TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Is John Kerry Normal, or Off His Rocker?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is John Kerry Normal, or Off His Rocker? - Page 2

post #31 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvcandy
Marge -

As I said, I don't know how Kerry would handle this. I don't know what his intentions are, if and how they differ from Bush. And I'm not going to presume anything.

I heard on the news that "power" is being given to the Iraqis but they cannot make any laws at that time. And as far as I know the military is not leaving. I'm telling you what I heard, please let me know if you heard differently.
We will have a military presence for a long time of course. But we are aiming to get out. Of course you have a totaly right to want to learn about Kerry, and hopefully that will unfold after the debates (gosh I can't wait until Bush's teleprompter goes dead one time) I think he is a decent man. And wiser with his policy decisions.
post #32 of 59
I am sorry. I have just been hearing more and moreabout people getting extensions at the last minute. "We were told not to send anymore packages because she was going to be sent home, but as she was in Kuwait waiting to come home, she was told about the extension." (From a local mother who has 2 daughters in Iraq). This girl watched a fellow female soldier from the same area get killed in the same military police company she was in......hearing about an extension at the last minute when she thought she'd be going home that very day had to be a low blow to both her and her family. Our service men and women deserve better than to hear about their extensions before the day they are supposed to go home don't they? I've heard all of the reasons why we are over there, but nothing seems to validate more and more American soldier's lives being taken everyday. There are more people being killed now than during the war.....it makes me sick!
post #33 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by sofiecusion
I am sorry. I have just been hearing more and moreabout people getting extensions at the last minute. "We were told not to send anymore packages because she was going to be sent home, but as she was in Kuwait waiting to come home, she was told about the extension." Our service men and women deserve better than to hear about their extensions before the day they are supposed to go home don't they? I've heard all of the reasons why we are over there, but nothing seems to validate more and more American soldier's lives being taken everyday. There are more people being killed now than during the war.....it makes me sick!
And the Iraqi deaths. I mean can you imagine losing a family member like that? Over 10k have died over there. We don't really talk about that.

I think with Bush gone we can also work things out in Iraq much better, I just think we will be viewed much less harshly.
post #34 of 59
Yes, many Iraquis are dying everyday too and for what? No one can validate ANY of the the deaths/ killings over there. Yes, I believe that it is uncertain what Kerry would do....but aren't Bush's plans with Iraq still undetermined? I think we can all agree that no matter WHO is in office, something needs to be done about the situation as it is right now. We will find out more with the June 30th deadline I guess
post #35 of 59
Thread Starter 
Guys and gals, it would be nice to sit down and talk with our enemies and work things out, but you must remember, they drew first blood. Have you now forgotten 911? Clinton thought he had everything worked out with the far east. There were terrorist attacks right and left during his presidency, but he did nothing, just ignored it. Why should he? Doing something would have interfered with his skirt chasing.

Someone remarked earlier that any president would have gone into Afghanistan after 911. Yeah, Clinton would have probably bombed a few aspirin factories and called it even. Kerry would have talked bad about the terrorists and reminded them that he fought in Viet Nam.

Yes, you're right, Val, but then again, I did know what I was getting into and why. The posters here are like my cats. They lick each other, and then they attack each other, but when it gets cold, they all snuggle up. Me, I'm just the stray cat that stopped by. I don't expect to do any snuggling, but I will always expect to land on my feet, provided I am far enough away from the ground.
post #36 of 59
Now, I am not an american so I have no right to vote, but Kerry scares me and so does Bush.

Ratcatcher, I don't see your point about 9-11 - wasn't it a bunch of crazy terrorists and not Saddam?


post #37 of 59
I am reading this thread with great interest. I am in the Uk and I am afraid to say that over here the 'Americans' are not held in great esteem over the Iraq fiasco. (I'm afraid you all get lumped together on this one) It is good to hear the views of the inidividual American. The radio reports I hear (I listen to the news rather than watch so I dont get distracted by pictures) the reports are of occupation and taking out the enemy. Does anyone really think that if their lands were 'occupied' they would not fight back. The US and coalition forces want one government and maybe the Iraq people want a different one. I understand that it is not as black and white as that but we could go round and round in circles over that one.

