Why Bush
Trevelyan
Join Date: 2003-03-23 Member: 14834Members
Join Date: 2003-03-23 Member: 14834Members
<div class="IPBDescription">?</div> Yesterday i was driving around town (still looking for work mind you) and i saw a "Bush/Cheney" sign in someone's yard. This got me thinking... Why? Why are people in support of them? I know at least ONE person that reads these boards will vote for bush... and I want to ask them what they support them... and what good you feel they would accomplish in their next term? I dont want to sound hostile... I'm just curious, what is the average "Pro-Bush" character thinking?
Edit: Keep it clean mmmkay? We are (mostly) adults here right?
Edit: Keep it clean mmmkay? We are (mostly) adults here right?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Quite a few people vote for what they feel is the better person...who has more character, conviction, a more likable personality. Despite his political agenda, Bush still comes out as the more likable candidate. Both of them are pretty poor choices politcally IMO.
If I vote, I'm throwing my vote away to Nader. Two party system has become stale...the Democrat and Republican parties are too similar, both seem to be without scruples.
For me, it's choosing the lesser of two evils.
Bush may be the dimmer bulb in the shed, but compared to Kerry:
- Has missed 2/3's of his votes in the Senate over his whole <b>career</b>. This is roughly 5 times as bad as Bush's 40% on vacation statistic.
- He flip flops. He voted to go for the war. He voted to go against the war. This is not the only case, Kerry's entire voting record in the senate follows this pattern. It's unbelievable untill you do the research for yourself. Bush, at the very least, votes consistantly, and fairly conservatively. Things that Bush do are predictible. In other words, Bush can be trusted. I have seen no evidance to suggest Kerry can be trusted.
- Kerry is the ultimate politician. He does exactly what he feels he needs to do in order to achieve power, and once he's there he pushes his incredibly random and seemly destructive agenda, and once voting time comes around he defends whatever questionable actions he did, (I know this is common of most politicians) but the thing that REALLY disturbs me about Kerry is how good he is at it. He has over 30 years of politics behind him, and out of all those 30, I believe in every single election he has won by a very narrow and hair-raising margin. Not because he is so controversal, but because he has a hard time getting people to give him their votes, so he simply says what he needs to say (regardless of his true beliefs) in order to attract some swing voters to pull of a win. He is <b>extreamlly</b> good at this. To the max, for sure. Whereas Bush, doesn't try to hide from his faults, tells people who he is, and stays on the issues (issues that he creates... I know, lol, sad).
So yeah. Both canadates are less than deseriable, but at least I know what I'm gettin when I've chosen Bush. I'd rather have another 4 years of Bush than the past 30 years of Massachusetts compressed into 4.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Same here. It seems to me that Kerry is a jerk and Bush is a moron. I wouldn't vote for either, but if I had to choose one, I'd have to choose Kerry. I'd rather have a jerk in office than a moron.
Some people vote for Bush becasue they don't want to think outside the box and come up with their own ideas. They think the war in Iraq was justified because the president said so. They are so hooked on Bush's propoganda that they wouldn't dare vote for anyone else this coming election.
Other people see Bush's evils and say, "Hey you know what? Bush is a moron, I think I'll vote Kerry". These people see that all those deaths in the "war" were unnecessary and that Bush was only waging war for oil and a power trip. The only complaint I have about kerry is that it seems he cant keep his stories straight, and who knows? Maybe that will be a big problem, but for now he seems like a more logical choice.
Bush lovers should be rejoicing becasue its a historical fact that presidents <i>usually</i> get reelected for a second term in office.
Where did you hear this?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is roughly 5 times as bad as Bush's 40% on vacation statistic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is ~67% five times worse than 40%?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- He flip flops. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're a Senator, and you're not flip-flopping, then you're probably not participating in the Senatorial process. A good leader, whether it be a manager, a corporate head, military commander, or a political leader, will leave their options open. They will listen to both sides of an issue, consider all options, and will be willing to change their stance if better intelligence is shown supporting a different stance. Kerry has shown that he is willing to hear every side of an issue, and may change his previous stance if a powerful argument is rendered. Bush has shown that he will make a decision before hearing either side, and then only allow those opinions that support his own to be voiced. Who would <i>you</i> rather have shaping the policy of our future?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In other words, Bush can be trusted. I have seen no evidance to suggest Kerry can be trusted.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have seen no evidence that Bush can be trusted.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->- Kerry is the ultimate politician. He does exactly what he feels he needs to do in order to achieve power, and once he's there he pushes his incredibly random and seemly destructive agenda...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In the 2000 Presidential Debate, Bush insisted that g*y marriage should be an issue of states' rights, and should not be decided on the federal level. I would say that is pandering to the public in order to achieve power, wouldn't you? Especially because now that he is in power, he is pushing "his incredibly random and seemly destructive agenda" concerning g*y marriage. And that's not the only this <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html' target='_blank'>uniter, not a divider</a> said to get elected, compared to what he has actually done.
