Kerry honored by Vietnamese Communists

registered · Site Admin Joined: Jun 04, 2004 Posts: 6437

Amber222,
What world do I live in? Unfortunately, that is again a typical emotional response. If you can't debate the facts, you attack the person. It's also unfortunate that neither party in our world can offer a candidate that's good enough to eliminate all the petty bickering and divisiveness that continues to weaken our country.

Exactly WHERE has ANYONE in our country said that it's not important that (again with emotion) innocent women and children are being killed every day? Did they also say that when Clinton was president and Hussein was gassing his own people? WHERE have I or ANYONE else said there are no innocent people in Iraq? Baseless accusations detract from the real issues. I understand the desire to put words in the mouths of those who don't agree with you, but please understand that we won't always accept it.

I appear to be brainwashed by Bush? Please - I have no misconceptions about the many problems with our current president. But I also have no confidence that Kerry will be any better.

Although it's surrounded by drivel, you DID ask a good question about building bases in Iraq - one that can be objectively discussed with facts. I think we have some common ground there.

Six, even though the "facts" you present are really statements and your "evidence" is your intepretation of facts, at least you are making attempts to consider facts, rather than attacking people who disagree with you.

"The war is about oil." While you may believe this, and it may indeed be true, there is no proof. Has Bush stated this? Did Congress, including Kerry, authorize war on this basis?

"Republicans support the military Don't ask Don't tell policy" - do you remember that Clinton was the genius behind this policy?

"Busch (sic) allows his Christian beliefs to influence his political decisions. His reelection relies heavily on grabbing some Born Again Christian Democrats from the religious right." Exactly how can you prove this "fact"? Even if you could, you need to establish that Christian beliefs are bad. Not everyone would agree with the assumption, promoted by national media, that Christianity is bad. Kerry, on the other hand, claims to be Catholic, yet his views on abortion caused a debate within the Catholic church as to whether or not he should be allowed to take Communion - a fact from which you can draw your own conclusions.

"There are less jobs and the jobs that are being created have significantly less wages and benefits." While this may be true (many corporations I've worked with use outsourcing as a way to cut costs and hide the many problems it causes), it would be difficult to prove that Bush is responsible (not that anyone is trying to PROVE anything they claim). I'm not saying he hasn't contributed to this problem, but it's been happening since way before Bush was president (see the previous comment about innocent people dying in Iraq). In fact, Al Gore's Internet made it much worse. Unfortunately, I haven't seen realistic proposals from EITHER side. I'm afraid Kerry's protectionist rhetoric is like his quest for war medals - solely intended to further HIS career and protect HIS job. In case you were wondering, that's NOT a fact - just my opinion.

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:27 am

On a positive note voter turn out here is expected to beat the 70% record set in the november 2000 election. As scarey as the is for the democrats it is something to be proud of for the rest of us.

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:49 am

How important is the oil to American Oil Companies?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Africa/Nigeria_Land_Oil_Agony.html

Busch is big oil. While this has gone on regardless of the political party in power don't we have to stop this sort of senseless capitalism run a muck?

This webpage above is a powdered and fluffed version of what happened there. I've had the opportunity to speak to someone who was native to the land. His tale was much more gruesome.

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:02 am

I most definitely agree with you there, Six! I am tired of being held hostage to oil producers who take our oil money in one hand and launch RPGs at us from the other. Unfortunately, I haven't heard realistic proposals on this either. Can we get a real choice, please? But, then voter turnout would probably drop...

Client Joined: Jan 29, 2004 Posts: 624

Bush won't activate the draft because he has said he won't. Sometimes a man's word is still good, and that brings up what died when Clinton lied: why, the prestige and honor of America. Here was a President of the USA caught in flagrante delicto with a very young woman right on the carpet of the Oval Office, and he lied about it... not very manly! As for the oil in Iraq, it is true that this is one reason we are fighting there, we need to secure a source of oil for America so we won't be dependent on oil imports from the same Middle East nations that sponsor terrorism against the US and other countries. The reason the US is now dependent on those nations for oil is because the Democratic controlled Congress in the sixties and subsequent decades have passed laws and regulations that have made it extremely hard for US oil companies to develop US oil reserves off the East and West coasts, off the coast of Florida and in the Bering Strait of Alaska, and these US oil reserves make Saudi Arabia's look puny but they are offlimits to exploration and development thanks to 'environmentally friendly' laws the Democrats have foisted on America... so we have to import the main part of our oil- and China's growing demand for oil is pushing the price up, not to mention the animosity of the oil rich and terrorism sponsoring OPEC nations. And did the environmental laws have good results? Well, more forest fires rage every year and fees are now charged Americans who want to gaze upon their natural wonders, but since more Americans than ever are obese and out of shape few seem to be availing themselves of the joys of a cleaner environment, and oil is in greater demand than ever... so now America is like the fat man in Deliverance with his pants down and bent over an Arab oil barrel- talk about 'rape and sodomy'! As far as that goes why does not Amber mention the Iraqi children who were raped and sodomized and otherwise tortured in front of their mother's eyes? Or the fact that the UN took no action to end this and other crimes against Iraqis? Dinner time so I gotta stop. Smile

