DescentBB

There's a difference between being isolationist and going around doing stuff to other countries without regard to how the citizens or governments of those countries feel.

It's ok to disregard the feelings of someone you're not going to be interacting with (pre-WWII America).

That wasn't my point. I was pointing out the fallacy of the paragraph with regards to this supposed 100 year history of world leadership. I maintain that until WWII there was no leadership.

Thomas Jefferson, "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none"

Though not particularly well carried out, that was the philosophy of the first era of America, and one I wholeheartedly agree with. Arguably we've followed that more or less throughout or history, but more and more frequently our policies bring us into other countries' problems, which is not necessary.

The problem I have with Democrats is they take credit from others. Also the American people as a whole are very short sighted. They lose their focus so soon after events.

When 9/11 happened, all everyone could think about was war. When they finally got what they wanted, about 3 months later they had forgotten about 9/11 and were totally against war.

If you go ask someone on the streets today, what do they think of the war you'll get alot of opinions, but you'll probably see the case of the person who is against it saying we never should have gone to war in the first place, yadda yadda, but they were the very same people shouting out for it in the first place.

Kerry is a good example. He voted to goto war. Why do you think he did that? Because it was the popular thing to do. Like not backing Vietnam was the popular thing to do back in the 60's, and 70's. When our current war was no longer popluar Kerry didn't vote to support our troops. Hmm....I sense a trend. From what I take of this: if firing nukes becomes popular I wonder who's going to be there to push the button?

At least with Bush, when he say's something he does it, and he sticks to his guns. For crying out loud Kerry wanted us to pull out of IRAQ the minute it became unpopluar, and before we had Saddam. OMG! If we had done that, then we might have had to goto war again even later down the road. When you start something you finish it. Geezz...

That's just talking about the war, but as you can see I have no love for the Democrats, and I really don't care for the Republicans either. I'm an Open Source advocate, which means the Republicans tend to stand in the way a great deal more. I want to share technology with people, and help the world prosper, but unlike Democrats I don't want to give everything away. I don't want to give away weapons, or the tools to help anyone learn to make them, etc.... I'm here for the betterment of mankind, not to help this man one up the next.

For me what it boils down to is Bush is the better choice IMHO.

Nice regurgiation of bush's political machine. Maybe you should research Kerry's reasons for Kerry's votes instead of Bush's reasons for Kerry's votes.

I'm not voting for either, BTW.

Birdseye,

I have already done my research on both parties. I feel no need to regurgitate what Kerry say's as this entire thread is pro Kerry. It's been done.

For you Kerry lovers

Ok, and to be semi-fair to Birdseye I'll put in a small beef with Bush, but I won't go into any large ones as this is already a pro Kerry thread.

A small, yet not so small problem I have with Bush is that in order to cover funds for the war effort, and anything else he wishes to spend money on, he's going to have to cut funds somewhere. Well he choose to cut funds in the school system. Tuition rates are almost double from when I started my College years. It gets harder to pay for it every year. That's a real smart thing to do. Make it so no-one can goto college, and then we're going to have a bunch of illiterate's running around.

good link sky...

question for you. obviously there are some discrepencies in what Kerry did over there. Now, you believe that these people that speak out against him are correct right? Now think of this, Bush has some discepency in his service right? Do you believe Bush or do you believe the National Guard people that don't remember seeing him or the micro film files that don't shed any light on it? If you don't believe Kerry than you cannot believe Bush...or is there a double standard there?

I would be more inclined to believe Bush's story as it's like the lesser of two evils. I'm undecided on Bush. I haven't done enough research on my part yet to answer a yes or no.

See that's point. why are you more inclined to believe Bush? Do you not think he would lie? Is there not enough clouding of the issue to provide that doubt? I've never supported what Kerry DID in Vietnam, had he not gotten those medals I don't think anyone would be complaining. I support the fact that he went to Vietnam. He volunteered, but Will Robinson knows for a fact that he thought he was going to be stationed in Europe and that's why he went. Why are you quick to believe Bush and not Kerry?

