Printable View
If he could just learn to pay for it... [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Like I was talking about the gent in "Unfit for Command", B-52 in WW-II, that had to be wrong no way around it. The grenade launcher they were saying Kerry wounded himself with, possible, seems , they said he fired it at a darkened shoreline and it MIGHT have been closer than what it was first thought. Splintered, [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
you type some kerry flip flops and while they may be ( i see no direct quotes from any credible source) i am providing 30...yes 30...flip flops from the elephant turd himself
1. Social Security Surplus
BUSH PLEDGES NOT TO TOUCH SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS... "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus." [President Bush, 3/3/01]
...BUSH SPENDS SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS The New York Times reported that "the president's new budget uses Social Security surpluses to pay for other programs every year through 2013, ultimately diverting more than $1.4 trillion in Social Security funds to other purposes." [The New York Times, 2/6/02]
2. Patient's Right to Sue
GOVERNOR BUSH VETOES PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "Despite his campaign rhetoric in favor of a patients' bill of rights, Bush fought such a bill tooth and nail as Texas governor, vetoing a bill coauthored by Republican state Rep. John Smithee in 1995. He... constantly opposed a patient's right to sue an HMO over coverage denied that resulted in adverse health effects." [Salon, 2/7/01]
...CANDIDATE BUSH PRAISES TEXAS PATIENTS' RIGHT TO SUE... "We're one of the first states that said you can sue an HMO for denying you proper coverage... It's time for our nation to come together and do what's right for the people. And I think this is right for the people. You know, I support a national patients' bill of rights, Mr. Vice President. And I want all people covered. I don't want the law to supersede good law like we've got in Texas." [Governor Bush, 10/17/00]
...PRESIDENT BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION ARGUES AGAINST RIGHT TO SUE "To let two Texas consumers, Juan Davila and Ruby R. Calad, sue their managed-care companies for wrongful denials of medical benefits "?would be to completely undermine' federal law regulating employee benefits, Assistant Solicitor General James A. Feldman said at oral argument March 23. Moreover, the administration's brief attacked the policy rationale for Texas's law, which is similar to statutes on the books in nine other states." [Washington Post, 4/5/04]
3. Tobacco Buyout
BUSH SUPPORTS CURRENT TOBACCO FARMERS' QUOTA SYSTEM... "They've got the quota system in place -- the allotment system -- and I don't think that needs to be changed." [President Bush, 5/04]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL SUPPORT FEDERAL BUYOUT OF TOBACCO QUOTAS "The administration is open to a buyout." [White House spokeswoman Jeanie Mamo, 6/18/04]
4. North Korea
BUSH WILL NOT OFFER NUCLEAR NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM... "We developed a bold approach under which, if the North addressed our long-standing concerns, the United States was prepared to take important steps that would have significantly improved the lives of the North Korean people. Now that North Korea's covert nuclear weapons program has come to light, we are unable to pursue this approach." [President's Statement, 11/15/02]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION OFFERS NORTH KOREA INCENTIVES TO DISARM"Well, we will work to take steps to ease their political and economic isolation. So there would be -- what you would see would be some provisional or temporary proposals that would only lead to lasting benefit after North Korea dismantles its nuclear programs. So there would be some provisional or temporary efforts of that nature." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 6/23/04]
5. Abortion
BUSH SUPPORTS A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE... "Bush said he...favors leaving up to a woman and her doctor the abortion question." [The Nation, 6/15/00, quoting the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, 5/78]
...BUSH OPPOSES A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE "I am pro-life." [Governor Bush, 10/3/00]
6. OPEC
BUSH PROMISES TO FORCE OPEC TO LOWER PRICES... "What I think the president ought to do [when gas prices spike] is he ought to get on the phone with the OPEC cartel and say we expect you to open your spigots...And the president of the United States must jawbone OPEC members to lower the price." [President Bush, 1/26/00]
...BUSH REFUSES TO LOBBY OPEC LEADERS With gas prices soaring in the United States at the beginning of 2004, the Miami Herald reported the president refused to "personally lobby oil cartel leaders to change their minds." [Miami Herald, 4/1/04]
7. Iraq Funding
BUSH SPOKESMAN DENIES NEED FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THE REST OF 2004... "We do not anticipate requesting supplemental funding for '04" [White House Budget Director Joshua Bolton, 2/2/04]
...BUSH REQUESTS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR IRAQ FOR 2004 "I am requesting that Congress establish a $25 billion contingency reserve fund for the coming fiscal year to meet all commitments to our troops." [President Bush, Statement by President, 5/5/04]
8. Condoleeza Rice Testimony
BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS RICE WON'T TESTIFY AS 'A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE'... "Again, this is not her personal preference; this goes back to a matter of principle. There is a separation of powers issue involved here. Historically, White House staffers do not testify before legislative bodies. So it's a matter of principle, not a matter of preference." [White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, 3/9/04]
