Jump to content


Photo

Political Debate

Serious thinkers only

73 replies to this topic

#1 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 07:53 PM

I know some of you are convinced that all political conversation ends bad, but I'm really itching to have some political conversation on the boards. So lets try to keep this clean.

I want to know who on this board would or will vote for Bush in the coming election. I'm going to vote Democratic, for the following reasons:

Bush lied to the American Public in his state of the Union address.
Rumsfeld made untrue statements and then lied about every making them.
The entire administration took the country to war under false pretenses.
Bush promised the troops they would be in Iraq for less than a year and now is breaking that promise.
Bush cut combat pay in half during the occupation.
The Administration promised to hand over power to the Iraqis on June 30th but is now stepping back from that promise.
Bush insists that the war was a success, but people are still dying every day in Iraq with no end in sight.
Bush insists that the Iraqis want us there, but the country is already on the verge of civil conflict, and the one thing that unites them is hatred towards US occupation.
The Administration is trying to find Iraqis that will praise america to deceive the american people.
Bush used 9/11 and the patriotic spirit afterwards to further his own political agenda (Iraq).
Bush deliberately misled the American people, using the media to create the appearance of a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
The Administration made several mistakes and might have prevented 9/11 but refuses to take any accountability.
The Administration lied about warnings of terrorist attacks in an attempt to cover their own asses.
Bush used 9/11 to enforce a series of laws encroaching on the civil liberties of US citizens.
They will not back down from these laws, but instead choose to continue to imprison US citizens without charging them with a crime.
The Administration called any opponents of their actions unpatriotic, including Max Cleland, who was a Vietnam vet who lost 3 limbs in the war.
Bush spent billions of dollars on the war but refused to raise taxes to pay for it because he was afraid of political repurcussions.
Bush cut taxes but increased the size of the government, creating massive deficits that will take years to repay.
Bush hasn't created one new net job in his entire term as president.
Bush used the "No Child Left Behind" Act to cut funding in school districts that need it most.
The Administration applied an educational plan that failed in Texas to the entire Nation.
Bush tried to make a constitutional amendment just because he disagreed with a sexual orientation.
Bush refuses to testify before committees or hold more than 1 press conference a year because he's afraid of hard questions.
Bush takes more vacation time than any other president before him, even when the country is in the midst of a war he created.
Bush uses the war he created to justify the deficits he also created (but before the war).
The Administration completely destroyed any international allies we had, even ones who were initially part of the coalition of the willing.
The Administration also cut into areas under environmental protection in order to satisfy energy interests.
The Administration refuses to disclose Cheney's relationship with Enron and other energy giants.
The Administration gives an excessive number of no-bid contracts to Cheney's company in Iraq.
Bush, and everyone else in his administration, lie through their teeth to cover their mistakes.
  • 0

#2 xedice

xedice

    Member

  • Members
  • 306 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 08:50 PM

I really haven't payed much attention to politics until now, since I'm 18, I am definately voting Democratic for a few of the reasons you have listed. I didn't really care about much of the other stuff, but the big pet peeve I had with bush, is that he used our patriotism to benefit his own agenda. Thats just gay. And thats the one thing I hate most about him. The lying you can pretty much expect out of any president, just not to this extent.

Edited by xedice, 28 April 2004 - 08:51 PM.

  • 0
Shmokin' weed, Shmokin' wizz
Doin' coke, drinkin' beers, Drinkin' beers beers beers
Rollin' fatties, Smokin' blunts
Who smokes the blunts? We smoke the blunts
-Jay

#3 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 28 April 2004 - 09:45 PM

I really only need one reason to not vote for Kerry:

His killing of unborn children.

So, if you have no problem with that, you deserve him.

~Vintage

Edit: I hope that was clean enough for you.

Edited by Vintage, 28 April 2004 - 09:47 PM.

  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#4 Warlock

Warlock

    Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 10:11 PM

Okay, I am voting for Bush because America needs a "take no shit" type of President in these times when terrorism runs rampant in the world.

