139 replies to this topic

[Ender]

My good friend is a helicopter pilot in the Iraq. He just got back to his wife and son after a year and a half over there. Every day he tells me he goes in and saves solders most of who are close to the age of the posters here. When I asked him what the people are like over there he said,” Everyday they are trying to kill me, Every night they are trying to kill me, They are trying to kill me.” Every time someone simply says we need to pull the troops out, I remember his eyes and the passion they held. Most likely I will never know the things his eyes have seen nor serve in our military but I hold an infinite respect for those who do. I asked him the popular question that everyone seems quick to blame bush for, we need to pull the troops out. I will never forget the look of discus on his face that I can only imagine comes from every time he hears this question. He says,” In life there are things we do for money and still other for fun, but there are those moments of great magnitude and courage where we simply do these tasks because they are the RIGHT thing to do.” I was silent for what seemed like an eternity until he spoke again. “It is because of our freedom that we can voice our opinion, hell when the people said they didn’t like there leader they were shot. How many Americans would be killed in our country if we were to let that happen? To pull out would mean my friends died for no cause. That we as a people have failed in preserving justice, and I won’t let that happen while I still breathe.”

Now for those bashing Bush. Have any of you paid any attention to the issues or do you simply like standing on the bandwagon and point fingers because everyone else is? The Democratic Party ignored most of the major points and avoided the morality issues completely, and rested in my opinion on the change for change sake but offered no answers just a lot of pointing and criticizing. They took no firm stance on any issue and that is why they lost the presidency, that and lack of a strong candidate. And that is why they have been loosing power for the past 10 years. Both the house and senate are majority Republican can we blame that on Bush too? So what if Bush isn’t the most eloquent speaker is there something wrong in having a president that people can understand, all be it not always agree with. If a man can answer a question in 5 words should he do it, or should he sit up there and talk and talk and by the end you’ve forgotten the question?

I’m not here to bash anyone just raise awareness to the issues at hand. It is easy to say someone is doing a bad job, but if we don’t do anything but yell and blame others are we helping to fix the problems? If this negative energy was spent volunteering and helping others we would have a lot less to fix in our country, can we agree on this?

[Oroku Saki]

For these election results, I am going with Cx's argument that our country is starting to combine church and state, which shouldn't even be happening to begin with.

The draft rumors may not sway me away from America, but having the country turning into a complete pseudo-Christain state will convince me to move to Canada. At least some people vote based on logic rather than religous beliefs which may or may not be right.

Damn this discussion has grown since I read it yesterday night.

Oruku_Saki, how is our country starting to combine church and state? Could you provide some examples on what you mean? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Mainly, I stated this due to the more moral issues based on most christianity that our government has gone through with in the last 4 years. Some examples of Bush's christain-based decisions:

-Marraige initiative: Bush is wasting money trying to get more americans to get married. For what? To raise a more traditional family? I don't believe that marraige is a completely terrible thing, but it is a personal choice. Right now, I personally do not see any point in getting married. These are our tax dollars being used on what I feel to be an arcane social ceremony. Looking from a legal standpoint, Marraige is simply signing over half of your assets to the other party. I love my girlfriend, but there is no way in hell I'm willing to sign over half my shit to her. This site has some pretty good arguments about marraige as well: http://www.dontmarry.com/

-Faith-based initiative: It makes sense that churches are able to work as a tax-free organizaion, but I think it crosses the line when the government gives direct aid to them. Sure, religous groups usually do helpful things. Hell, I even admit to donating to some of them, but the government should not step in and give the churches more money. I see this initiative as a violation of separation of church and state.

-Abortion: Personally, I feel that people using this solely on a whim is wrong, however I believe it should be kept legal for medical and certain social circumstances (i.e., minors who are too afraid to face their parents). Also, I do believe that the woman has a right to their own decision. To solve the more abusive uses of abortion, I think that the government should try promoting alternatives to help the public know about their options. Perhaps a less-biased sex education system that promotes the use of contraception, as well as abstinence. In my experience, Abstinence-only education is a waste of money. Telling young people to not have sex until they are married is not going to stop them, especially if you look at the link I gave about marraige. Putting an all-out ban is going to cause problems in the long run. If people are forced to carry children, our economy will make our current one look like a huge market boom.

