Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,455 Year: 3,712/9,624 Month: 583/974 Week: 196/276 Day: 36/34 Hour: 2/14


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   George W. Bush's qualifications to be President
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3945
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 211 of 247 (141712)
09-12-2004 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by johnfolton
09-11-2004 11:42 PM


In no way a flip-flop
quote:
The Washington Post, John Kerry has elaborated on his long-stated personal opposition to abortion in contrast with his perfectly prochoice voting record.
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception," Kerry told the Tribune Herald.
P.S. We all know Kerry will say the one thing and vote for the other, he flip flops on abortion, voting contrast with his belief, proving once again you can not trust this politician, etc...
I think most (probably all) pro-choice people view abortion as something to be avoided as much as possible. Still, they think it should be an legally available option to women.
Just because a person is PERSONALLY against something, that doesn't mean that that person should be advocating that it be made illegal.
I'm sure there's lots of things that you don't like. If you were a legislator, would you propose that they all be made illegal?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2004 11:42 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 3:39 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 212 of 247 (141714)
09-12-2004 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by Minnemooseus
09-12-2004 2:23 AM


Our rights a gift from the King of Kings, Thomas Jefferson
I couldn't find in the Constitution where the woman has the right to murder her unborn child, like do feel its right for the father to hit the mother to kill the baby, its clear the mother should not the right to kill the baby, if its not threatening her life, nor the Father to threaten the baby in the mothers womb.
P.S. If you feel the woman has the right to murder her baby, do you feel the terrorist have the right to kill Americans. Do you feel the terrorist should be put to death (death sentence) if they kill Americans, if someone is drunk and kills someone, should they be tried for murder, like how many people are killed because of drunken drivers, should we ban drinking alcohol cause its killing people, likely more a year than the entire war in Iraq, where do you draw this line on what you define as your freedoms, seems to me the judges have crossed the line, when they legalized abortion, its crossing over into the reason Israel missed the visitation, our rights accordingly to Thomas Jefferson, as I quoted earlier on this thread, were to be respected as gifts of the King of Kings, lest we forget, and bring the wrath of God upon us, etc...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-12-2004 2:23 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2004 3:56 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 219 by nator, posted 09-12-2004 10:24 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 220 by jar, posted 09-12-2004 12:05 PM johnfolton has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 213 of 247 (141715)
09-12-2004 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 3:39 AM


I couldn't find in the Constitution where the woman has the right to murder her unborn child
I guess you didn't read hard enough - it's the Ninth amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 3:39 AM johnfolton has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2285
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.4


Message 214 of 247 (141717)
09-12-2004 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 2:13 AM


as Pol Pot immediately started butchering millions of South Vietnamese
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia. Check your facts sometimes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 2:13 AM johnfolton has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 215 of 247 (141718)
09-12-2004 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 2:13 AM


he is honored by the North Vietnamese as a hero, for his propagada supporting their cause, wonder what the millions of South Vietnamese thought of Kerry, as Pol Pot immediately started butchering millions of South Vietnamese, something Kerry doesn't mention,
I have no idea if this is true, but if it is would not effect my opinion of him. People can choose to do all sorts of things, even if they are stupid.
You know Osama BinLaden praised Bush for helping them make the US a worse off place? It's true. How about the Saudis praising the Bushes in general? Oh oh yeah, how about Hussein honoring Rumsfeld and Bush (sr), up until those men attacked him years later?
If you really believe kerry was for pol pot or for the communist cause, then you need to check into reality.
is this what Kerry will do to the Iraq people, our leaving before establishing a democracy, etc...
Unlike Bush who will do so AFTER establishing a democracy? Let's hope neither man will abandon Iraq OR AFGHANISTAN (already forgot aboyut that?) during the next four years.
Bringing troops home does not necessarily mean abandonment.
"KERRY LIED . . . while good men died" - Vets To Stage Anti-Kerry Protest
That has to be one of the more ironic protests. First of all he didn't lie. But let's say he did for a second, he was then lying so that good men would not keep dying.
Kerry did NOT put those good men there to be killed. A bunch of other LIARS, PROVEN LIARS, put those good men there to be killed. Kerry was fighting THOSE LIARS who GOT THOSE MEN KILLED.
You know the point of Kerry's speech was not atrocities commited by troops right?
Sad how Senator Kerry now ignores how Pol Pot brutally murdered millions after he helped ensure our early departure from Viet Nam
You do know that hindsight is 20/20, right? It's pretty well documented that Vietnam was a "bad" war. Even one of its architects has said so.
You really feel that we should have stayed in Vietnam?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 2:13 AM johnfolton has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 216 of 247 (141727)
09-12-2004 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by johnfolton
09-11-2004 12:39 AM


