WoooooooHoooooooo, John McCain rocks!!!!!

[jrydberg]

The information that Iraq had concluded a deal for uranium with Niger was unreliable. The information that Iraq sought a deal was not unreliable.

 

[Christine]

Originally posted by Kendra17

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.

First off, I'm "on the fence" as to what party I am (if any) and who I will vote for (sad, I know), but to your above comment: I agree that torment and torture and suppression of women in Iraq and other cultures in the Middle East is a horrible thing and we should *do* something; however, what I don't like is our picking and choosing which nations we are going to *do* it to. Why not Saudi? They are terrible and, if I've read any truthful media reports, are responsible for much of the terrorist mess??? But we are so far in bed with them that we kind of push it aside. But let's go after Iraq, because we can. That's what I don't like. And then tying it all to 9/11. I don't like when I feel I'm being hoodwinked.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
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.

Too many debate topics going on at once in this thread, so let me just sum up this part in one response: 1) The only platform plank I can think of that I'm opposed to is affirmative action, but that's one that I can be swayed either way on. 2) Keeping religion out of schools preserves EVERYONE'S rights, believers and non-believers alike. Putting it IN the school, in the form of prayer or the ten commandments, denies my right to raise my child as I see fit. That's the way I see it. 3) Yes, because well-treated slaves were just the same as free men Being viewed as inferior is, I'm sorry, nearly indistinguishable from being treated as such.

Originally posted by Kendra17
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?

No, I would not defend someone's "right" to teach that violence towards another person is a good thing. As for our "obligation" to the women in those countries that are being opressed....Again, I just don't know that I'm comfortable with the idea that our way is the only way that they should be allowed to live. Yes, I hate their plight...and I hate the beliefs that put them in that position. But should the US just say to hell with it and take over the world ? Not saying that would necessarily be a bad thing for the people suffering under oppression, but is that really what we want ?

Originally posted by Kendra17
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.

I'm sure there is, to some extent. 'Course, at the same time, they've been brought up that way, so they probably don't know what they are truly missing. It's sad, but I just don't know. (BTW...This is why I would really like a president that I believe is smarter than I am And I don't just mean that as a slam at Bush, but as a statement of why I'll be voting for Kerry).

Originally posted by Kendra17
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.

If you took those slams as directed at you personally, then I absolutely apologize. Again, my use of terms like "repugnican" is directed at the people slinging mud in the hopes that something will stick, and making up lies trying to ruin several good men. I don't think I've ever used that term specifically in reference to someone on this board. (Oh, and about the term "wingnut"....It can CERTAINLY be applied to the extremes of BOTH parties, not just yours. But hey...I'm not gonna point that out most of the time )

 

[jrydberg]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Oh, and about the term "wingnut"....It can CERTAINLY be applied to the extremes of BOTH parties, not just yours.

I prefer the term "nut bar with nougat"

 

[charlie,nj]

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Christine
First off, I'm "on the fence" as to what party I am (if any) and who I will vote for (sad, I know), but to your above comment: I agree that torment and torture and suppression of women in Iraq and other cultures in the Middle East is a horrible thing and we should *do* something; however, what I don't like is our picking and choosing which nations we are going to *do* it to. Why not Saudi? They are terrible and, if I've read any truthful media reports, are responsible for much of the terrorist mess??? But we are so far in bed with them that we kind of push it aside. But let's go after Iraq, because we can. That's what I don't like. And then tying it all to 9/11. I don't like when I feel I'm being hoodwinked.

Your point can't be disregarded, but REALISTICALLY, Saudi Arabia would not be the country we could go after first. Yes, they harbor terrorists, but we need their oil. This IS NOT THE SAME as saying we went to war for oil--which we did NOT. This is a realistic response to a resource that guides our economy. We NEED oil to run our country. Without it, we--individually and collectively--would face disaster. This outlook may not be optimal, but it's realistic.

Although disputed here and elsewhere, there are many reasons why we went to Iraq. They were known to support and harbor terrorism, we thought they had WMD, Saddam had not followed many of the resolutions he was bound to follow since the Cessation of Hostilities agreement was made after the first Gulf War. It was reasonable to go after Iraq first. Iran or Syria may be next.

I am certain that they didn't tie it all to 9-11. They evoked memories of 9-11 to attempt to convince the world that this tragedy could happen again if weapons of mass destruction were permitted to remain in countries that harbor and/or support terrorism--which I and others agree with. They NEVER claimed that Iraq was responsible for 9-11.

Your point about picking and choosing nations is well-taken. But, for instance, we want to have change where it is possible to do so. We might WANT to go into N. Korea, but if they already have nuclear weapons, how can we without a nuclear conflict (which we all want to avoid and is a main reason we took preemptive action with Iraq)? We wait on that, for now.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by wvrevy
3) Yes, because well-treated slaves were just the same as free men Being viewed as inferior is, I'm sorry, nearly indistinguishable from being treated as such.

