Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   George W. Bush's qualifications to be President
Rei
Member (Idle past 7042 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 180 of 247 (141150)
09-09-2004 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by johnfolton
09-09-2004 12:38 AM


Re: request for reply tally: 6
1) "If you tax the local quick stops as big businesses"
Who is proposing that? Democratic tax policy is about "helping the little guy", so to speak. Be it small businesses or the poor/middle class.
2) "What Kerry wants to do is stifle the recovery"
Please tell me that you're kidding.
3) "Which means your mutual funds will lose money, cause they will be taxed to death"
Are you referring to the mutual company or to private assets held in mutual funds? If you're referring to the former, overhead is a very small percentage of mutual funds costs. A small percentage increase to a small percentage is almost negligable. If you're referring to the latter, if you're not in the top couple percent, you'll see your tax burden stay the same or drop.
3) "what reason would there be to stay solvent in America"
A local market of 290 million people with the highest per-capita income in the world, with a highly trained workforce and ample tech infrastructure? Nah, that couldn't be it...
Besides, forget not that the US has a proportionally *low* tax burden compared to most industrualized nations. We would simply be recentering.
4) "With less government, people will discipline themselves"
Yes, we had a term for that period of near complete corporate deregulation - you may have heard of "the industrial revolution". Some associated terms you might have heard are "60 hour work weeks", "child labor", and "robber barons". Much later, but still during a period of "regulate yourselves", you might have heard of "Black Thursday".
5) "taxing to death the remaining industries"
Apparently, you've never looked at Kerry's tax policy, which actually involves cuts for businesses to prevent outsourcing. The increases in revenue are not on businesses, but undoing the irresponsible upper bracket cuts that Bush did that left us with such a huge defecit (one which even Bush's budgeters aren't seen a soon end to, let alone the CBO)
(p.s. - hey everyone I may not be back often, but I was bored tonight, and remembered this site )

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by johnfolton, posted 09-09-2004 12:38 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by Silent H, posted 09-09-2004 6:45 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 184 by AdminAsgara, posted 09-09-2004 10:25 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 185 by johnfolton, posted 09-09-2004 11:59 AM Rei has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7042 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 190 of 247 (141267)
09-09-2004 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by johnfolton
09-09-2004 11:59 AM


Re: Kerry is quite the lemon, says one thing votes the other, can't be trusted, etc
> he's consistently in the Senate voted to increase Middle Class taxes
Cite the bill numbers, please.
> how is raising tax on gas at the pump not affecting the middle class
1) Kerry's support for a 50 cents per gallon tax increase on gasoline was A) not for a voting measure, and was only mentioned in floor discussion B) back when gasoline was 1.01$ per gallon, C) would simply move us closer to most of the rest of the world (do you think, of all of the types of taxes possible, that having it on something like gasoline is a bad place for it? Would you rather it be on income or payroll taxes?) and D) is no longer supported given current gasoline prices.
2) It is such a "wacky" idea that Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economist on Bush's council of economic advisors, praised the idea in 1999. He wrote an article called "Tax Gas Now!".
> cause he continually flip flops
Name one.
> while his voting record shows hes a lemon, etc...
Name a vote. Here's a pretty comprehensive summary of his voting record:
A) Environmental regulation
B) A military voting record very similar to John McCain's
C) Free trade (many Democrats don't, which was actually a problem for Kerry in the primary)
D) A tax burden in which the wealthy pay a higher percent rate because they're more able to afford it
E) Low taxes on small businesses
F) Individual civil liberties (yes, he voted for the Patriot Act, but so did essentially everyone else in the Senate; anyone who didn't, right after 9/11, was risking a clear loss of their seat. Apart from that, he has one of the best civil liberties records in congress on every last issue apart from gun ownership rights)
G) (what other issues do you have concerns over?)
> The reason he puts forth his questionable ability to lead the military, is his Senate record is anti-american
Cite.
> anti-middle class
Completely and utterly false. Cite.
> anti-military
If you think McCain is anti-military. Cite.
> The Vets have spoken (he betrayed 2.5 million Vets), he can not be trusted
You mean, the fact that of the people who have served on his boat, 12 are actively campaigning with him, and there's only one (who served only 2 months with him, and wasn't present for any of the incidents the swift boat vets are citing) who is campaigning against him? Yeah, they sure have.
You might want to hear about what some of them are saying now:
http://www.billingsgazette.com/...
{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal - Adminnemooseus}
(perhaps they should rename the group to "Swift Boat Veterans for Identity Theft") I could go on for hours on this subject; many of the top leaders of the group are on record previously praising Kerry's heroism, several of them contradict their own medal citations, they all contradict military damage assessment documents (including bullet holes on the craft, and who was present for treating Kerry's wounds) - one even contradicts what he told previously to president Nixon, and is on tape.
> GWB is planting seed for job growth,
Ah, what seed would this be? The "Hated-By-The-International-Community Daisy"? The "Triple-Dip-Recession Rose"? The "Budget Balance-Me-Not?" I mean, China's economy is roaring, but Bush has had 4 years, and this is what we get, *in addition* to a preposterously huge defecit?
This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 09-09-2004 03:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by johnfolton, posted 09-09-2004 11:59 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-09-2004 3:34 PM Rei has replied
 Message 194 by johnfolton, posted 09-09-2004 3:56 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 197 by berberry, posted 09-09-2004 4:18 PM Rei has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7042 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 192 of 247 (141274)
09-09-2004 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Dan Carroll
09-09-2004 3:34 PM


