WoooooooHoooooooo, John McCain rocks!!!!!

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by minniepumpernickel
I am also a little confused at to why so much emphasis was put on the 9/11 event? Why were the relatives of the victims speaking again? I was watching the convention and dozed off for a bit. I woke up to the sound of "Amazing Grace" and everyone was crying! I forgot what was on for a second and wondered who just recently died. It came off as a bit contrived and phony to me.

Me too! It looked more like a funeral than a convention. I kept flipping back to the convention from time to time and every time I looked they were still harping on it.

If Bush didn't have 9/11 to run on, what would he talk about?

You know it's bad when I was forced to watch a show on the life of Farrah Fawcett....

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Here's the point...CLINTON ISN'T RUNNING....Why you can't seem to understand that is beyond me

Yes she is. She just getting started.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Yes she is. She just getting started.

Yeah, but that's not the Clinton that he/she was attacking...

 

[Aristocath]

I don't see how anyone can predict a landslide in this election. I live in Texas and in 2000 I was one of a handful of people supporting Gore. Today I can drive my son to school and see dozens of Kerry signs and bumper stickers.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
So, because I'm against gay-bashing, for a woman's right to choose, against private citizens owning Uzi's, and against the government teaching my child christianity, I'm "as extremely far left as one can be" ? Any you wonder why I say that wingnuts have taken over the Republican party.

I'll go out on a limb here and presume to speak for all when I assert that I don't believe anyone here is FOR gay bashing, wvrevy. Being against gay marriage is NOT the same as being homophobic, bigoted or against gays. For Extreme Left "Wingnuts (your insulting word, not mine)", being against Gay marriage is equivalent to this. You miss the point regarding those that are actually against abortion. These folks aren't misogynistic, they are pro-baby FIRST. Does being FOR a woman's right to choose abortion make you a baby hater? I don't want theology taught in the public classroom either. However, I do want ethics and morals based on America's Judeo-Christian values taught in the classroom. Again. . .if you are a cultural and moral relativist, you do not understand why one would deem this to be important.

It's a bit ironic to some of us here how one could profess to be so pro-Womens' Rights yet dismiss the millions (a billion, maybe?) of subjugated women in the Middle East and elsewhere as a cultural preference--no better or worse than ours.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
I'll go out on a limb here and presume to speak for all when I assert that I don't believe anyone here is FOR gay bashing, wvrevy. Being against gay marriage is NOT the same as being homophobic, bigoted or against gays. For Extreme Left "Wingnuts (your insulting word, not mine)", being against Gay marriage is equivalent to this. You miss the point regarding those that are actually against abortion. These folks aren't misogynistic, they are pro-baby FIRST. Does being FOR a woman's right to choose abortion make you a baby hater? I don't want theology taught in the public classroom either. However, I do want ethics and morals based on America's Judeo-Christian values taught in the classroom. Again. . .if you are a cultural and moral relativist, you do not understand why one would deem this to be important.

I'm sorry, but saying that gays don't deserve the same rights as straight people is just plain offensive to me, just as it would be if you substituted the word "blacks" in that sentence in place of the word "gays". The republican party platform flatly states that it is against ANY legal standing for homosexual relationships, marriage, civil unions, or otherwise.

I have no problem with ethics being taught in a classroom. HOWEVER, telling a child that they shouldn't do something "because the bible says so" would be crossing the line, correct ?

Originally posted by Kendra17
It's a bit ironic to some of us here how one could profess to be so pro-Womens' Rights yet dismiss the millions (a billion, maybe?) of subjugated women in the Middle East and elsewhere as a cultural preference--no better or worse than ours.