Kerry has voted against everything having to do with helping supply our troops in time of war. Also, if we were to leave the country now, Iraq would be in such a state of civil unrest that just about anyone with a militia can go into Baghdad and take over the whole country, becoming quite possibly worse than Saddam's regime. We may not have found WMDs, but we have liberated millions of lives. The only reason there is opposition is because the people fighting our soldiers are those of the Sunni faith. Saddam pampered his kindred souls when it came to religion and the people who were favored don't want to lose their comfy spot.

Also on the topic of WMDs, if they can hide thousands of bodies in the sands of Iraq, not to mention a MIG-25 fighter jet (fully operational after a little maintenance and un-accounted for), then who's to say that Saddam was not able to hide the chemical and biological weapons? Barrels are smaller than MIG-29s, I can tell you that much. Also, there now is evidence saying that either Saddam brought his weapons into Syria or that Syria has weapons. (Evidence is here: Read 'em and weep.)

Everyone knows America is the target. It's chic to be anti-American. Just ask the democrats about that one...

I absolutely hate Kerry. He's a two faced traitor to this country. If you don't know what I'm talkin about, go here and watch "Winter Soldier" You will see what a heartless and horrible person Kerry truly is.

Remember, kiddies. It's one thing to express yourself and your beliefs, but it's another to turn your back on fellow Americans who gave their lives for you and your country.

Edit: Here is a picture of that MiG if you don't believe me...

Posted Image

Edited by Warlock, 28 April 2004 - 10:32 PM.

  • 0
~§~ Warlock ~§~ Of the Lawn Chair Mafia ~§~

"It's so hard to be a fighter when your hands are always tied"
~"Señor Limpio" by Corrosion Of Conformity

Metal Gear?!

#5 reversedracula

reversedracula

    Member

  • Members
  • 170 posts

Posted 28 April 2004 - 11:44 PM

I praise Warlock's thoughts... While there is nice to some fierce, intelligent political debate on these boards, I'm afraid this place is going to turn into Fark political threads or something like that. While political issues are important, it seems more and more threads here every day focus on them rather than the reason we all do gather here to chat. I'm not saying this shift is necessarily all that bad, just don't forget about your foam-lust in the process.
  • 0
NERF OR NOTHIGN!11!eleven!!!one!!!one!11!!!!onhoundredandeleven!!!!!

#6 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 29 April 2004 - 09:35 AM

I agree with you reversedracula, that this forum really should not be "politics haven."

However, cxwq started a thread "Got Punk," where he praised Fat Mike's "Rock Against Bush" album. He furthur disappointed me when he asked that Bush supporters not reply to the thread.

If the host of this site openly ridicules Bush, then asks that no one step up to defend him, I felt it necessary to respond by means of another thread.

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#7 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 29 April 2004 - 10:43 AM

In the political world, everyone seems to look at the negative points of every candidate.

If you look around the previous threads, politics usually do not go around well in a Nerf Forum, but whatever.

Bush, in my opinion, is a rather mediocre president, and seems to want to change the US into a more Christain-based nation (his stances on abortion and same-sex marraige are probably two of the biggest issues that show this). Because the US is supposed to be a nation where people are free to have any religous belief, it is our moral obligation as Americans to uphold and protect this right. Tell me this: in many of Bush's decisions on certain issues, do they hold any grounding that does not significantly include a personal Christain religious belief?

I really only need one reason to not vote for Kerry:

His killing of unborn children.

So, if you have no problem with that, you deserve him.

~Vintage


Vintage, just because someone supports Abortion rights does not mean that you can label them a killer. Personally, I am Pro-Choice, because people should have the freedom to think for themselves in choosing whether they should bear a child. If I were to get my girlfriend pregnant, we would still decide to raise the child. But if someone else wants to get an abortion, it is their choice. Also, if the US does ban abortion, women will resort to more dangerous methods to terminate pregnancy, such as using a coat hanger. Legalized abortion helps prevent things like this from happening. Being Pro-Choice means that you support having a decision in the matter, and I do not think that the government should step in and tell us that it is wrong. Does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" mean anything to you?