However back to the thread origins..........
I do not have a view on your presidential elections, although they will affect me and mine via little lap dog Tony Blair, and know very little about Kerry and what he stands for. It does appear though that all his speeches (the ones we hear) are just full of what Bush does wrong but no mention of what he (Kerry) will do right.
Also I think Kiwideus is right 9-11 - Iraq , no link there. That was Afghanistan and it would look to us like you cant win that one so pull out and bomb someone else.
thats my ha'pennies worth
Alexis
post #38 of 59
Thread Starter 
Kiwideus, somehow this thread got on Saddam. My intention was to talk about the war in Afghanistan, mainly. Now, I do remember right at the beginning of the war with Iraq that our military discovered a mockup of a Boeing 707 aircraft out in the desert near one of his palaces. Now why would Iraq have one of those, except to train terrorists to hijack American aircraft? Hmm!

Tulip, how do you treat your returning military men from Iraq? I hope you support your troops because it is not their fault where they are sent for duty. Also, a soldier can be against that war, but when the enemy starts trying to kill him, that soldier does everything he must to stay alive, and if he must kill the enemy, he does, anyway he can. War is not pretty, never has been, nor ever will be. Tulip, I detect that your political leanings are toward the British Labor Party. If so, isn't Tony Blair also a member of that party? Does this mean that you are contemplating making a move in a more conservative direction? Just wondering.
post #39 of 59
What I find truly sad is that for all of the people who will vote for Kerry, nothing appears to matter except that he isn't Bush. It doesn't seem to concern people that his platform is really not much more than "Bush sucks." He won't really talk about issues at this point, and maybe he will later maybe he won't. Does it matter to any of you?
post #40 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulip2454
I am reading this thread with great interest. I am in the Uk and I am afraid to say that over here the 'Americans' are not held in great esteem over the Iraq fiasco. (I'm afraid you all get lumped together on this one) It is good to hear the views of the inidividual American. The radio reports I hear (I listen to the news rather than watch so I dont get distracted by pictures) the reports are of occupation and taking out the enemy. Does anyone really think that if their lands were 'occupied' they would not fight back. The US and coalition forces want one government and maybe the Iraq people want a different one. I understand that it is not as black and white as that but we could go round and round in circles over that one.

However back to the thread origins..........
I do not have a view on your presidential elections, although they will affect me and mine via little lap dog Tony Blair, and know very little about Kerry and what he stands for. It does appear though that all his speeches (the ones we hear) are just full of what Bush does wrong but no mention of what he (Kerry) will do right.
Also I think Kiwideus is right 9-11 - Iraq , no link there. That was Afghanistan and it would look to us like you cant win that one so pull out and bomb someone else.
thats my ha'pennies worth
Alexis
Hi, yes please tell your friends the latest poll is that the opinion over here about the war is turning. I would say it was 50/50 before that. We aren't all arrogant and would have preferred our PResident worked with the international community.

Kerry does speak of his agenda, but most of his speeches aren't shown in entire. On CSPAN they play them fully, and he isn't an invigorating speaker, but he doesn't JUST bash Bush at all. He does need to work on the speeches, but I would rather have a rational guy who isn't wildly Karismatic than an irrational guy...who isn't wildly karismatic.

And no there was no relation to 9/11 and Saddam. We are in Iraq for strategic purposes.
post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
What I find truly sad is that for all of the people who will vote for Kerry, nothing appears to matter except that he isn't Bush. It doesn't seem to concern people that his platform is really not much more than "Bush sucks." He won't really talk about issues at this point, and maybe he will later maybe he won't. Does it matter to any of you?
CSPAN plays his full speeches and he does have an agenda. I think after the convention you will hear about it more.