Who is dismissing those women ? The Bush camp is in bed with the Saudis, and their women are mistreated just as badly as just about any others in the region. You are talking about their RELIGION. They believe that women should be subject to their men (you know...kinda like the southern baptists do ). Do we, as a nation, have a right to tell them they CAN'T do that ? It's a difficult question...and one I'm not sure of the answer to. I HATE that women are treated the way they are in those countries, and couldn't disagree with their reasoning more strongly. But does America have the right to impose our view of what is right or wrong on the rest of the world ?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
I'm sorry, but saying that gays don't deserve the same rights as straight people is just plain offensive to me, just as it would be if you substituted the word "blacks" in that sentence in place of the word "gays". The republican party platform flatly states that it is against ANY legal standing for homosexual relationships, marriage, civil unions, or otherwise.

I'm not sure if what you are stating is completely true. As a Republican, I can firmly state that I am for civil unions, just not same sex marriage. This does not make me a bigot--whether you or anyone else wishes to accuse me of this or not. Furthermore, it is absolutely NOT the same thing to substitute the word "blacks" (don't you mean African-Americans?"). And, if it "offends" you, so be it. Many things you have said are "just plain offensive" to me, as well. Thank Goodness we are in America, where we have the freedom to say what ever we wish--offensive or not (as long as we aren't on the College Campuses, these days, at least)!

I have no problem with ethics being taught in a classroom. HOWEVER, telling a child that they shouldn't do something "because the bible says so" would be crossing the line, correct ?

Absolutely--I do believe this would cross the line. However, ensuring the continued existence of what we value and cherish in the United States IS important. This country WAS founded by those who valued Judeo-Christian ETHICS and MORALITY. Here the line can gets very blurred for some. At the risk of "plain offending" some, we are sometimes (imo, unfortunately) are hesitant to proclaim our culture as better than another. What we all love about America IS our freedom to not worship or worship how we see fit, to state our beliefs strongly, etc. It's important to continue to stress these ideals.

is dismissing those women ? The Bush camp is in bed with the Saudis, and their women are mistreated just as badly as just about any others in the region. You are talking about their RELIGION. They believe that women should be subject to their men (you know...kinda like the southern baptists do ). Do we, as a nation, have a right to tell them they CAN'T do that ? It's a difficult question...and one I'm not sure of the answer to. I HATE that women are treated the way they are in those countries, and couldn't disagree with their reasoning more strongly. But does America have the right to impose our view of what is right or wrong on the rest of the world ?

The United States--not the "bush camp" specifically -- has an unfortunate relationship with the Saudis and have had that unfortunate relationship for some time. I'm not a Christian, but from what I know about Southern Baptists, it's really not the same thing (I'm assuming that was another wruvy witticism!). In certain branches of Christianity, the wife is encouraged to defer to her husband, but the husband is ALWAYS supposed to treat his wife with respect, love, and even deference at the same time. So, he's thinking of her feelings, what would make her happy, etc., while the wife is being deferential. If the husband is NOT putting his wife first, then he's breaking his part of the bargain. I wouldn't really compare the treatment of a Muslim's four wives.

I am glad to hear that you don't have an answer to that question. I don't either. So, how 'bout some discussion on this? IF many Muslim women are unhappy with their fate (and many are; there are many books by women raised in this culture and many woman who have spoken out since leaving those countries), do we have an obligation to assist these women specifically? Especially when we know that they certainly cannot attempt reform there on their own without risk to their lives? And, we know that IF we DID try to impose our beliefs (and these subjugated womens' beliefs) we would be, in fact, transforming the whole culture and that effort would be misread and spoken of as if we were on a "Crusade"?

 

[minniepumpernickel]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Me too! It looked more like a funeral than a convention. I kept flipping back to the convention from time to time and every time I looked they were still harping on it.

If Bush didn't have 9/11 to run on, what would he talk about?

You know it's bad when I was forced to watch a show on the life of Farrah Fawcett....

I switched to The Burning Bed too. What a horrible situation that poor woman was in!

Sometimes I can't listen to too much 9/11 stuff! It is just so sad.

Oprah also did a show on the firremen who left their wives for the 9/11 widow's . I missed that one, though. I didn't get to tape it!

