|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Question for Kerry supporters.
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Trindakpae
I am curious to find out why you support Kerry. Is it mainly because you like what he stands for or just because it isn't George Bush? If Kerry wasn't running, who would you like to see in the White House?
Posted by: SKYHN
My reasons:
Hes not Bush
He supports govt. funded stem cell research
He will not push a draft(dubya will, hes a liar)
His plans for healthcare are better
and various other things
I would actually like to see Al Sharpton in the whitehouse. Everytime I see him on TV he always has great points and views on things.
Posted by: IceBreaker
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SKYHN
My reasons:
Hes not Bush
He supports govt. funded stem cell research
He will not push a draft(dubya will, hes a liar)
His plans for healthcare are better
and various other things
I would actually like to see Al Sharpton in the whitehouse. Everytime I see him on TV he always has great points and views on things.
|
Yes but you don't understand - Kerry has a few knowledge gaps in Civics 101. That is simply UNFORGIVABLE. Ipso facto, minor issues - be it human rights, health care, economy etc. - are consigned to the background, and rendered irrelevant.
Posted by: SKYHN
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Yes but you don't understand - Kerry has a few knowledge gaps in Civics 101. That is simply UNFORGIVABLE. Ipso facto, minor issues - be it human rights, health care, economy etc. - are consigned to the background, and rendered irrelevant.
|
Going to war under false charges is so beyond that its UNFORGIVABLE.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SKYHN
Going to war under false charges is so beyond that its UNFORGIVABLE.
|
yes I know
my previous post was sarcasm ;-)
Posted by: Gunslinger
[-Insert trite, politically charged comment about why I'm so much more right than everyone else and my candidate is the best-]
Posted by: 9:35
Stem Cell Therepy will help to bring down the gigantic pharmaceutical monster that people aren't scared enough of. George Bush not only disfavors stem cells because of his faith, but because it will hurt the big pharmacy companies that contribute to him so much.
Posted by: redwench
eh, skyhns right about al sharpton. the guy is good in debates.
anyway, im not a kerry supporter. i just consider him the lesser of 2 evils. he has some similar traits to GWB that i dont care for, such as bowing to the party line, as well as his own faults; but i think hes less likely to completely foul things up than his opponent.
whether kerry was running or not, id rather see a candidate that actually thinks about each issue seperately, and isnt heavily partisan. mccain or powell would be good, as would dean. arnold is looking promising if he keeps going as he has been, and they take care of that pesky consitutional issue 
Posted by: SKYHN
My grandparents even love al sharpton, and their Die Hard republican(the Dubya is god type).
Posted by: Ocean
i support kerry because he is the presidential candidate that knows where the true threats to america are and where they have came from. and he wont risk america's children's lives for insignificant threats.
the world really hates GWB, so i believe kerry has a better chance of getting international support for the rebuilding of iraq, (instead of this american-britain military only force) (oops i forgot poland)
kerry has more complex thoughts other than (terrorism is bad, freedom is good, this is hard work)
Bush has yet to veto a single bill, and hence is spending way too much money, our debt is growing which is causing our dollar to be exceptionally weak, and now interest rates and gas prices are skyrocketing.
he isnt executing his primary job of presidency well.
the system of checks and balances that should be in place are obsolete because one entity controls two branches of the governement. i cant vote for other states so i have to vote for the likely senate minority party's presidential candidate.
because republicans are followers, they dont think for themselves. i want a leader instead.
Posted by: NyGulkuk
I've always respected and admired John Kerry. I like him even better since watching the debates.
Posted by: BooRadley
Because he'll most likely spend less than Bush, he won't run the economy into the ground, shift the tax burden to the middle class, wreck education and destroy the barrier between government and religion, and empower the government while disempowering the individual, and because the GOP is building a cult of personality behind Bush, and that's dangerous.
Bush is anti-liberty, anti-democracy and fiscally liberal. His policies have sharply divided the country and driven down the economy, while driving up the tax burden. He's also a pathalogical liar, and only the most gullible people could make themselves believe the propaganda and excuses the righ-wing press is using to try to rationalize his massive pile of failures.