-The Marraige ammendment: Just because bible beaters think that Gays should be treated like the plague doesn't mean they are right. From a christain standpoint, Jesus spent a lot of time and compassion on the sinners and other social outcasts. We should accept gays into our culture, and let them live their own lives. At least Bush seems to be backing off a little on this ammendment, but many states are banning same-sex marraige anyway. With some states making it legal, gays are going to move to these areas, fucking up our demographics in other areas of the country. Good job, bible beaters, you kicked a fellow American out of your state.

Edited by Oroku_Saki, 04 November 2004 - 12:59 PM.

[cxwq]

Now for those bashing Bush. Have any of you paid any attention to the issues or do you simply like standing on the bandwagon and point fingers because everyone else is?

If you recall back on page... 2(?) I told everyone to drop the enormous lists of issues because the time for that is past. Believe me, people who are anti-Bush have good reasons for feeling the way they do. Would you like one solitary issue that all by itself is enough reason for me to want Bush out of office?

Republican: Money to the people! Don't tax, don't spend!

Democrat: Help your neighbor! Taxes, social programs!

Note: I'm a centrist here - I believe both philosophies have merit.

Bush: Money to my friends! Cut taxes to small business (generally rich people who file as a business), big business, and rich folks (estate, capital gains). While reducing govt. income (see above), spend money at a pace the country has never seen before. Make sure a lot of money spent goes directly (Haliburton, other big contractors) or indirectly (Iraq -> oil) to my homies!

What Bush has done with our money should be criminal. The national debt has increased $1.67 billion per day since September 30, 2003. No matter how much you want to, you can't blame the last year on Clinton or even the economy which has rebounded significantly. Regardless of the jobless percentage or inflation or the average family income, Bush's economic policy is to drive this country so deep into debt my grandkids won't be able to pay it off before they die.

[Lemmypoo]

[snip]
Now for those bashing Bush. Have any of you paid any attention to the issues or do you simply like standing on the bandwagon and point fingers because everyone else is? The Democratic Party ignored most of the major points and avoided the morality issues completely, and rested in my opinion on the change for change sake but offered no answers just a lot of pointing and criticizing. They took no firm stance on any issue and that is why they lost the presidency, that and lack of a strong candidate. And that is why they have been loosing power for the past 10 years. Both the house and senate are majority Republican can we blame that on Bush too? So what if Bush isn’t the most eloquent speaker is there something wrong in having a president that people can understand, all be it not always agree with. If a man can answer a question in 5 words should he do it, or should he sit up there and talk and talk and by the end you’ve forgotten the question?
[snip]

Really don't want to disect your post (well I do, but you put quite a bit of effort into your reply), but what are the issues that President Bush so strongly supports that it is essential to keep him in office?

Let's put the economy, terrorists, nuclear proliferation, judeo-christian morals*(1), and uhhh what the hell, global warming aside for the moment.

Iraq, you have to remember that we have deprived a LOT of innocent people of their rights. And I don't mean the Republican Guard, I mean women and children. Granted, bombs blow shit up and it's horrible, but arguing that we liberated all of Iraq is not yet true. In fact rivaling factions are wildly fighting for control as we speak, the US is mounting another offence, and on top of all that, we are still controling another country's government. Saddam Hussein was one evil fucker, but so is Kim Jong Il, the Burmese military regime (note, I say "Burmese", not "Myanmar", keep fighting for democracy guys!), about half of the military controlled pseudo-governments in Africa, and the list goes on. Now before you start arguing that I don't support the ground troops, not at all true, I have friends over there too, one of which I keep in pretty regular contact with. He doesn't like it, but nobody does. He certainly has seen some of the good things we have done there (i.e. taking Saddam out of power*(2)) but we agree it's about time to come home.

Now the only other thing I am going to be a bitch about is saying it's better if our leader is a man of few words. Granted, all the best speeches are incredibly short, I have a dream, and the Gettysburg Address. But those were words from the heart. Bush is a man that coldly labels people as things. "Axis of evil", for instance. The idea that there is a series of nations trying to end the entire world. They could argue the same about NATO. Any of his speeches consists of words that would equate to this: the most powerful nation in the world is going to invade a "backwards totalitarian government we must bring [Christianity] to" to find the Terrorists. Terrorist no longer means simply "those who terrorize". It has been redefined to exclusively describe those against Bush. Take a look at the Patriot Act to understand the ease of being labeled a "Terrorist" and having your rights taken away. If anybody remembers Joseph McCarthy, you will understand the absolutely totalitarian circumstances of such a procolomation. (Hah! Beat that sentence John Kerry!) So I will translate this paragraph into a few words. When a leader labels something, he is not a man of few words, he assumes that we are easily fooled.