Re: Kerry is quite the lemon, says one thing votes the other, can't be trusted, etc...
Heya Dan Glad to see you're still around. You always were better than Mr. Hombre anyways.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-09-2004 3:34 PM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by MrHambre, posted 09-09-2004 3:53 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 195 by Dan Carroll, posted 09-09-2004 4:07 PM Rei has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7042 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 204 of 247 (141477)
09-10-2004 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by johnfolton
09-10-2004 2:40 PM


> Kerry destroyed the good name of over 2.5 million Vets (aiding the propagada of the enemy), when he lied about Cambodia
But... we *did* attack Cambodia. This is as indisputable as the fact that we fought Germany in WWII.
> and when he lied saying the Vets were all butchers
Um, no. Please read his speech in its entirity, instead of the typical right-wing excerpts. He starts off by talking about what people he knew told him that they had done in Vietnam, and then got into *why* these people had done what they did. He layed the blame on the sort of uncaring free-fire policies adopted by high-ranking military and government officials.
>even Clinton from his hospital bed advised Mr. Kerry to stop talking about Vietnam
And how much has Kerry talked about it since?
> his record in Vietnam Stinks
Of course. Are you ready to sign up to do door-to-door patrols in Iraq, get shot three times by insurgents, save a person's life (a person who, in Kerry's case, was so thankful that he and 11 other people who *actually served on Kerry's boat* (unlike all but one SBVftT members) drop what they're doing to help you campaign) and when you see wrongdoing, come back and spend years campaigning to stop it? No?
> hopefully Kerry will continue to be forced by the Vets to talk in circles about his Vietnam Record
Well, one thing they are succeeding at is stopping him from being able to discuss the issues affecting our country currently.

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by johnfolton, posted 09-10-2004 2:40 PM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Rei, posted 09-10-2004 7:21 PM Rei has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7042 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 205 of 247 (141479)
09-10-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by Rei
09-10-2004 7:20 PM


Oh, and for a bit more of a light-hearted post...

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by Rei, posted 09-10-2004 7:20 PM Rei has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7042 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 207 of 247 (141510)
09-11-2004 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by johnfolton
09-11-2004 12:39 AM


> if your a catholic, then you can not in good faith vote for Mr. Kerry cause he is for abortion though he says hes against it(flip flop)
Where has Kerry claimed to be against abortion? Cite, please.
> he says one thing and votes for another
I asked for examples, and your "example" presented thusfar is, to the best of my knowledge, completely incorrect.
> he takes money for time not earned in the senate
Oh, that's rich, coming from soneome whose president spent almost half his time in office leading up to the September 11th attacks on vacation in Crawford, Texas. It's also rich, coming from someone whose party had Bob Dole completely leave his senate seat to run. And it's especially rich concerning Kerry, who has an incredible lifelong attendence record, and only has a low record this year due to his campaign for the presidency.
> he slandered the good name of Vets
Cite, please.
> how many commandments is GWB supporting as a statesman
Well, lets see... I don't think he has any other Gods, makes graven images, or swears (cheney does, so that's only half a point). He's taken a completely different strategy as his father, but seems to get along OK. I don't think he's cheated on Laura. So, I'd give him 5 1/2 out of 10.
> its clear GWB is the moral candidate
Yes, because only a moral person smiles and makes jokes when talking about executions. Only a moral person chooses war as first resort, not last. Only a moral person gives no bid contracts. Only a moral person shifts the tax burden from the wealthy to the poor and middle class. Only a moral person leaks the names of undercover CIA agents to the press. Only a moral person blacklists reporters who write negative things from all white house functions. Only a moral person cuts veterans benefits in a time of war. Only a moral person gives huge amounts of monetary aid to Uzbekistan, a country whose government boils people to death in torture facilities that make what we've found in Iraq look like preschool. Only a moral president would use known shoddy evidence from known liars and present it to the world as rock-solid, despite stated concerns about the quality from much of the rest of the planet. Only a moral person would support the execution of juveniles, and not grant a single stay of executions during his governorship. Only a moral person would roll back almost every environmental regulation in the book, from arsenic levels to forest protection to power plant scrubbing equipment enforcement. I could keep going, but you get the picture.
> to protect us and ours, from those that Mr. Kerry would turn us over to (UN world law) in his quest for to make us more of a global nation
Please explain what you mean by this. If you're referring to the International Criminal Court, why should the US get an exemption?
> and Mr. Kerry is a lemon
Perhaps instead of just repeating republican talking points, you actually respond to my criticisms of your post next time?
> but like Pat Buchanan wanting to close our borders, you really have no reason to cry about the jobs those of you who voted for Clinton ( A democrat) started flowing out of this nation
You mean, the time when we had such a robust, booming economy?
> and if you vote for Kerry you will have no one but yourselves to blame for your freedoms to speak out, becoming not a soverign right
Um, hello, which side introduced the patriot act, and which side is campaigning against it? Which side routinely gets good ratings from civil liberties groups, and which side gets slashed in reviews?
> cause of how the Republican party turned on Pat Buchanan,
Pat Buchanan, who just published a book "Where The Right Went Wrong: How Neoconservatives Subverted the Reagan Revolution and Hijacked the Bush Presidency" - a book which is a sharp critique on Bush's policies, and how they're not conservative, but self-interested and harmful to American interests?