Posted by: elhior_manwe
Kerry isnt G.W. That is enough for me. I don't like Kerry all that much but I can't honestly think of one reason to vote for Bush. And as to whom I would want in the White House? ummm.....the choices are pretty limited but from the ones that are possible.......umm
Posted by: Shalome
I support Kerry for his views on domestic issues, something which Bush has grossly ignored in the past 4 years.
I support Kerry because he has promised to keep personal faith out of politics. He is not an evengelical Christian -- Bush has made it clear that he plans to appoint judges (despite his denigrating comments about "activist judges") who will set womens rights and civil rights back 50 years as well as blocking funding for stem cell research (which the rest of the world is doing without us, leaving us in the dust) simply because that's what his church and his God tell him are the right thing to do. I support Kerry's respect for the opinions of the scientific community, something which Bush does not share when science goes against his administrative policies or religious beliefs.
I firmly believe Kerry will be able to patch up diplomatic relationships with countries that were formerly our strong allies and supporters, the diplomatic ties and goodwill that Bush all but destroyed. I believe Kerry will be able to work with world leaders in a productive manner, rather than saying "If you don't like it, **** off" as Bush has done.
I feel the Bush administration has lost the support and trust of much of the nation and of much of the world. I do not feel like he could continue to be an effective leader on the world stage for another 4 years. I believe we need a change.
And for some grossly simplified reasons:
http://ybean.com/shalome/punkvoter.jpg
Posted by: marioze53
I look at these two candidates and I see very few differences when it comes to their foreign policy. In fact, it seems to be the same policy; protect the United States from threats abroad. Its only a matter of when and where that policy is applied. Apparently Bush thought that Iraq was a bigger threat to us then Iran or Korea, hence invasion. Yet, now we know that was not the case as Saddam had nothing, and its North Korea allegedly with the nukes. Would Bush have acted differently had he known what we do now? He keeps telling us no, but thats just because he must be decisive and defend his actions for the upcoming election. Had he known what we know now, he would never have invaded Iraq.
As a moderate republican, I think Ill probably end up voting for Kerry. His foreign policy has nothing to do with my decision. Its just that Bushes economics suck. How on earth can we fund a war, medicare, no-child-left-behind, etc., when all of that money is going back to the people?
Posted by: redwench
bush and the administration knew full well saddam was not a direct threat to the US at the time. what logical person would believe that a secular dictator would provide any assistance to a religious terrorist group? and that was the original rationale behind the invasion, that there were all these terrorists running amok in iraq at the behest of saddam. [there certainly are terrorists running amok there now, but for an entirely different reason]
in short, they knew at the time that iraq wasnt home to millions of terrorists just waiting to strike, and that there were no plans to attack the US. they just fed this nonsense to us in order to get support.
but yes, their stated foreign policies are similar. i just dont believe that bush et al are capable of following it with any consistency. well go to the UN as long as theyll agree with/back us. if they dont, well strap on the gun belt and do it ourselves.
Posted by: Shalome
Thank you for being a clear-thinking Republican on economic and domestic issues, marioze53.
I know quite a few just-a-bit-more-hardline Republicans than you who say they hate all Bush's economic policies and aren't fond of domestic policies in general, but are voting for him solely because they think he'll handle Iraq better.
Posted by: Null Actor
I love how Bush is quoted as saying that if he's elected again, he'll halve the deficit by the end of his second term.
Uh. He's entirely responsible for the entire deficit! Can anyone read this kind of thing and not think "The chocolate ration has increased."?
Posted by: Shalome
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
I love how Bush is quoted as saying that if he's elected again, he'll halve the deficit by the end of his second term.