 

[CareBearYN]

Originally posted by Kendra17
Furthermore, it is absolutely NOT the same thing to substitute the word "blacks"

Why is this exactly? Just as African Americans were restricted in their civil rights, and Women too, aren't Gays being restricted in not being allowed all of the same things that Straight people are? This country was built on the notion that everyone should have equal rights...which is why eventually African Americans and Women were granted their rights (thought I am frightened that some Women's rights may be going out the window). So why shouldn't Gays be granted their rights?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
So, because I'm against gay-bashing, for a woman's right to choose, against private citizens owning Uzi's, and against the government teaching my child christianity, I'm "as extremely far left as one can be" ? Any you wonder why I say that wingnuts have taken over the Republican party.

Joe Lieberman I don't have a problem with, other than his rigid stance on the war. He's just a boring candidate. Miller is a slug, betraying his party on the way out the door to draw attention to himself. As for your description of republicans...your platform is BLATANTLY homophobic and your candidate OBVIOUSLY fails to understand subtlety. But hey, at least he's finally ALMOST admitted a mistake, calling it a "miscalculation".... Yeah, I guess you could call hundreds of dead soldiers since you claimed "mission accomplished" just a slight "miscalculation".

I've never put down Lieberman, other than to call him "Bush lite" (which I would certainly think of as an insult, but not sure why you would). He's MUCH closer to Bush's views than I believe the party needed as their candidate.

So, despite repeat the similarity between the sliming of John McCain and the sliming of John Kerry, you choose to keep the blinders on and pretend that the Bush camp has nothing to do with it ? The police call that an "M.O.", don't they ? Sorry, but when something keeps happening over and over, you've got to be either very gullible or very partisan to continue to disbelieve it.

Oops! Somehow I missed this!

The only thing Lieberman agrees with Bush about is the War. On every domestic policy, he disagrees. How is this "MUCH closer to Bush's views?" So, if someone was/is a Democrat they cannot agree with our foreign policy? Is that the requirement? I only would consider you calling Lieberman "bush lite" an insult because you mean it to be. I think Lieberman would have made a terrific Democratic candidate because his speech is not vitriolic, he speaks his mind, and has principles that I admire. These are characteristics that appeal to me.

There is no similarity, although I've read opinions that differ, between what happened with McCain and what is happening now with Kerry. McCain didn't deserve what happened. The Bush people agreed that McCain had not deserved that and ensured the public knew they disagreed with the renegade campaigners that phoned several households. Do I HONESTLY believe that the directive to smear McCain came from Bush himself? No, I don't. Kerry, in my opinion, DOES deserve what is happening presently. Which, I might add, the Bush campaign isn't a part of. When people mention flip-flopping, you often cite the 87 billion quote. When I mention Kerry's flip-flopping, I am mostly referring to his leadership with the anti-war movement including admitting to committing atrocities and stating that everyone there committed atrocities on a daily basis, but then using his medals as proof of his heroism--despite the fact that he threw the--or someone else's-- medals, no-- ribbons, no-- medals, no-- ribbons, over the wall as if they were worthless. Then, again, using those earned medals as proof of his heroics, despite the fact that he acted as if they were worthless.

You mention Kerry, but what about the smear campaign on Bush? I think the continued references to Bush's National Guard service is despicable. Someone here messaged me this article: http://www.peteandrews.net/site/2004/facts_about_bush_and_the_nationa.htm

Yes, it's National Review. Yes, they are conservative. It's a great article, however, and since the liberal mainstream press don't print refutations to Terry McAuliffe & Company's charges, I can't link another site. Not everything in there is opinion. Often it is news.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
I'm not sure if what you are stating is completely true. As a Republican, I can firmly state that I am for civil unions, just not same sex marriage. This does not make me a bigot--whether you or anyone else wishes to accuse me of this or not.

Read this story, and then tell me that the party platform doesn't stand against even civil unions: Republican Party Platform Supports Ban

Originally posted by Kendra17
Absolutely--I do believe this would cross the line. However, ensuring the continued existence of what we value and cherish in the United States IS important. This country WAS founded by those who valued Judeo-Christian ETHICS and MORALITY. Here the line can gets very blurred for some. At the risk of "plain offending" some, we are sometimes (imo, unfortunately) are hesitant to proclaim our culture as better than another. What we all love about America IS our freedom to not worship or worship how we see fit, to state our beliefs strongly, etc. It's important to continue to stress these ideals.

