Presidential Debate

[Noel's angel]

:fluffy air extraction: :fluffy air extraction: :fluffy air extraction:

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Oct 9 2004, 02:12 PM'] When Kerry said that, I actually farted.....




I guess you had to be there... [/quote]

[Dave]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Oct 9 2004, 02:12 PM'] When Kerry said that, I actually farted.....




I guess you had to be there... [/quote]
:rotfl: :thatsfunny:

Oh man, if you'd actually have been there in person and farted, I bet the reaction would've been priceless!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Dave' date='Oct 9 2004, 02:57 PM'] :rotfl: :thatsfunny:

Oh man, if you'd actually have been there in person and farted, I bet the reaction would've been priceless! [/quote]

[Noel's angel]

:rotfl: :thatsfunny: :thatsfunny: :haha: :haha: :cheer:

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Theoketos' date='Oct 9 2004, 10:28 AM'] Gasp!

When he said this part he basically said that Religion is not reasonable and that is why he can not vote on it.

Translation

If my my faith was arbitrary, then I would not let it affect me pesonally either, espcially in the political realm.


I Respect your Lunacy as well Kerry, I Respect that you need not to be President. [/quote]
Yeah, I was really annoyed last night.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='Oct 9 2004, 01:12 PM'] When Kerry said that, I actually farted.....




I guess you had to be there... [/quote]
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

(Good Friday) [quote] First of all, I'd think it would be more important that children have a home than the morals they're going to be given. The simple fact of the matter is that there are too many heterosexuals who are too selfish to adopt children, and if we don't allow homosexuals to start adopting children in many states, then they're simply going to be shipped from foster home to foster home. Is that an acceptable alternative to a stable, loving home? [/quote]


1: Many foster parents end up adopting children. In fact, my nephew was almost adopted by his foster parents several years back. I'd rather have a child of mine in a Foster Home with a mother and father, than I would have it adopted by homosexuals living that lifestyle.
If the point of children being given by God is to raise them to serve Him, then how can a homosexual partnership raising a child accomplish that? Simply, they can't. I'm not anti-homosexual, but I am anti-homosexual partnerships. God has told man to cling to woman, and woman to cling to man. Any homosexual relationship contridicts the command given by God to cling to one another, to become one, and to proceate.


(Good Friday) [quote] Secondly, your assertion that homosexual persons contradict who God is -- practically saying that we are not made in the image and likeness of God -- is contrary to Catholic teaching, which says that all people, even gay people, are made in the image and likeness of God. Other than that, I'm not even going to dignify it with a further response. [/quote]


2: I did not say that homosexuals were made in the image of God, what I said is that their lifestyle contridicts who and what God is and wants us to do, which is serve Him, whether it be through a single lifestyle, or a marriage (man and woman) lifestyle.

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Oct 9 2004, 02:47 AM'] Is that his answer? According to STOPP, during the 2002-2003 fiscal year, Planned Parenthood received $254.4 million from the federal government, which accounts for about 33% (1/3) of its income. This is not down from 1999 (the Clinton Administration), when they also estimated that federal funding made up about 1/3 of Planned Parenthood's income. Sources: [url="http://www.all.org/stopp/rr0404.htm"]Here[/url] and [url="http://www.all.org/stopp/rr9902e.htm"]Here[/url]. That may be his answer when he's speaking to voters who don't know better, but his real answer is that he hasn't decreased funding to one of the nation's largest abortion providers, and that Planned Parenthood is still receiving the same amount of funding as it did under the Clinton Administration.


So let's sum up. Even though President Bush believes that a culture of life is really important to have, he has maintained the same amount of funding to Planned Parenthood -- the largest abortion provider in the country. He passed a partial-birth abortion ban that everyone knew would be overturned, a bill that everyone knew would not prevent a single abortion. He supported the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a bill that had nothing to do with abortion and wouldn't have increased the penalty for murderers. President Bush has failed the pro-life cause during his four years.

The biggest remaining hope of pro-lifers is that President Bush will appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. But he didn't appoint pro-life justices to the Texas Supreme Court, and tonight he wouldn't promise to appoint pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. [/quote]
Assuming all of this is true, what would Kerry do that would be any better?

I mean, if the federal gov't gives $254 million to Planned Parenthood now, wouldn't Kerry make sure they received three times as much if and when he's the president?

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Oct 9 2004, 10:02 AM'] Ask Judie Brown from the American Life League if President Bush is pro-life, and if he has upheld pro-life values. I think she'd disagree with you. In fact, she already has -- publicly, and more than once. [/quote]
If you're going to attack Bush's morals, I'd like to hear what your alternative is. Kerry? How does Kerry have morals any better than Bush?

[smeagol]

its not about morals. you could have the most perfect morals ever but if you take no action, its as though you had no morals. the question is not who goes to church more, who is more popular in religious circles, or who wears his faith on his sleeve more ... the question is [b]who is more competent to make decisions and take action to make our country better![/b] look at the status quo, we're in a mess. massive deficit, unnecessary war, the blood of thousands of people are on the hands of this president, our enemies have been strengthened, terrorism has increased, we're less safe, anti-Americanism has been inflamed, children are left behind while CEOs are enjoying their massive tax break....
look at the record and question competency... its not even a contest.