Uh. He's entirely responsible for the entire deficit! Can anyone read this kind of thing and not think "The chocolate ration has increased."?
|
Hush, man. You should know by now that only us overeducated liberals would catch that reference.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
I love how Bush is quoted as saying that if he's elected again, he'll halve the deficit by the end of his second term.
|
Maybe what junior meant was that he'll increase the deficit by half http://www.touslessmileys.com/modul...age.php/155.gif
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shalome
Hush, man. You should know by now that only us overeducated liberals would catch that reference. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
|
Point taken.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
If Mister T ran against Bush tomorrow for president, I'll vote for Mister T
j/k of course...
There are so many reasons to hate Bush that I don't know where to start - so I won't As for Kerry, he's not the perfect candidate. He's not faultless either, and there are times when he is too tame in some domestic issues in order not to anger some extreme sides. But I like what he proposes much better than what Bush has planned (or did).
Bush comes off as arrogant when he claims to not have made any serious mistakes, especially about various decisions in the "war". He comes off as a religious fanatic when he imposes the tenets of his faith and tries to legislate them. He comes off as close-minded when he insists that we either do it his way or the highway. Worst of all, he comes off as a pathological liar when he refuses to address the issues that matter and is more comfortable attacking his opponent on those same issues - by quoting things out of context and basing his whole campaign on them...
Asked about homosexuality being a choice, Bush answers "I don't know". Asked on whether he'll overturn Roe vs Wade, he dodges the question as clumsily as he dodged the draft. Asked about whether he made any mistakes about Iraq, he says no, it was the right thing to do, no matter what the reasons were.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I can take a president like that for four more years...
Posted by: IceBreaker
But on the other hand, if Bush does get elected he will inflict so much damage during his second term that voters will most likely boycott the conservatives for the next 50 years at least - like tourists boycotting a radioactive wasteland after a nuclear holocaust 
Obviously, there will be many casualties on the way - innocent citizens will fall prey to the regime, either for being jailed & tortured on grounds of sedition - which may well become a crime (Patriot Act v2.1 anyone?) - or for disease, as an ever increasing number of citizens will find themselves deprived of basic health care after having lost their jobs (I won't be surprised if the situation bears a likeness to that in Medieval Europe, say plague-infested Spain under the stranglehold of the Inquisition -)...
Taxes will be further reduced for the wealthiest & of course the lower classes will once again bear the brunt of it as they stand powerless before the ever-widening rift between the rich & the poor - yet another throwback to the Dark Ages where those of noble descent were spared the tax burden which rested solely on the shoulders of the "average" subject..
Civilians will watch helplessly as the new order that rose from the ashes of 9-11 grows into full-fledged state corporatism like an overbloated phoenix, consuming all that oppose it...
And to those who value the Right to Bear Arms, don't deludes yourselves: if reelected, Bush WILL very likely extend the ban on assault-guns, unlike what he's trying to make out
All this may sound somewhat far-fetched for now, but that's the way voters will be heading should they choose to keep the incumbent in office. Want a more concrete picture of what the regime will look like under junior's second term? Consider Chili from 1973-1990 , under Pinochet's rule - and this is by no means an overstatement -)
But IF that is what it will take to finally stir the people from their slumber...
Posted by: marioze53
Quote:
Originally posted by IceBreaker
All this may sound somewhat far-fetched for now .
|
Thats an understatement if I ever heard one.
Posted by: BooRadley
Not really. I've already heard things like, "Oh, come on. Even Republicans don't fall for that lie anymore," being used in passing language. The Republicans fell for some really weak lies and excuses and that's the reputation the party is going to have for a while. They managed to make it out of the Regan/Bush era without having to admit that the GOP is the fiscally irresponsible party, but GWB pushed it too far.
The GOP is the party of guillible people and big spending politicians, and I think that's going to become the outlook that America has for the next decade or so.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by marioze53
Thats an understatement if I ever heard one.
|
Maybe - but even the deadliest of storms begin with only a small dark cloud on the political horizon http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...ies/chinese.gif
Posted by: INeedHelp
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
Stem Cell Therepy will help to bring down the gigantic pharmaceutical monster that people aren't scared enough of. George Bush not only disfavors stem cells because of his faith, but because it will hurt the big pharmacy companies that contribute to him so much.
|
How ironic, I am currently doing a persuasive research paper on the ethics involved in embyronic stem cell researches. Do you mind if I put that in my essay?