Zuruck wrote:why are you more inclined to believe Bush? Do you not think he would lie?

To put it bluntly. Bush is a better lier? I'm more inclined to believe Bush mainly because he doesn't flip flop like Kerry. The trend I've noticed with Kerry is he chooses the winning side.

Let me harp on Kerry just for one sec. Take for example this recent Intelligance advisor Bush is implementing. Kerry say's it's a great idea, but it should have been done 3 years ago. Thing is, I didn't see Kerry come up with the idea, and now he's trying to criticize the Bush administration by saying they should have thought of it sooner when Kerry never thought of it at all. If Kerry had thought of it, then why didn't he mention it?

Now I'm hearing in the news that because of the way Bush is implementing the idea, Kerry is saying why bother. That's another flip flop IMO.

I'm not going to follow Bush blindly though. Like I said it's undecided until I get to researching the issue. However to me it's such a small issue compared to Kerry because Bush wasn't involved in a war. There are other things that have made me slide closer to the right on this one.

I'd like to know what has Kerry said that has you so much on his side? Do you believe it?

Even if it's not directed to me, I'll answer that.

I do not believe Kerry to do a worse job in office than Bush. Do you?

Unfortunately skynet, the link you posted has nothing to do with john kerry's voting record.

If you researched his voting record a bit more, you'd come to understand that some of the stances that bush claims "flip flop" on, are actually detailed considerations in voting. Like the "I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" quote, which actually has some interesting well thought out reasoning behind it. However the republicans have taken the quote out of context and ran with it.

As far as "flip flopping" goes, that's what politicians generally do. It's amazing the bush machine has made that into a Kerry thing to do, when it's a politicians' thing.

If you want to talk about flip flopping, check Bush's 2000 platform, and what he actually did in office. Oh ye of little memory.

Birdseye,

What's a bad thing you can say about Kerry?

SkyNet wrote:Make it so no-one can goto college, and then we're going to have a bunch of illiterate's running around.

Make it "illiterate soldiers running around." ..

Interesting, rather than search john Kerry's voting record, you want me to say something bad about him.

Here's the deal: I'll say something bad about Kerry if you'll actually research john kerry's voting record before denouncing him and his positions and respond with something of substance rather than a regurgitation of a bush administration political ad.

Here is mine:
Kerry voted for the war in iraq. On that basis alone, I cannot vote for him. The intelligence was sketchy at best. There was no imminent threat as Bush claimed. We didn't know where the WMDs were, as the administration claimed. I turned out to be right. Unfortunately many of the dems became republican lapdogs at the time in fear of seeming unpatrotic. I'd like a president who could have seen things as clearly as I did, and could have taken a rogue stance if he/she believed in it.

Dedman wrote:I maintain that until WWII there was no leadership.

Well, I can do you 25 years better... America participated in WWI as well. And there's also the general idea of leading by example to consider, but I agree with you that the blanket statement of "100 years of leadership" seems vague.

Birdseye wrote:Interesting, rather than search john Kerry's voting record, you want me to say something bad about him.

Here's the deal: I'll say something bad about Kerry if you'll actually research john kerry's voting record before denouncing him and his positions and respond with something of substance rather than a regurgitation of a bush administration political ad.

Ok fine, I've done some research on his voting, and it's making me like Bush even more. I'll even post links to help you along, as you fail to do this everytime you site "you don't know why Kerry voted this way" ..... crap ... crap ... crap.

Kerry criticizes Bush on initial 9/11 inaction
Here's a quick quote from it: "John Kerry is an indecisive candidate who has demonstrated an inconsistent position on the war on terror, who voted against funding for our troops at war and who cannot give a clear answer on his position concerning the decision to remove Saddam Hussein," Giuliani said.
Help me find the Why? in that one.