I agree with you here. But, this is not what the people who believe in Christianity--as we were discussing it--believe. They don't believe the wives, or women, are inferior to the husbands, or men. They believe that for a family to be strong and healthy, then men should be encouraged to be the head of household and the women should take the primary parenting role. You see this as a slam on either men or women or both. People who believe this do not. The difference, again, with Christianity and Islam is that the husband is BOUND to GOD ( a serious covenant when one believes in God) to treat his wife better than he'd treat himself. To put her first, to think of her feelings and opinions and take them into consideration, to respect her, to love and cherish her and honor her. If he treats her disrespectfully and does not cherish or honor her, then this doesn't work, and we KNOW this doesn't work and the woman is NOT expected to stand for being mistreated. In Islam, the whole respecting and cherishing component is obviously up for grabs, and if wife one, two, three, and/or four are mistreated. . .oh, well.

No, I would not defend someone's "right" to teach that violence towards another person is a good thing. As for our "obligation" to the women in those countries that are being opressed....Again, I just don't know that I'm comfortable with the idea that our way is the only way that they should be allowed to live. Yes, I hate their plight...and I hate the beliefs that put them in that position. But should the US just say to hell with it and take over the world ? Not saying that would necessarily be a bad thing for the people suffering under oppression, but is that really what we want ?

I'm sure there is, to some extent. 'Course, at the same time, they've been brought up that way, so they probably don't know what they are truly missing. It's sad, but I just don't know. (BTW...This is why I would really like a president that I believe is smarter than I am And I don't just mean that as a slam at Bush, but as a statement of why I'll be voting for Kerry).

If you took those slams as directed at you personally, then I absolutely apologize. Again, my use of terms like "repugnican" is directed at the people slinging mud in the hopes that something will stick, and making up lies trying to ruin several good men. I don't think I've ever used that term specifically in reference to someone on this board. (Oh, and about the term "wingnut"....It can CERTAINLY be applied to the extremes of BOTH parties, not just yours. But hey...I'm not gonna point that out most of the time )

I do take exception at your comment regarding Bush' intelligence. I posted an article recently regarding his IQ based on test scores and it was more than respectable. Also, as you know, IQ isn't everything. . .it is obvious many of the people on DISboards are in the superior range or above, yet we disagree with many of these posters and see them as illogical and confused. I think Bush is a principled leader who may not be as well-spoken as I'd like, but has many more positive traits than negative.

With that said, I do appreciate your honesty regarding the mistreatment of women in the Middle East and have found this whole exchange with you to be a positive one, believe it or not!

I'm off now.

 

[Patch'sD]

I will vote for Bush this election, I feel that he is the right man for the job and will continue to a good job I to lean to the right and I am against Gay Marriage but not homophobic. I support Gun Control and a Women's right to choose. I believe the framers of the Constitution wanted religion not to set Government Policyand not eliminate it from anything to do with the Public Sector. I see no problem with a moment of silent prayer in schools. I don't see myself as a Slimey Republican or a "Wingnut"

To Wvrevy I will argue my position, However I will not refer to someone's signature block as stupid or tell people they do not know what one is talking about. To attack people who don't agee with your position is the worst form of debate possible. Your subtle mocking is getting worse and worse as more people don't agree with your position. I for one will now ignore your posts. I ask that you do the same and refrain from taking my posts and quoting them in yours.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

I have been a Republican most of my life. What I don't understand is what all the hate for Bush is about? He could not help what happened on 9-11, But I was glad that he was are leader in that crisis time. Though I am not in favor of the war in Iraq,I do not blame him for it. Do I care that other countries now look down on the US for are disregard to their stance on the handling of the Iraq war? These countries have always hated the US,with or without the Iraq war. For Kerry to come in and say things will change with him in office,what a lie. This country has been in a mess since Clinton. Democrats through the help of the media want people to believe this country has declined because of Bush,wrong. Who signed on to Nafta? Clinton. Who took away the ten commandments from a public forum?Democrats. Thank god for George Bush's believe in good morales and family values. It's a shame how the important issues we loose sight of. Everthing has to be politcally correct. What country could you go to ,bring your ideas,force them upon that country,get free tax breaks to open up buisnesses, travel freely illegally,but still want rights,possible welfare,take our jobs,move 20 family members over to live with you. The US! now it's biting us in the ***! The thought of John Kerry in office is a scary thought. It's a shame most people are so blindsighted on issues. We need better education before we let just anyone vote. When we are better informed on the lives of tv actors then who we are putting into the most important job in this country,that says so little on the intelligence of this country. When people can't even speak english and they are voting,again how sad. My only hope is four more years of George Bush. He has done the best he can with what he has to work with!