*(1) Nobody may ever consider one leader's actions moral over another's. It's strongly, STRONGLY bigotted to believe that all the world's peoples are the same and wish for the same things. Not at all true and entirely ethnocentric. Confucianism calls for peasants to be the second highest class in the country, bested only by scholars. The US's conclusion was that the Chinese are ruled by evil communists and we must end their regime [for open trade, our own benefit, and to further expand our profits].

(2) Like I said, Saddam is an evil guy, thank [snip] we got him removed from power, but don't think that conflicts with my argument that there were priorities above him. The world is safer with that nutball out of power.

(3) I know there wasn't a third footnote in the above text, but well I fucked up. I did end up disecting your post. For that, I'm sorry, but you have to understand as CX' said "Believe me, people who are anti-Bush have good reasons for feeling the way they do." As does the GOP have reasons for feeling the other half of the country is a whole bunch of Godless commies looking to end their way of life. In reality, we are a Christian theocracy run on a democractic constitution. Anything wrong with that? No. Most nations are run on a theocracy with exception to the Soviet Union and some Euro nations. Even our laws come from the Bible. Again, no problem with that, it's just that assuming that because a nation has a different structure of government is evil scares the shit out of me. The Democratic party being considered immoral also scares me.

(4) Again with the footnotes, but reading (3) I thought about my reference to the soviet union, even though it was atheist, it could be considered a theocracy on the basis that it's founding was based on the strong ideals of Marxism. So I guess you could call most every nation a theocracy when you break them down, even capitalism is the ideals of John Locke. (Marx could totally beat up Locke.)

Edited by Lemmypoo, 04 November 2004 - 02:17 PM.

[Viper]

During the Clinton years we were sitting on a 300 billion dollar surplus annually and now we are almost to the net limit on the national debt. The national debt has increased by about 2 trillion dollars since the Bush administration, from 5 to 7 trillion. The utmost limit, even given good economic growth is ~ 8.7trillion. Out current situation is 1.88 trillion dollars in federal revenue, alowing us to leverage about 8 trillion dollars of debt. Given any decrease in revenue we almost immediately hit the top limit on spending. The spending is bad on Bush's part, but even worse is the 4%on the top 1% of americans tax raise that would have raised between 600-800 billion annually, eliminating the annual deficits we have seen. The GDP has increased 5% this year, but GDP is miles away from incorporating all the factors of how the economy that affects the people. How about the 5% unemployment? The republicans claim its due to more efficiency in the economy, eliminating the need for jobs, though its truly due to a persident favoring indiviual corporations request in order to get campaign money. Understand the democrat/republican descrepancy now in funding from corporations? Oh and don't forget his abstinance only programs to prevent aids in africa. He's also the only president in 72 years to lose jobs. Anyone who voted for Bush for moral reasons is simply an idiot, sacrificing the next generations prosperity and possible even affecting the baby boomers.

In reality, we are a Christian theocracy run on a democractic constitution. Anything wrong with that? No. Most nations are run on a theocracy with exception to the Soviet Union and some Euro nations. Even our laws come from the Bible. Again, no problem with that, it's just that assuming that because a nation has a different structure of government is evil scares the shit out of me. The Democratic party being considered immoral also scares me.

Too bad Ben Franklin was a diest and Thomas Jefferson was at least agnostic, if not atheist. To give you come credit,George Washington and James Madison were especially religious,though


As far as law goes I don't remember any system much like outr own dervied from Christianity. In a coarse grained way, I suppose it could be interpreted that way, the thou shall not steal, etc. But bigomy isn't illegal by federal law and the "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife" isn't exactly illegal, for most are moral principles by which a few people that go up on mountain, even though God loves them all the same, can control the masses through supernatural propaganda, which considering it was 2000 B.C and there wasn't exactly a particle accelerator around, so its understandable. Just about any state or religion has similiar axiom-like moral codes. All these values are ubiquitous and universal, whether they be an african tribe or ignorant white protestants who drown promiscious women (calvinists). I'd like to give thanks to cxwq for a trasnparent explaination.

Edited by Viper, 04 November 2004 - 06:54 PM.