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 29 April 2004 - 11:27 AM.

  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#8 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 29 April 2004 - 12:04 PM

Yes, people do tend to look at the negative in every candidate, but I think that isn't a bad way to do it. We vote on who we think would be the best candidate for the presidency. When you compare the faults of each, you then have to make a decision.

Since I am a Christian, I vote for a president who reflects my morals and values. Anyone who votes for a candidate must be willing to accept his morals and values. You shouldn't criticize Bush for promoting the morals that made this county great. You can decide not vote for him, but his beliefs don't restrict him from candidacy.

If someone supports the taking of life as a legitimate decision, then I can't vote for him. You keep talking about choice and decision as if we are talking about what clothes to put on in the morning. This is life we are talking about.
If someone really doesn't want children, the real decision should be abstinence. Sex is procreation. Don't have sex unless you like the life that comes with the package.

Also, if the US does ban abortion, women will resort to more dangerous methods to terminate pregnancy, such as using a coat hanger. Legalized abortion helps prevent things like this from happening.

There will always be people who will take the life of someone no matter what the government tries to do to stop them. If a women absolutely hates her child, she will resort to a coat hanger. I don't believe she has the right to do that with her body. Consider suicide. If abortion is legal, why isn't suicide? If you are legally allowed to kill the life within you, why can't you take your own life?

Does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" mean anything to you?

Yes, it does mean alot to me, but that is another large debate. I believe that morals (not Christianity) should be used in law and government. Without morals, prostitutes would roam the nation, murder would be rampant, and life would be hell.

If you look around the previous threads, politics usually do not go around well in a Nerf Forum, but whatever.

I know, and I am sorry I strayed your minds off Nerffy thoughts. As I said earlier, I only started on politics after cxwq irritated me by his "Got Punk" thread. Guess it's time to go back to work on my mods and homemades...

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#9 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 29 April 2004 - 12:23 PM

However, cxwq started a thread "Got Punk," where he praised Fat Mike's "Rock Against Bush" album.  He furthur disappointed me when he asked that Bush supporters not reply to the thread.

If the host of this site openly ridicules Bush, then asks that no one step up to defend him, I felt it necessary to respond by means of another thread.

So sorry I disappointed you.

The only reason I asked that you not turn that thread into a political debate is because I have political debates with closed-minded religious fanatics here so often that it truly tests the limits of my tolerance.

How can you have a political 'debate' (and I use that term very loosely) with someone who has a faith-based belief in one single issue that makes them completely unwilling to consider a vote for the other side. This thread is an excellent example of this - Merlinski posted 30 reasons for his decision to vote Dem, you replied with a single reason that makes the whole discussion pointless for you.

I asked that Bush supporters skip my thread and I kept the tone low-key. I didn't post an anti-Bush diatribe, I just talked about what's on the album and briefly mentioned where the money goes.

By the way, I pay about a hundred bucks a year and give an awful lot of my free time for the privilege of dealing with shit on this forum. Feel free to find somewhere else to hang out the next time you feel disappointed or irritated at me when I'm trying like hell to be respectful of asshats like you.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#10 J cobbers

J cobbers

    Member

  • Members
  • 586 posts
  • Location:Fort Hood, TX
  • State:Texas
  • Country:United States

Posted 29 April 2004 - 01:39 PM

Personally as a moderate, I rarely find a candidate that I really like. Bush I think does want to be a good man and president, but lacks the intelligence to really think things through. His reganomic policies are out dated and I think as VP Cheny is probably hevily influencing Bush's decisions. The situation in Iraq really requires we stay for the long haul, but we need to be giving contracts to buisness in Iraq, not U.S. companies. Iraq needs to choose it's own leaders not have the US tell them who is going to run things, or how. I doubt the contry will see stability anytime soon. So I think Bush botched things there, but is willing to stay and try to fix it, while Kerry will pull out too soon and leave the region a mess.

