Something for discussion

Remove all ads!

True to his word...Darkwolf has stayed out of the debate here until after the election...of course that doesn't mean he can't visit my in-box

This Washington Times story isn't earth shattering, but gives a little glimpse of what Kerry is about.

The Weekly Standard is definitely a Conservative source...but the amusing story of revisionist history it tells gives another insight into the mind of JFK...no...not that JFK...the one who had to marry money.

 

Sorry, I might have missed something, but why is Darkwolf staying out of the debate until AFTER the election (when debating who will win will become moot)?

 

Because he's secretly planning to vote for Kerry (he just doesn't want HS to know).

[ October 29, 2004, 04:40: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Nice bit of journalism there, that first sentence, when read quickly, makes it sound that there are only five members of the security council, and four of them denied seeing him. There is actually 15 members, and it was confirmed he met with at least three, and probably Britain as well.

So Kerry may have been a little creative when he's stated he met "with the entire Security Council".

Compared to Bush's creativity over the links between Al Quaeda and Iraq, and WMD, this is somewhat small fry don't you think?

As regards your little dig about "having to marry for money", could you please explain how this is
a.) relevant
b.) any different than someone inheriting it from Daddy?

And also, could someone let me know when the last President who didn't have a multi-billion dollar campaign budget was in power? Has any one worked out if, instead of spending it on campaigning, it was spent on - say the welfare state what the outcome would be?

 

On the money issue - I wouldn't want a president who ran a dairy for most of his life. I'd rather have a president who is used to dealing with several 0s daily rather than 1.75 for milk. However, I would also rather have a president who EARNED their money rather than marry some rich broad or inherit it from daddy. Another reason why I wouldn't vote for either president.

VOTE PAMELA! Put a pair of boobs into the Whitehouse that you can respect!

 

Since when is the Washington Times a reliable source of information?

 

@Abom

Then you must like John Edwards. While the man is a millionaire (as pretty much every presidential canidate has been in recent memory) John Edwards earned his fortune through being a trial lawyer and prosecuting class-action law suits. Lots of money in those. He also proudly states that he is the son of a mill worker, and was not born wealthy.

 

Oooh I know this one. When you're desperately trolling for anti-Kerry hit pieces?

Next, I think I'll start a thread posting stories from Democratic Underground and MoveOn.org and The Nation to even things out. Ya know, "give you a little glimpse at what Bush is all about."

Sorry Hack - but the Weekly Standard commenting on someone else's "revisionist history" is like Howard Dean lecturing someone on controlling their emotions. Same thing goes for newspapers who's owners think they're the self-annointed new Massiah.

 

I guess, DR, that the difference I see in the various sources of information is that nowhere in the links I gave was the leader of the greatest nation on earth referred to as female genitalia.

Besides...I read some of the articles at MoveOn and the Nation and can see through the obvious partisan nature of them to what real story may be underneath...and there is a story underneath all this...which I'll try to summarize.

Kerry has two kinds of supporters...those who will take anyone besides Bush and those who look to Kerry to be the salvation of American Democracy. He is not.

This is just my opinion, but you may as well call it fact because I'm always right, but everything in Kerry's life has been planned with this goal in mind. He has riden any tide that will carry him further toward this end, and he is completely dishonest, untrustworthy and without morals. We should shave his head and check for strange marks, for crying out loud.

Anyway...both those links, regardless how presented, illustrate the subtle dishonesty that pervades everything about him like the stink of death. I had hoped that they could be viewed in that manner by those who actually like Kerry...those who will take anyone but Bush will be unaffected.

Oh...and Carcaroth...the marriage thing is relevant...further insights buddy...marrying for money ONCE could be "love"...doing it twice is just being a super wussy boy.

As has been said elsewhere...if John Kerry can't stand up against Howard Dean...what will he do when faced with an enemy who could really hurt us? Wait...I guess Howard Dean really could hurt us.

Bunny...I have to live up to that "Diet Shralp" remark, you know.

 

Well I guess that's the difference between you and I, Hack.

You see, I could judge Bush on the fact that he used to be a coke-head. That he used to be an alcoholic. That he has a criminal record. That every business he's ever ran, he ran into the ground. That those failed businesses were all ultimately bailed out by his father and rich investors who owed him favors. That a C student in high school was accepted into Yale ahead of far more deserving candidates, thanks to family priveledge and influence. That a C student was skipped ahead in line of far more deserving candidates for a coveted place in the TANG to avoid a war he claims to have supported. That that very C student's family influence and priveledge got him excused from duty early to attend Harvard Business school, ahead of far more deserving candidates. That a weak governer from a state having one of the weakest and least influential governerships in the entire country was nominated for the highest office in the land, thanks to family influence, priveledge, and name recognition, ahead of far more deserving candidates. That this man is somehow remotely qualified to lead the free world. That his lifetime of recklessness, incompetance and excuses could be seen as a preview of his entire presidency.