Yes, it is. Spoken like a true democrat It is the REPUBLICAN party that favors school prayer and the posting of the 10 commandments anywhere they wish on state owned property. If I do not want my child exposed to that nonsense until she is old enough to understand it, how is it that MY rights, as a parent, don't matter as much to them ? They are perfectly free to teach their child anything they want in terms of religion at home. I would fight to defend their right to do so...so why can't they also defend my right to NOT expose my child to their beliefs if I choose not to ?

Originally posted by Kendra17
The United States--not the "bush camp" specifically -- has an unfortunate relationship with the Saudis and have had that unfortunate relationship for some time. I'm not a Christian, but from what I know about Southern Baptists, it's really not the same thing (I'm assuming that was another wruvy witticism!). In certain branches of Christianity, the wife is encouraged to defer to her husband, but the husband is ALWAYS supposed to treat his wife with respect, love, and even deference at the same time. So, he's thinking of her feelings, what would make her happy, etc., while the wife is being deferential. If the husband is NOT putting his wife first, then he's breaking his part of the bargain. I wouldn't really compare the treatment of a Muslim's four wives.

Why not ? The woman is seen as inferior to the man, and it is a VERY short step from there to mistreatment. Belief that ANYONE is inferior to someone else, based solely on race, religion, or gender is repugnant. Period. (BTW...Is there some reason you are incapable of typing WVRevy, or is it some kind of "Kendra witticism" that I'm missing ? That's at least the second time I've seen you post my username that way....just wondering.)

Originally posted by Kendra17
I am glad to hear that you don't have an answer to that question. I don't either. So, how 'bout some discussion on this? IF many Muslim women are unhappy with their fate (and many are; there are many books by women raised in this culture and many woman who have spoken out since leaving those countries), do we have an obligation to assist these women specifically? Especially when we know that they certainly cannot attempt reform there on their own without risk to their lives? And, we know that IF we DID try to impose our beliefs (and these subjugated womens' beliefs) we would be, in fact, transforming the whole culture and that effort would be misread and spoken of as if we were on a "Crusade"?

If we were to use military force to impose our cultural beliefs on them, it wouldn't be just "spoken of" as a crusade, it would BE a crusade. Again, I'm just not certain that we have the right to tell those people that their beliefs....their religion...is wrong. I KNOW, in every fiber, that their treatment of women is deplorable...I'm just not certain that we, as a nation that claims to love ALL freedoms, including religious one, have the right to tell them to stop.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by CareBearYN
Why is this exactly? Just as African Americans were restricted in their civil rights, and Women too, aren't Gays being restricted in not being allowed all of the same things that Straight people are? This country was built on the notion that everyone should have equal rights...which is why eventually African Americans and Women were granted their rights (thought I am frightened that some Women's rights may be going out the window). So why shouldn't Gays be granted their rights?

Gays and lesbians have every right that straight people have and are not discriminated against in any way. There are some gay bashers out there (I have not seen them on DISboards, thankfully!) and those people should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if they commit a crime against gays or lesbians. Gays and lesbians are ALREADY permitted to marry-- they just cannot marry those of the same sex. The fact is that many of us believe that marriage should REMAIN between a man and a woman doesn't change this.

This can go round and round. I don't want to do this, although don't take it as a concession on my part.

I am interested in knowing why you are "frightened that some Women's rights may be going out the window". Frightened! That is very descriptive!

 

[Tuffcookie]

I'll go out on a limb here and presume to speak for all when I assert that I don't believe anyone here is FOR gay bashing, wvrevy. Being against gay marriage is NOT the same as being homophobic, bigoted or against gays. For Extreme Left "Wingnuts (your insulting word, not mine)", being against Gay marriage is equivalent to this. You miss the point regarding those that are actually against abortion. These folks aren't misogynistic, they are pro-baby FIRST. Does being FOR a woman's right to choose abortion make you a baby hater? I don't want theology taught in the public classroom either. However, I do want ethics and morals based on America's Judeo-Christian values taught in the classroom. Again. . .if you are a cultural and moral relativist, you do not understand why one would deem this to be important.