The tax programs and educational policies that GW pushed through needs to be reversed, and I think Kerry will be a better domestic president than the current administration. However Kerry suffers from the problem of getting trapped in stupid and trivial controversies over what he has done/said and looks weak because he flip flops, instead of sticking to his guns. Bush tends to stick to what he says even if it may be detrimental, which to most people is a signal of strenght, and that draws votes.

On the 9-11 issue, I don't believe for a second that the Bush administration knew or could have expected terrorists to do what they did. No one before that day would have dreamed of it. Yes it was a terrible tradigy, but like Pearl Harbor we were blind sided, and probably too self assured of our own strength to believe anyone would dare such a bold act. To blame 9-11 on Bush is absurd. Now using it as a justification to go to Iraq, that I am willing to buy. I think GW came into office itching to do something about Saddam, and 9-11 gave him that chance. I don't think that he allowed 9-11 to happen.

Right now the Partiot act is a necessary evil. There is great potential for abuse, and there needs to be some sort of oversight to prevent it from being misused. 9-11 really did change things and the government needs some of these tools to protect americans. However, we should not deny people the right to trial, or to be held for long periods of time without charge. As a student of political science and law, I feel such behavior violates the consitutional principles of due process, and the right to trial.

On abortion, I personally, and relgiously think it is wrong, but I'm not going to force others to feel that way. I would love to see improvments made to streamline the adoption process so that no child goes unwanted.

All in all I think Kerry is better than Bush for the nation, especially with Darth Cheny is pulling strings in the background of the White House. Kerry needs to repair a lot of things Bush has done, but also take a firmer stance about what he himself has done and said. Likewise he must recognise that the US will be needed in Iraq and that we must see it out to the end.
  • 0

Don't forget to eat your meat based vegetable substitute children.


#11 Crankymonky

Crankymonky

    It's The Dean!

  • Members
  • 687 posts
  • Location:DC

Posted 29 April 2004 - 02:03 PM

Vintage a lot of those morals you mentioned were heavily based on Christianity. Who remembers prohibition? Bush is basing his legislation on his religion.

Well, I watched that "Winter Soldier" video and was surprised. First there were a few spelling mistakes. Also it was obvious some pictures were faked, such as the one where the soldier is killing civilians in a city. His hand is not even on the trigger. <--bad photoshop. Also the people of N. Vietnam were great supporters of Ho Chi Minh, since he broke up large estates and gave land to peasants, etc. People did not love communism but their leader. This caused the creation of the Vietcong of S. Vietnam. Also in S. Vietnam (who US was fighting for) people were shot in public if accused of being Vietcong. Communism proved to perform well in N. Vietnam vs. the miltary dictatorship of S. Vietnam. We believed that if Diem's regime was anti-communism the people would support democracy. In the flash film "Winter Soldier" they mentioned Kerry's acts of War crimes. The US soldier's were instructed to burn villages/kill people in order to prevent geurilla warfare. Geurilla soldiers were disguised as normal people, requiring burning villages that were just captured to be destroyed. Also Kerry DID get out of Vietnam early...After 3 purple hearts I believe. Also the video describes this group, which i have never heard of, as unpatriotic. While, there were many anti-war citizens, with similar views to them. These people were generally the teen-30 year old.
Also people found it unamerican to go die in war, yet not be able to vote. I hope I haven't left our anything on my Vietnam subject. Is it not amazing how saying something can make a group seem like an extremist anti-US group. Also check the truth of a source.

Crankymonky

Edit: Also I couldn't find a bibliography for the stopjohn site
Edit2: Also they mentioned the upside down US flag in a protest. That simply means the country is in distress. The protest was referring to the situation in Vietnam, in which we believed we could win in a shortr period of time. Also the public was lied to about the success of the US to some extent. Post if you would like to know, otherwise I'm not posting it, until i start reviewing for my Vietnam test. It's amazing this is a good study session for Vietnam.
Edit3:rearranged the order to sperate Vietnam things from other.