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2004 12:39 AM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by Silent H, posted 09-11-2004 5:08 AM Rei has not replied
 Message 209 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2004 11:42 PM Rei has not replied
 Message 217 by nator, posted 09-12-2004 10:11 AM Rei has not replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7042 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 233 of 247 (141845)
09-12-2004 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 5:21 PM


Re: GWB is doing his part, etc...
> our country wasn't founded as a king system (absolute powers), but a president serving up to 8 years
Wrong. Term limits were a later addition. However, the executive branch has been strengthened way too much, and this really needs to change.
> here we have the problem, where just the few, like Teddy Kennedy filibustering any nominee that GWB nominates
Ted Kennedy is hardly the only one. Why focus on him?
> cause they know that they (liberals) have misinterpreted the constitution
No straw men, please. They're filibustering because they see these people as radical conservatives.
> Kerry in his 20+ years as a Senator had a far worse record, proving he lacks the leadership that GWB has exibited
Cite or drop. Generalizations are not wanted here.
> GWB is building bridges, etc...
"Two Americas". 'Nuff said.
> You vote the Democrats out of office, and you'd see more postive interpretations of the constitution, etc... The liberals simply twist the constitution, to say what it doesn't say, so GWB is pushing for honest men to interprete the Constitution as it was intended, for it to be the will of the people
That was your opinion, stated as fact.
> and not the will of the judges, this was why George Washington said that Congress was to protect the religion of Jesus Christ
No, he did not. Besides, A) most of our founding fathers were deists, B) several of them (such as Jefferson) were very against organized Christianity (he even wrote his own version of the bible), and C) you really need to read the Treaty of Tripoli, in which the US declared (shortly after its founding) that we are not a Christian state.
> cause of what were seeing in respect to the legalizing of Sodomy
Didn't you just lionize the heroes of Flight 93 recently, or was that someone else?
> cause of the religion of Jesus Christ clearly is against this abomination
You need to go back to one of the several threads devoted to this topic. The early catholic church (and many in present day, carrying on that tradition) saw it that way, mind you, but that's hardly the whole story.
> which GWB pursued Congress to make an amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage
How is your marriage demeaned by mine? Was your marriage demeaned when blacks were allowed to marry blacks (people sure claimed it was then)? Was your marriage demeaned when interracial marriages were legalized? (people sure claimed it then, too).
> so the church wouldn't be attacked for their belief in the sanctity of marriage
Noone is attacking the churches. We don't care if your church honors our marriages or not. All we care about is that the state honors it, so that we're given equal treatment under the law.
> or the church could be prosectued for saying sodomy is a sin
Oh please, cut it with the straw men.
> cause our founding fathers believed that Congress was to protect the religion of Jesus Christ
In 1796, the US signed and ratified, unanimously and without any observable outcry, the Treaty of Tripoli, which declared " "As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion...". This was the first time that congress cast a unanimous vote. Now, need I get into my Jefferson quotes, or is that enough for you?
> so I have the right to declare sodomy is an abomination, that its a filthy lifestyle, that the bible agrees though that let the filthy be filthy
A) Do you have a problem with sodomy if it is between to straight people?
B) Do you have a problem with a same-sex couple that doesn't commit sodomy?
> it should never be used to force the churches to become filthy, to be forced to allow gay ministers into the churches(this would be violating the separatation of church and state), when its against the religion of Jesus Christ, etc...
You keep repeating this misguided notion that others actually care about your church, who they have preach, what they're allowed to preach, etc We don't. Not one iota. The state doesn't care either. For all we care, you could be the Church of Jesus Christ of Juggling Saints, and require everyone in your church to ride a unicycle and dress like the Michelin Man. We Don't Care What Your Church Does..