He would get rid of tax cuts for the .5 upper percent so that we can start to pull out of the red. He has ideas for getting lower income kids to college (does Bush even think about that...?) He would make an effort to embrace the international community again, and not talk down to them.
post #42 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatCatcher
Guys and gals, it would be nice to sit down and talk with our enemies and work things out, but you must remember, they drew first blood. Have you now forgotten 911? Clinton thought he had everything worked out with the far east. There were terrorist attacks right and left during his presidency, but he did nothing, just ignored it. Why should he? Doing something would have interfered with his skirt chasing.

Someone remarked earlier that any president would have gone into Afghanistan after 911. Yeah, Clinton would have probably bombed a few aspirin factories and called it even. Kerry would have talked bad about the terrorists and reminded them that he fought in Viet Nam.

Yes, you're right, Val, but then again, I did know what I was getting into and why. The posters here are like my cats. They lick each other, and then they attack each other, but when it gets cold, they all snuggle up. Me, I'm just the stray cat that stopped by. I don't expect to do any snuggling, but I will always expect to land on my feet, provided I am far enough away from the ground.
Clinton didn't think we had everythng worked out, he had an agenda of getting Saddam out but it would have been from the inside, not by attack. Who is to know if that would have been better...?

Clinton also knew the Isreali/Palestinian issue was key to peace on the planet so you note that before he left office he tried to work to work that out. Bushs folks admitted later, after mush hemming and hawing that Clintons plan over there was right, but Arafat made it impossible.

Also, ummmm....doesn't it bother you that we are in so much debt and our kids are going to have to pay for that?
post #43 of 59
Thread Starter 
Marge, where do you get your info? Marge, what level of income do you consider rich? Poor people don't pay taxes. It is those of us who are working stiffs paying all the taxes. It is common knowledge that the more money you make, the more taxes you pay. We don't need anyone to raise taxes. Guess who thought first of lowering taxes? John F. Kennedy, a 1960's era democrat. You know what, it worked.
post #44 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatCatcher
Marge, where do you get your info? Marge, what level of income do you consider rich? Poor people don't pay taxes. It is those of us who are working stiffs paying all the taxes. It is common knowledge that the more money you make, the more taxes you pay. We don't need anyone to raise taxes. Guess who thought first of lowering taxes? John F. Kennedy, a 1960's era democrat. You know what, it worked.
Bush gave a tax break to the upper 1 percent, to his credit he DID ask (per
Suskind book) when it was brought up at a cabinet meeting that they give yet another to them "Didn't we just give them one, what about giving on to the middle class", to which fell like dead air to Cheney and his other folk. They said "But the rich guys are the entroperneurs (or however it's spelled)"

People at that level are paying less percentage than you are. And what do you consider poor? No income at all? Poor people pay taxes, in fact, Bush admin. are making it harder for the very poor to get out of paying taxes due to hardships etc. There is a paper work trail to file if you can't pay your income taxes, since Bush it is so overwhelming that its almost impossible.

Anyways, if you aren't a millionaire you are crazy to vote for Bush. You aren't on his radar. I heard that many people who don't benefit from him vote for him cause they have this notion that they are one of "them" or will be. You know, voting for Bush won't make you Brad Pitt, or Julia Roberts.
post #45 of 59
Um, I'm not even close to a millionaire, but my taxes sure did go down this year. But, I'm sure you're right - this tax cut didn't do anything for anyone except millionaires. Must have been my imagination....

Actually, you may recall when there was more than one Democrat running, some of them were shouting about recalling all of the tax cuts...until the economists and their advisors informed them of what Gephardt knew the whole time - getting rid of all of Bush's tax cuts would raise taxes on the middle class by a lot. Somehow Dems seem to forget the middle class most of the time too, the difference is that they only think about the poor and think anyone who makes more than $60,000 a year makes too much money. Oh, except for them.

And tell me why someone who has income shouldn't pay taxes? I realize it should be proportional, but considering the poor get a whole lot of my tax money every year I don't understand why they should get out of paying taxes at all.
post #46 of 59
Anybody see the poll on CNN today, asking, among other things, what the Iraqis think of Bush, Americans, etc.? Sorry if it seems a bit off the topic. I can't seem to find any polls conducted in Afghanistan - that would be interesting.

