"Why I voted for Bush"

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Bush Must Go

Originally posted by Spiffor

You don't really believe Kerry will implement his social projects if elected?

Really, that's like believing in Santa Clinton creating a universal healthcare system

Spiffor, I wish he would, as I agree with much of his health care proposals. But the fact that AS goes off on Bush about the deficit as if Kerry was going to actually do something about it is amazing. "Clinton" balanced the budget because Newt Gingrich forced him to.

[Drachasor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Must Go

Originally posted by Ned
Drach, I am concerned that Bush tell me the truth about facts. There are a lot of "conclusions" one can draw from known facts. These are opinions. One does not lie about opinions. One can exaggerate, puff and spin. But this is to be expected in a political campaign.

Cite me one thing, just one, where Bush lied about a fact that at the time he said it he knew to be false.

In contrast, the left has no shame. They charge Bush with this or that and produce falsified documents to prove their charges. With the left, it is the gravity of the charge that is important, not its truth.

Maybe you should actually read the various posts I have made on numerous threads on this.

Maybe you should bloody go to Factcheck.org and look at all the lies Bush and his Administration have said. Lies they should know the truth about, and if they don't know, then they are seriously deluded. If you can manage to read a website that isn't biased, then go there and look. If you can't, then there is no reason to try to talk sense to you. I have posted many times on this, and now you act like I have never said anything, or hardly said anything. *sigh*

Yeah, yeah, the left had false documents about Bush's military service, but Bush had false documents he used to justify the war in Iraq. Consider that.

Edit: Oh, and here's one example. Bush had his staff go and use Kerry's "global test" comment completely out of context and they then added their own context. They took those two words out of a 38 word sentence. Go to www.factcheck.org and find out about a heck of a lot of other stuff. Go into each article and start adding up all the lies on both sides and you will see that Bush lies a lot more.

-Drachasor

PS. I am going to go to Kerry's rally at OSU now...so I won't be posting for several hours.

[Ramo]

Link?

As far as I can tell, real negotiations did resume with the new Iranian government in Sept but only became fruitful through the mediation of the Algerians after the election.

By the beginning of the negotiations, I mean the diplomats trying to hash out a negotations process (heard this on NPR - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4120748), not the Algeria-backed talks. After the Shah died in July, the Iranians started to talk with us. And then Iraq invaded a couple months later, which really made the Iranians want to resolve hostage crisis. Raygun had absolutely nothing to do with getting the hostages released.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Must Go

Originally posted by Ned
In contrast, the left has no shame. They charge Bush with this or that and produce falsified documents to prove their charges.

You mean like forged documents claiming that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and using it as an excuse to launch a war in which 11000 Americans and 24,000 Iraqis have been killed, and many, many more maimed?

Yes, I can see how forged papers about Bush going AWOL is a serious threat to our republic.

[Ben Kenobi]

Are they Christians?

Some of those that support this are, but do they support this because they are Christians, or for other reasons?

I mean, I know Christians who root for the Yankees, but that doesn't mean that they do so because they are Christians.

They don't care enough to research facts or they'd already know massive black markets drive up property crime, not eliminating those markets.

I've been broken into, despite the fact that many drugs are available for free, such as methadone.

More drugs just seem to lead for the push for even more legalisation. First you legalise marijuana, then we end up paying for crack pipes, then heroin.

It's not just about one or the other, but the problems associated with all three come into play.

I've heard numerous Christian preachers explain that the Bible condemns drugs and they point to the word "pharmakia" in the NT as their proof. Christians led every prohibitionist movement in this country, so if you think drug or alcohol prohibition was not religious based you don't know US history on this matter.

Public schools teach drugs are bad, mmkay? Are they motivated by religious ideals, or more for the social harms caused by addiction?

And I haven't ever heard of your argument. If true, that means things like aspirin are also bad because they are drugs too.

The issue so much is not the drugs, but the addictions.

As for the prohibitionists, alcohol abuse is not a laughing matter either. If you've ever lived through it, or lived with someone like this, you'd come to sympathise moreso with the ideals of the abolitionists.

They are, they admit it, they call themselves Christians. And I didn't say only Christians oppose legalisation, non-religious folk are irrelevant. You denied that Christians use government to impose their religious views on others and I'm showing just a few ways they do exactly that.

All you've managed to show is that there are Christians involved in these matters. You haven't shown that this is anything more than them sharing the same social concerns as others.

That's what I've been saying for months here at Poly, but these people are a massive majority, not a small minority of zealots. So do they define Christianity or does Jesus?

Jesus should define things rather than the interpretations of others.

However, this is not my argument. They could very well be good Christians, yet oppose these things for the same reason as these other social activists, because of the social harms associated with these actions.

You do not accept the social arguments, so why are you harping on the Christians? Clearly, the social activists are also imposing their agenda on society, yet I don't here a peep from you.

If all these people aren't really Christians, then aren't I right when I said the Church/Christians had become a monster and Christianity died long ago except on a personal level?

Christ established a church. Clearly christians are meant to be a community, and not just isolated believers.