...BUSH ORDERS RICE TO TESTIFY: "Today I have informed the Commission on Terrorist Attacks Against the United States that my National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, will provide public testimony." [President Bush, 3/30/04]
9. Science
BUSH PLEDGES TO ISSUE REGULATIONS BASED ON SCIENCE..."I think we ought to have high standards set by agencies that rely upon science, not by what may feel good or what sounds good." [then-Governor George W. Bush, 1/15/00]
...BUSH ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS IGNORE SCIENCE "60 leading scientists"?including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents"?issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels." [Union of Concerned Scientists, 2/18/04]
10. Ahmed Chalabi
BUSH INVITES CHALABI TO STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS...President Bush also met with Chalabi during his brief trip to Iraq last Thanksgiving [White House Documents 1/20/04, 11/27/03]
...BUSH MILITARY ASSISTS IN RAID OF CHALABI'S HOUSE "U.S. soldiers raided the home of America's one-time ally Ahmad Chalabi on Thursday and seized documents and computers." [Washington Post, 5/20/04]
11. Department of Homeland Security
BUSH OPPOSES THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY..."So, creating a Cabinet office doesn't solve the problem. You still will have agencies within the federal government that have to be coordinated. So the answer is that creating a Cabinet post doesn't solve anything." [White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, 3/19/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY "So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." [President Bush, Address to the Nation, 6/6/02]
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction
BUSH SAYS WE FOUND THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION..."We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories...for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." [President Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03]
...BUSH SAYS WE HAVEN'T FOUND WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION "David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons.And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
13. Free Trade
BUSH SUPPORTS FREE TRADE... "I believe strongly that if we promote trade, and when we promote trade, it will help workers on both sides of this issue." [President Bush in Peru, 3/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS RESTRICTIONS ON TRADE "In a decision largely driven by his political advisers, President Bush set aside his free-trade principles last year and imposed heavy tariffs on imported steel to help out struggling mills in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, two states crucial for his reelection." [Washington Post, 9/19/03]
14. Osama Bin Laden
BUSH WANTS OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE... "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.'" [President Bush, on Osama Bin Laden, 09/17/01]
...BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OSAMA "I don't know where he is.You know, I just don't spend that much time on him... I truly am not that concerned about him."[President Bush, Press Conference, 3/13/02]
15. The Environment
BUSH SUPPORTS MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE... "[If elected], Governor Bush will work to...establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide." [Bush Environmental Plan, 9/29/00]
...BUSH OPPOSES MANDATORY CAPS ON CARBON DIOXIDE "I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." [President Bush, Letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), 3/13/03]
16. WMD Commission
BUSH RESISTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE... "The White House immediately turned aside the calls from Kay and many Democrats for an immediate outside investigation, seeking to head off any new wide-ranging election-year inquiry that might go beyond reports already being assembled by congressional committees and the Central Intelligence Agency." [NY Times, 1/29/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS AN OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION ON WMD INTELLIGENCE FAILURE "Today, by executive order, I am creating an independent commission, chaired by Governor and former Senator Chuck Robb, Judge Laurence Silberman, to look at American intelligence capabilities, especially our intelligence about weapons of mass destruction." [President Bush, 2/6/04]
17. Creation of the 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11." [CBS News, 5/23/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CREATION OF INDEPENDENT 9/11 COMMISSION "President Bush said today he now supports establishing an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." [ABC News, 09/20/02]
18. Time Extension for 9/11 Commission
BUSH OPPOSES TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION... "President Bush and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) have decided to oppose granting more time to an independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks." [Washington Post, 1/19/04]
...BUSH SUPPORTS TIME EXTENSION FOR 9/11 COMMISSION "The White House announced Wednesday its support for a request from the commission investigating the September 11, 2001 attacks for more time to complete its work." [CNN, 2/4/04]
19. One Hour Limit for 9/11 Commission Testimony
BUSH LIMITS TESTIMONY IN FRONT OF 9/11 COMMISSION TO ONE HOUR... "President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have placed strict limits on the private interviews they will grant to the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that they will meet only with the panel's top two officials and that Mr. Bush will submit to only a single hour of questioning, commission members said Wednesday." [NY Times, 2/26/04]
