Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

I'm not reading all that...Cliff notes please? :D

(Comon - you know ya wanna laugh. Just something to break the tension in the thread :p)

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

(ok, Mr. Spider, I will be the Fly)

Bill,

Boy, look at you! I know you're right fine young man, all growed up now, but don't need to be a-slightin' us stupid people. You see, just 'cause us simple folk don't reckon what's the difference between them thar two bills that Kerry voted on, it doesn't mean that we're stooopid.

Ooooo-weeee... Mr. Bill goes off to Washington for a summer and he comes back all high and mighty. What do I tell Thelma-Lou?

Now, if I cotton to your way of thinkin', then it's right fair for me to say that if you don't know much about pig farmin', you are plum stupid. Does that seem right to you? I don't know much about no politic'en, and you most likely don't know your way around a barn lot. That makes us 'bout even, you figure?

This has got my dander so riled up, I've got half a mind to go out to that Sanny Fransciso bay to whoop your behind. Come to think of it, I'm-a-gonna do it! Boy, I'll be in your neck of the woods during that Cal Games thingy you have out there, and you better get your head on a swivel. Look out for the guy in the overalls and arse-kickers.


Bubba the pig farmer


:)

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

LOL. Sorry Andy... Thank god you know I’m not a total goon. I usually end up refining my posts, but I forgot to proofread this time. I should have said something more along the lines of…

“That was a perfectly correct statement and a valid position if you knew the specifics of the two bills he was talking about. Things like that loose the people who spend less time paying attention to politics than I spend on CD. It’s rare when you see Bush those people…”

Or something less offensive...

But there are definitely some voters who pay attention to all things political and keep themselves up to date with everything that’s going on, and then there are some voters who read snippets here and there, see the ads on television, and watch a debate or two. My point was supposed to be that the first kind of person is more likely to realize that the famous Kerry sound byte was a legitimate statement, but when shown to the second kind of person it seems bizarre and further fuels the false idea that Kerry is the only person in the world who can’t make up his mind on issues.

<sarcasm>I’m not sure what to tell Thelma, but Lou (my sister) already knows I can be an arse sometimes. I didn’t become high and mighty out there in DC… I’ve always been a liberal elitist :p!</sarcasm>

I’ll try to keep my head on a swivel in October, but just in case I can’t, can I buy you a drink to make up for being an arse ;)?

Bill the left-winger in a top hat and monocle :p

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

I meant this guy was actually with him... like in his Platoon, or something. At least that's what they said during the interview and he definately didn't support him. I tried finding a transcript of it, but couldn't locate it... it was on *gasp* The O'Reilly Factor :]

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

It's a date, my friend. I just thought that you deserved some good-natured ribbing for your "stupid" logic. :)

-----

Bill does have a point. It is sad to see that many people don't care about politics, and they don't understand the point that Kerry made in what he is saying. In today's world, it is tough to blame a frustrated, disinterested voter.

In a perfect world, we would have informed voters, clean and truthful campaigns, and scandal-free candidates we can all look up to.

Crappy candidates and prevaricating campaigns cause disinterested voters while media over-exposure drives away good candidates.

Bill, next time you are in the beltway, fix this stuff.

Andy B.

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

First, religion, I can give exact scripture refrences if you want them.
Second, disease, gays started a very big epidemic called HIV, its very nicely presented in the movie And the Band Played On http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106273/ there is no garuntee

I worded this very poorly, what I ment to say is his foreign policy isn't as good as Bushs'. Kerry is misleading people to think that attacking Iraq was a bad thing, and we shouldn't have done it, and we should keep out of other people's business. That was Clinton's plan, and look how well that worked. The USS Cole was bombed, what did we do about it.... NOTHING! In fact a lot of americans think that 9/11 was the first terrorist attack on america. In a sense it was the first on american *soil*, but when the cole was bombed we did nothing and we allowed the terrorists to regroup and start their next attack. In another one of Kerry's speaches he mentions how bush is not taking a multilateral approach at things, and how he would if he was in office. Do you think that when kerry gets in office France, Germany, and others will all a sudden start helping america any more than they are now?!?!?