Keep on topic. I would like to see why you <i>are</i> voting for Bush, not why you <i>aren't</i> voting for Kerry.
-Ryan!
"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."
-- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001
"They misunderestimated me."
-- George W. Bush, Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000
"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
--George W. Bush, Reuters, May 5, 2000
"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"
-- George W. Bush, Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000
"It's your money. You paid for it."
-- George W. Bush, LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000
"I'm a uniter not a divider. That means when it comes time to sew up your chest cavity, we use stitches as opposed to opening it up."
-- George W. Bush, on David Letterman, March 2, 2000. (the audience booed)
"There ought to be limits to freedom. We're aware of this [web] site, and this guy is just a garbage man, that's all he is."
-- George W. Bush, discussing a web site that parodies him (http://www.gwbush.com/)
Edit: The swear filter didn't like the adjective I used to describe the type of marriage Bush opposes. 10-to-1 the swear filter will vote conservative.
I feel that Kerry showed how much he cares for the "religious right" by taking communion when asked by a bishop not to. Instead of respecting the churches decision, he went and found a more liberal bishop to give him the body and blood, and so ate in an "unworthy manner". In my eyes that speaks volumes.
Those above two statements are linked (abortion was the issue that the bishop used to forbid Kerry from taking communion).
As for Bush, he is a regular attending, Bible believing, Born-again Christian, and he doesn't flip-flop on that.
It is also the sign of a true politician, saying what he needs to in order to get elected. Exactly the reason I won't vote for Kerry, his waffles seem to be in order to be more electable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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 nation building; 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 **** 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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, I know some of these have been covered before, and have been struck down due to nuance, but if we're not going to allow Kerry the same courtesy (for example, his speech on the Senate floor saying his vote <i>against</i> the second round of Iraq War funding was a protest vote because a tax cut wasn't dumped in its stead) then it's fair game.
Anyhow, compiled from the daily kos. The one I fond most <i>completely</i> offensive is:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry. He can take his cowboy boot wearing, smirking, jumpsuit-laden butt and walk it out of the White House. I'm to believe that Bin Laden-- who hit us, and killed many of us, and who is 'threatening' to try to disrupt the Democratic process by getting us to vote for Kerry-- has been 'marginalized', as Bush has said. Sorry big guy, but you can't have it both ways.
Either he's powerful enough to screw up the elections, or he's inconsequential, as you've said. Again, can't have it both ways.
Also:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I feel that Kerry showed how much he cares for the "religious right" by taking communion when asked by a bishop not to. Instead of respecting the churches decision, he went and found a more liberal bishop to give him the body and blood, and so ate in an "unworthy manner". In my eyes that speaks volumes.
Those above two statements are linked (abortion was the issue that the bishop used to forbid Kerry from taking communion).
As for Bush, he is a regular attending, Bible believing, Born-again Christian, and he doesn't flip-flop on that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, he does. How many people were put to death under Bush in Texas? Most Christians <i>I</i> know are <i>against</i> the death penalty. Even those that are for it would probably shy away from mocking the soon-to-be-deceased (as witnessed by the conservative Tucker Carlson).
Oh, I'm pretty sure Jesus is against war, too.
As Kerry says, the people who are trying to make this battle about religion are doing it in an incredibly selective way.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A lot of people vote based on party lines of course. But that is obvious.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but people choose their party line, and trust their party to find a candidate most along the lines of their ideology.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Same here. It seems to me that Kerry is a jerk and Bush is a moron. I wouldn't vote for either, but if I had to choose one, I'd have to choose Kerry. I'd rather have a jerk in office than a moron<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is Kerry a jerk ? And why do people keep calling Bush a moron just because he's a bad orater, if we were to not include slip ups in his speech, you would have an extremely difficult time convincing any moderate person that he's an idiot.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some people vote for Bush becasue they don't want to think outside the box and come up with their own ideas. They think the war in Iraq was justified because the president said so. They are so hooked on Bush's propoganda that they wouldn't dare vote for anyone else this coming election.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Blegh ! It bothers me so much when people say things like this. I've seriously considered voting for someone else, I think I will still vote for Bush. I think the war is justified because I think so. I think there is more information we don't know to really tell whether or not it was justified. Some conservatives believe alot of his chemical weapons and scientists are in Sudan. Sarin was found. I'm not hooked on his "propoganda", however, this is starting more and more to sound like textbook liberal diatribe ("You're pawns of Bush, you're stupid and unenlightened, You're ignorant")
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A good leader, whether it be a manager, a corporate head, military commander, or a political leader, will leave their options open<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keeping your options open and "flip-flopping" is different. Very different. You keep your options because things might change so that there's an alternative. Anyways, they do say that "Intellectuals often change their minds", if you want quotable material. I'm not too worried about his voting record because as far as I know, they could be "nearly" the same issues with different circumstances, which are being played as "flip flops" in the media. Regardless, we'll see if he flip flops during the debates. Alot of what's going on is pre-campaign catchwords and such.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In the 2000 Presidential Debate, Bush insisted that g*y marriage should be an issue of states' rights, and should not be decided on the federal level. I would say that is pandering to the public in order to achieve power, wouldn't you? Especially because now that he is in power, he is pushing "his incredibly random and seemly destructive agenda" concerning g*y marriage<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the records, Bush was pushing for a clarification of what marriage was, between a man and a woman, trying to establish that "marriage" could only between a man and a woman. But not outlawing civil unions. In the end, it's just a case of semantics. Just because people want to keep "marriage" a protected term. That's all. So... where was your argument ? You just blamed Bush for something that really doesn't exist.
"Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage,<b> while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.</b> "
Regardless of my or anyone elses opinion, that's what happened.
<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040224-2.html' target='_blank'>Source</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is the context of that ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Actually, he does. How many people were put to death under Bush in Texas? Most Christians I know are against the death penalty. Even those that are for it would probably shy away from mocking the soon-to-be-deceased (as witnessed by the conservative Tucker Carlson).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But then again, Biblically, they were worthy of death. So, you know, whatever. Other Christians believe it's ok. I personally don't like the death penalty, but in my opinion, it's a poor point to make, since, well, I suppose it's not totally substantiated.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Oh, I'm pretty sure Jesus is against war, too.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa whoa whoa. What now? I don't necessarily believe Jesus was a pacifist. He was born to be a martyr, and that's the life he lived, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a pacifist because he didn't fight the Romans back and so on. Christianity isn't like ignorant benevolence.
First, a better and more properly substantiated list is available <a href='http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263' target='_blank'>here</a>.
<a href='http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html' target='_blank'>Here</a> is the press conference transcript.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Q But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became -- we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we -- excuse me for a minute -- and if we find a training camp, we'll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That's one of the things -- part of the new phase that's becoming apparent to the American people is that we're working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we've got more work to do. See, that's the thing the American people have got to understand, that we've only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don't know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it's going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I'm not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is all well and good-- and would constitute a sensible philosophy had we not had macho posturing such as:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hell, I fully agreed with him here. 9/11 was a symbolic act, so let's catch the symbolic figure responsible and punish him. But when that began to get tricky, we apparently changed our focus. *Ahem*-- <i>flip-flopped</i> on our promised focus.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But then again, Biblically, they were worthy of death. So, you know, whatever. Other Christians believe it's ok. I personally don't like the death penalty, but in my opinion, it's a poor point to make, since, well, I suppose it's not totally substantiated.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, unless you can furnish a Biblical quote which says 'thou shalt not abort a fetus because that is always murder, but thou shalt have some flexibility to kill people who court systems and state laws deem to be guilty of very bad crimes, and lo, I shalt turn a blind eye to that whole 'thou shalt kill' business, and thou shalt also have My permission to ignore whatever other bits of this book contradict what I hath said here', you're demonstrating my point about Biblical vaguery here.
Recall:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> he went and found a more liberal bishop to give him the body and blood, and so ate in an "unworthy manner". In my eyes that speaks volumes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How is he made unworthy? If there's a bishop whose interpretation of the Bible allows a politican to support choice <i>and</i> receive communion, then why does this necessarily make him 'unworthy'? Seems that if Bush can be a Christian who supports putting people to death, can't Kerry be a Christian who supports <i>choice</i>?
From the New York Times, June 17th 2000
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BOSTON-There have been questions all along about the depth and seriousness of George W. Bush. They have been brought into sharp focus now by a surprising issue: the way the death penalty is administered in Texas. In his comments on that subject Governor Bush has defined himself, unforgettably, as shallow and callous.
In his five years as governor of Texas, the state has executed 131 prisoners -- far more than any other state. Mr. Bush has lately granted a stay of execution for the first time, for a DNA test.
In answer to questions about that record, Governor Bush has repeatedly said that he has no qualms. "I'm confident," he said last February, "that every person that has been put to death in Texas under my watch has been guilty of the crime charged, and has had full access to the courts."
That defense of the record ignores many notorious examples of unfairness in Texas death penalty cases. Lawyers have been under the influence of cocaine during the trial, or been drunk or asleep. One court dismissed a complaint about a lawyer who slept through a trial with the comment that courts are not "obligated to either constantly monitor trial counsel's wakefulness or endeavor to wake counsel should he fall asleep."
This past week The Chicago Tribune published a compelling report on an investigation of all 131 death cases in Governor Bush's time. It made chilling reading.
In one-third of those cases, the report showed, the lawyer who represented the death penalty defendant at trial or on appeal had been or was later disbarred or otherwise sanctioned. In 40 cases the lawyers presented no evidence at all or only one witness at the sentencing phase of the trial.
In 29 cases, the prosecution used testimony from a psychiatrist who -- based on a hypothetical question about the defendant's past -- predicted he would commit future violence. Most of those psychiatrists testified without having examined the defendant: a practice condemned professionally as unethical.