Whatever, do you not mind that Bush raised your share of the tax burden through personal income taxes while Bush lowered the rich's share of the tax burden through personal income taxes?
Yea or no?
Please don't force me to clutter up the thread with 7 or 8 requests for you to answer this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2004 12:39 AM johnfolton has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 217 of 247 (141728)
09-12-2004 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Rei
09-11-2004 4:42 AM


quote:
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 would invite members of the Taliban to Texas when he was Govornor, and then, in full awareness of the horribly oppressive and violent nature of their rule in Afghanistan and also in full awareness of their dealings with and harboring of known US attacker Osama bin Laden and Al Qaida, send them foreign aid money right up to September 11, 2001.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Rei, posted 09-11-2004 4:42 AM Rei has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 218 of 247 (141729)
09-12-2004 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by johnfolton
09-11-2004 11:42 PM


quote:
The Washington Post, John Kerry has elaborated on his long-stated personal opposition to abortion in contrast with his perfectly prochoice voting record.
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception," Kerry told the Tribune Herald.
P.S. We all know Kerry will say the one thing and vote for the other, he flip flops on abortion, voting contrast with his belief, proving once again you can not trust this politician, etc...
Whatever, Kerry has a PERSONAL conviction, but realizes AT THE SAME TIME that other people also have DIFFERENT PERSONAL CONVICTIONS and he does not feel it is his right to IMPOSE his PERSONAL, INDIVIDUAL convictions upon EVERYONE ELSE.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by johnfolton, posted 09-11-2004 11:42 PM johnfolton has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2191 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 219 of 247 (141730)
09-12-2004 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 3:39 AM


Re: Our rights a gift from the King of Kings, Thomas Jefferson
Whatever, this thread is about George Bush's qualifications to be president, not John Kerr's war record.
Tell me, what about Bush's handling of the economy makes you think he is qualified to be president?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 3:39 AM johnfolton has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 220 of 247 (141740)
09-12-2004 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 3:39 AM


whatever, you have still refused to answer my question.
I couldn't find in the Constitution where the woman has the right to murder her unborn child, like do feel its right for the father to hit the mother to kill the baby, its clear the mother should not the right to kill the baby, if its not threatening her life, nor the Father to threaten the baby in the mothers womb.
So for the gazillianth time...
Does George Bush inforce the laws of the land?
This message has been edited by jar, 09-12-2004 11:07 AM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 3:39 AM johnfolton has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5613 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 221 of 247 (141765)
09-12-2004 1:59 PM


Crash, The rights of the baby have been constred to deny, and deny these rights to these little people, its simply murder in the first degree.
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
jar,
Does George Bush inforce the laws of the land?
No it appear Teddy Kennedy is enforcing the laws of the land, by filibustering GWB federal judge nominees, so that the liberal federal judges will beable to twist the consitution so those abominations will be casted into law, that have been made legal by twisting the constitution and conservative judges would challenge on the constitutionality of these laws as being unconstituional. Congress is supposed to be making the laws, and the judges interpreting them, however as seen how murder has been legalized in the misinterpretation of the Ninth Amendment to have been reconstrued to deny the rights of the the unborn baby, how sodomy has been legalized when the people are against it, but where only a few judges force this abomination upon the American people in spite of the majority being against this, the list goes on and on, how righteous interpretations of the Constitution is being twisted as in the case of the ninth amendment, that Crash brought up, where its obvious that the rights of the unborn child has been constructed to deny them their God given rights, which means abortion is an attack on our God given rights, as Thomas Jefferson said our gift are from God, that we should never forget from whom our rights come from, cause it would bring upon us the wrath of God. In Israel when they turned from Gods law and their freedoms, it said the silver became dross, because their wisemen became buddies with thieves kjv Isaiah 1:19-25 (kerry recieving a salary for time not present in the senate)(Kerry selling sensitive hardened chip technology to china), what we need is for to vote the democrats out of office, to acknowlege God as the author of those rights, as Thomas Jefferson so aptly wrote that our charters are not of man, but of God. Now we see man twisting the charters from God to include abominations that are clearly not gifts of God nor the will of the people, but wisemen rejecting the wisdom of our constitution to the twisting of it till even the unborn has not the right as infered in the 9th amendment.
schrafinator,
Whatever, this thread is about George Bush's qualifications to be president, not John Kerr's war record.
I said the same thing in the Kerry unfit for command thread, but it was decided not by me, to allow negative stuff about GWB, when the thread was about the how unfit Mr. Kerry is to command, the Vets against Kerry, the Vets letter to Kerry, and Kerry refusing to release his complete medical and military records, inspite of GWB having released his complete records, but GWB status on the Vietnam War should of never been allowed to be included in the Mr. Kerry Thread, there should of been threats to ban cause of being off topic, but it was decided to allow counter stuff about GWB, and it would by hypocritical to not allow JFK issues included in this thread, given mangagements decision to allow GWB to be included in a thread about Kerry not GWB fittness to command.
schrafinator,
Whatever, do you not mind that Bush raised your share of the tax burden through personal income taxes while Bush lowered the rich's share of the tax burden through personal income taxes?
Yea or no?
Please don't force me to clutter up the thread with 7 or 8 requests for you to answer this.
I believe you need to plant seeds, or new growth will not occur, this means jobs will increase under GWB, but to tax industry excessively will in essense be taking the seeds for taxes, which will hurt the working class, excessively. What we need is less taxes, and Kerry will tax more, cause how can he fund his social programs, without increasing taxes, so by voting for GWB you will help the middle class, cause of the seed money, that even now has the stock market not crashing, even though the price of crude is around 45 dollars a barrel, in part due to Mr. Kerry refusing to allow the drilling for Alaskan crude(he was the senator that filibustered the drilling of oil in alaska), in the desolate, mosquitoe infested barren wilderness of alaska, truly Mr. Kerry doesn't want lower gas prices cause it would empower the American people, this is all the democrats do is to depower the American people, like in California where they pour water into the deserts to grow oranges, while the people in the cities have to pay excessive money cause of the shortage of water, truly the democrats are mad, if they told the farmer to pay the same price for water as the people in the city, they would refuse, and water wouldn't be in shortage in the cities, its all common sense, but to the democrats environmentalists, they have bound even the water in California, rationing even electricity, cause of environmentalists lawyers making excessive burdens on the people of California and elsewhere, cause the electrical power grid is not upgrading, to the making of cheaper electricity, cause they make plenty of money by just keeping supply low, and demand high, to make more power plants would only empower the people, to raise the quality of life, meaning one must vote the Democrats out of office, we simply can not afford the cost of utilities they have given us all in the name of protecting the environment. Just look at the twin towers, how it was the environmentalists that were responsible for the deaths of all those escaping, the head engineer said to the environmentalists that if a fire brokeout above the 64th floor the towers would come down, because the environmentalists refused the safe application of "sprayed" on asphestos, which would of given the people escaping ample time to escape, given that we now know that the initial explosion blew pressure relief vents so the fuel of the jets simply was not capbably of generating temps to melt steel, if the joints would of been sprayed with asphestos, it would of bought plenty of time for the people to escape, meaning it would take more time for the steel gridions to bend, if they would of just been sprayed with asphestos, perhaps its the environmentalists that should be sued for their part in the deaths of the people that died in 911(the head engineer prophecied, and it came to pass). The environmentalists care not for the environment, allowing forest fires in the west cause of the forest not being selectively cut, mtbe in the gasoline polluting our well waters, allowing the spraying of our schools with pesticides herbicides, meaning what good is an environmentalists, appears they are part of the root thats destroying America, etc...
Holmes, It is interesting that Vets calling Kerry a big liar, this peacefull rally, is happening today, wonder how big of a splash the media will honor it, likely the biased media will hide the event deep inside the paper, so they can say they covered the event. It will be interesting non the less.
KERRY LIED ... while good man died RALLY, Sept. 12, Wash, DC
We will tell the story of their virtues and how that contrasts with the lies told by John Kerry.
When: Sunday, Sept. 12, 2004 @ 2:00 PM - 4:00 PM EDT
Where: Upper Senate Park, U.S. Capitol Building, Washington, DC --
just to the left (north) of the view shown in this photo.