Edited by crankymonky, 29 April 2004 - 08:59 PM.

  • 0
Tyranny Response Team

#12 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 29 April 2004 - 02:14 PM

Why don't we all just stop attacking each other with politics here?

So far, all I've received from this is a bad standing with cxwq. He is right, though, if I want to debate politics, there are plenty of forums on the web for doing so. I may not have liked how he deals with this kind of debate, but you have to respect that this is his site, and if he doesn't want you to be

asshats

like me, then don't.

~Vintage

Cxwq, I could have taken the time to go through merlinski's post and write up an argument, but I didn't feel like it. I will try to PM him as soon as I write up my anti-theses, but I won't post it in the forums.

Edited by Vintage, 29 April 2004 - 02:32 PM.

  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#13 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 29 April 2004 - 02:40 PM

Yes, people do tend to look at the negative in every candidate, but I think that isn't a bad way to do it. We vote on who we think would be the best candidate for the presidency. When you compare the faults of each, you then have to make a decision.

Since I am a Christian, I vote for a president who reflects my morals and values. Anyone who votes for a candidate must be willing to accept his morals and values. You shouldn't criticize Bush for promoting the morals that made this county great. You can decide not vote for him, but his beliefs don't restrict him from candidacy.

If someone supports the taking of life as a legitimate decision, then I can't vote for him. You keep talking about choice and decision as if we are talking about what clothes to put on in the morning. This is life we are talking about.
If someone really doesn't want children, the real decision should be abstinence. Sex is procreation. Don't have sex unless you like the life that comes with the package.

Also, if the US does ban abortion, women will resort to more dangerous methods to terminate pregnancy, such as using a coat hanger. Legalized abortion helps prevent things like this from happening.

There will always be people who will take the life of someone no matter what the government tries to do to stop them. If a women absolutely hates her child, she will resort to a coat hanger. I don't believe she has the right to do that with her body. Consider suicide. If abortion is legal, why isn't suicide? If you are legally allowed to kill the life within you, why can't you take your own life?

Does the phrase "Separation of Church and State" mean anything to you?

Yes, it does mean alot to me, but that is another large debate. I believe that morals (not Christianity) should be used in law and government. Without morals, prostitutes would roam the nation, murder would be rampant, and life would be hell.

If you look around the previous threads, politics usually do not go around well in a Nerf Forum, but whatever.

I know, and I am sorry I strayed your minds off Nerffy thoughts. As I said earlier, I only started on politics after cxwq irritated me by his "Got Punk" thread. Guess it's time to go back to work on my mods and homemades...

~Vintage

My question is how do you define morals? Who decides what truly is the right thing to do? I think that it is the mind of the individual person, not the government. I do not like to see abortion in a truly positive light, however I think that people should have the right to think for themselves. We do not need the government stepping in and telling people what is "morally right". I believe that they have done enough of this in the past.

On a religous note, doesn't the Bible say that God gave humans the gift of free will anyway? If someone does something that is "morally wrong" I believe that it is their problem alone to deal with. After all, they made the decision in the first place.

It's great to find someone who agrees with your values, but since everyone is unique, it does not mean that your vision or opinion is going to be for everyone. Since religious beliefs should not have anything to do with government in the first place, I do not support candidates who want to change our country because of religous-based morals. I want someone in office who is not going to make changes in the government to tell people what is "morally wrong". People should follow their own morals and values.

Edit: When I was typing this post, I did not notice Vintage's latest post until after I refreshed the thread. I admit, politics are not exactly the best topic of choice for Nerfers, but I am all for a good healthy debate anyway. It helps us learn the points of view of many people, however if you do have biased opinions, and do not listen with an open mind, there is no point in debating.