Other witnesses included one who was temporarily released from a psychiatric ward to testify, a pathologist who had admitted faking autopsies and a judge who had been reprimanded for lying about his credentials.
Asked about the Tribune study, Governor Bush said, "We've adequately answered innocence or guilt" in every case. The defendants, he said, "had full access to a fair trial."
There are two ways of understanding that comment. Either Governor Bush was contemptuous of the facts or, on a matter of life and death, he did not care.
At the heart of the problem is the Texas way of providing lawyers for defendants too poor to hire their own, as most are in death cases. There is no state system. Judges assign lawyers -- often lawyers who have contributed to their election campaigns.
"The State of Texas is a national embarrassment in the area of indigent legal services," a committee of the State Bar of Texas says in a report just approved. Again, Governor Bush has shown no concern about this reality. He vetoed a bill, passed by the legislature, that would have let Texas counties set up a limited public defender program for the poor.
Capital punishment, long favored by a majority of Americans, has become a national issue again because of concern about the fairness of its administration. Gov. George Ryan of Illinois, a Republican, imposed a moratorium on executions in that state after 13 men on death row were shown to be innocent. Pat Robertson and other conservatives have called for a national moratorium.
The most complete study ever done of the death penalty process, by Prof. James S. Liebman and others at Columbia University, was published the other day. It showed that two-thirds of death convictions or sentences were upset on appeal for such reasons as incompetent defense lawyers or prosecutors who bent the rules.
To all this George Bush is seemingly indifferent. Or perhaps not entirely. If he were not running for president, it is doubtful that he would just now have granted his first stay of execution. Next week Gary Graham, convicted of murder on the testimony of a single witness who said she saw him at night from 30 to 40 feet away, is due to be executed. Will Governor Bush care?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So if there is a chance that he put an innocent person to death, what's the deal? Does he still get to be a stalwart Christian?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Whoa whoa whoa. What now? I don't necessarily believe Jesus was a pacifist. He was born to be a martyr, and that's the life he lived, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's a pacifist because he didn't fight the Romans back and so on. Christianity isn't like ignorant benevolence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't recall him advocating armed uprisings, though.
Again, <b>you're making my point for me</b>-- I was simply arguing that it's kind of tough to condemn Kerry as some sort of religious phony because he is pro-choice, when-- as we've now seen you do--it's entirely possible to rationalize Bush's lust for the death penalty and war as, well, totally consistent with Christianity.
See? Aren't we going to grant Kerry the same wiggle room we're giving GWB?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is he made unworthy? If there's a bishop whose interpretation of the Bible allows a politican to support choice and receive communion, then why does this necessarily make him 'unworthy'? Seems that if Bush can be a Christian who supports putting people to death, can't Kerry be a Christian who supports choice?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not worried about Abortion right now for the president, unless of course a supreme court justice is planning on leaving, then you have to worry about the Senate vote. I don't see any real reason for the impact of abortion rights on the presidential election.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Again, you're making my point for me-- I was simply arguing that it's kind of tough to condemn Kerry as some sort of religious phony because he is pro-choice, when-- as we've now seen you do--it's entirely possible to rationalize Bush's lust for the death penalty and war as, well, totally consistent with Christianity<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What ? I never said anything about Kerry being a religious phony. Therefore, how could I be making your point for you ? It was never <b>issues</b> that deemed somebody a man of faith BM.
That's because I wasn't arguing you to begin with! You took a tangent off of my existing argument without noting the context in which the argument was made.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
An issue <i>is</i> being made out of John Kerry's stance on abortion and how that relates to the sincerity of his faith; I am simply saying that if GWB gets to be big on the death penalty then there are some conflicts there as well.
Hang neither or hang them both, for all I care, but you can't throw that rope around only one neck.
As for the real question, I'll tell you I think the real answer lies with values. I don't mean the meaningless buzzword that politicians toss up every which way. I feel comfortable in saying that there are, and have been for at least a century, two wide spread popular ideologies in America.
One I would call moralism, which is a mainly Protestant ideology that desires laws based on a moral code (their own, rather), simply. If you don't understand why many, many people consider Reagan to be a Great President, you probably are not looking at him from a moralist viewpoint. If you consider these values to be important to you, it's easy to see why Reagan is idealized. A moralist might portray our current struggle as one of shoring up the values of civilization against decadence and corruption.
The other I would call populism, which is a mainly secular, pragmatic, economic ideology focused on the working (bluecollar) man. William Jennings Bryan pretty much defined the term with respect to American populism, and JFK (or Clinton) would be a great example of a populist. A pluralist would portray our struggle as one of little men defending their rights against encroachment by corporations, politicians, or the powerful in general.
These two are not opposites on a scale but I think the vast majority of Americans can define themselves as either one or the other (or a complicated mix of both) in part, or mostly, because Republicans are predominantly moralists and Democrats are predominantly populist (although, the Democratic party is struggling with its identity).