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 09-12-2004 2:01 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 223 by jar, posted 09-12-2004 2:06 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 224 by Silent H, posted 09-12-2004 2:32 PM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 241 by nator, posted 09-12-2004 11:38 PM johnfolton has replied
 Message 242 by crashfrog, posted 09-12-2004 11:43 PM johnfolton has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 222 of 247 (141766)
09-12-2004 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 1:59 PM


jar asked.
Does George Bush enforce the laws of the land?
whatever replied, "no".
If that is the case George Bush must be impeached for failing in his duties as president.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 1:59 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 5:21 PM jar has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 223 of 247 (141769)
09-12-2004 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 1:59 PM


Colin Powell said...
"The policies determining who would be drafted and who would be deferred, who would serve and who would escape, who would die and who would live, were an anti-democratic disgrace," Powell, a leading black in the Republican administration, said in his 1995 autobiography, "My American Journey."
"I am angry that so many sons of the powerful and well-placed managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units," wrote Powell, a 35-year career soldier and four-star general who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bush's father, former President Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton.
I wonder who he was talking about?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 1:59 PM johnfolton has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5841 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 224 of 247 (141774)
09-12-2004 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by johnfolton
09-12-2004 1:59 PM


Just to let you know, today on InsideEdition, Wolf Blitzer interviewed Pat Buchanan.
If you can get a transcript of that interview, you should. He completely rips up Bush's policies.
It is interesting that Vets calling Kerry a big liar, this peacefull rally, is happening today, wonder how big of a splash the media will honor it, likely the biased media will hide the event deep inside the paper, so they can say they covered the event.
Yawn. I've been at very massive liberal events that got little airplay, and usually ended up being described as much smaller than it was. I think this happens all over the place.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by johnfolton, posted 09-12-2004 1:59 PM johnfolton has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 225 of 247 (141779)
09-12-2004 2:37 PM


It is impossible (and undesirable?) to keep Bush discussion out of Kerry topics, and Kerry discussion out of Bush topics.
That said, the Kerry "Swift Boat" theme was well covered in its own topic, now closed at 600+ messages. Might it be best to keep that (and directly related) material out of this topic. If one must, start a new Kerry topic (I guess).
That said part 2, this topic indeed is " George W. Bush's qualifications to be President". That theme should be independent of whomever Bush is running against.
Adminnemooseus

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024