Yes, I over-used the flip-flops. But there is a major difference in Kerry's Flip-flops and Bush's flip-flops. Bush has flip-floped in the past because the political situation has changed.(i.e. different situation, different approach) Kerry flip-flopped during the primaries to get ahead in the polls.

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

Allright, I'll need you to prove to me the exact instance in each religion's scripture where homosexuality is banned. But come on, religious scripture also demotes the position of women as well, do you believe women should still be held as second class citizens? Secondly, HIV is not based around homosexuality.

Actually, 9/11 wasn't the first terrorist attack on American soil. There were many racist bombings upon blacks in the 50s and 60s, then there was the '93 bombing of the WTC, then there was the OKC bombing, (I just thought of these off the top of my head in about 3 seconds) and many, many, many more attacks on American soil that are, or should be by definition, terrorist. There are also many terrorist groups in the US, the KKK, Christian Identity, and many likewise organizations, but I don't see the government going after these very much.

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

Ok, quick note: Piguy, not at all against your opinion, but would you possibly start a separate thread on the idea of scripture and homosexuality, though many have been done? Politics and religion should be separate, I think is the point being made, because this country SHOULD be based on the principles of Separation of Church and State. Though the scripture may disagree with, and this is a digression to a necessary new thread if you wish, at the moment the law and politics is the primary concern. Let us leave the scripture to the religious threads and the Kerryness/Bushness to the political threads.

As for the Kerry foreign policy issue, how exactly do you feel about foreign attitude towards the United States, or rather, the lack of positive attitude? That is among the more crucial issues of the time, imho.

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

Sorry Eugenia, but I just have one more point to make.

The allowance of gay marriage could help stop some of the spreading of HIV. It would encourage gay couples to stay together and not have many sex partners, just as "heterosexual" marriage does.

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

Ok, maybe some people don't know the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, They were cities that were destroyed in biblical times for their many abominations most prominant being homosexuality, thus comes the term sodomites being used to describe gays. These are scriptures condemning homosexuality:
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind...(many other sins)...it is an abomination.
1st Corinthians 6:9 ...nor abusers of themselves with mankind
1st timothy 1:10 ... them that defile themselves with mankind
Jude 1:7 as Sodom and Gomorrah ... going after strange flesh
(btw these refrences were from the King James Version of the bible, you can probably find one readable online if you don't have one)

my mistake

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

First of all someone asked me why I personally had somthing against gays. Secondly, seperation of church and state was a law originally intended to keep churches from controlling the gov't like the roman catholic church has done in the past. This does not mean we should not use the bible or laws from the bible. In fact the bible is just as much a history book as it is a church law book, And the point of remembering history is so we don't make the same mistakes twice.

Also HIV started with gays, then there were some "unfaithful" gays who had sex with women and men and then it bacme widespread. Its not based around only gays.

But what's stopping from another disease similar to HIV from starting also. And you can't say that gays won't cheat on their partner as much as a heterosexual would.

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

Pi guy, I would really love to discuss this over pm. You mention some fascinating points, and while I respect that you feel probably a bit targeted right now, so is everyone. Please start a new thread.

There are points you make that can be applied to today. You mention that we should incorporate the bible and its laws into legislature. However, how about the Koran? The Torah? Aethiest principles? Pagan beliefs? If the bible has a place in law, then so must all other religions, including cult followings that consider themselves religions. This up for discussion in new thread. Meant to lead to -

I am not saying I consider George W Bush a violater of this law at the moment, I am just really unknowledgeable about this issue: Is there anybody else that is worried that President Bush is infringing on Church and State Separation? That is one of my main concerns in this election. I'm also not up to date with how Kerry has handled this issue. Someone clarify? Please?

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

Religious beliefs should have no influence over whether or not our country recognizes gay marriages. There are many religions that oppose gay marriage, but there are religions that accept them. We should not eliminate the rights of the so-called minority. That is not what democracy is about. The minority needs to be afforded the same protection under the law as the majority, lest we become a tyrannical nation. Also, this whole AIDS/HIV thing being blamed solely on homosexuals is going way off base, and should be retracted.