I think a good example would be John McCain, who, although he is a huge proponent of very important populist programs (and almost always opposes the Bush administration) says he supports Bush because "we agree on more things than we disagree." What I read from that is "we agree on the important issues and disagree on the less important ones."
Again, you're making my point for me-- I was simply arguing that it's kind of tough to condemn Kerry as some sort of religious phony because he is pro-choice, when-- as we've now seen you do--it's entirely possible to rationalize Bush's lust for the death penalty and war as, well, totally consistent with Christianity.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Killing a baby and killing a criminal are two different (very) things.
H'BNayr:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Where did you hear this?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href='http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=3975' target='_blank'>Kerry's god awful voting record.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->How is ~67% five times worse than 40%?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
that's just my oppinion, it's not math
Of course, the real point here isn't the number 5. That's just there for show. But I would really like to stress how missing 2/3's of your votes over 30 years is dismal and pathetic. What a nice, public servant.
I would also like to take the time and point out how rediculous and over the top the comment that he 'missed' 40% of his presidency, because you can't find ANYTHING which tells you how they got that number.
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif' /><!--endemo-->
On a random note:
<img src='http://osc3.com/members/trevelyan/Ronald.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/' target='_blank'>Kind of</a>. A 155-millimeter artillery shell containing the reactive agents designed to mix and form sarin while the the shell was in flight was rigged as an improvisational explosive device, or an IED. The intention for those who made the jury-rigged device was to set it off near an American convoy. The artillery shell was discovered by the roadside, and was being transported by two soldies to a detonation chamber to explode the device and render it harmless. While transporting the shell, the reactants mixed, and a small bit of sarin gas was dispersed into the air, making the soldiers ill.
The use of artillery shells as an IED is common enough in Iraq. Those civilians who oppose American occupation of their homeland rarely have the funds or firepower to stand toe-to-toe with the American military. So they use what is available, usually unexploded high-explosive artillery shells that they find laying in the desert. Which is fortunate, because it prevented the insurgents from knowing what they had with the shell and stopping them from applying it in a far more effective manner aginst our soldiers. But it also means we don't know where the shell came from originally. The military is very tight-lipped about any evidence gathered from the shell itself, meaning the shell could have come from Iraq now, Iraq 30 years ago, Iran, Russia, or even an American shell from the first Gulf War.
Of course, we are speaking about sarin. That's the nerve gas that barely qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction even when released in a crowded subway station. One guy with a machine gun is a more effective WMD.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->For the records, Bush was pushing for a clarification of what marriage was, between a man and a woman, trying to establish that "marriage" could only between a man and a woman. But not outlawing civil unions. In the end, it's just a case of semantics. Just because people want to keep "marriage" a protected term. That's all. So... where was your argument ? You just blamed Bush for something that really doesn't exist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let's see what George W. Bush said during the GOP Debate on the Larry King Show on February 15, 2000:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->King: So if you have g*ys working for you, that’s fine and you don’t have a problem-you’d appoint g*ys in the Cabinet and so forth.
Bush: Well, I’m not going to ask what their sexual orientation is. I’m going to put conservative people in the cabinet. It’s none of my business what somebody’s [orientation is]. Now, when somebody makes it my business, like on g*y marriage, I’m going to stand up and say I don’t support g*y marriage. I support marriage between men and women.
King: So therefore if a state were voting on g*y marriage, you would suggest to that state not to approve it.
Bush: The state can do what they want to do. Don’t try to trap me in this state’s issue. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When campaigning, Bush referred to g*y marriage as an issue of states' rights. What happened between then and now to make it a federal issue?
And for those who don't watch The Daily Show often, see the comparisons Republicans <a href='http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=%2Fmultimedia%2Ftds%2Fheadlines%2F9006.html' target='_blank'>like to make</a> concerning g*y marriage.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But then again, Biblically, they were worthy of death. So, you know, whatever.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In Joshua and in the second half of Numbers is celebrated the mass murder of
men, women, children, down to domestic animals in city after city across the
whole land of Canaan. Jericho is obliterated in a kherem, a "holy war." The
only justification offered for this slaughter is the mass murderers' claim
that, in exchange for circumcising their sons and adopting a particular set
of ritualsm their ancestors were long before promised that this land was their
land. Not a hint of self-reproach, not a muttering of patriarchal or divine
disquiet at these campaigns of extermination can be dug out of holy scripture.
Instead, Joshua "destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel
commanded" (Joshua 10:40). And these events are not incidental, but central
to the main narrative thrust of the Old Testament. Similar stories of mass
murder (and in the case of the Amalekites, genocide) can be found in the books
of Saul, Esther, and elsewhere in the Bible, with hardly a pang of moral doubt.
It was all, of course, troubling to liberal theologians of a later age.
It is properly said that the Devil can "quote Scripture to his purpose."