Posted by: Ocean
doesn't 9:35 work in a pharmacy?
no intended meaning, just saying..
Posted by: redwench
he did. but pharmacies arent run by pharmaceutical manufacturers
Posted by: Ocean
yeah but the success of pharmacies does depend on prescriptions. if everything gets fixed at a genetic level. where the need for antihistamins and heart meds? (now i grouped an intended meaning  )
kinda makes his stance even more believable eh?
my own opinion:
there is more financial incentive to treat illnesses over the course of a lifetime, rather than cure them.
Posted by: redwench
yes and no. even with gene therapy, its not permanent, at least not yet. the procedure needs to be repeated at intervals, and the need for drugs doesnt disappear. it can actually be more expensive to cure someone than treat over a lifetime, most drugs arent that expensive.
the big pharmaceuticals dont like it because it will cause a shift away from patented drugs to generic, because there will be less need for the new stuff and more for the older well studied ones.
the most effective and safe antihistimine has been OTC for decades now  ask niner, but i think the prescription end is to draw bodies in, with the more profitable items actually being everything else in the store.
Posted by: Rifter
I don't understand why you would want to vote for Kerry when you don't like Kerry. That makes no sense to me. If you don't like Bush nor Kerry vote for Nader. Although I think if all the people voting against Bush voted Nader Bush would probably get elected again, which I have no problem with being a republican.
As for the comments about the draft, come on do you really think they would actually instate the draft. Do you even realize how long it would take them to set it up and get it working effieciently? The whole comment about the draft is just more political tatics to scare young voters against Bush. Although I wouldn't be surprised if Bush's advisers have talked about the idea. I know if I was in the military I wouldn't want to be overseas for more than a few years, thus the idea to use the draft in this situation. (that is imo) I don't agree with using the draft, the only reason it was created in the first place was to get enough troops over to Europe during WWII. ( correct me if I'm wrong)
I do not agree with how Bush has handled some aspects of the Iraq War, but I still think he is the better man for the job. As for the deficit, of course we have a huge gapping whole in the countries budget we are in a war and the last time I checked it was not cheap to buy weapons let alone research and design new weapons. This costs a lot so this in turn affects the rest of our economics. I don't think the war goes hand in hand too well with Bush's tax reform though.
I think what Kerry will do once he gets in office is to cut back on the number of troops we have in Iraq, which imo is not a very good idea at the moment. We should at least wait until Iraq has a stable government in place; which we are doing right now. I do not think however that we should go and invade any other countries after Iraq, as it seems we might be eyeing up Iran.
I also think many people in this country don't like Bush because they are for the "do what you feel like mentality" and Bush bucks that system to some extent. He opposes abortions and same sex marriages. I'm all for opposing those and for good reason. Abortion is killing a baby period no arguement (and I won't debate that with anyone) and marriage is between a man and woman it was never meant for a man/man woman/woman. We are created for the opposite sex not the same. It's BS that you are born "different". Bush is Christian and sticks to his christian beliefs and he gets a lot of slack for his beliefs. Our country has gotten soft on its values and morals. Although I'm no better, I'll even go as far as to call myself a hypocrite because I'm not perfect.
My point is that Bush does put his christian beliefs in motion while being president; ie: same sex marriage/ abortion. sigh, I'm just sad to see our countries culture (decent ethics, morals,etc) go down the tubes. But that is probably left better for another thread. That is my 2 cents.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
Abortion is killing a baby period no arguement (and I won't debate that with anyone)
|
1) even in cases of rape or for medical reasons?
2) would you uphold the same ideas were you a woman yourself?
3) so abortion is wrong, and yet the death penalty - even in cases where there is enough doubt to exonerate the alleged culprit - is acceptable?
Posted by: NyGulkuk
So a girl raped by her father should be forced to have the baby and/or get permission from him to abort the fetus?