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:23 pm

LMAO southern! Squeel
http://www.netflake.com/sounds/deliverance.wav

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:16 pm

Thanks, sixone! What a sound! That's how the US is gonna sound real soon if we don't find a good source of oil, and already peeps are squealing at the pump prices... so for several reasons it was good national security policy to overthrow Hussein's regime in Iraq: a) humanitarian, to end the criminal mistreatment of his own people by Hussein's thugs. Since the UN wouldn't- too busy with it's greedy little oil for food program- the US had to b) war strategy, by occupying Iraq and installing a US friendly government we'll split Iran from Syria and draw terrorists from all over the world to die in Iraq instead of blowing up innocent peeps elsewhere c) oil, yep... US oil companies aren't allowed to develop US oil reserves so all there is to meet US oil demand are reserves in other countries, and Iraq fit the bill. Them's the breaks in the real world. Keep in mind that the US put Hussein in power in the first place and the US can remove him for good cause, WMD or no WMD. Also Bush ordered the nation's oil reserves topped off so I'd guess he wants to avoid a Deliverance situation at least until the guy with the bow and arrows comes along!

kguske, don't feel bad about Amber's aspersions on you- many Dems live in a comfy never never land from which they view the real world through rose tinted dreams. Smile

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 8:21 pm

"you need to establish that Christian beliefs are bad"

No I don't we have a constitution that provides for Separation of Church and State. I am not a Christian but that doesn't mean I don't see good in most Christian values but that doesn't mean I share the beliefs that guide those values. Nor should those beliefs be allowed to dictate law governing the people.

"Clinton lied: why, the prestige and honor of America. Here was a President of the USA caught in flagrante delicto with a very young woman right on the carpet of the Oval Office, and he lied about it..."

Southern yes he lied that was unforgivable but who was leading the witch hunt there?

He's not the first man, woman or president to commit adultery (My Ex Wife comes to mind). That I don't have a huge problem with. But the lying under oath was what most of us will condemn him over. As for how other nations viewed his antics I think they were more shocked by our public 's reaction then his. Frankly at his age I'd have been tempted to... aww chit the lil woman might read this I better just shut up!

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:31 pm

For those still undecided: Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:32 pm

You're right - separation of church and state was a principle of the founding fathers. It means that our government must not intimidate our citizens because of their religion or force any religion on us. It doesn't mean that our leaders can't have religious beliefs or be influenced by religion. You asserted:

Quote:

Fact: Busch allows his Christian beliefs to influence his political decisions. His reelection relies heavily on grabbing some Born Again Christian Democrats from the religious right. (See Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota campaign visits by Republican heavy hitters).

But you even if you accept this assertion as fact, you haven't established why this is bad, nor have you offered any proof that this influence has caused the government to violate the principle of separation of church and state. Political decisions aren't laws. Fortunately, laws must be approved by Congress (unless you live in California, where judges like to make laws or at least try). And if Born Again Christian Democrats choose to vote for him because of his religious beliefs, that is their right.

I greatly respect your points, six. It's really refreshing to have unemotional debates and open discussion. But for any others with more emotional viewpoints, please don't lump me with the religious right just because I defend their right to have those beliefs. I am most definitely NOT as I have seen almost as much hypocrisy there as on the political left. Almost. But it seems the ACLU discriminates against groups with different political beliefs...