...BUSH SETS NO TIMELIMIT FOR TESTIMONY "The president's going to answer all of the questions they want to raise. Nobody's watching the clock." [White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 3/10/04]
20. Gay Marriage
BUSH SAYS GAY MARRIAGE IS A STATE ISSUE... "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Gov. George W. Bush on Gay Marriage, Larry King Live, 2/15/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BANNING GAY MARRIAGE "Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife." [President Bush, 2/24/04]
21. Nation Building
BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING... "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING "We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]
22. Saddam/al Qaeda Link
BUSH SAYS IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEEN AL QAEDA AND SADDAM... "You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." [President Bush, 9/25/02]
...BUSH SAYS SADDAM HAD NO ROLE IN AL QAEDA PLOT "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." [President Bush, 9/17/03]
23. U.N. Resolution
BUSH VOWS TO HAVE A UN VOTE NO MATTER WHAT... "No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, to let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam." [President Bush 3/6/03]
...BUSH WITHDRAWS REQUEST FOR VOTE "At a National Security Council meeting convened at the White House at 8:55 a.m., Bush finalized the decision to withdraw the resolution from consideration and prepared to deliver an address to the nation that had already been written." [Washington Post, 3/18/03]
24. Involvement in the Palestinian Conflict
BUSH OPPOSES SUMMITS... "Well, we've tried summits in the past, as you may remember. It wasn't all that long ago where a summit was called and nothing happened, and as a result we had significant intifada in the area." [President Bush, 04/05/02]
...BUSH SUPPORTS SUMMITS "If a meeting advances progress toward two states living side by side in peace, I will strongly consider such a meeting. I'm committed to working toward peace in the Middle East." [President Bush, 5/23/03]
25. Campaign Finance
BUSH OPPOSES MCCAIN-FEINGOLD... "George W. Bush opposes McCain-Feingold...as an infringement on free expression." [Washington Post, 3/28/2000]
...BUSH SIGNS MCCAIN-FEINGOLD INTO LAW "[T]his bill improves the current system of financing for Federal campaigns, and therefore I have signed it into law." [President Bush, at the McCain-Feingold signing ceremony, 03/27/02]
26. 527s
Bush opposes restrictions on 527s: "I also have reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising [in McCain Feingold], which restrains the speech of a wide variety of groups on issues of public import." [President Bush, 3/27/02]
...Bush says 527s bad for system: "I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it...I think they're bad for the system. That's why I signed the bill, McCain-Feingold." [President Bush, 8/23/04]
27. Medical Records
Bush says medical records must remain private: "I believe that we must protect...the right of every American to have confidence that his or her personal medical records will remain private." [President Bush, 4/12/01]
...Bush says patients' histories are not confidntial: The Justice Department...asserts that patients "no longer possess a reasonable expectation that their histories will remain completely confidential." [BusinessWeek, 4/30/04]
28. Timelines For Dictators
Bush sets timeline for Saddam: "If Iraq does not accept the terms within a week of passage or fails to disclose required information within 30 days, the resolution authorizes 'all necessary means' to force compliance--in other words, a military attack." [LA Times, 10/3/02]
...Bush says he's against timelines: "I don't think you give timelines to dictators." [President Bush, 8/27/04]
29. The Great Lakes
Bush wants to divert great lakes: "Even though experts say 'diverting any water from the Great Lakes region sets a bad precedent' Bush 'said he wants to talk to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien about piping water to parched states in the west and southwest.'? [AP, 7/19/01]
Bush says he'll never divert Great Lakes: "We've got to use our resources wisely, like water. It starts with keeping the Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes Basin...My position is clear: We're never going to allow diversion of Great Lakes water." [President Bush, 8/16/04]
30. Winning The War On Terror
Bush claims he can win the war on terror: "One of the interesting things people ask me, now that we're asking questions, is, can you ever win the war on terror? Of course, you can." [President Bush, 4/13/04]
...Bush says war on terror is unwinnable: "I don't think you can win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/30/04]
...Bush says he will win the war on terror: "Make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win [the war on terror]." [President Bush, 8/31/04]
i particularly found numbers 1,5,7,14,17,20,22,25,28 and 30 VERY amusing as they were pretty big flip flops
so....lets see, bush was once for gay marriage & abortion (yes kiddies, bush dont mind the gays or killin babies as you say us moral deviant liberals do) but buckled under pressure from different support groups
couple all this with bush lying to congress and yet you still say a vote for bush was a vote agiainst kerry??
(sitting patiently, waiting for one1one to reply to a liberal post with actual facts with the phrase "nice post, great facts too" but im not holding my breath)
You just really don't have a clue do you? That is so sad. To be trying to get an education but be too blind to see. Sad indeed. Now I'm wondering if you're also an ACLU supporter. Sad.
Oh by the way did you think of any position that Kerry has taken? In order to qualify he must have stood firm for 10 days in a row.