Everything is black or white to repugs, always has been always will be.
BTW, I already said I like, respect and admire Kerry. If it weren't for people like him the Vietnam War would have dragged on even longer than it did.
Posted by: Rifter
IceBreaker
Like I said in my post I'm not going to get into a long discussion , I will however explain why I believe my view point.
Yes even in case of a rape or for medical reasons. That may sound harsh to people in this thread but that is my opinion. If someone is raped there is an option of adoption if they really wanted to do that. Although a large percentage of women want to keep the baby if they have it, or at least want to be part of the child's life. As for medical reasons, women of 100 years ago didn't have abortions (at least they were not publically done by a doctor) so why should we? Because we can? But because we can makes it right? I don't see the logic behind it. And yes I have discussed this with my mother and my sister before, they do disagree with me although I am not sure of which they disagreed or both.
I don't know why you would compare the death penalty (where a person has allegedyly committed a crime of murder or some other heinous crime) with abortion (where a mother has a choice of either keeping her baby or killing it) I understand the link you are making, but both deal with two completely different issues and imo should not be linked together. One deals with a life that has not even started yet and the other deals with a person that has most likely taken a life or lives.
My opinion on the death penalty is that if there is reasonable doubt that the person did NOT commit the crime then they should according to our law system be released. That isn't to say anyone who can't be convicted due to not sufficent evidence is innocent, it just means there wasn't enough evidence to convict the person, but they should still be dealt the law like it was laid (ie: released if that is the case) If that means the person kills me or a family and they got off scott free yesterday from a trial then I will see my family in a better place when the time comes. (I belive this due to being Christian, but those are my beliefs)
I hope that answers your questions. They are tough for some, but its what I believe.
Posted by: Rifter
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by NyGulkuk
Everything is black or white to repugs, always has been always will be.
|
Not all republicans are so hard placed on their views as am I. I've known some to have ideals in the gray areas. I think republicans tend to be more along the christian baseline rather than democrats. That isn't to say democrats are not christans, but how many actually practice what they preach? This gay marriage thing is not christian and never will be. If you think it is and call youself a Christian you better go read your Bible. But this is a political thread so I won't get into theology anymore than I have.
If anyone knows of a board they would like to discuss these ideas with me let me know and I'll be happy to discuss them.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Wait a minute - you're kidding, right?
If not...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
Like I said in my post I'm not going to arguement , I will however explain why I believe my view point.
Yes even in case of a rape or for medical reasons. [...] As for medical reasons, women of 100 years ago didn't have abortions (at least they were not publically done by a doctor) so why should we? Because we can?
|
I see - following the same line of logic, there was no treatment for many a deadly disease 100 years ago - so why resort to modern medicine today: because it is available? -)
As for rape:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
One deals with a life that has not even started
|
so you rail against the taking of a life that , according to your own words, "has not even started" - yet you have no qualms about letting another innocent person's life (ie. that of the raped girl) get ruined for the rest of her existence? No talk about the trauma she will have to endure thenceforth? Oh but wait - since you yourself are certain never to be confronted with such an experience, I suppose that is of little concern to you, right?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
That may sound harsh to people in this thread
|
that's an understatement.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
I don't know why you would compare the death penalty (where a person has allegedyly committed a crime of murder or some other heinous crime) with abortion (where a mother has a choice of either keeping her baby or killing it)
|
no, your mentionning that "choice" is irrelevant because you yourself oppose that choice & seek to deprive her it -)
=> Tell me something: as a man what right do you have to even voice your opinion about abortion rights in the first place?
Quote:
My point is that Bush does put his christian beliefs in motion while being president
...
My opinion on the death penalty is that if there is reasonable doubt that the person did NOT commit the crime then they should according to our law system be released.
|
You might want to tell this to the president himself - as Chief Executive (that word took on another meaning in his case) of Texas, he signed off death warrants with the regularity of a pendulum - even in cases where there was enough evidence to clear the inmate - not very christian, is it?