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:36 pm

And my girlfriend might see this, too, as she is good at google haha not to mention she is a yaller dawg Dem who hates Bush... anyhow Clinton's carrying on has been hashed over enough, suffice it that he acted like a teenage boy caught with daddy's girl in the backseat of daddy's Buick then tried to lie to the old man about what he was doin'. Ah, a lot of us older guys wouldn't mind doing what Clinton did with that nubile young thang but I'd hope none of us would lie under oath if we got lucky. I agree with your comment about separation of church and state, though my opinion of the phrase 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion' is that it means the government can't make laws about any aspect of religion, it can't exempt churches from taxes, etc. but it does, and some churches are quite wealthy... heck, even the First Christian said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, meaning taxes but suggest that to churches and such a howl will ensue... While we're on the Constitution it also requires the Senate to formally declare war before US forces can attack another country, and Kerry likes to point out that he voted for the resolution 'authorizing' all necessary use of force. Well, sorry but a resolution doesn't cut it, gotta be a formal declaration of war and until Congress and the President remember this the US will keep getting into messes like Korea, 'Nam and Iraq. Once we are in a mess, however, it does no good to endanger troops more they're already endangered by posturing as an anti-war protestor, giving aid and comfort to the enemy by accusing US forces of atrocities or saying 'Wrong war, wrong time, wrong place' as Kerry has done. Well, I voted early so all I gotta do now is wait for the results Tuesday night, and if Rather calls the election for Kerry before the polls are even closed I'm gonna... Smile

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:45 pm

That's true, kguske, nuttin wrong with a leader being religious. Most presidents from Washington on have invoked God as their guidance, why should Bush not if that is his sincere belief?

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 10:39 pm

It might not be wrong per say, but when it comes to creating anti abortion legislation or any law for that matter it crosses the line. I know abortion is wrong. But I don't think we need to create laws to prevent it either. God can give them all the guidence he wants to and when Busch starts giving birth then he and god can talk it over and decide what to do about it.

But then again I don't think woman should be able to vote or own property either.

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2004 11:45 pm

Frankly neither do I haha Mr. Green

Nighty night one and all

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:50 pm

Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 5:15 pm

Thanks for the objective link oprime2001. Here's a few equally objective responses:

Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! - which addresses most of the views in your link (yes, I did read it - will you read any of these?)
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!
Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! - a humorous list with lots of links for those who like that sort of thing (if it's been reported, it MUST be true...)

Isn't it amazing that there are 2 sides to every story?

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:48 pm

Usually there are three, right, wrong and mine haha Smile

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:54 pm

Where are the references to the "facts" in Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! or the other links?

Or is it true/factual because the Bush campaign/Karl Rove says so? Or are these "facts" true because somebody put some website together on the internet?

I tend to lend more credence to more established news outlets ( Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! << some of the objective (or close to it) references for Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!) than to Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!, or Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!. Except for Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! by ROBIN MULLINS BOYD, the other website admins/owners won't even put their names to their "facts".

p.s. what is this -- Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!? betcha, Bush wants to give that NASA senior research scientist one of Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!.

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:27 pm

Whether or not one gives credit to established news outlets (who owns TheNation? At least the personal websites admit whom they really are) is not something either of us can change. We all know how objective established news outlets like CBS are (though some may choose to ignore it, that is their perogative). The MEDIA FUND supports Kerry, so why would anyone expect objective reporting from so-called established media?

My point was simply to show that just because someone says something, and it gets reported (or selectively ignored) by established news outlets - doesn't make it a fact. Many of the "facts" presented by The Nation were put in contexts that would lead you to agree with the agenda of The Nation. It's reasonable to expect that as its the same technique that helps attorneys win their cases. And how many attorneys support Bush? Unfortunately for Kerry, lawyers and journalists aren't the only people who vote.

It amazes me, though, that Kerry's supporters don't offer facts to support their candidate's positions, but instead constantly attack Bush. Not that Bush's camp is any better. Unfortunately, the constant attacks do little to persuade anyone to either make up or change their minds. Wouldn't you agree?

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:48 pm

i think that its safe to assume that we agree to disagree. for every Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! that points to CBS and their failures, there is an Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!.

it's unfortunate that this debate/discussion will go on after the actual elections when the court contests and legal wranglings will surely happen. it looks to be another election that will be decided by the judicial system rather than the vote of American citizens.

one last thing before i turn in for the night: Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!.

now, where are those dancers?

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2004 9:12 pm

We may disagree on this issue, but I've seen your posts on this site and others, and I really respect the research and thought that goes into them. This is the only subject I've seen you post on that I didn't completely agree.

As for the election, I've had enough. Even if judges have to decide the election, I'll be happy to at least not have to hear ANYONE say "I approved this message" anymore.

Que sueñes con los angelitos.

Posted: Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:31 am

Anyone know what the Vegas odds are now? I'd have to think that is as good a measure as any poll data out there.

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:04 am

Nope. Got no Vegas odds on whether Teresa will divorce Kerry either. Smile

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:44 am

Did Kerry conscede or will this be drawn out for the 12 days its going to take them to count up the final votes?

Posted: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:10 pm

Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login! also, Only registered users can see links on this board! Get registered or login!