For a better America: KERRY 04

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]... the question is [b]who is more competent to make decisions and take action to make our country better![/b][/quote]

Hehehe...that's not a question...it's an exclamation...hehehe...

[quote]look at the status quo, we're in a mess. massive deficit[/quote]

Business 101: You can't make money without spending money first.

[quote]unnecessary war[/quote]

Debatable.

[quote]the blood of thousands of people are on the hands of this president[/quote]

I don't see the word "innocent" in there...defense is a moral cause for war.

[quote]our enemies have been strengthened[/quote]

How do you get that? We caught Saddam...we have bin Laden either dead or on the run...

You know, terrorists kill themselves in order to kill others. They could all strike at once, and there would be hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, killed, and everyone would say that they got stronger...but they would all be dead...if there are no more, they aren't stronger...

Similarly, you don't see their recruitment rates, but you only see the havoc the cause. What makes them appear stronger could in fact be destroying them completely from the inside.

[quote]terrorism has increased[/quote]

Evil always gets more drastic when it knows it is being defeated.

[quote]we're less safe[/quote]

How so?

[quote]anti-Americanism has been inflamed[/quote]

I'd rather it be inflamed than continue laying dormant. At least now we can see what we have to do.

[quote]children are left behind[/quote]

???

[quote]while CEOs are enjoying their massive tax break....[/quote]

By spending them trying to make more money, which means they are expanding their businesses, which means more jobs...

[rachael]

[Ash Wednesday]

Chances are, very little will change the mind of a Catholic voting pro-choice (and down the road, pro euthanasia, gay marriage, embryonic stem cells) when they could be voting for better candidates out there, right now. Save for one thing -- that little voice of doubt that sits in the back of your mind, that string that tugs on your heart that asks for you to consider the unborn, the sanctity of life, and what the Church truly asks of us. I advise any Catholic out there to sit and listen to what that small voice is trying to tell you. I tried to ignore that for the years I supported the Clinton presidency.

You will hear it when you hold that pencil in the voting booth. It will not leave you alone, before, or after you cast your vote.

[smeagol]

Business 101: whenever you spend money you don't have, things dont end up looking pretty.

about 15,000 innocent Iraq civilians were killed as a result of the 'miscalculation' in invasion and post war planning. there is no excuse for this. how is killing FIFTEEN THOUSAND INNOCENTS justified?

Raphael, how can you support widening the rich-poor gap? if the rich have more money (less taxes) they'll invest almost all of it to make themselves even richer.

[i]I'd rather it be inflamed than continue laying dormant. At least now we can see what we have to do.[/i]
you pretend there are only two options: [color=red][Edited by Raphael: We don't use that kind of language here][/color] the world or take a nap. that is fundamentally incorrect

Jesus never NEVER EVER taught or even alluded that anyone is ever evil, per se. to lie to ourselves like this is preposterous and will only result in further demise. we have to look at why the terrorists struck us. and it seems like nobody does this. they attack us not because of who we are but rather what we've done. if we want to prevent a similar attack in the future we must modify what we do and how we do it. more of the same is a guarantee of failure.

think!!!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote] Business 101: whenever you spend money you don't have, things dont end up looking pretty.[/quote]

Business 101: If you stick with the philosophy mentioned above, economics can't exist.

[quote]about 15,000 innocent Iraq civilians were killed as a result of the 'miscalculation' in invasion and post war planning. there is no excuse for this. how is killing FIFTEEN THOUSAND INNOCENTS justified?[/quote]

I don't think it's a good thing, believe me. I hate war and I hate that our troops and that civilians and that the enemy troops are dying. I hate this war like the plague, but I think it's just.

And just because you can put the word [i]miscalculation[/i] in quotes doesn't make it the case that the government lied or anything like that. You want the truth? Then avoid lies and conspiracy theories.

[quote]Raphael, how can you support widening the rich-poor gap? if the rich have more money (less taxes) they'll invest almost all of it to make themselves even richer.[/quote]

I don't support the gap. I think it's sad that there are poor in this world, so don't try to imply (or state directly) that I like it. I'm on $15,000 of federal aid loans for college right now. My family is not wealthy, but I recognize that the "rich C.E.O.s" will use tax breaks to expand their businesses, which will lead to more jobs. I also know that the minimum wage actually [i]hurts[/i] the poor because it keeps prices up. I believe in helping the poor in responsible ways, like expanding the job base, and essentially teaching a man to fish instead of giving him a fish.

[quote]you pretend there are only two options: [Edited by Raphael: We don't use that kind of language here] the world or take a nap. that is fundamentally incorrect[/quote]

You imply that I made a false dichotomy. You read too much into my statement.

[quote]Jesus never NEVER EVER taught or even alluded that anyone is ever evil, per se.[/quote]

You're right. He didn't. No one is evil, per se, because that would include an intrinsic evil in creation, which is impossible.