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 5:21 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 8:12 PM Rei has replied

Rei
Member (Idle past 7042 days)
Posts: 1546
From: Iowa City, IA
Joined: 09-03-2003


Message 239 of 247 (141914)
09-12-2004 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 8:12 PM


Re: George Washington assuring Congress will protect the religion of Jesus Christ
"Congress will look upon them as their own Children... You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention. "
Interestingly enough the words "Jesus Christ" are not found in any of George's own writings. The speech in reference here was written by his aide; Washington signed it and read it. He himself, however, never wrote a thing mentioning Jesus. Members of his church openly questioned his piety (especially by his habits of leaving early, skipping sermons, and never discussing religion on his own). Close confidants expressed even more scepticism. He did write a number of times about an "almighty being" - of course, that's a standard belief for deism (see your other quotes, on things that Washington himself wrote - he does the same thing).
"Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice."
-- Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572. (Asa Green "was probably the Reverend Ashbel Green, who was chaplain to congress during Washington's administration." )
"[Washington was] a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another."
-- John Bell, in 1779, in Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion
"I know that Gouverneur Morris, who claimed to be in his secrets, and believed himself to be so, has often told me that General Washington believed no more in that system [Christianity] than he did."
-- Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, February, 1800, quoted from Jefferson's Works, Vol. iv., p. 572
"I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them."
-- Eleanor "Nellie" Parke Custis Lewis, Martha Washington's granddaughter from a previous marriage, quoted from Sparks' Washingon, also from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 22
"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife, to The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, upon Wilson's having inquired of Abercrombie regarding Washington's religious beliefs, quoted from John E. Remsberg, Six Historic Americans
"With respect to the inquiry you make, I can only state the following facts: that as pastor of the Episcopal Church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays George Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation -- always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants -- she invariably being one -- I considered it my duty, in a sermon on public worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations, who uniformly turned their backs on the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it. A few days after, in conversation, I believe, with a Senator of the United States, he told me he had dined the day before with the President, who, in the course of conversation at the table, said that, on the previous Sunday, he had received a very just rebuke from the pulpit for always leaving the church before the administration of the sacrament; that he honored the preacher for his integrity and candor; that he had never sufficiently considered the influence of his example, and that he would not again give cause for the repetition of the reproof; and that, as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then, it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station. Accordingly, he never afterwards came on the morning of sacrament Sunday, though at other times he was a constant attendant in the morning."
-- The Reverend Doctor James Abercrombie, in a letter to a friend in 1833, Sprague's Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. 5, p. 394, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 25-26
"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
-- The Reverend Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831, which was publlshed in New York two weeks later, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27
"His behavior in church was always serious and attentive, but as your letter seems to intend an inquiry on the point of kneeling during the service, I owe it to the truth to declare that I never saw him in the said attitude.... Although I was often in the company of this great man, and had the honor of often dining at his table, I never heard anything from him which could manifest his opinions on the subject of religion.... Within a few days of his leaving the Presidential chair, our vestry waited on him with an address prepared and delivered by me. In his answer he was pleased to express himself gratified by what he had heard from our pulpit; but there was nothing that committed him relatively to religious theory."
-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, in a letter to the Rev. B. C. C. Parker, dated November 28, 1832, from Wilson, Memoir of Bishop White, pp. 189-191, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, pp. 27

"Unlike Thomas Jefferson -- and Thomas Paine, for that matter -- Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable. Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life."
-- Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion (1963) pp. 74-75

"That he was not just striking a popular attitude as a politician is revealed by the absence of of the usual Christian terms: he did not mention Christ or even use the word 'God.' Following the phraseology of the philosophical Deism he professed, he referred to 'the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men,' to 'the benign parent of the human race.'"
-- James Thomas Flexner, describing Washington's first Inaugural Address, in George Washington and the New Nation (1783-1793) (1970) p. 184,
I can give you quotes from Washington himself, if you'd like.
Want to address other founding fathers, like Thomas Jefferson, author of what is referred to as the "Jefferson Bible"? Here's some quotes. Please comment - he's really harsh about Christianity. He viewed Jesus as a great moral teacher, but was himself a deist, and thought that Christianity has been a big detriment to the world.
Care to comment about the Treaty of Tripoli?
Care to comment about your view that anyone cares what you do in your church or what marriages your church recognises? Care to comment about your views of sodomy for straight couples and about gay couples who don't practice sodomy? Any of the other things discussed above?

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 8:12 PM johnfolton has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024