And what about the ever-widening gap between the upper & lower classes? Or Bush sacrificing medical research on the altar of profit? Or hundreds of thousands getting laid off & deprived of health care, and the government tightening welfare spendings? If this president is putting his "christian beliefs in motion", then I suppose that Bible (which, the last time I checked, preaches charity towards the needy - cf Matthew 19:21 ) must have undergone a serious update lately so as to make it more...compatible with the conservatives' own precepts. Bible patched -> v9.11, perhaps?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
If you think it is and call youself a Christian you better go read your Bible.
|
I would suggest you do the same. Notwithstanding the 6th commandment, you may recall the story about an adulterous woman (adultery was a crime that bore the death penalty at that time, and is also forbidden in the Bible) whose life was spared - let he who has never sinned cast the first stone - ring a bell?
Posted by: Hambones
Quote:
|
Yes even in case of a rape or for medical reasons.
|
I agree with you Rifter. A baby conceived out of rape deserves the same basic rights to which we are all privy (e.g. life, liberty...). There are plenty of baren families trying to adopt kids in the US. Other that that, however, if you're not prepared for the consequences, DON'T HAVE SEX!
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
Yes even in case of a rape
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hambones
I agree with you Rifter [...] if you're not prepared for the consequences, DON'T HAVE SEX!
|
http://forum.presence-pc.com/images/perso/666%20.gif um...in case you didn't know, when it comes to rape, the victim - by definition of rape - does not consent...
Posted by: NyGulkuk
I am a Christian, but very glad to not to be a fundamentalist.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
I don't understand why you would want to vote for Kerry when you don't like Kerry. That makes no sense to me. If you don't like Bush nor Kerry vote for Nader.
|
I don't like Nader either ... and Al Sharpton wasn't on the ballot
So what do you suggest? Vote for someone you "like" or vote for someone you think will do a better job? I think your priorities are not straight in this election... This ain't a popularity contest, this is a decision of who gets the control the red button...
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
My point is that Bush does put his christian beliefs in motion while being president; ie: same sex marriage/ abortion. sigh, I'm just sad to see our countries culture (decent ethics, morals,etc) go down the tubes.
|
i wasnt aware that conservative christians had a monopoly on ethics and morals. please enlighten me.
Quote:
|
We are created for the opposite sex not the same. It's BS that you are born "different".
|
according to a study that came out last week, they have indeed found a/the gene for male homosexuality. its on the x chromosome.
Quote:
|
I also think many people in this country don't like Bush because they are for the "do what you feel like mentality" and Bush bucks that system to some extent.
|
i see you confuse being "for" something with a libertarian stance on legislation. let us hope that in 20 years, we don't elect a fundamentalist muslim that decides that pork should be illegal, men and women should be segregated in public, and that honor killing should be legal. because bush is trying to set a precedent for what would come if we elected such.
Quote:
|
Abortion is killing a baby period no arguement (and I won't debate that with anyone) and marriage is between a man and woman
|
then dont have one and dont marry someone of your gender. you and anyone else can oppose anything youd like. i find adultery to be much more morally reprehensible than homosexuality, but i do not approve of any legislation regarding it.
Posted by: Hambones
Quote:
|
so you rail against the taking of a life that , according to your own words, "has not even started" - yet you have no qualms about letting another innocent person's life (ie. that of the raped girl) get ruined for the rest of her existence? No talk about the trauma she will have to endure thenceforth? Oh but wait - since you yourself are certain never to be confronted with such an experience, I suppose that is of little concern to you, right?
|
How will having a baby and giving it up for adoption further degredate someone who has already been raped?
If anything, I would think it would cause greater mental anguish to carry a child in the womb, only to have it destroyed. My wife is a social worker and she deals with young women who have these tough "decisions" to make. I promise you, most of the women who get abortions, carry the guilt with them.
Quote:
|
um...in case you didn't know, when it comes to rape, the victim - by definition of rape - does not consent...
|
Read the entire post Ice...it says, " Other than that" ...meaning other than rape, aka Consensual intercourse.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hambones
How will having a baby and giving it up for adoption further degredate someone who has already been raped?