The Bible is full of so many stories of contradictory moral purpose that every
generation can find scriptural justification for nearly any action it propses -
from incest, slavery, and mass murder to the most reined love, courage, and
self-sacrifice. And this moral multiple personality disorder is hardly
restricted to Judaism and Christianity. You can find it deep within Islam, the
Hindu tradition, indeed nearly all the world's religions. Perhaps then it is
not so much scientists as people who are morally ambiguous.
-- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
"When a thing has been said and well said, have no scruple; take it and copy it."
-- Anatole France
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I personally don't like the death penalty, but in my opinion, it's a poor point to make, since, well, I suppose it's [Bush mocking a woman on death row pleading for clemency] not totally substantiated.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No?
www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2525/talkmagclip.jpg
Copy and paste. Geocities hates image links.
Tucker Carlson is a stalwart conservative. I doubt that he would libel the President for any notoriety or public gain. Indeed, just search for <a href='http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22Karla+Faye+Tucker%22' target='_blank'>Karla Faye Tucker</a>, and you should find some information on what the President said about her plea for mercy, from one born-again Christian to another.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't necessarily believe Jesus was a pacifist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"All those who take up the sword shall likewise perish by the sword."
-- Jesus Christ
"This is my commandment, that ye love one another."
-- Jesus Christ
"Love thy neighbour as thyself."
-- Jesus Christ
"If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head."
-- Jesus Christ
While this quote may seem to contradict with the Carl Sagan quote I used above, I would like to point out that the Bible is composed of two main books. The Old Testament has some of the most horrifying examples of humanity throughout history, including the seeling of your daughter into slavery (Exodus 21:7), killing a neighbor who dares work during the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), and permission to own slaves, provided that they do not come from your own country (Leviticus 25:44). We see Lot, a hero of the Old Testament house up two angels in his home. When a crowd of men arrived outside his doorstep, Lot beseeched them, "Don’t do this wicked thing. Look here, I have two virgin daughters. Let me bring them out to you and you can do what you like with them. Just go away and stop banging on my door!" (Genesis 19:1-8) And of course, the genocide and mass murder seen above in Sagan's quote in Joshua and elsewhere in the Old Testament. In that "biblical sense," perhaps Karla Faye Tucker deserved to die.
And then there is the New Testament. As you see above, this book contains some of the most inspiring and reaching stories of love recorded. I do not presume to speak for Jesus. But I can only imagine that he would not sanction an unprovoked attack on another nation, or murder (the death certificate is filled out as a homicide after an execution, don't fool yourself) as a form of revenge. Indeed, the Catholic Church, perhaps the highest authority in interpreting such matters (apologies to any Protestants out there) is opposed to starting unprovoked wars, for protecting the environment, and for helping the poor and oppressed. If you take Kerry to task on his religion, please don't be selective in doing so.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Aren't we going to grant Kerry the same wiggle room we're giving GWB? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Best. Argument. Ever.
BathroomMonkey took everything I took thirty minutes to try and say, and compressed it into 13 words.
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do."
-- Thomas Jefferson
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I believe the commandment is "Thou Shalt not murder" first of all. Which is different from killing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
King James Version, Revised Standard Version, and American Standard Version,
Exodus 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill."
That's not to say there isn't some modern debate. To <a href='http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10c9.htm' target='_blank'>quote</a>,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Hebrew word "ratsach" is translated as "kill" in the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, American Standard Version, and some other translations of the Bible. However, it is difficult to apply this in practice. Killing chickens and beef cattle is legal now as it was in biblical times. Nobody today is concerned about pulling vegetables from the garden, even though it kills them. The word "ratsach" is commonly believed to describe the premeditated killing of a human. It requires that the victim be a human being. Many translations translate "ratsach" as "murder" in this verse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An execution is premeditated killing of a human being, would you not agree?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It was never issues that deemed somebody a man of faith BM.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
BM?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But I would really like to stress how missing 2/3's of your votes over 30 years is dismal and pathetic. What a nice, public servant.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
30 years? <a href='http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=3975' target='_blank'>Try three months!</a> The link you used only covered his voting between January and March of 2004. Which, by my math, would put him square in a time when he was campaigning for President of the United States of America. Before you actually vote, Senators have warning on how a vote will most likely swing. John Kerry keeps track of this, I have no doubt, and feels that he only needs to cast his vote when he knows it could make a difference. The rest of his time is better spent campaigning. I wonder how many bills Bush personally reviewed during that same period...
"Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts."
-- Bernard M. Baruch
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would also like to take the time and point out how rediculous and over the top the comment that he 'missed' 40% of his presidency, because you can't find ANYTHING which tells you how they got that number.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You were the only one to use the 40% figure, so I have no idea where it came from. I did find some <a href='http://www.drivingvotes.org/bushfacts.shtml' target='_blank'>interesting statistics</a>, however.
-Ryan!
"I quote others only the better to express myself."
-- Michel de Montaigne
"Next to being witty yourself, the best thing is being able to quote another's wit."