[Famine]

I'm blaming this whole election on ignorance. If only American had known the truth sooner we might have been able to elect a qualified and proven leader.

[Lemmypoo]

Too bad Ben Franklin was a diest and Thomas Jefferson was at least agnostic, if not atheist. To give you come credit,George Washington and James Madison were especially religious,though

I was seriously considering putting up that quote that Washington made at one of the constitutional conventions, something like, "anybody who doesn't consider themselves a christian shouldn't be American," or something to that effect. Only trouble was, I was unable to find the exact wording.

Yet another unfortunate happening, Cobra Commander not making it on the ballot. And I was a freaking Cobra Henchmen for Halloween! Between dumping men's lives and losing millions of dollars of equipment to obtain an "explosive gas" and half the other stupid shit Cobra Commander does, he would seem like an unworthy candidate. Well if you agree with that latter statement, you will be shot in the head with a laser blaster. Anybody?

[Formerly Sane]

I am worried that Bush will start another war in his second term. Think about it, we had 2 wars in 4 years. The middle east is being bombarded with the United States trying to shove democracy down their throats. We really need to step back and let them do their own thing. The United States should not start a war. Bin Laden (who seems to be out of the spotlight now that sadaam has become pop culture) should really be our #1 enemy. How did our offensive focus switch to Sadaam instead of Osama who killed 2000 people on american soil just 3 years ago? The latest tape showed Bin Laden's reasons for the attack in the first place, which he says are still evident. The war in Iraq seems to have made America even more unsafe. I know Bush will be gone in 4 years, but during that time will we face even more death, hate, and war?

I'm moving to antarctica.

[Lemmypoo]

I am worried that Bush will start another war in his second term. Think about it, we had 2 wars in 4 years. The middle east is being bombarded with the United States trying to shove democracy down their throats. We really need to step back and let them do their own thing. The United States should not start a war. Bin Laden (who seems to be out of the spotlight now that sadaam has become pop culture) should really be our #1 enemy. How did our offensive focus switch to Sadaam instead of Osama who killed 2000 people on american soil just 3 years ago? The latest tape showed Bin Laden's reasons for the attack in the first place, which he says are still evident. The war in Iraq seems to have made America even more unsafe. I know Bush will be gone in 4 years, but during that time will we face even more death, hate, and war?

I'm moving to antarctica.

I wouldn't, the Penguins have been organizing lately and it seems they are interested in our fish reserves, throwing propoganda at their own people with slogans like "Down with the fisherman, we want our fish, now gibbit back!"

[Inferno]

-Marraige initiative: Bush is wasting money trying to get more americans to get married. For what? To raise a more traditional family? I don't believe that marraige is a completely terrible thing, but it is a personal choice. Right now, I personally do not see any point in getting married. These are our tax dollars being used on what I feel to be an arcane social ceremony. Looking from a legal standpoint, Marraige is simply signing over half of your assets to the other party. I love my girlfriend, but there is no way in hell I'm willing to sign over half my shit to her. This site has some pretty good arguments about marraige as well: http://www.dontmarry.com/

-Faith-based initiative: It makes sense that churches are able to work as a tax-free organizaion, but I think it crosses the line when the government gives direct aid to them. Sure, religous groups usually do helpful things. Hell, I even admit to donating to some of them, but the government should not step in and give the churches more money. I see this initiative as a violation of separation of church and state.

-Abortion: Personally, I feel that people using this solely on a whim is wrong, however I believe it should be kept legal for medical and certain social circumstances (i.e., minors who are too afraid to face their parents). Also, I do believe that the woman has a right to their own decision. To solve the more abusive uses of abortion, I think that the government should try promoting alternatives to help the public know about their options. Perhaps a less-biased sex education system that promotes the use of contraception, as well as abstinence. In my experience, Abstinence-only education is a waste of money. Telling young people to not have sex until they are married is not going to stop them, especially if you look at the link I gave about marraige. Putting an all-out ban is going to cause problems in the long run. If people are forced to carry children, our economy will make our current one look like a huge market boom.

Ok, paragraphs one and three don't directly reflect christianity, but your 2nd paragraph does. But the government giving direct aid to churches? I don't recall that happening without someone being taken to court. If you could give an example of when this has happened, that would help a lot. But the government giving direct aid to churches would be a clear violation of church and state. I just don't think that is going on.