Not so similar after all
This is a good one. I'm quoting again. "costly free trade agreements and the outsourcing of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets are two principal issues at which voters should take a closer look.

Kerry has said that if elected he would review the free trade agreements signed by Bush. But Kerry voted for these agreements and even voted to grant the president fast-track authority in negotiating those pacts. It remains to be seen whether Kerry has really changed his stance on free trade."

John Kerry is part of the problem
From the article. "Kerry is part of the problem with rising health care costs. Medical malpractice lawsuits have contributed to the rise also. Doctors are paying more money for insurance and they pass that cost on to us. President Bush proposed a bill that would limit the amount you could be awarded for such a lawsuit. This would lower insurance for doctors, thereby lowering health care costs. John Kerry voted against it. No surprise though, his running mate, John Edwards, has made a ton of money suing doctors as a personal injury trial lawyer."

Boy that doesn't jive well with the previous link on how Kerry wants to lower health care cost. Seems like he only wants to lower cost if it still brings him finacial gain.

Kerry sweeps our history aside
The Vietnam veteran has redefined when America should go to war - and when it should stay home
Bah! I'll let you read it.

Now say something BAD!!!!

On the first link, you're quoting a bush loyalist.

I'm asking you to read JOHN KERRY'S reasons for his votes, not a political commentator's or a republicans'.

To get the OTHER side of a story, you have to actually read the OTHER side.

Here's what you left out from the first link;
"Addressing minority journalists in the nation's capital, Kerry was asked what he would have done as president the moment he received word of the attacks on the World Trade Center. Bush spent seven minutes listening to "The Pet Goat" being read at a Florida elementary school after his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered, "America is under attack," as televisions cameras recorded the anxious scene.

"I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to," Kerry said before flying to Missouri to resume his cross-country campaign trip. "And I would have attended to it."

sorry, but score one for kerry, even if it was a slam dunk for anyone. It really isn't hard to make bush look bad on that one. It'll be fun to see how you try to defend him.

Link 2 is by lou dobbs, conservative but here is a quote left out;
"Despite his concern about the impact of outsourcing on our economy, Kerry's plan to limit the practice is only a beginning. His proposal calls for changing the tax code to discourage outsourcing, eliminating special tax breaks on foreign profits and granting more tax credits for companies that create new manufacturing jobs in the United States.

Bush still considers outsourcing to be a new way of trading with other countries and a plus for the economy in the long run, as his chief economic adviser Gregory Mankiw declared in February"

Interestingly enough, Mankiw is someone who edited his own college textbook to fit bush administraiton policy, even though he disagreed. Mankiw had a whole section debunking the still unproven supply side economic theory (aka give money to the rich) but after being appointed to the bush administration, the entry was removed from the book.

But more to the point, there is no explanation of John Kerry's votes by John Kerry.

Link 3: Another link with no explanations of John Kerry's positions by John Kerry.

Link4: A republican opinion piece

Again, I ask of you to read John kerry's reasons for his voting record. You know, the reasons John Kerry said himself. I'm not talking either about one line quotes taken out of context. Read a detailed article or comment by Kerry himself.

Just a few sniper shots, don't let this derail the core discussion here

Birdseye wrote:Bush spent seven minutes listening to "The Pet Goat" being read at a Florida elementary school after his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered, "America is under attack," as televisions cameras recorded the anxious scene.

"I would have told those kids very politely and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed to attend to," - Kerry

Is this really a sign that Kerry is somehow better equipped to deal with the same situation, or just a sign that he can take advantage of a monday morning quarterbacking situation? Not much of a resume highlight really.

What would Kerry have done that day, really...maybe he would have taken 3.23 minutes instead of 7...maybe he would have jumped up and made a series of rash decisions before settling down and finding his course...
I don't see this as being bad for Bush unless you already hate him.