Also, I should have mentioned this before, but I do agree with every point Merlinski listed when he started this thread.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 29 April 2004 - 03:00 PM.

  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#14 Black Wrath

Black Wrath

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,071 posts
  • Location:Mississauga, ON, Canada

Posted 29 April 2004 - 02:43 PM

Hey, Vintage. I read your post, and you seem to think that life isn't about choices...

Can you say idiot?

Life is a choice. It is stemmed from a choice. Life is full of choices. You can't see past choices you don't understand. The choices you make set you up to make the choices of the future.

You seem to think that life is simple.

Wake up.
  • 0
Xx_Black-Wrath_xX of The Canadian Foam Militia

Not in the game anymore, but it was great while it lasted. Thanks for the great years of fun, NH!
--
Resident "Spawn of Talio"

#15 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 29 April 2004 - 02:50 PM

To not get on cxwq's nerve again, please PM me with any questions concerning politics. Thank you.

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone

#16 Warlock

Warlock

    Member

  • Members
  • 250 posts

Posted 29 April 2004 - 03:20 PM

Bush, in my opinion, is a rather mediocre president, and seems to want to change the US into a more Christain-based nation (his stances on abortion and same-sex marraige are probably two of the biggest issues that show this). Because the US is supposed to be a nation where people are free to have any religous belief, it is our moral obligation as Americans to uphold and protect this right. Tell me this: in many of Bush's decisions on certain issues, do they hold any grounding that does not significantly include a personal Christain religious belief?

Uhm, to tell you... His views are not only his own, but millions of the United States agree with his stance on abortion and gay marriage. He's a republican, that's what republicans believe in.
  • 0
~§~ Warlock ~§~ Of the Lawn Chair Mafia ~§~

"It's so hard to be a fighter when your hands are always tied"
~"Señor Limpio" by Corrosion Of Conformity

Metal Gear?!

#17 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 29 April 2004 - 03:35 PM

I am aware that millions of people do agree with Bush's position on those issues, but there are also millions who don't agree with them. Because of the things that Merlinski mentioned, I do not want Bush running our country for another 4 years.

Kerry seems to have a better balance for the moral-type issues, and I believe that the negative things that have been said about him are irrelevant for him becoming president.
  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#18 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 29 April 2004 - 04:54 PM

Also, there now is evidence saying that either Saddam brought his weapons into Syria or that Syria has weapons.  (Evidence is here:  Read 'em and weep.)


Yeah... and that site also sells decks of Ronald Reagan tribute cards and tries to convince me to invest in the new Iraqi Dinar. NewsMax.com has lost 11 million dollars over the last few years and their only significant source of income is selling conservative propaganda merchandise - all the legit advertisers pulled their ads from the site long ago. They're planning an IPO though, so be sure to buy some stock.

Everyone knows America is the target. It's chic to be anti-American. Just ask the democrats about that one...


Funny, I thought that one of the big selling points of this country was being free to question the government. These days anybody who does that is called "unpatriotic".

I absolutely hate Kerry. He's a two faced traitor to this country. If you don't know what I'm talkin about, go here and watch "Winter Soldier" You will see what a heartless and horrible person Kerry truly is.


If a decorated vet isn't allowed to be an anti-war protester, who is? Seriously, I really want to know. Rather the opposite of someone who joined the National Guard sending soldiers to another country to die. I actually watched that flash thing all the way through (how slowly do they think I read?) thinking it had some amazing insight somewhere. It's the story of a man who risked everything for his country and came back disgusted with what our administration was doing.

Remember, kiddies. It's one thing to express yourself and your beliefs, but it's another to turn your back on fellow Americans who gave their lives for you and your country.


And we return to the time-honored Republican slander... How in the world am I turning my back on soldiers who gave their lives by saying that the war is wrong? How, exactly, am I branded unpatriotic for working within the system of my great country by voicing my opinions, writing my representatives, and planning to elect a new leader because I disagree with the actions of the current one?