Regardless of what you believe about having a personal faith, this should not be in opposition to Christian fellowship with others.
quote:

That's true, but the feminists don't want prostitutes jailed, the religious folk do.

Do they?

I'm a religious person, yet I agree that the prostitutes are victims, and should not be jailed.

It's because they don't like men.

Right.



I don't think it benefits men either. The least happiest people, are the ones who have to pay for their sex.

Why are you citing the alleged motives of people who aren't religious? They don't matter, Christians matter and prostitution is illegal almost everywhere because of Christians.

The issue is why. You say they are imposing religious beliefs, but rather, it seems to be more of a motivation for social justice.

Again, you seem to think that Christians are not imposing their religion on others because there are
non-religious folk who impose their views on others.

How do you know that the Christians are imposing their 'religious beliefs?' That's the core of my argument. You've offered some evidence, but nothing that really stands up to scrutiny that the Christians are doing this because of their religious beliefs.

Blue laws are laws against selling beer on Sunday (well, that's what I was talking about anyway). You wanna explain that one by pointing to atheists who thought we needed to restrict "sin" on Sundays?

I thought you meant porn. Blue movies = Blue laws.

Day of rest is not a concept restricted to Christianity. Granted, you see these things as being imposed on the community as a whole, but the only case of this happening, is where the majority of the people agree that it would be a good thing to have a day of rest. How is this an imposition?

And there are many more religious folk who do believe the role of the state is to enforce such restrictions. C'mon Ben, the evidence is overwhelming that Christians use the state to impose their views on others.

Overwhelming? The only example that makes sense to me, has been repealed, thanks to the support of some Christians.

Does the Church? The Catholic Church perpetrated countless atrocities using various governments, did the fact many Catholics opposed the Inquisition etc mean Christians weren't using these governments to impose their religious beliefs on others?

Do I deny this? No.

However, the Catholic church in these countries was the state. So it is meaningless to make a distinction between the two. Such a situation does not exist in the US, which is the point of this thread, to question current events rather than rehashing ancient history.

No... The fact all Christians don't support punishing prostitutes doesn't mean the laws we have against prostitution were not put in place by Christians.

Christians are responsible for many laws in the country. Are all of them an imposition of their religious beliefs on the US?

But it is rooted in religious faith - that we have a soul.

Is it? Is it necessary to believe that one has a soul to believe that human beings have intrinsic dignity and worth from conception onwards?

The fact one can be non-religious and oppose abortion does not mean millions of Christians aren't trying to use the state to ban abortion, it simply means others want to ban abortion too.

But if the motivation of the Christians is to defend the life of other human persons, then does it make sense to categorise such motivation as an imposition of 'religious' beliefs?

Depends on the church, the Catholics are big supporters of welfare. Why? Because they feel we are our brother's keepers, i.e., a religious belief is being imposed on others.

So there you go. There are other motivations beyond an imposition of religious beliefs, when Christians can disagree on things like welfare without compromising their faith.

Ben, your argument is this: others do it too. I agree, so what? That doesn't mean Christians have not and are not using the state to impose their religious views on others.

It offers evidence that the motivations for Christians to do these things may not be rooted in their religious beliefs.

[Ben Kenobi]

MrFun - I daresay obiwan here is not a homophobic bigot: an educated man who believes that homosexuality is not natural perhaps, but this will probably not cause him to discriminate against gays IRL (just from my observation of his online behaviour, anyways).

I don't walk on the other side of the street or refuse to share lunch with them. I have had gay people that I have known shun me for my public stance.

So who's the bigot here?

But to be fair obiwan - would it not be ridiculous for anyone to disagree that heterosexuality is a good thing?

People disagree on many things. It doesn't mean that their beliefs are ridiculous, just because they disagree with me.

I do not believe that Mr. Fun has a ridiculous or even, an irrational belief, merely that one of his presuppositions is weak. Specifically the one that says that your sexuality defines who you are as a person. I disagree with that notion, as I believe our identity can encompass changes in what he believes is our orientation.

It is funny. Gay people say that their orientation is fixed, but the straights are willing to acknowledge that their preferences can change.

Like a compass. A compass will change orientation depending on your heading. It takes skill to learn to navigate by a compass in order to keep a course.

People disagree on issues, but it's an extremely strong and insulting thing to have someone describe you or your beliefs as immoral or evil.

Calling me a bigot is not saying that I am immoral and evil?

Where have I used the term 'immoral' or 'evil' here in the thread. I used one term, 'disordered'.

PARTICULARLY when it's not a choice of yours, simply the way you are.

And this is precisely the presupposition I deny. I deny that you have a fixed preference. So why does my disagreement make me a bigot, when I am not disagreeing with Mr. Fun as a person?

[Ben Kenobi]

Bennie advocates that homosexuals should be denied equal privileges and rights through marriage -- thus, he discriminates against gays.

Yeah, like it is a crime to discriminate against people.

We show favouritism all the time.

Look at all those handicapped ramps, and interpreters. That's discrimination against the able bodied! Why shouldn't they have the same privileges!

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Must Go

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


You mean like forged documents claiming that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger and using it as an excuse to launch a war in which 11000 Americans and 24,000 Iraqis have been killed, and many, many more maimed?