[cxwq]

the government giving direct aid to churches? I don't recall that happening without someone being taken to court. If you could give an example of when this has happened, that would help a lot. But the government giving direct aid to churches would be a clear violation of church and state. I just don't think that is going on.

His faith based initiatives, proposed in '01 and passed in '02, set aside $13B for doing just that. The money can be used by churches to construct new buildings if the buildings will be used in some way to provide social services. The guidelines for how much of the time they need to be providing social services vs supporting general church functions is frequently unclear.

Want a specific example? Following is an excerpt (emphasis mine) from the grants catalog available to churches:

The purpose of the SPRANS Community-Based Abstinence Education Project Grants is to provide support to public and private entities for the development and implementation of abstinence education programs for adolescents, ages 12 through 18, in communities across the country. Projects funded through the SPRANS Community-Based Abstinence Education grant program must promote abstinence-only education as defined by Section 510 of Title V of the Social Security Act and agree not to provide a participating adolescent any other education regarding sexual conduct in the same setting.

Any public or private entity, including a nonprofit or faith-based organization, is eligible to apply for funding under the SPRANS Community-Based Abstinence Education Project Grant program. Projects have to be community-based and
must involve an educational intervention. There is no match requirement for these grants. One-year planning grants and three-year implementation grants are funded under the program. FY 2004 appropriation: $33,000,000

Translation: We gots $33m here that has to be spent in '04 and anybody who tells teens to stop having sex and refuses to tell them about condoms is welcome to the cash.

[Inferno]

I retract my previous statement. Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't realize that Mr. President had "accomplished" that. Hmmm....foundations of my support for Bush have been shaken. I do not agree with his faith-based initiatives now that I know of them. Man, I need to pay more attention to the news.

[Lemmypoo]

I retract my previous statement. Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't realize that Mr. President had "accomplished" that. Hmmm....foundations of my support for Bush have been shaken. I do not agree with his faith-based initiatives now that I know of them. Man, I need to pay more attention to the news.

Sigh, unfortunately listening to the news rarely keeps you informed. The news networks are inconceivably evil. All of them. The news networks have been known to censor information that is important to the public, not just boring news material, but things that matter. Public health issues related to corporate pollution, the horrible divisions of wealth in this country will never come up on any news network anchor's teleprompter. On top of that, biased sources will even manipulate their material to suit their needs, Monica Lewinski, the Patriot Act, and Fox's declaration of Bush winning four years ago before the polls were closed. On top of that, they never comment on who owns them.

Gone are the days of Deep Throat and Reporters seeking truth. We are now ruled by Corporations who use their opinionated correspondents to keep us blind and unaware.

Sorry to vent like that, but we need the FCC to grab a Louiseville Slugger and beat some fuckin' ass. Fuck off RIAA, you corporate fucks are going to be the ones getting beat.

[Oroku Saki]

I retract my previous statement. Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't realize that Mr. President had "accomplished" that. Hmmm....foundations of my support for Bush have been shaken. I do not agree with his faith-based initiatives now that I know of them. Man, I need to pay more attention to the news.

Sigh, unfortunately listening to the news rarely keeps you informed. The news networks are inconceivably evil. All of them. The news networks have been known to censor information that is important to the public, not just boring news material, but things that matter. Public health issues related to corporate pollution, the horrible divisions of wealth in this country will never come up on any news network anchor's teleprompter. On top of that, biased sources will even manipulate their material to suit their needs, Monica Lewinski, the Patriot Act, and Fox's declaration of Bush winning four years ago before the polls were closed. On top of that, they never comment on who owns them.

Gone are the days of Deep Throat and Reporters seeking truth. We are now ruled by Corporations who use their opinionated correspondents to keep us blind and unaware.

Sorry to vent like that, but we need the FCC to grab a Louiseville Slugger and beat some fuckin' ass. Fuck off RIAA, you corporate fucks are going to be the ones getting beat.

Damn, the RIAA has been on my personal shit list for a while, not just because of the lawsuits on file sharers, but because of the shitty music they represent. They can all kiss my ass fo all I care. One problem I found is that I have heard of John Edwards receiving funding from the RIAA.

It's a shame that Bush is funding a program telling children not to fuck until after they are married, and yet not even educating them about contraception. This is going to be pretty fucked up in the long run. Is this also going to apply to public schools as well? I sure hope not. I guess in the future, it will be up to the parents to teach their own kids about sex, because our education system is sure not going to tell them much. If I have kids, I am going to teach them of all of their options.