No, I actually try to judge the man the things he's done in his official capacity. And, as a former supporter of his, I can point to plenty examples where he's lost my confidence.

No, instead of being intellectually honest about the ghastly failings of the man you support, you bring up stupid, petty sh*t like why you think Kerry married his wife, as if it means anything.

But tell you what - I want to give you a chance to prove to me, if you would, that you aren't the reactionary, bitterly anti-liberal freeper you just came off as with this little gem:

If you can prove that Kerry is the filthy, disgusting liar you claim he is, I'll change my vote. Promise. I'll gladly vote for Bush knowing that he is indeed the lesser of two evils. Because I see things like this all the time from guys like you and it drives me nuts, because you guys can never seem to back it up. So here's your chance. Consider yourself officially called out, Hack. Put up or shut up. If I can't successfully correct or debunk what you have to say, consider me a Bush man once again.

[ October 29, 2004, 21:06: Message edited by: Death Rabbit ]

 

Well, DR...since I've seemed to ruffle your fur, and since I genuinely like you, you definitely deserve the best answer I can offer. It can't be done with a link to this news story or that web site...if that could prove the character of either gentlemen...we'd all be voting for Badnarik.

I can, without doubt, prove that John Kerry lacks the character necessary to lead this nation...although you may not accept my proof. It has been already discussed on these boards without much consequence, but it allows me to be certain in my judgements about him.

John Kerry claims to be a faithful Roman Catholic. That is a lie. Personal matters of faith are the most elemental issues in our life to approach with honesty and genuine self-appraisal. He does not. This indicates a serious flaw in his moral character and is indicative of an underdeveloped conscience. I'll explain.

There are 5 moral imperatives in the Catholic Church...areas that are not open to interpretation or negotiation. They are:

1. Abortion
2. Human Cloning
3. Euthanasia
4. Fetal Stem Cell Research
5. Gay Marriage.

The moral teaching on these issues must be accepted to be in communion with the Magisterium of the Church. To not accept them is to be Protestant, or "in protest against the church". I'm not saying that everyone needs to accept the Church's teaching on these issues, but if you call yourself a "faithful catholic" and do not, there are serious problems.

To take the stand Kerry has on virtually every one of the five issues means one of two things...either he is propagating a lie to himself and the voting public, or he lacks the moral development to be able to understand the vital tenets of his self-professed faith. Neither one is good, indeed they remove him from my mind to be even considered to receive my vote. This should raise a shocking red flag to every voter, whether they be Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Wiccan, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic or Scientologist.

There you have it. To me, irrefutable proof of the claims that I've made. You want that Bush-Cheney 04 bumper sticker now?

So...if I grant that your claims against my guy are true and you grant that my claims against your guy are true...where does that leave us? You can either vote for the "rich kid-screw up-overachiever" or "Damien 2004". Hmmmmm.

 

The only thing you have proven, is that according to the Pope, Kerry's not a very good Catholic. Maybe you should write in John Paul for prez. Now, if he was only an American citizen....

 

Hack, I know you're fairly cluey, and I respect your opinions even if I don't agree with them. But if this is the best you can put forward, then I'm somewhat disappointed.

If you think that Kerry's non-adherence to strict Catholicism is an indelible stain on his credibility, then I think you've missed the point and are working off the assumption that the codification of doctrine somehow overshadows the message of Christian faith. I think that the absolutist position of the Church reflects on it more than on John Kerry's commitment to "personal values", and more negatively. How many of these things were "moral imperatives" of the Church in the Middle Ages? One, at best (homosexuality). Just as there are divisions of orthodox and liberal Judaism, which have reflected a split over the changing nature of the world, so too must the Catholic Church realise that it cannot maintain its anachronistic position without sliding towards being irrelevant.

Even if I were to accept your argument, what would this say about Bush's non-adherence to Christian values? I'm not about to start quoting or referencing the Bible; the message and the observation of it are what is important. Starting wars, shafting the poor and sloppy running of the economy (even if it was in a state of inherited depression, it's still dropped even further under Bush/Cheney) - do these sound to you like the actions of a good Christian who claims to move with the will of the Almighty?

 

@ Hack

So then, your opposition to Kerry is on purely religious grounds? Ok then. That's not something one can really argue against. If you firmly believe in your religious convictions, and furthermore firmly believe Kerry is an affront to them because he claims to be a faithful catholic but doesn't practice his public policy in the hardline manner necessary for you to be comfortable with him as a "true catholic," then I see where you're coming from and there isn't much I can sway to derail your faith train. I happen to not agree (shocker!!), but I at least understand where you're coming from.