EDIT moments later: just saw this

Birdseye wrote:...Mankiw had a whole section debunking the still unproven supply side economic theory (aka give money to the rich)

Don't you mean '(aka taking less money from the rich)'? The government doesn't have any money that it doesn't take from us to begin with and the mantra "giving to the rich" just helps to bring the ignorant to the class warfare pep rally.

so will, this is your idea, bankrupt the country by giving the rich back enough money to buy another car ??

Birdseye,

I'm going to have to stop posting this political stuff. While I was typing that the other day I missed a bid on ebay, and I feel like "Open mouth insert foot"

If I ever feel like talking about politics again, I've got a great idea. The Democrats have to look up all the good information about the other party and try to convince people to side with the other party. While the Republicans must do the same.

I bet that would be a hard thing to do. However if everyone does it right, then it would lead to some better competition IMO.

Zuruck wrote:so will, this is your idea, bankrupt the country by giving the rich back enough money to buy another car ??

No Zuruck, that's not my idea. It's yours.
It's another one of your stupid thoughts you have after reading but not comprehending.

Will, I alluded to your point about the 7 minute thing with my slam dunk comment. You're right. I just still find it baffling that he sat there.

As far as the voodoo economics thread, that's something we've rehashed a million times. The end result is we both agree the government overspends and that the deficit is bad. We agree we want taxes cut for everyone but only if it is offset by spending cuts. There is also no evidence that voodoo economics causes economic upswing for all taxpayers, especially low income. I wouldn't really have that much of a problem with non progressive tax cuts if spending was cut as well-that would help everyone. But we can agree that taking a nation wide loan to give the rich an extra few bucks is a pretty bad long run idea.

What bothers me most about tax cuts for the rich is the argument that it helps the poor more than if the poor were directly given money. That's intellectually dishonest. It's one thing to be honest and claim that hey we earned it, we deserve our money back. It's another to claim giving rich people money helps poor people.

Skynet said:
"If I ever feel like talking about politics again, I've got a great idea. The Democrats have to look up all the good information about the other party and try to convince people to side with the other party. While the Republicans must do the same. "


Sky, that's EXACTLY what I asked you to do! I asked you to read John Kerry's view, and you spouted republican editorials. I responded again for you to actually read the democrats' position on his own voting record, and instead of actually researching it, you avoided doing so by regurgitating what I originally asked you to do!

Do you want me to find the links for you, or is it too painful for you to sift through differing opinions? I personally enjoy reading differing opinons, as that's the main time I actually learn something.

So please, I ask once again for you to read John Kerry's reason for John Kerry's voting record. You can still substanitively disagree with him, but please take your own advice and actually research his opinion, rather than republicans that agree with your own world view and are anti-kerry.

You know this guy says he's Catholic. Just so you don't think bad of Catholics, he's not. only by name he is. It's against the Catholic faith to even vote for someone who's pro-abortion (pro-choice). It's a mortal sin to vote for someone because they are.

At one point it alwo went against Catholic Doctrine to have a copy of the bible and NOT be a member of the clergy.

At one point it was also ok to sin your heart out as long as you could give a ton of money to the church when the sin tax collector came around.

I could go on and on, but I think Catholocism speaks for itself.

Edit: Oh and just for the record, I dont think bad of Catholics themselves, I'm sure there are plenty of them who are quite devout in their faith in God, its the church itself that I have a problem with.

You are completely wrong. I believe I've got some references for you that I'll see if I can find.

The faith has been the same since the beginning. Catholics are encouraged to read the Bible. It's never ok to sin in as long as you gave money to the Church.

BTW if Kerry's not excommunicated yet, he should be. I know he was told to stop receiving Communion.

Where the heck are you getting this?? There was a time when inaccurate translations of the Bible were burned and prohibited as they're still prohibited today. But reading the Bible has never been against Catholic teaching.

I don't know about bible reading, but buying your way out of sinning by giving money to the church is definitely true.

You may have to go further back than the colonisation of america, but it sure happened.
I'm inclined to think that reading the bible was not allowed unless you were clergy at that time as well.