It's a bit ironic to some of us here how one could profess to be so pro-Womens' Rights yet dismiss the millions (a billion, maybe?) of subjugated women in the Middle East and elsewhere as a cultural preference--no better or worse than ours.




__________________


Kendra, ITA!
TC

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Here's the point...CLINTON ISN'T RUNNING....Why you can't seem to understand that is beyond me

I guess you forgot what you posted:

Originally posted by wvrevy
What else would you call people that refuse to tell the full truth to allow people to make up their own minds about something ? If you'd prefer "lying Republicans" I'm ok with that

I was only responding to you statement about "lying Republicans," just in case you forgot about the lies that Bill Clinton told. Not only that, he tried to discredit honest women. Makes you wonder what type of man he truly is

I know who's running for office. I'm amazed that you are trying to make these digs at me, especially when I post the truth about Clinton. Instead of trying to "attack" me, why not attack Clinton's lies to the American people, similiar to the way you attack President Bush.

BTW -- When are you going to apologize about the Iraq/Niger Yellow Cake connection?

 

[wvrevy]

1) Clinton is a liar. Wow ! Thanks SO much for pointing that out....What EVER would we do without such insight around here BIG DEAL.

2) The British stood by their story. The British ALWAYS stood by their story. So ? Should I apologize to you for your inability to understand that ? Ok....I'm sorry.

What's the matter...can't come up with anything more recent to whine about ?

 

[peachgirl]

I switched to The Burning Bed too.

On no, no...it was much worse than that for me! Had you stayed tune after the Burning Bed, then you could've watched the show on Farrah's real life story...

I agree. It wasn't just that they paid their respects to the 9/11 victims..they stuck with it the whole night.

Speaker after speaker, it's all they talked about. They weren't being respectful, they were wallowing in it and wringing it for everything it was worth.

I thought it was to the point of being disgusting.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by wvrevy
1) Clinton is a liar. Wow ! Thanks SO much for pointing that out....What EVER would we do without such insight around here BIG DEAL.

2) The British stood by their story. The British ALWAYS stood by their story. So ? Should I apologize to you for your inability to understand that ? Ok....I'm sorry.

What's the matter...can't come up with anything more recent to whine about ?

So, it's ok for Clinton to lie? If that's the case, then what problem do you have with Bush?

Gee, it's so easy to play with you. If you've forgotten, you challenged this site that there was no connection with Iraq/Niger. I posted the proof and you said the Financial Times was not a reliable source. Then 1 month later the British government said the same thing.

I'm not whining --- I just love messing with you, you're too easy!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
So, it's ok for Clinton to lie? If that's the case, then what problem do you have with Bush?

Um...Where did I say it was ok for Clinton to lie ? If this argument was going on 8 years ago, I wouldn't have had a problem with it. My point, in saying "so what", is just that....SO WHAT ? It's 2004, and Clinton is nothing more than another citizen, albeit a bit more recognizable than most.

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Gee, it's so easy to play with you. If you've forgotten, you challenged this site that there was no connection with Iraq/Niger. I posted the proof and you said the Financial Times was not a reliable source. Then 1 month later the British government said the same thing.

Um, as I recall, I was stating exactly what the US intel community believed at the time, and had told Bush before he put that into his SotU speeck: that the information was based on a forged document. You posted the London Financial Times saying that the Brits were standing by their story, and the government later said the same thing. Again, so what ? The Brits ALWAYS stood by their story, including when the American Intel community thought the story was discredited. Even if they were 100% correct, it doesn't change the fact that Bush only used the intel because he thought it would bolster his case, and ignored the warnings that were ALSO given that the information was, at LEAST at the time, unreliable due to the forgeries.

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
I'm not whining --- I just love messing with you, you're too easy!