Poll: Iraqis conflicted about war, its impact
Survey done mostly before recent cycle of violence
Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Posted: 7:38 PM EDT (2338 GMT)

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Nearly half the Iraqis polled in a survey conducted primarily in March and early April said they believed the U.S.-led war had done more harm than good, but 61 percent of respondents said Saddam Hussein's ouster made it worth any hardships.

The CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll showed conflicted feelings among Iraqis over the war and its impact at the time of the survey.

Most interviews were done between March 22 and April 9 -- before the latest flare-up of violence that brought some of the deadliest fighting since the end of major combat nearly a year ago.

Iraqi interviewers conducted face-to-face surveys with 3,444 adults in Arabic and Kurdish in respondents' homes. The poll covered urban and rural areas throughout Iraq, representing about 93 percent of the population. It has a sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Nearly half -- 47 percent -- said they believed attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq could not be justified, while 52 percent said those attacks could be justified some or all of the time.

Thirty-three percent of those polled said the war had done more good than harm, while 46 percent said it had done more harm than good.

Forty-two percent said Iraq was better off because of the war, while 39 percent said it was worse off. Given the sampling error, those figures indicated a dead heat.

On a personal level, Iraqis appeared more optimistic, according to the poll. More than half of those surveyed -- 51 percent -- said they and their families were better off than they were before the invasion, while 25 percent said they were worse off.

Fifty-four percent said conditions for creating peace and stability had worsened in the three months before they were questioned for the poll. Twenty-five percent said conditions improved during that time before the upsurge in violence.

Those polled were virtually united in opposition to attacks against Iraqi police, the survey found. Ninety-two percent said those attacks could not be justified.

But the Iraqis surveyed were split on whether ongoing U.S.-led military action in the country was justified. Fifty-two percent said it was not, while 47 percent said it could be justified.

Asked about when they wanted U.S. and British forces to leave, 57 percent chose immediately, as in the next few months, the poll said; 36 percent said troops should stay longer.

At the time the question was asked, 53 percent said they would feel less safe if the U.S.-led coalition left immediately. About half as many -- 28 percent -- said they would feel more safe. Sixty-nine percent said they or their families would be in danger if they were seen cooperating with the coalition.

The respondents were split in their opinions of L. Paul Bremer, the U.S civilian administrator in Iraq. Forty-two percent said they held a unfavorable opinion, while 31 percent rated him favorably. He proved more popular than President Bush, disliked by more than half the respondents.

Forty-four percent gave Bush a very unfavorable rating and 11 percent somewhat unfavorable; 24 percent said they held a favorable opinion of the U.S. president. But Bush proved more popular than Saddam in the survey, with eight of 10 respondents viewing the ousted Iraqi leader unfavorably at the time the poll was done.

Negative view of U.S. forces

U.S. soldiers man a checkpoint Wednesday in Baghdad.
The poll suggested more than half of Iraqis had a negative impression of U.S. forces in general before the current wave of violence.

Twenty-nine percent said troops had conducted themselves very badly, while another 29 percent said fairly badly; 24 percent chose fairly well, and 10 percent said troops had acted very well.

Among those who said the troops acted badly, 54 percent said their opinions were based on things they had heard. Thirty-nine percent said they decided based on things they had seen, while 7 percent said they were judging from personal experience.

Two-thirds -- 67 percent -- said troops were not trying at all to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed in exchanges of gunfire, while 18 percent said the Americans were trying only a little and 11 percent said they were trying a lot.

Sixty percent of those surveyed said U.S. soldiers sometimes or often showed disrespect for Iraqis during home searches; 29 percent said that the troops did not. Forty-six percent said the troops sometimes or often showed disrespect for Iraqi women during such operations, while 39 percent said the soldiers did not.

Asked whether U.S. troops showed disrespect for Islam during such operations, respondents were split -- 42 percent said often or a little, while 43 percent said not at all.

Those polled gave the troops low marks for reconstruction efforts. Asked about the restoration of basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water, 41 percent said the troops were trying only a little and 44 percent said they were not trying at all.