Until not so long ago, church services were given in Latin and the priest had his back towards the attendees..

Catholicism certainly does not have a spotless past.

Oh noes, LATIN!!1 What's next? Islamic services in Arabic?

That was never true. It's true that right before the Protestants split off, there were some priests that were selling indulgences. That however was condemned by the Church. So, no, it is not true.

Kd527 wrote:That was never true. It's true that right before the Protestants split off, there were some priest that were selling indulgences. That however was condemned by the Church. So, no, it is not true.

Uh...no:

"One of the ways that the Church raised money was through the sale of indulgences (a reduction in time spent in purgatory, a place where sins were purged before you were admitted to heaven). Archbishop Albert controlled two provinces at the time. (Even though the Church officially limited these offices to one province) When he was campaigning to control a third, Pope Leo X offered it to him for a large sum of money. The Archbishop set about raising the funds by selling indulgences." - Link

You're right, it was never a free ticket to commit sin. However it was a supported Catholic practice and it was abused to the point that Martin Luther broke off from the Catholic church. I don't have a link, but there is a story of a man asking if he could buy an indulgence for a sin he was going to commit. The priest said yes, he bought the indulgence and later robbed the priest.

Kd, the Catholic church has been anything but the same since the beginning. Doctrine by nature changes over time. Beliefs and interperetations change over time. Ignorance fades away and new ignorances take shape, etc. I do not believe for a second that the catholic church is the same today as it was at its founding.

Case and point: Click Me

Oh, and this might be useful in addition to DCrazy's quote: English translation of Martin Luther's 95 Theses.

Sorry, that's Topher's quote. I can't take credit for that one.

Kd, you'll recall that one of the fundamental themes of the Council of Nicea was the affirmation that tradition was equivalent in importance to scripture. The reason for this debate? Because the Catholic church had become a political machine making decisions independent of the holy book they were supposedly following. This is reflected in the organizational differences between Protestant churches and the Catholic church.

Whoops, sorry about that one My mistake on whose quote it was.

make a new thread for this one guys...

of course, it's kinda fun to keep it going to remind skynet how much he got owned

The silence is deafening

That was some nice ownage allright, just like in the Terminator series, but now were um, owning Kd. I do wish his catholic fundamentalism was a little more um...whats the word...restrained? No, that doesnt feel like the right word, but its somewhere in that neighborhood.

Church dogma has never changed. Church rules or discipline may change,but not dogma.

The Church's objection to John Wycliffe's translation was that it was a poor translation. Even Protestant scholars agree. Besides, the Bible was already avilable to the public.

As I stated earlier, the selling of indulgences was condemned by the Church! That doesn't mean that some bishops weren't doing it, but they were not supposed to.

Tradition with a CAPITAL "T", is not the same as tradition. It means the unchangeable dogma. tradition with a lower case "t" is changeable practice such as standing during the reading of the Gospel or the use of an advent wreath.

Go to http://www.saintjoe.com/ and get the appropriate tapes from Tim Staples and Scott Hahn. Both were previously Protestant. or try this: or this


I hope I answered every thing and this will hopefully help you understand the misunderstandings of Catholicism.

Dedman wrote:how could America hold a leadership position in the world when we wanted nothing to do with the world?

the first candidate that comes along with that very view will get my support. until then, i'm not voting for republican or democrat.

i say we just go back to worrying about ourselves, buy what we cant produce, and leave it at that. let france come to the rescue for once.

So, Kd, the First Vatican Council didn't introduce new dogmas? Like papal infallibility?

Kd527 wrote:As I stated earlier, the selling of indulgences was condemned by the Church! That doesn't mean that some bishops weren't doing it, but they were not supposed to.

Excuse me?

"Those who claim that indulgences are no longer part of Church teaching have the admirable desire to distance themselves from abuses that occurred around the time of the Protestant Reformation. They also want to remove stumbling blocks that prevent non-Catholics from taking a positive view of the Church. As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false." - Catholic.com