There is no official state religion in the US, and the fact that everyone has the right to practice their own religion is a cornerstone of our democracy. It allows you to be a Catholic, a friend to be Jewish, another friend to be Hindu, and me to be an Atheist. You have the right to live by what your religion tells you to do, and I have the right to not have my life be affected by your religious quirks. Some things like not being allowed to kill people are both in your religion and in the law, but only because it’s absolutely obvious that people are morally significant figures, and logically it’s immoral to kill a morally significant figure. Do not incorrectly assume the fact that since a law corresponds with part of your religion that it’s there solely because of the religious influence. I shouldn’t be forced to live my life by the code of a Roman Catholic, Muslim, or any other religious person. As an American I deserve to be free from those strict beliefs of others.

It’s incorrect to say that “Kerry is misleading people to think that attacking Iraq was a bad thing, and we shouldn’t have done it, and we should keep out of other people’s business.” Kerry does not support isolationism which you imply. Kerry is also not misleading anyone when he says that attacking Iraq was a bad thing. Iraq is really about opinion, and yours is different from Kerry’s, which is different from mine. I do believe that attacking Iraq was a bad decision, and set a very dangerous precedent for the world. We were given false intelligence that was the basis for the case to go to war with Iraq. We didn’t provide convincing evidence to what Bush later backhandedly referred to as “Old Europe” (France, Germany, and Russia). We decided to, pretty much, unilaterally preemptively attack Iraq (with more than 10x the troops we sent into Afghanistan to try to find Osama bin Laden). We didn’t find weapons of mass destruction that were promised and testified to at the UN and in the Congress. Kerry’s the one misleading people? Wow…

Yes, I do believe that if Bush is removed from office that Kerry could convince France, Germany, and Russia to provide troops and/or funding to help stabilize Iraq. Every single one of us realizes that we need international support. That’s, luckily, not in question. If all we do is piss other countries off and tell them how ancient their thinking is they won’t want to help us, right? Well, that’s what Bush has been doing. He is obsessed with trying to appear steadfast that he cannot even bring himself to apologize to those other nations. If we apologized, stopped excluding companies from those nations from contracts in Iraq, and offered to give up sole control over military operations in Iraq to NATO or to the UN there would be the necessary incentives to help rebuild Iraq. We’re still the strongest country in the world. What harm does apologizing do?

To say that Bush changed his mind, but not to get more votes is ludicrous. Politicians move towards the center during election seasons to try to gain moderate votes. That’s the political cycle. In 2000 Bush stated that he thought Gay Marriages should be left up to the states, and this year he recommends an amendment to the Constitution that prohibits Gay Marriage entirely. There are many other examples in the links I posted previously of completely flagrant attempts by Bush to appease moderates back in 1999/2000 that were reneged after he attained office.

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

Allright, I am concerned about the infringement of church and state by bush. Bush is a very religous man and has shown religious motives. Now I'll talk about the one instance here where I know of an infringement between the seperation of church and state in which Bush supports: vouchers. Vouchers can be used to leave public schools and pay for private schooling. This includes, religious schools, within which religion is also taught. Thus, vouchers can be used to pay for religious schooling, a clear infringement of the separation of church and state. Proponents of vouchers say that they are to be used to get kids out of poor-performing schools. However, a main reson these schools underperform is because they do not have completely adequate funding. The money that would go to vouchers, however, could go towards the funding of public schools, which do not teach religion. And Kerry, as far as I know, does not support vouchers.

Re: John Kerry: Good, bad, or both?
 

Dear Pi_guy578,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your posts, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

-When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
-One of my mentors would like to sell his daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
-I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
-Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
-I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
-A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
-Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear contacts. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
-JVN gets his hair trimmed, including the hair around his temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should he die?
-I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
-Andy Baker has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

A Deeply Devoted Catholic,

::Sources Happy Fotoplasma?::