Seventy-one percent surveyed said they saw troops mostly as occupiers, while 19 percent said they viewed them as liberators. Asked how they viewed troops at the time of the invasion a year ago, the respondents were split, with 43 percent saying they saw the coalition forces as occupiers and another 43 percent saying they considered them liberators at the time.

But asked, "Thinking about any hardships you might have suffered since the U.S.-Britain invasion, do you personally think that ousting Saddam Hussein was worth it or not?" Sixty-one percent said it was worth it. Twenty-eight percent said it was not, while 9 percent said they were not sure.
post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb
Um, I'm not even close to a millionaire, but my taxes sure did go down this year. But, I'm sure you're right - this tax cut didn't do anything for anyone except millionaires. Must have been my imagination....

Actually, you may recall when there was more than one Democrat running, some of them were shouting about recalling all of the tax cuts...until the economists and their advisors informed them of what Gephardt knew the whole time - getting rid of all of Bush's tax cuts would raise taxes on the middle class by a lot. Somehow Dems seem to forget the middle class most of the time too, the difference is that they only think about the poor and think anyone who makes more than $60,000 a year makes too much money. Oh, except for them.

And tell me why someone who has income shouldn't pay taxes? I realize it should be proportional, but considering the poor get a whole lot of my tax money every year I don't understand why they should get out of paying taxes at all.
I don't think 60K is making too much in the bay area that's almost poverty, you can't buy a home etc.

It's funny, my sister says she paid less taxes, I didn't. I paid the same.

I think everyone should pay taxes but I don't think working poor people, making like 30K should pay more porportionately than a millionaire just cause of some theory
that the money will trickle down.
post #48 of 59
Marge -

You said we were pulling out july 31, I thought you meant the military was pulling out and i missed something. As I understand it, Negreponte (sp) will be helping (guiding)to establish an interim gov't which will eventually lead to an elected gov't. and they can make their own laws.

I supported the invasion of Iraq based on the so-called evidence. While WMD were not found, it is possible (I'm not saying they are) they could be in another country. Everyone knew that Saddam was a mass murderer, gassing what, 5,000 Kurds (among many other things) But didn't we do something good in liberating the Iraqi people? Forget about the oil for a minute. And didn't we in 1991 urge the Shiite to rise up against Saddam? And then we left them to face the consequences. I wouldn't blame them for being pissed at us. But if there's a chance that this could really work one day, (perhaps I'm niave) I think it is amazing (Another thread again, sorry). Only the individual can decide if it is worth it losing American, Coalition soldiers, and Iraqis.

The majority of the Iraqi people want a stable democratic gov't. I'm not sure they really understand what that is, but it's a start. They don't want to be occupied, but are afraid of us leaving. They are mainly concerned about security. It is only a minority of them that are fighting us.

Back to Kerry - A question - According to polls, why are Kerry and Bush in a statistical dead heat? (if you could vote today). Why can't Kerry capitalize on what seems to be a golden opportunity - the rising number of our brave dead soldiers, the length of the occupation with no end in sight, tactics that many believe aren't working in Iraq, Bush's dismal record on the environment, etc.?

It's none of my business who anyone votes for. It seems there are pro-Bush supporters who will only vote for Bush no matter what, and the same for Kerry supporters. My main concern is fighting terrorism. Right now I'm for Bush because i feel safer with him and just don't know Kerry's views, and as another poster said, that will come out later. I just don't want to hear the same rallying cries and cliches anymore. If Kerry can convince me that he can do a better job over Bush, let him explain his views and ideas on solving these problems on tv and in the papers, and if I agree, then I'd vote for him.

Jill and Candy
post #49 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvcandy
Marge -

You said we were pulling out july 31, I thought you meant the military was pulling out and i missed something. As I understand it, Negreponte (sp) will be helping (guiding)to establish an interim gov't which will eventually lead to an elected gov't. and they can make their own laws.