I apologize for my tone in the last post. I'd responded to you fresh off the heels of a debate with a co-worker over whether or not Kerry was a communist, is trying to shove the "gay agenda" down everyone's throats (pun intended) and "wants" abortions (I ended up arguing him down to "Well, I just don't trust him" and it ended there). So yes - at the time, fur was slightly ruffled. It's just that 90% of the things I hear said about Kerry are based on exaggerations or flat-out lies, yet passed on as fact - and it drives me frigging nuts. I'm not fanatically pro-Kerry, I just think that if he's so terrible, I can be convinced of it without people lying to me about him (yes, Sean Hannity, I'm talking to you).

Anyway - back on topic - since I'm not a catholic (yet), I obviously don't have the same point of view that you do. I personally wonder if considering one's self a "good catholic" requires the hard-line stance you say it does. I've met several faithful catholics who disagreed with various official stances of the church and were/are still good catholics. My girlfriend, for example, shares my opinion on abortion, in that while it should be neither promoted nor encouraged, there are certain situations (rape, health of the mother is in jeopardy, incest, etc.) where abortion should be allowed, even necessary. For that reason, she and I are both against a sweeping abortion ban. I also believe (and she doesn't necessarily disagree) that since invitro clinics discard thousands of unused embrios every year, those embrios should be put to good use for study rather than wasted. Now since I don't see any catholics protesting the morality of fertility clinics, I particularly don't see this as a problem. I don't propose that stem cells be harvested from abortions, or to grow/clone babies for this purpose, and neither does Kerry.

Now that's 2 of your big 5 right there. But try telling my girlfriend she ain't a good catholic and you better be wearing a cup, boy howdy.

Now what does this have to do with Kerry, and why I disagree with your stance? Let's let Kerry himself explain, on the issue of abortion. In fact, the following statement by Kerry on this issue (and on his faith and the role it plays in his official capacity) was one of things that made me shift from just "anti-Bush" to enthusiastically "Pro-Kerry":

He's pro-choice - not pro-abortion, and there is a difference. He also doesn't want his beliefs forced on those who may not share them. You may call that immoral or unprincipled, but I highly disagree. To me, it takes courage to represent the people, ALL people, not dictate to them. I wish more politicians would focus more on policy that takes everyone into account rather than a few specific groups. But again - you apparantly disagree.

More here: http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm

As for my future status in catholicism - since you say one must strictly oppose your big 5 in order to be a catholic, and since my stances on them currently are (and probably won't change):

1. Not fond of, but against an outright ban
2. Totally against
3. Totally in favor of, with doctor approval and if patient is of sound mental/emotional state
4. In favor of
5. It's up to churches to decide who they will "marry," but totally support equivilant legal status, aka "civil unions"

Hmmm. Only one for five by the "all or nothing" rule; I think I should at least get partial credit for 1, 4, and 5. But even with partial credit I'm only at 2.5. I like the catholic church and want to make my future wife happy. But if I can't think for myself and still be a Catholic, then she'll have to settle for marrying a cynical Jack-Mormon. Furthermore - if Kerry can't be a Catholic president without forcing Catholic values on everyone, then what's so great about being a Catholic anyway? Is it just because you're Catholic that you feel this way? Would you want a Jewish president writing his faith into the law of the land? What about a Muslim president? One need look no further than the middle east to see why mixing religious conviction and government is often a bad idea. But now we're straying into Chev territory, which I haven't the strength for, so...

 

You're a class act, Bunny.

 

Allow me to ruin this brief moment of peace and reconciliation with this completely unnecessary and futile rejoinder:

The quote you offer, Death Rabbit, is Kerry's answer in the second debate to the question of whether or not the gov't should fund abortions. So when Kerry ends with...

...the clear implication is that, yes, the gov't should fund abortions for the poor.

I think that qualifies him as pro-abortion, not merely pro-choice. And if subsidizing abortion specifically for the poor DOESN'T qualify him -- then what would?!? Does he have to pull a Margaret Sanger and say explicitly that he supports the right of would-be moms to decrease the surplus population?

(Sorry, I'm only writing this so Hacken Slash can retain his good-cop status!)

 

Grey - That does not mean that Kerry is pro-abortion. It simply means that he believes that the poor should have the same access to any form of healthcare as anyone else, regardless of income.

 

Only if you're Chev. Chev for example, follows the Catholic hard-line, and I commend him for his faith. However, the rank and file Catholics don't believe half the garbage the Church spouts off. I'm was born Catholic, and just like Kerry, I was an altar boy. My family is Catholic. My wife is Catholic. Her entire family is Catholic, and with the exception of my mother-in-law, NONE OF THEM follow the Catholic hard line, and nearly all of them consider themselves to be good Catholics. My wife and I rarely go to Church, so we aren't good Catholics, but most of the rest of the family is.

Furthermore, I must question if Hacken Slash even IS Catholic, to make such a ridiculous statement as to what five things makes a Catholic a Catholic. That's just flatly wrong. Catholics, like all Christians have their basis of faith in the 10 Commandments, not in social issues that have only been possible in the last few decades (homosexualism excepted). To characterize the Catholic faith as Hacken Slash does is to be intellectually dishonest - again unless you're Chev.