-- Christian N. Bovee
"I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"A clever saying proves nothing."
-- Voltaire
Edit: For those curious of a candidate's stance on the issues:
<a href='http://www.ontheissues.org/George_W__Bush.htm' target='_blank'>Bush</a>. <a href='http://www.ontheissues.org/John_Kerry.htm' target='_blank'>Kerry</a>.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That should be the end of the story right there. If you take that last sentence into account whenever he talks about homosexual marriage, things start to make sense.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->In Joshua and in the second half of Numbers is celebrated the mass murder of
men, women, children, down to domestic animals in city after city across the
whole land of Canaan. Jericho is obliterated in a kherem, a "holy war." The
only justification offered for this slaughter is the mass murderers' claim
that, in exchange for circumcising their sons and adopting a particular set
of ritualsm their ancestors were long before promised that this land was their
land. Not a hint of self-reproach, not a muttering of patriarchal or divine
disquiet at these campaigns of extermination can be dug out of holy scripture.
Instead, Joshua "destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel
commanded" (Joshua 10:40). And these events are not incidental, but central
to the main narrative thrust of the Old Testament. Similar stories of mass
murder (and in the case of the Amalekites, genocide) can be found in the books
of Saul, Esther, and elsewhere in the Bible, with hardly a pang of moral doubt.
It was all, of course, troubling to liberal theologians of a later age.
It is properly said that the Devil can "quote Scripture to his purpose."
The Bible is full of so many stories of contradictory moral purpose that every
generation can find scriptural justification for nearly any action it propses -
from incest, slavery, and mass murder to the most reined love, courage, and
self-sacrifice. And this moral multiple personality disorder is hardly
restricted to Judaism and Christianity. You can find it deep within Islam, the
Hindu tradition, indeed nearly all the world's religions. Perhaps then it is
not so much scientists as people who are morally ambiguous.
-- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
"When a thing has been said and well said, have no scruple; take it and copy it."
-- Anatole France
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where are you trying to go with this ? Or do I need to help clarify things ?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No?
www.geocities.com/RainForest/Canopy/2525/talkmagclip.jpg
Copy and paste. Geocities hates image links.
Tucker Carlson is a stalwart conservative. I doubt that he would libel the President for any notoriety or public gain. Indeed, just search for Karla Faye Tucker, and you should find some information on what the President said about her plea for mercy, from one born-again Christian to another.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
? I was talking to BM about his Christian friends who don't believe in the Death Penalty didn't mean that it didn't substantiate that it was therefore Biblical doctrine.
Concerning the Bibles stance on death penalty and abortion - I think it is pretty clear in both cases. Abortion is abhorent in God's eyes - "Thou shalt not murder (kill, whatever)". In the case of the death penalty, let us do a case study. In the book of Acts, chapter 5 there is a story about a husband and wife named Ananias and Sapphira. In the story, they sold a bit of land and gave the proceeds of the land to the local church. However, they did not give all of the proceeds, but kept a portion of them (telling the church that they had given all the money). God killed them - they were struck down by God.
Now, I'm not saying that we have the right to kill greedy people. What I am saying is that there are cases where a righteous killing should be allowed (death penalty).
Here is my challenge to the liberals. If you are going to equate abortion to the death penalty you have a burden of proof. That burden is to "prove" that abortion is a "righteous killing". Your other option is to say that there is no such thing as a "righteous killing" and that all life (read criminals and unborn) is sacred and worthy of preservation. The third option is the worst, and that is to deny the unborn their right to life, but let a condemned man live out his existance on my tax dollar. Now explain to me why that is the most appealing.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the record, the commandment I had beaten into me was "Thou shall not kill thy neighor", which oddly actually means killing...
But that is semantic BS...the Bible is thousands of years of man translating and if you haven't noticed there are different versions...with significant differences. So hanging your hat on syntax is not the choice of the rational.
The real point is both Kerry and Bush are sad, pathetic representatives. And as one of you mentioned above, the 2 party system is passe.
Either way our government should be entirely secular. The most impassioned arguments above of course revolve around religious issues.
So eliminating that crap from the argument..
Bush was a C average, alcoholic, draft-dodging, cheerleader (well that one isn't so bad if you have breasts), blue-blood moron whose only successes in life were based on his family name...getting to Yale, his oil interests, and of course getting his party's nomination to become president. I won't mention in detail the multiple businesses he ran into the ground, the Iraq fiasco, enmvironmental policy, the WMD fiasco...because those blatant failures are obvious, as written about above. I do think his down-home charm, persistance of principles (whether you agree or not), are valuable personal characteristics, which we enjoy in our presidents.
Kerry is a not-much-better academically, blue-blood by marriage, career politician with the conviction of wet toilet paper politically, and he needs smile reduction surgery. Clearly there is implication in his voting records that political expedience has guided his hand. Politically, he is essentially running the I-am-not Bush campaign, which has been less than impressive. But his war experience, and political activism in distant past reveal character, and principle...traits which appear to have waned after decades in Washington. But originally his political career was earned on merit, not family ties (insert Alex Keating reference here).