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Kendra17
I agree with you here. But, this is not what the people who believe in Christianity--as we were discussing it--believe.

Again, I simply see it as a matter of degree. Like the old joke about the woman that would sleep with you for a million dollars, but got offended if you offered less, despite the fact that we'd already established what she was, and were now just dickering over the price. Geing "just a little bit mysogynistic" is like being just a little bit pregnant. It's a binary state

Originally posted by Kendra17
I do take exception at your comment regarding Bush' intelligence. I posted an article recently regarding his IQ based on test scores and it was more than respectable. Also, as you know, IQ isn't everything. . .it is obvious many of the people on DISboards are in the superior range or above, yet we disagree with many of these posters and see them as illogical and confused. I think Bush is a principled leader who may not be as well-spoken as I'd like, but has many more positive traits than negative.

As you say, there is a lot more to intelligence than IQ...and it's that intelligence I question. Uninterested in other views....lack of curiosity...stubborn clinging to ideals regardless of changing circumstances....refusal to admit possible misunderstanding or miscalculation...the lack of the ability to think "on your feet" and adapt to new information quickly...There is a lot more to my doubts about Bush's intelligence than just his SAT scores or grades. It's got nothing to do with how he believes on any given issue.

Originally posted by Kendra17
With that said, I do appreciate your honesty regarding the mistreatment of women in the Middle East and have found this whole exchange with you to be a positive one, believe it or not!

I'm off now.

As have I. It's a shame that the idiotic stuff (Swift Liars / "Bush is a deserter" type rhetoric) can't just dry up and go away so that the level of debate could rise on all things rather than just an issue here and there

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by Patch'sD
To Wvrevy I will argue my position, However I will not refer to someone's signature block as stupid or tell people they do not know what one is talking about. To attack people who don't agee with your position is the worst form of debate possible. Your subtle mocking is getting worse and worse as more people don't agree with your position. I for one will now ignore your posts. I ask that you do the same and refrain from taking my posts and quoting them in yours.

Post and run, is that it ? Sorry not to oblige, but:

1) When that person stops insulting every democrat with their signature, I'll stop referring to it as stupid. Is that ok with you ?
2) If someone makes a post claiming something, I AM going to call them on it.
3) I haven't attacked anyone here personally. I HAVE attacked their positions on issues. I've also BEEN attacked, mostly on issues, but also by people like you who feel the need to put in their two cents about me personally rather than about my position.

So for that reason Don't let the door hit you on the way out

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by TnKrBeLlA012
I have been a Republican most of my life. What I don't understand is what all the hate for Bush is about? He could not help what happened on 9-11, But I was glad that he was are leader in that crisis time. Though I am not in favor of the war in Iraq,I do not blame him for it. Do I care that other countries now look down on the US for are disregard to their stance on the handling of the Iraq war? These countries have always hated the US,with or without the Iraq war. For Kerry to come in and say things will change with him in office,what a lie. This country has been in a mess since Clinton. Democrats through the help of the media want people to believe this country has declined because of Bush,wrong. Who signed on to Nafta? Clinton. Who took away the ten commandments from a public forum?Democrats. Thank god for George Bush's believe in good morales and family values. It's a shame how the important issues we loose sight of. Everthing has to be politcally correct. What country could you go to ,bring your ideas,force them upon that country,get free tax breaks to open up buisnesses, travel freely illegally,but still want rights,possible welfare,take our jobs,move 20 family members over to live with you. The US! now it's biting us in the ***! The thought of John Kerry in office is a scary thought. It's a shame most people are so blindsighted on issues. We need better education before we let just anyone vote. When we are better informed on the lives of tv actors then who we are putting into the most important job in this country,that says so little on the intelligence of this country. When people can't even speak english and they are voting,again how sad. My only hope is four more years of George Bush. He has done the best he can with what he has to work with!

You don't blame Bush for the war in Iraq ?

 

[tar heel]

Perhaps we can blame Chaney or Rumsfeld for the war in Iraq, but I'm still going to lay the blame at Bush's feet b/c he's president.

 

[shortbun]

Originally posted by wvrevy
You don't blame Bush for the war in Iraq ?

That's exactly what I was wondering out loud to myself
and then up came your post. I'm thinking the koolaid reference
is ala Jim Jones? Good comparison to how some people are
blindly following George Bush. It's scary isn't it!?


As someone who crossed party lines to vote for John McCain
in the 2000 presidential primary, I wish he was my president right
now BUT-someone has promised him something cause Cheney
ain't running for President in 2008 and it's pretty obvious who
is. I can't wait four more years through this insanity so the
best candidate this election-an honorable man with integrity,
humility and a constant hunger for information, John Kerry is
getting my vote. I hate it that McCain has sold his soul to get
to run again. Maybe he thinks the country's stability is worth
the risk-I don't.