[quote]we have to look at why the terrorists struck us. and it seems like nobody does this. they attack us not because of who we are but rather what we've done. if we want to prevent a similar attack in the future we must modify what we do and how we do it. more of the same is a guarantee of failure.[/quote]

They attack us because of what we do. That is exactly correct. They attack us because they get bombarded with images of the west as what we would call Babylon. The attack us because they see abortion and gay marriage, among other things, in our soceity. Who is going to stop those things, Bush or Kerry?

[smeagol]

they dont care about our domestic policy! hahah they just dont want us setting up bases in the holy land of Allah. we're doing anything but that now. so how can we pretend theres an end to terrorism in sight?

you , like Bush, must adhere to trickle down economics, or "horse-and-sparrow economics" -- that is, if you feed the horse (the rich) well, some will pass on through and be there on the ground for the sparrow. i just think that if you want to feed the sparrows (the poor), feed the sparrows! the horses have way too much food as it is. i dont want to feed them anymore... [[hopefully, this metaphor isnt too weird]]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='smeagol' date='Oct 10 2004, 06:30 PM'] they dont care about our domestic policy! hahah they just dont want us setting up bases in the holy land of Allah. we're doing anything but that now. so how can we pretend theres an end to terrorism in sight?

you , like Bush, must adhere to trickle down economics, or "horse-and-sparrow economics" -- that is, if you feed the horse (the rich) well, some will pass on through and be there on the ground for the sparrow. i just think that if you want to feed the sparrows (the poor), feed the sparrows! the horses have way too much food as it is. i dont want to feed them anymore... [[hopefully, this metaphor isnt too weird]] [/quote]
I'd be more than happy to pull our bases out of the Middle East, especially since Israel can now support itself without any US aid.

However, if you read the thoughts of people from the Middle East, it is our domestic policy that angers them. I can't entirely blame them for their anger, either. The west is a pit of immorality right now. I can, however, completely condemn their attempts to change this.

I am a fan of trickle down economics, of Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Alexis de Tocqueville. Certainly the horses get enough food, and I'm not entirely against welfare, but I do see it corrupting the poor and keeping them down instead of encouraging them to grow.

My cousin was on welfare and used her food stamps as an underground currency to go to the salon instead of buying milk for her children.

If we continue the welfare system, it needs a full overhaul, including stricter limits on what can be purchased, better monitoring of how money is spent, and, most importantly, money should be diverted to financial aid for college students. My Latin professor has an antique book collection (we're talking...Martin Luther could have owned them...), an antique weapons collection, and a private plane. I'm planning on becoming a Latin professor and I know how much money it's worth. Tuition keeps rising and money is being spent on completely unnecessary things. Why did my school invite Michael Moore to come? The guy is a propaganda artist! Why does my school charge me $470 per month for an 11x8 ft. dorm room in an apartment with three other guys while my friends down the street pay $300 per month for a whole house? I'm for school vouchers and government subsidies for students with certain grade levels (you have to earn it, after all). I don't think the government should be providing me with a campus store that sells two different kinds of condoms but no bread, either...

[smeagol]

raphael, i enjoyed your post. and i share a lot of your concerns. i agree the hard details need to be worked out but i was talking more about the overall principles involved, and i think we can agree on that (at least in this regard )...

however, there is one point i disagree with you on. its that the domestic policy irks foreigners.. i fail to see the correlation. why does it seem to be that most immigrants now are democrats? why do most world citizens favor kerry instead of bush? the first topic on their minds is foreign policy. and to them it appears that we are flexing our muscle, spreading our influence, with our military nonetheless. if our domestic policies went unchanged but our foreign policy were modified, i think they would be perfectly pleased with us.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]however, there is one point i disagree with you on. its that the domestic policy irks foreigners.. i fail to see the correlation. why does it seem to be that most immigrants now are democrats? why do most world citizens favor kerry instead of bush? the first topic on their minds is foreign policy. and to them it appears that we are flexing our muscle, spreading our influence, with our military nonetheless. if our domestic policies went unchanged but our foreign policy were modified, i think they would be perfectly pleased with us.[/quote]

I didn't mean that most foreigner's have a problem with our domestic policy, but only those who are Muslim (and generally the devout Muslims and the radical Muslims, not the secular Muslims). Those who hold the tenets of Islam see the west (and not just the US) as a place of grave evil. I tend to agree that the way things are going, there is much, much evil in the west, but I disagree with the way that the radical Muslims (not the peaceful devout Muslims, but the radical Muslims only) go about trying to change things. That is where I see a problem.

I really wouldn't mind pulling our troops out of the Middle East. Foreign peoples deserve the right not to have unwelcomed foreign troops parked in their backyards, but we should also be careful to make certain that we will be safe when we leave. It makes it difficult. I think the best compromise is to allow embassies and perhaps small military troops to help in case of emergency (that doesn't just mean in case those nations attack us, but also to aid local military in civil work, such as barricades in case of floods, etc.).