Yeah...The KKKarl Rove school of debate...When you can't defend your position, just slime the other side. Yeah, you're good at it all right...Just not sure it's anything to be proud of is all

 

[ckr]

LIES:
Clinton is a liar, but that's ok. It was personal; he knew the truth; he chose to lie about it. He should remain a vital part of the Democratic Party. We should honor him.

Bush trusted the intelligence about WMD. He believed Iraq to be a solid threat. He made tough decisions about our country's future. However, in hindsight, the information may have turned out to be false. Bush is a liar. He's gotta go. I HATE Bush.

I just don't get the logic.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Read this story, and then tell me that the party platform doesn't stand against even civil unions: Republican Party Platform Supports Ban

Yes, it is. Spoken like a true democrat It is the REPUBLICAN party that favors school prayer and the posting of the 10 commandments anywhere they wish on state owned property. If I do not want my child exposed to that nonsense until she is old enough to understand it, how is it that MY rights, as a parent, don't matter as much to them ? They are perfectly free to teach their child anything they want in terms of religion at home. I would fight to defend their right to do so...so why can't they also defend my right to NOT expose my child to their beliefs if I choose not to ?

Why not ? The woman is seen as inferior to the man, and it is a VERY short step from there to mistreatment. Belief that ANYONE is inferior to someone else, based solely on race, religion, or gender is repugnant. Period. (BTW...Is there some reason you are incapable of typing WVRevy, or is it some kind of "Kendra witticism" that I'm missing ? That's at least the second time I've seen you post my username that way....just wondering.)

If we were to use military force to impose our cultural beliefs on them, it wouldn't be just "spoken of" as a crusade, it would BE a crusade. Again, I'm just not certain that we have the right to tell those people that their beliefs....their religion...is wrong. I KNOW, in every fiber, that their treatment of women is deplorable...I'm just not certain that we, as a nation that claims to love ALL freedoms, including religious one, have the right to tell them to stop.

WVRevy, Yes, I did read that article, thank you for pointing it out. I am FOR civil unions, personally, and against gay marriage. I can disagree with the Party and still remain a Republican at heart. Do you ever disagree with any part of your party's platform? And, I don't mean citing some referendum to repeal a tax--I mean a core issue?

I know that some Republicans want school prayer. This is where the line gets blurred, as I mentioned before. I do not object to a moment of silence nor do I object to the words "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I do not object to the Ten Commandments posted. The Ten Commandments are the foundation of what we now consider civil law. To me, religion aside, this is fundamental to our nation. This is ALSO how we differentiate our culture from certain other cultures. When we can comfortably recognize how our country was founded is when we are honest with our heritage--
good and bad. So much more good came out of America's existence than bad. Without this Judeo-Christian moral foundation, it couldn't have happened.

You missed the point regarding the reference to some types of Christianity. If the faith is based on respecting, loving, and showing your wife that she is respected and loved, and that her opinion matters, than it is NOT one step closer to mistreatment; it is exactly the opposite. That is one difference between Islam and Christianity.

Which brings me to this point: you state you would defend one's right to teach whatever he or she wants to teach at home. If one is actively teaching misogyny, that it's okay to beat women, etc., that would be alright with you, too, then? Do we have an obligation to the unrepresented minority in these countries or not? Again, I really don't have the answer, either. I am not professing to. However, if one specific culture is responsible for most of the terrorism while also subjugating half their population (and maybe a half of this population actually mind this is the case but have to live this way for fear of retribution) that can absolutely not speak up for itself do we remain silent because it's their culture/religion? Do we have an obligation? Do we dismiss our obligation because we know how it will be viewed and we're too concerned with what others think of us?

I know I sound as if I'm hinting at a militaristic response; but, I am honestly not. But this is a culture that produces more of the same with little reform, and I wonder often if there isn't a large segment of the population over there that is hoping for assistance and liberty.

About your name: I will be more careful in the future. Sorry if I offended you. Do I get an apology for your slurs against Republicans? Those have offended me, too.