Yes, I can see how forged papers about Bush going AWOL is a serious threat to our republic.

Bush did not rely on forged documents. He cited the British intelligence.

And yes, the Dems make wild charges almost daily. Al Gore screamed at the top of his tobacco clogged lungs (his family is in tobacco) that Bush shamed the United States by the criminal conduct of a bunch of sicko privates at Abu Gharaib. Kennedy said Iraq was about Bush's reelection. Kerry claims the HMX was stolen due to Bush's neglect and that Osama escaped due to Bush's decision to farm out Tora Bora to our allies.

My God, today, Tommy Franks angrily denounced Kerry for his craven mistatements about Tora Bora. I am sure we shall soon hear from the 3rd ID and the 101st commanders on just what they think of Kerry. The only problem is that you, Che, will never see these denunciations by America's generals because the major news networks will not air anything remotely critical of this scumbag empty suit.

[Drachasor]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Bush Must Go

Originally posted by Ned


Bush did not rely on forged documents. He cited the British intelligence.

Which our people went over and they were forged documents.


I see you have once again decided to ignore the fact that Bush is a bigger or worse liar than Kerry. You just like to pretend such posts weren't made you so never respond to them.

Or maybe it is just that there is no defense for Bush on this; he's simply less trustworthy.

-Drachasor

[Japher]

Drachasor, were ALL the documents discovered to have been forged prior to us having gone to war, or after?

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Japher
Drachasor, were ALL the documents discovered to have been forged prior to us having gone to war, or after?

The comparison was with CBS, and they didn't know their documents were forged before going to press. On the other hand, the story CBS put out was true, they just initially had bad documents for it. The Bush Administration's story wasn't true, and they had bad documents.

But if it makes you feel better, the documents weren't trusted and Bush did get a memo saying that they shouldn't be cited as evidence *before* evidence was presented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/sprj.irq.uranium/index.html

It was so bad they had to have a fall-guy.

-Drachasor

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yeah, like it is a crime to discriminate against people.

We show favouritism all the time.

Look at all those handicapped ramps, and interpreters. That's discrimination against the able bodied! Why shouldn't they have the same privileges!

this is a lame post

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Dissident
I prefer not to see that kind of language

Who are you, and what have you done with dissident?!?

[DanS]

Adam Smith's post is worth responding to.

First, don't leave Saddam Hussein in power. But the use of American military, economic, and political power to conduct a personal vendetta is absolutely inexcusable.

According to The Washington Post, throughout the 90s and into 2003, removing Saddam through military force consistently received the support of 62% of the American people. It is one of the most consistent polls I have seen in my short life.

Second, do everything you can to make sure the economy is ripping along by the time election day rolls around. But in doing so George W Bush has started to piss away the greatest absolute advantage the American economy has over any other country in the world: financial stability. We and our children will pay the bill.

I think this is more than a little histrionic, AS. Have a little perspective. (1) The US is about as financially stable as it was. (2) The deficit as a percentage of our economy has turned the corner and is not extreme in any event. See Reagan for extremes. Or the Candian Tories. (3) Clinton's last years took too much away from the economy in taxes -- a situation that needed to be corrected. (4) Lastly, Bush has said he will try to tackle social security reform, which is a big threat to our long-term financial stability.

I know that many of you who support George W. Bush are very leery of John Kerry. And in many ways Kerry is like the Democrat Kamasutra: a thousand different positions and you still get screwed. But I also know that many of you supervise other people in the workplace. And if one of your employees persistently screwed up as badly as George W. Bush, wouldn't you fire them and take what's behind Door #2 as a replacement?

You're not including the fact that Bush has also done some very good things for our country, even if you admit the bad. I agree that you have to kick out bad management, since new management can't help but be better, even if it's still bad. But I am not convinced that he is bad management.

Personally, I am loathe to give our enemies any sort of comfort by electing Kerry, even if he would be a better choice -- which he isn't. It sends a very bad signal to them if the American people make as though we can't take the small lumps that we have taken.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Drachasor


The comparison was with CBS, and they didn't know their documents were forged before going to press. On the other hand, the story CBS put out was true, they just initially had bad documents for it. The Bush Administration's story wasn't true, and they had bad documents.

But if it makes you feel better, the documents weren't trusted and Bush did get a memo saying that they shouldn't be cited as evidence *before* evidence was presented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake_Forgery

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/08/sprj.irq.uranium/index.html

It was so bad they had to have a fall-guy.

-Drachasor

Excuse but now that all the information is in, what evidence is there that Bush actually relied on the supposed forged document to do his infamous 16 words in state of the union. Ned is correct in that the US was relying on British Intel. The 2003 all politics piece goes on to say that intelligence may not have been substantial enough at the time to make such a claim and that may be valid at teh time. however, blair stuck by his guns and eventually was vindicated as since that time the assertions have been confirmed and validated.

The insinuation that the memo was used to back the presidents claims as far as I know was brought on by Wilson (who simply thought himself the center of all intelligence regarding the matter in Africa, which was obviously provenly false) who has now been completely discredited.