In summary, I like to thank my own Ivy League education, for unjustly allowing me to soil many blue-blooded New England prep-school-summers-on-the-vineyard girls in college. And as with our human subjects above, I have exploited my connections and revealed my less than pristine character. And apparently the only WMD found, is that with-in my pants.
thank you and good nite
So Jesus could advocate violence in certain situations. Take that as you wish.
While I consider Kerry the better candidate, even he is very conservative in my eyes. But that's just me, a guy who can't find a suitably liberal candidate in my own country, because no such thing exists. However, the prime reason I'd vote for him isn't just because of my dislike of Mr. Bush's policies, but my actual loathing of three of his cabinet members. These guys will most likely tag along for the ride if Bush gets another term and that just seems somewhat unacceptable.
Donald Rumsfeld strikes me as a completely morally corrupt person who is unscrupulous and doesn't care about rules if they do not serve him. Cheney, on the other hand, is almost like the caricature republican crook (see Nixon) with his questionable links to Halliburton and other major corporations. And John Ashcroft... well, let's just say he does not appear to be a completely sane person, and him being Attorney General for another four years is a very disturbing idea.
How do you Bush supporters feel about these men?
ADD summary: Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft are dubious, dirty men and I can't vote for anyone who'd have them in his cabinet. What are your thoughts?
Right . . . but we're going in circles here. My point is simply that both politicians here have stances on certain issues which can be seen as contrary to the teachings and mandates of their professed religions.
However, the language and messages in the Bible are vague enough that you can certainly rationalize their positions, so my issue is this:
<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>IT ISN'T INTELLECTUALLY HONEST TO GRANT ONE CANDIDATE THAT FLEXIBILITY BUT WITHHOLD IT FROM THE OTHER.</span>
That's all I'm sayin'. Just be consistent. We're getting lost in the details here.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Concerning abortion v. death penalty, I think forlorn summed it up best. There is a big difference between killing the unborn and killing a condemned criminal. If you cant make that distinciton, dont vote.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course there is a difference. However, what if one believes that all life is sacred, and even the most horrific criminals have the potential for redemption?
That's what the Pope thinks. He said:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
"that there no longer be recourse to capital punishment, given that states today have the means to efficaciously control crime, without definitively taking away an offender's possibility to redeem himself."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's just the Pope.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Concerning the Bibles stance on death penalty and abortion - I think it is pretty clear in both cases. Abortion is abhorent in God's eyes - "Thou shalt not murder (kill, whatever)". In the case of the death penalty, let us do a case study. In the book of Acts, chapter 5 there is a story about a husband and wife named Ananias and Sapphira. In the story, they sold a bit of land and gave the proceeds of the land to the local church. However, they did not give all of the proceeds, but kept a portion of them (telling the church that they had given all the money). God killed them - they were struck down by God. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Notice the judgement is carried out by God, and not man. Perhaps God has reserved this for himself? Or does God smiting these people give clear evidence that he's granting all of us permission to carry out Charles Bronson style vigilante justice?
And you say, concerning the "Bible's stance", I think it would be more accurate to say that this is concerning <b>your</b> stance. Or, perhaps <b>your</b> interpretation. You somehow use the fact that God said
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Thou shalt not murder (kill, whatever)".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To demonstrate that abortion is abhorent, but then you concede that maybe that in certain cases, you don't have to take these words literally? Is God giving us a sly wink when he says that we shouldn't kill, because there are clearly cases where if <i>we</i> think it's ok, then he will, too?
What you're doing here is called 'rationalizing'. And you can rationalize this into the ground for all I care-- However, I would just like to point out that in the case of religion, there seems to be a double standard for the candidates.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So Jesus could advocate violence in certain situations. Take that as you wish. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair enough.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->IT ISN'T INTELLECTUALLY HONEST TO GRANT ONE CANDIDATE THAT FLEXIBILITY BUT WITHHOLD IT FROM THE OTHER.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Agreed. I give Kerry the same "wiggle-room" as Bush. The only thing is that, most of the time, people don't give Bush the same wiggle room as Kerry.
There is an enourmous difference between a bill that supports our troops and one that does that and throws millions (or billions) of taxpayer dollars into porkbarrel projects at the same time.
There's also the distict possibility that some bills on an issue will be plain stupid. More harm than good, etc (cough patriot act)
Supporting an issue and voting for bills on that issue are not the same.
You'll never see that in a politcal add, and it just plain sucks.
If you want to know for sure, check :
<a href='http://www.factcheck.org' target='_blank'>Fact Check</a>
<a href='http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=S0421103' target='_blank'>Vote Smart</a>
Bush picks his advisors. I don't follow.
Hell, Reagan was a friggin actor...a great speaker but hardly a political mastermind.