If anything, I would think it would cause greater mental anguish to carry a child in the womb, only to have it destroyed. My wife is a social worker and she deals with young women who have these tough "decisions" to make. I promise you, most of the women who get abortions, carry the guilt with them.
|
?! think again, then - you may want to say this to the 14 year-old girl who got raped in Ireland a few years ago, and became pregnant as a result of it -
a.k.a the X-case - Google will elaborate ; )
Posted by: 9:35
this abortion issue is pretty stupid. does the death of someone you know nothing about a thousand miles away at any time affect you personally? it bothers me a hell of a lot less than bringing another unwanted child in this wreck of a planet.
Posted by: Rifter
Erm, I'm not trying to avoid answering the posts, but should we move this to separate thread or just keep posting here? Lol, didn't mean to turn this into a discussion about abortion and ideals.
But to sum up, I'm not trying to say someone is right or wrong, but explain why I believe the way I do. You are entitled to your opinions as am I, mine just may seem too hardlined for most. But might I venture a guess that many of the people posting in here are dems? I'm just curious, it would be interesting to find out if Ice Breaker and Rewench were reps. (my last post on this topic...just don't want to draw out this thread....no really)
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
Erm, I'm not trying to avoid answering the posts, but should we move this to separate thread or just keep posting here? Lol, didn't mean to turn this into a discussion about abortion and ideals.
But to sum up, I'm not trying to say someone is right or wrong, but explain why I believe the way I do. You are entitled to your opinions as am I, mine just may seem too hardlined for most. But might I venture a guess that many of the people posting in here are dems? I'm just curious, it would be interesting to find out if Ice Breaker and Rewench were reps. (my last post on this topic...just don't want to draw out this thread....no really) |
having leftist views does not make someone a democrat
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rifter
I'm just curious, it would be interesting to find out if Ice Breaker and Rewench were reps. (my last post on this topic...just don't want to draw out this thread....no really) |
for my part, I don't live in the US - and on the political spectrum, let's just say that the conservatives would probably refer to me - pejoratively - as a 'leftie', or even a 'commie'
Posted by: redwench
unfortunately, since the us is mainly a 2 party system, everyone seems to assume that you must be a republican or a democrat. i neither belong to nor identify with either party. i vote for the individual/issue that i perceive will do the job the best, or fubar it the least, as the case may be. regardless of the letter after the persons name, or who sponsored the issue.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Republicans are close-minded, overspending bible-toters. Democrats are whining, naive conformists (or liberals, as that seems to be the dirty word of the month)... neither party is worth their weight in gold when it comes to the issues. We wonder why the country is divided - the answer seems obvious. People who subscribe exclusively to either party regardless of the issues are the ones that promote dissension and division.
I have to admit that I have more contempt for the Republican way of doing things than I do for the Democratic way (which doesn't mean I'm automatically a Democrat), but that's only my opinion. I sincerely believe I can do without this two party system, so that the American people can concentrate more on the issues and virtues of each candidate rather than always rooting for their "home team" regardless of whether they're right or wrong...
Posted by: Hambones
Quote:
Republicans are close-minded, overspending bible-toters. Democrats are whining, naive conformists (or liberals, as that seems to be the dirty word of the month)... neither party is worth their weight in gold when it comes to the issues. We wonder why the country is divided - the answer seems obvious. People who subscribe exclusively to either party regardless of the issues are the ones that promote dissension and division.
I sincerely believe I can do without this two party system, so that the American people can concentrate more on the issues and virtues of each candidate rather than always rooting for their "home team" regardless of whether they're right or wrong...
|
Well spoken....er, written. I agree.
Posted by: Gerbilo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shalome
Hush, man. You should know by now that only us overeducated liberals would catch that reference. |
I caught that and i'm far from an overeducated liberal...
sorry.. i was going back reading all this just to see what everyone was saying.
Winston is a sissy too
|
|
|
|
|