 

[shortbun]

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.

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.

Hey-you are entitled to your opinion but denying your own bigotry
doesn't erase it. Marriage and abortion are not even in the same
discussion, it's like comparing apples and cows. Also, who's dismissing the women in the Middle East? I suppose you are claiming that all of a sudden, King George is pro women's rights
and THAT is why he invaded Iraq? I don't believe that issue was
even a sub heading in his reasons given for invading Iraq! Ha!
That's hilarious Kendra! :rotfl

Thanks for the smiles. I love reading your posts even though I
never agree with them.

 

[palmtreegirl]

Originally posted by shortbun
That's exactly what I was wondering out loud to myself
and then up came your post. I'm thinking the koolaid reference
is ala Jim Jones? Good comparison to how some people are
blindly following George Bush. It's scary isn't it!?


As someone who crossed party lines to vote for John McCain
in the 2000 presidential primary, I wish he was my president right
now BUT-someone has promised him something cause Cheney
ain't running for President in 2008 and it's pretty obvious who
is. I can't wait four more years through this insanity so the
best candidate this election-an honorable man with integrity,
humility and a constant hunger for information, John Kerry is
getting my vote. I hate it that McCain has sold his soul to get
to run again. Maybe he thinks the country's stability is worth
the risk-I don't.

I totally disagree with you on McCain. I don't see someone as selling his soul because he's standing up with his own political party to get their candidate re-elected. Part of the reason I admire McCain so much is his ability to stand against his party when he sees the need and yet at the same time, he never abandons them when doing so.

I think the Democrats are upset with McCain because he is so popular with the swing voter set and last night he did what his party needed him to do and that makes people nervous. I'll admit that in the beginning of all this I was set to vote for Kerry but as time wore on I've become more and more undecided hence my decision last week to take down my Kerry clip art.

That's why I'm spending my time visiting web sites like http://www.factcheck.org to try and sort through all the negative ads and find the truth. I'm doing this so that I can make an informed decision that's not based on just my emotions, which is a mistake I may have made in the past & one I don't want to repeat.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Do I blame President Bush for the war in Iraq? No way. Do I blame Clinton,you bet. When Bush senior left office,he left with the best military,and intelligence agencies. When Clinton came in office all military expences were drastically cut. The most important people in this country,are military ,were making below the poverty level. If we were recieving poor intelligence,I guess we should look to see why. Could it be possible due to Clinton? When Clinton was in office he had three chances to get Binladin,guess what he failed. I believe he was to busy with Monica. He sent are troops into Mogadisho without proper military backing,alot of our troops were killed.Under the hands of Democrats,going back to Truman we have not one a war. Do I want another Democrat in office in these scary times? No way! Before we blame,lets look at the facts! One last thought. Clinton was given important information from Arab countries that might have stopped the attack on 9-11, What did he do with that?

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by shortbun
That's exactly what I was wondering out loud to myself
and then up came your post. I'm thinking the koolaid reference
is ala Jim Jones? Good comparison to how some people are
blindly following George Bush. It's scary isn't it!?

Yeah, I think that's actually where the phrase comes from. I just meant it to say that this person has obviously swallowed the Bush stance of non-responsibility hook, line, and sinker. Nothing is ever his fault...just ask him

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

I don't think Bush passes blame,or dosen't take responsibility for it. I do think Democrats disguise their mistakes. No President is perfect. Just look at Clinton. Why do so many seem to forget what mistakes he made. He also cost us alot,and he may have been able to spare us alot.

 

[JoeThaNo1Stunna]

Originally posted by lucysdad
I hate to crash this Republican lovefest, but since everyone is dying in Iraq to preserve my right to say whatever I want, here goes:

John McCain is a disgrace. After everything he's stood for and after what the Bush campaign did to him in 2000, do you think he might have his own agenda? Gee, duh. Appease the party and let me run in 2008. And for that he'll sell his soul? Whatever happened to the straight-talking, I'll tell you things you don't even wanna hear, moderate? Wow! As a former Arizona resident who voted for him (and I've been a Democrat all my life), I have to say I'm very disappointed.

And all that parading of relatives related to the 9/11 disaster and then subtly linking it all to Iraq? Disgusting. If George Bush is re-elected, we all get what we deserve. God bless us all!

So McCain is a disgrace because he sides with the President on an issue that the majority of the United States agrees on (one of very few)? I believe McCain is very sincere in his support for Bush, while the campaign of 2000 brought about hard feelings, there is no doubt that there is more McCain in George Bush than John Kerry. Like McCain, Bush is sincere and does what he believes best for the nation, regardless of whatever the polls that week say. McCain is a true patriot who realizes that in the most important battle since World War II we should not switch from a decisive general to the king of flip flops.

BUSH/CHENEY 04
McCAIN/AH-NOLD 08