become "cheap" and responsibility has been delegated off to "someone else". Although in a small portion of cases abortion is necessary, the other portion of people that opt for abortion see it as a way out of an "inconvenience". They (both people) do not take responsibility for what brought themselves to that point. I can see the same thing happening with stem cells. The same is happening in some applications of biotechnology. People can use an array of arguements to justify the "correctness" of doing something. Once you take a step down the path via "self-justification", there is no turning back. Just because you can do it does not mean that you should.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
khrath
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8750
|
|
Posted: 10/09/04 - 21:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I wanr Braels mom to have an abortion. It's never too late.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Pankrat
Can't Stop Posting
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 603
Location: Land of Paranoia
|
|
Posted: 10/11/04 - 12:27 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Khrath wrote: | | I wanr Braels mom to have an abortion. It's never too late. |
I support post-birth abortion - especially in the case where the women's health is at risk. Don't impede a woman's right to choose.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Taadieri
Rookie
Joined: 05 Nov 2002
Posts: 70
|
|
Posted: 10/11/04 - 18:58 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Syke wrote: | | Trebel wrote: | | On a side note, I laughed my ass off when Kerry tried to talk about Bush's supposed timber company, and Bush replied with, "I own a Timber Company? That's news to me. Want some wood?" |
The timber company was a technicality, which was "cleared up" after the debate. I forget which reporter, but he was commenting on the debates, and mentioned that Bush did indeed "own" a timber company, since he profited some net like 24 dollars or some b******t like that. Ya, it was just one of those statements I believe Kerry was throwing out there at Bush because he probably thought that Bush didn't have the audacity to overlook the 24 measely dollars. Nice try but no Cigar I guess... |
Both of you missed the point of the timber company quote and so did Bush. Unfortunately, that mostly indicates that it was a rather obscure point that Kerry didn't explain very well.
The intent of mentioning Bush's "timber company" was to point out one of Bush's more blatant lies about Kerry's tax proposals. Bush claimed that over 900,000 small businesses would pay higher taxes under Kerry's plan to roll-back the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% of wage earners. The problem is that this number was reached by including everyone that reported ANY small-bussiness income. This includes a great many people who do not run a small business and people who would not be paying higher taxes if they did not have extensive income from sources other than small businesses.
When Bush earned his tiny profit on the stock of a small timber company, he reported it using the same tax forms used by small businesses that are paying their taxes under personal income tax rates. If he had made that filing in the same year his people used to get the 900,000 figure, he would have been included in that number despite the fact that his holdings in that timber company don't in any way qualify HIM as a "small business".
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Taadieri
Rookie
Joined: 05 Nov 2002
Posts: 70
|
|
Posted: 10/11/04 - 19:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
By the way, the BIGGEST lie told by either side in that debate was probably this one:
[quote=Bush]Non-homeland, non-defense discretionary spending was raising at 15 percent a year when I got into office. And today it's less than 1 percent, because we're working together to try to bring this deficit under control.[/quote]
The truth is that under Bush, non-defense, discretionary spending has grown faster than under any of the previous 5 administrations.
Growth (adjusted for inflation) of non-defense, non-entitlement spending:
- Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year
- Carter: 2.0% per year
- Reagan: -1.3% per year
- Bush 1: 4.0% per year
- Clinton: 2.5% per year
- Bush Jr: 8.2% per year
Just ask the fiscally conservative Cato Institute what they think about the idea that George Bush is fiscally responsible or that the deficit was caused by forces outside his control.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Obmar
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1934
|
|
Posted: 10/11/04 - 20:48 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Taadieri wrote: | | Syke wrote: | | Trebel wrote: | | On a side note, I laughed my ass off when Kerry tried to talk about Bush's supposed timber company, and Bush replied with, "I own a Timber Company? That's news to me. Want some wood?" |
The timber company was a technicality, which was "cleared up" after the debate. I forget which reporter, but he was commenting on the debates, and mentioned that Bush did indeed "own" a timber company, since he profited some net like 24 dollars or some b******t like that. Ya, it was just one of those statements I believe Kerry was throwing out there at Bush because he probably thought that Bush didn't have the audacity to overlook the 24 measely dollars. Nice try but no Cigar I guess... |
Both of you missed the point of the timber company quote and so did Bush. Unfortunately, that mostly indicates that it was a rather obscure point that Kerry didn't explain very well.
The intent of mentioning Bush's "timber company" was to point out one of Bush's more blatant lies about Kerry's tax proposals. Bush claimed that over 900,000 small businesses would pay higher taxes under Kerry's plan to roll-back the Bush tax cuts on the top 2% of wage earners. The problem is that this number was reached by including everyone that reported ANY small-bussiness income. This includes a great many people who do not run a small business and people who would not be paying higher taxes if they did not have extensive income from sources other than small businesses.
When Bush earned his tiny profit on the stock of a small timber company, he reported it using the same tax forms used by small businesses that are paying their taxes under personal income tax rates. If he had made that filing in the same year his people used to get the 900,000 figure, he would have been included in that number despite the fact that his holdings in that timber company don't in any way qualify HIM as a "small business". |
i see someone finally gets it
please keep in mind that this subtley will be missed here ... and by the general public.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Conqueso
Luke Warm
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 388
|
|
Posted: 10/12/04 - 00:16 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
I wonder if Kerry's offshore accounts are considered a "small business". Hmm.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