You want to know the other great euphamism to come out during the war? You constantly hear people saying that we have to "support the president". What exactly does that mean? Send him a "feel better soon" card? What it means is that if you disagree with us going to war then you're a bad person for making this harder on the poor guy than it already is.

I agree with a lot of Republican ideals. Unfortunately it has been a long time since any Republican president actually lived up to the ones that matter. I sincerely hope that Nader doesn't give Bush the presidency again.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#19 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 29 April 2004 - 05:41 PM

Kerry has voted against everything having to do with helping supply our troops in time of war.  Also, if we were to leave the country now, Iraq would be in such a state of civil unrest that just about anyone with a militia can go into Baghdad and take over the whole country, becoming quite possibly worse than Saddam's regime.  We may not have found WMDs, but we have liberated millions of lives.  The only reason there is opposition is because the people fighting our soldiers are those of the Sunni faith.  Saddam pampered his kindred souls when it came to religion and the people who were favored don't want to lose their comfy spot.


You really should watch any kind of news. If you did, you'd know that the Cleric Al-Sadr, the leader of the strongest resistance to the US in Iraq, is a Shi-ite, not a Sunni. Your entire point falls.

Second, Bush cut combat pay in half and cut medical insurance for families of soldiers. That was his action, not Kerry's. Your other point falls.

I absolutely hate Kerry.  He's a two faced traitor to this country.


At least Kerry had the balls to SHOW UP FOR MILITARY SERVICE. He actually went to Vietnam, unlike Bush, who didn't even go to the Air National Guard. He came back and disagreed with the government. God forbid we have americans who question our nations leaders, how un-american is that? Oh wait a second... thats free speech.
  • 0

#20 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 29 April 2004 - 05:45 PM

Funny, I thought that one of the big selling points of this country was being free to question the government. These days anybody who does that is called "unpatriotic".

I hate people who say others are "unpatriotic" for speaking out for what they believe in. Isn't speaking out for freedom what our founding fathers did when this country was created in the first place?

And we return to the time-honored Republican slander... How in the world am I turning my back on soldiers who gave their lives by saying that the war is wrong? How, exactly, am I branded unpatriotic for working within the system of my great country by voicing my opinions, writing my representatives, and planning to elect a new leader because I disagree with the actions of the current one?


I also support our troops and what they do to defend our freedoms. They are only doing their jobs, and I respect that. The real problem are the beaurocrats wearing suits, sitting in their offices, telling those in the military what to do. I find it sad that a middle-aged white guy has the power to send a young person to die. Another thing that I am afraid of is the government imposing a draft if Bush stays in office.

Going back to the moral issue I have previously discussed, why not come up with a good comprimise instead of a total decision for a certain side? If someone wants to get rid of abortion, wouldn't it be a better idea to press for legislation to encourage alternatives instead of banning the procedure altogether? Then people will still have the freedom to make their own decisions, and also work to reduce the problem.
  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#21 merlinski

merlinski

    Member

  • Members
  • 403 posts

Posted 29 April 2004 - 06:14 PM

My personal feelings on abortion are this:

Pro-life is equivalent to saying "My beliefs are right and yours are wrong. Why? Because I said so."
  • 0

#22 Pineapple

Pineapple

    Old-school Admin

  • Contributors
  • 1,377 posts

Posted 29 April 2004 - 06:22 PM

Well, I've tried to avoid politics, especially on a forum designed to discuss foam toys, but here goes.

On the subject of our current leader, yes, he is a Christian, and bases much of his decisions on his faith. However, he is surrounded by self-directed people whose intentions appear to be to utilize their positions of power to leech feed their interests. Sad, but true that many of these people were either appointed or elected (i.e. Cheney). That, and the fact that our leader isn't the most elequent of speakers nor is he able to handle questions on the fly surely paint a dismal portrait of what an American President should be.

Nonetheless, we have elected him, regardless of who (or I) had voted for, and we must show our support the best way we can, and yes, that includes asking hard questions of our leadership. It's the least we should expect of our leaders.