[cxwq]

One problem I found is that I have heard of John Edwards receiving funding from the RIAA.

The vast majority of major corporate entities (including the RIAA) supported both candidates in the election.

Self defeating? Not really.

They don't care who's elected as long as whoever becomes president owes them. It's called covering your bases.

[Oroku Saki]

Well that does make sense. I remember reading that many of the biggest campaign contributors for both the Republicans and Democrats are the same corporations. At this point, I am not sure what to make of it all. Perhaps we may have been fucked either way. Then again maybe not. It's too soon to really jump to conclusions, and I am still sorting out the information I have been given over the past few years.

[AirApache]

Wow..most of you are real assholes. Like kids. Don't know how to take victory or defeat, for that matter. Frickin accept that the election is over. Maybe if you spent your time trying to figure out WAYS or SUGGESTIONS to help the US, instead of just sitting there saying "Bush has won and now US will die", some progress could be made? The US government listens to the voices of its people. But they don't give a shit about complaining kiddies.

[Chessler]

The US government listens to the voices of its people. But they don't give a shit about complaining kiddies.

The right of free spech, but the failure of understanding.

[Fuse]

Wow..most of you are real assholes. Like kids. Don't know how to take victory or defeat, for that matter. Frickin accept that the election is over. Maybe if you spent your time trying to figure out WAYS or SUGGESTIONS to help the US, instead of just sitting there saying "Bush has won and now US will die", some progress could be made? The US government listens to the voices of its people. But they don't give a shit about complaining kiddies.

Keep in mind that nearly HALF of America disagreed with his being elected....why?

If you think it is time to move on (as I have said) then perhaps you should too. Like I said, you need to can it unless you get some facts, and changing your mode of attack isnt going to work when your old one is two pages back. Yes, the election is over, and yes it is time to move on, that does not mean we shouldnt correct someone when they are misinfromed.

[AirApache]

Umm "mode of attack"? I'm saying that even if Senator Kerry were to be elected, I would have accepted that we, the United States, chose him as our president therefore I don't have to be an asshole and have no brain, and think only "he sucks" vs. "I don't like his policy, but we could improve it by..."

I'm not saying you have to be pro-Bush, dipshit, I'm saying that maybe you could use your genious to HELP instead of being a royal jackass.

[Fuse]

I'm not saying you have to be pro-Bush, dipshit, I'm saying that maybe you could use your genious to HELP instead of being a royal jackass.

In my oppinion providing factually based oppinions is as good a way to help as anything else. Staying informed is the best thing people can do. Do I write my reps.? Hell yes. I take action for a change. I got suspended from school for walking out to protest the war. But you know what, somehow I still have time to read facts and try to pass them along.

[AirApache]

Are you saying I'm uninformed? Because if I get into a political debate at school, I'll burninate anyone who I'm arguing against, with the exception of 2 or 3 people I'm thinking of who are EXTREMELY informed. Your not alone. I'm glad your taking action. I probably wouldn't have had the guts to protest the war alone.

[Crankymonky]

Generally, when someone advertises a slogan

I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with a lot of pleasure.

We should ignore their points, especially when they relate to supporting a war.

A few pages back, someone rebutted me, I would counter it now, but I have a nerf war to get ready for-DCNO3.

The US government listens to the voices of its people. But they don't give a shit about complaining kiddies.

Ahh, here you are wrong. In our current administration, they prefer the action of "silencing" then criticizing...
Stop Ashcroft and the Ministry of Homeland Security.

I accept that Bush, may have won, (how many times can he really cheat in Florida). Now is my time to bitch, wine, yell, complain, get evicted, get drafted (can they draft me if I had been evicted?), try to show people the light, try to expose the awfule truth, hope for Barack.

Ya, I gave Bush a chance, the last four years. He has failed to meet any positive expectation I had of him. Now, the fact that his legislatives are highly Christian based pisses me off.

Now, Abortion, if you don't kill the simple (biologically) organisms, how can you kill the far more important, more complex (biologically, and they meet all aspects of life) animals? Well, huh?

If you want a bible based country, keep kosher.

Edited by crankymonky, 05 November 2004 - 05:09 PM.

[owentheobiwan]

How come it seems like everyone on this topic is against Bush? WHY!?!?

[THIRST]

Because most people on this site have an IQ above 92, and are politically informed.

THIRST