I supported the invasion of Iraq based on the so-called evidence. While WMD were not found, it is possible (I'm not saying they are) they could be in another country. Everyone knew that Saddam was a mass murderer, gassing what, 5,000 Kurds (among many other things) But didn't we do something good in liberating the Iraqi people? Forget about the oil for a minute. And didn't we in 1991 urge the Shiite to rise up against Saddam? And then we left them to face the consequences. I wouldn't blame them for being pissed at us. But if there's a chance that this could really work one day, (perhaps I'm niave) I think it is amazing (Another thread again, sorry). Only the individual can decide if it is worth it losing American, Coalition soldiers, and Iraqis.

The majority of the Iraqi people want a stable democratic gov't. I'm not sure they really understand what that is, but it's a start. They don't want to be occupied, but are afraid of us leaving. They are mainly concerned about security. It is only a minority of them that are fighting us.

Back to Kerry - A question - According to polls, why are Kerry and Bush in a statistical dead heat? (if you could vote today). Why can't Kerry capitalize on what seems to be a golden opportunity - the rising number of our brave dead soldiers, the length of the occupation with no end in sight, tactics that many believe aren't working in Iraq, Bush's dismal record on the environment, etc.?

It's none of my business who anyone votes for. It seems there are pro-Bush supporters who will only vote for Bush no matter what, and the same for Kerry supporters. My main concern is fighting terrorism. Right now I'm for Bush because i feel safer with him and just don't know Kerry's views, and as another poster said, that will come out later. I just don't want to hear the same rallying cries and cliches anymore. If Kerry can convince me that he can do a better job over Bush, let him explain his views and ideas on solving these problems on tv and in the papers, and if I agree, then I'd vote for him.

Jill and Candy

It's so early right now to figure out polling. I mean Bush is spending money on negative ads about Kerry in some key states already. After the convention for instance Kerry will get a boost.

I agree that most people make up their minds and that's it.
There are some on the fence obviously cause Clinton won, Bush won and they are so different.
post #50 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatCatcher
Tulip, how do you treat your returning military men from Iraq? I hope you support your troops because it is not their fault where they are sent for duty. Also, a soldier can be against that war, but when the enemy starts trying to kill him, that soldier does everything he must to stay alive, and if he must kill the enemy, he does, anyway he can. War is not pretty, never has been, nor ever will be. Tulip, I detect that your political leanings are toward the British Labor Party. If so, isn't Tony Blair also a member of that party? Does this mean that you are contemplating making a move in a more conservative direction? Just wondering.
RatCatcher - yes I/we support our returning troops but my honest view is if you take the 'queens shilling' don't whine if you get shot at! A bit harsh perhaps but you get my drift. We no longer have a British Labour Party I'm afraid - we have New Labour - not quite the same thing. And no I am not a supporter of New Labour at all.

I cant find the quote now but someone mentioned 'if not in Iraq. where are the WMD's?' We have them, you have them, Korea has them, maybe Isreal no ones that sure. Most countries in the West have WMD's.

Well - that was all totally off topic- has anyone come to a definitive conclusion on the mental stabilty of John Kerry
post #51 of 59
Thread Starter 
Thank you, Tulip. I wanted to see your perspective on this as well. The "Queen's Shilling", an interesting perspective; but young men normally choose a military career to seek adventure, an education, get away from home, or just mark time until they can get a real job. Unfortunately, that sought after adventure becomes a reality when real war breaks out some place in the world.

WMD's? I think Iraq had them. President Clinton seem to think so. So did Kerry in one of his speeches he has forgotten. It took us so long to mobilize for the Iraq war that Saddam had ample time to ship them all to Iran and Syria. There are satellite images of long lines of trucks headed for Syria and Iran so yeah, they are probably split up between those two countries.
post #52 of 59
Last night Frontline did a great piece on Bush and how religion motivates him. I don't put that down at all, I admire someone with faith. But as someone so aptly put it, he runs the country more like a minister than a President, he disregards the constitution in favor of his religious beliefs.
That isn't what this country is suppose to be about.
post #53 of 59
Thread Starter 
Marge we do agree on the fact that Bush is disregarding the Constitution in several circumstances, and that disturbs me. I don't see where that is based on his religious beliefs, though. He is doing it because he feels that the Constitution and the rights it gives to US citizens, gets in the way of his war on terrorism. What scares me is, if John Kerry gets in and uses these same anti-terrorist powers against other US citizens on the right with whom he doesn't agree as to their politics. He has been billed as quite far left, you know, and I think would abuse his powers.
post #54 of 59
I personally don't think Kerry would abuse powers as Bush has, I realize he may still have to sell you on that. But I don't think it. I ALSO think he would surround himself with people who wouldn't encourage or allow that. Who you surround yourself with is key.