About morality; by whose standards are things considered "good"? Everyone has their own opinions on what is "good", and for some it involves bending some basic rules to conform to their individual comfort zones. Things such as abortion, "assisted suicide", "dignified death", and such...are designed to feed our self-serving lifestyles of today and rid ourselves of the burdens that could affect such; unborn kids, and old, worn out, physically "useless" people on the other end of life.

I, as a Christian, choose to base my moral standards on those of God, and I have not seen at any time where these would have an adverse affect on my life, nor anyone elses. It may, of course, affect my ability to live my life the way I choose, but it's also my belief that it's that which will pave the way for a better tomorrow for my kids.

Here's a quote from Mother Teresa that should at least get you thinking...

"Everybody today seems to be in such a terrible rush, anxious for greater developments and greater riches and so on, so that children have very little time for their parents.

Parents have very little time for each other, and in the home, begins the disruption of peace of the world."

It's an election year, folks. Time to exercise your rights (for those who are able).

-Piney-
  • 0
-Piney- of White Dog Hobbies Armory


<!--quoteo(post=209846:date=Feb 5 2009, 06:27 PM:name=boom)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(boom @ Feb 5 2009, 06:27 PM) View Post</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
It's to bad you live in hawaii I bet there are not many wars there.Wait what am I saying<b> you live in hawaii you lucky bastard.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

#23 cxwq

cxwq

    Member

  • Founders
  • 3,634 posts

Posted 29 April 2004 - 06:47 PM

Well spoken. Though our opinions differ on some subjects, I have a lot of respect for how you present your beliefs.

It's an election year, folks. Time to exercise your rights (for those who are able).


Quite so. If you've just turned 18, go get yourself registered so you can participate.
  • 0
<meta name="cxwq" content="mostly water">

#24 Oroku Saki

Oroku Saki

    Member

  • Members
  • 453 posts
  • Location:Rhinelander, WI

Posted 29 April 2004 - 07:00 PM

My personal feelings on abortion are this:

Pro-life is equivalent to saying "My beliefs are right and yours are wrong. Why? Because I said so."

I agree. I have been trying to say this, but I guess I took the long, more complicated way of trying to explain it.

I challenge others to open their minds and look at both sides of the issue before coming to conclusions. I know that some people cling to their religous beliefs as their reasoning behind certain arguments, but they need to understand: Not everyone agrees on a universal set of morals or beliefs. People need to make sure that their opinions are explained properly so that people can understand what they are trying to say.

I do my best to respect the beliefs and views of others, but I feel that some people feel compelled to try shoving their moral agenda down people's throats.

Piney, you made some very good points on morality. Even though I am Pro-Choice, there are still things about abortion that I feel is indeed wrong.

As I said before, instead of just banning the subject of the issue, why not get our government to pass legislation that encourages alternatives to abortion? I believe that this will be a better way to help solve the problem. Also, there is more to my reasoning and position on this issue, which I previously discussed with Vintage. If anyone wants to hear about and discuss it, just PM me and I will be happy to talk to you.
  • 0
"Do you like gladiator movies, Johnny?"

#25 Vintage

Vintage

    Member

  • Members
  • 462 posts
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 29 April 2004 - 08:52 PM

Cxwq wants facts based on real information. Here it is:

The baby’s heart has already begun to beat by the time the mother misses her period and begins to wonder if she might be pregnant (about 31 days after the mother’s last menstrual period or LMP). Surgical abortions are usually not performed before 49 days after LMP. By that time, the baby has identifiable arms and legs (by day 45) and displays measurable brain waves. During the seventh through the tenth weeks, when the majority of abortions are performed, fingers and genitals appear and the child’s face is recognizably human. (Info from NRLC)

It seems that being pro-choice is saying (to loosely quote Famine):
"If it doesn't have a Social Security number, then it isn't American and doesn't have rights."

~Vintage
  • 0
You can get much further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone
~Al Capone


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users