According to a book "the Bushes", close to family sources say Bush is in Iraq due to religious fervor. He knows not to articulate that since it's political suicide but that is his belief. So he felt justified bucking the constituion and the UN.

The odd thing is he talks of ridding the world of evil, and yet his hero Christ would say, before you call another man evil look at your own evil. He doesn't even follow Christs words or teachings that well. I think he just got on a Born again high that "saved him" and got him off booze but didn't really study the religion.
post #55 of 59
Thread Starter 
Marge, none of us is perfect. We are all sinners, and Christ died on the cross for all of us. Like I said before, I believe Bush is sincere, but I don't like a lot of his methods. I don't like his stance on the environment, either. Me, I'm not a Republican or a Democrat and have voted for candidates from both parties. I prefer candidates who follow the doctrine of the US Constitution. That's why it disturbs me about Bush. Unfortunately, we only have 2 choices at the polls in November. I would rather have seen Joe Lieberman nominated for President and couldn't understand why he wasn't. I guess there is still a lot of anti-semitism in the Democratic Party The Democrats talk the big talk against discrimination and anti-semitism, but they actually practice what they don't preach.
.
post #56 of 59
Right all of us are sinners, and Bush is saying, look the evil is OUT THERE. We are perfect and can do whatever we please. I mean it's not Christian. And it's not constitutional. I know we need to protect ourselves but
we also have to follow our constitution or, not to sound corny, what the hell are we fighting for? I mean we fight for our "freedoms" but if we don't folow our own freedoms is all a crock.
post #57 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by RatCatcher
The man just doesn't seem to be "hitting on all 8 cylinders". He has never said how he is going to run or fix the country, provided it is broken. His only claim to fame is his constant Bush bashing and his favorite words "Oh, did I tell you, I served in Viet Nam"?
This country is broken. However, I'm not voting for either of these men! In a perfect world the President I vote for would...

1. Encourage education and improve schools. Especially here in Florida, where there is school overcrowding, high drop out rates, and low levels of people going on to college.
2. Improve animal cruelty laws.
3. Not attack other peoples' human rights
4. Protect the environment.
5. Not think that war is the answer to everything
6. Stop using the Patriot Act to attack people simply because they are pro-AR, pro-environment, and anti-war
7. Allow same-sex marriage
8. Make sure that seperation of church and state stayed that way
9. Would get rid of the Selective Service program. It bites the big one!
post #58 of 59
[quote=RatCatcher]Marge, none of us is perfect. We are all sinners, and Christ died on the cross for all of us.

That right there is offensive. Christ is the messiah for Christians, yes...but not for me. I'm Jewish.
post #59 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinceneilsgirl
This country is broken. However, I'm not voting for either of these men! In a perfect world the President I vote for would...

1. Encourage education and improve schools. Especially here in Florida, where there is school overcrowding, high drop out rates, and low levels of people going on to college.
2. Improve animal cruelty laws.
3. Not attack other peoples' human rights
4. Protect the environment.
5. Not think that war is the answer to everything
6. Stop using the Patriot Act to attack people simply because they are pro-AR, pro-environment, and anti-war
7. Allow same-sex marriage
8. Make sure that seperation of church and state stayed that way
9. Would get rid of the Selective Service program. It bites the big one!
I think you are unfortunately on a loser with this one! I dont understand no.9 but as for the rest - wouldnt that be great! It aint going to happen though as at least 1/2 are not vote winners
Sad
Alexis
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Is John Kerry Normal, or Off His Rocker?