I'm wondering why you didn't shoot down any of the posts, topics he mentioned, but instead attacked him (GCDevil)
It kind of ties into what I've said a million times and that is to many people, on here, in our area, etc etc see things as either Republican or Democratic and you can't do that and no politician does. We can sit here and say Kerry flipflops, Bush flipflops, they all flipflop people. The all are trying to get your vote, your support, whats right and wrong is seldom an issue.
Look I'm not a fan of abortion. I don't think it should be out here used as birth control (which some do). That being said I think there are times when it is a necessary evil. I truthfully think that it should be allowed with restrictions, but the problems is people who are so freakin close minded. You have some who say no how no way. And if someone thinks it has its place at times, then they aren't viewed as having a different view, they are viewed as being totally for it, no matter what and thats a joke and a sad joke too.
Our country was created based on the ideas of freedoms and freedoms aren't freedoms that you think always, sometimes a particular person having a freedom might not be something you're in favor of, but as long as it doesn't harm you or others, they should have the rights to decide what they think is right for them. Now you'll say oh an unborn baby is alive. Well when you get to the point of the baby being able to live 'on its own' then I think is the point an abortion is wrong, unless you get into harming the mother's life or a rape or such. You can argue then and say oh that shouldn't be allowed, but yet you will allow capital punishment, isn't that murder as well? You can't have it both ways but yet we do. Like I said I'm not so much in favor abortion, but I am in favor of people having the rights to do it if that is what they want to do, although I am in favor of there being restrictions on it. I also realize that there is probably either a "have" or "have not" mentality, either you have abortion or you don't, there is no 'setting clauses' into it and if thats the case, I think people should be able to decide what is right for them, just as I think that a person who is supposedly against murder, has the right to decide if someone should be put to death or not.
The problem is that as we go over time, we constantly keep have to many who think they know whats best for us all, and keep regulating and reducing our rights. Again, rights for the public good are one things but the more rights you give up that affect you as individuals, the easier it is the next time. If sometimes we don't pull our heads out of the ground and say "hey I'm not in favor of that but it is your right to do it if you want" instead of "Oh I'm not in favor of that, it should be against the law", we will continue to tear away at the very Constitution that this country is based on.
I'm in favor of flip-flopping on gay marriages. I think it would get two of them off the street and anyone who did the service could kinda be put on the "list of suspect churches", this would solve some problems. Kinda the school of thought that says as long as Osama is alive and we got him pegged, he runs things and we have a solid line on his comm, then we can stop the attacks, sorta like Ultra. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
As I said before I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. Everything I said about Kerry is a matter of public record. It all came out during the campaign and the debates. The reason I refuse to argue politics is simply that most die hard democrats or republicans won't budge from their views anyway. So what is the point. As I told gcdevil, W. can't be blamed for everything that goes wrong. If the Democrats had come up with somebody better for the job I would have voted for him. I just didn't, and still don't, know where Kerry stands on any issue.
I'll point to this and i still dont' know how this post got to religion and then politics.
Look at Rick Boucher. Everyone hates his voting record. Yet the man is a main stay in the 9th District. Why?
Because he delivers what others can't. Pure simple and to the point.
Yeah we need better and longer jobs. But overall the man comes through when it's time for the crap to hit the fan.
Do i like his voting record. No.
Will i vote for him. Yes. As long as he can bring money and some jobs to SWVA.
I voted for Bush. Why? Because he was President and Kerry never pursuaded me he had a plan that was it.
As far as the religious parts. Well folks. Many should of learned. What things you don't talk about. There is a few and well almost all of them have been hit on, on this well rather unusual post.
And i don't vote Democrat or Republican. I vote who i think will do the job. I can't Bush has gotten it done. But i didn't see another option. As far as religion. Well the one without sin. Preacher, teacher or followerer. Cast the first stone. Then maybe some may wonder what Jesus wrote in the dirt when he ask that question. If wonder? He may of told several where they were when they wanted to stone Mary Magdeline. The Whore?
I will only point out the majority of sources used in the flops are highly liberal media .
Cnn
Washington Post
New York Times
Miami Herald
LA Times
I wouldn't line a birdcage with these cause they are already filled w/ crap.
I'm sure some things were used out of context and some were changing situations and even some true changing of the mind.
You can take virtually any statement and twist it .
Here is a football example you could read in two newspapers.
Offense sputters cannot get on track in loss.
or
Rock Solid Defense stuffs opponents.
Yes, and Kerry has had his war service record questioned. But Bush stayed in the Texas Air Guard and bailed on that to run "Sugar Daddy's " campaign, and no one saw a lack of values there? [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Doesn't matter now, the economy is shot- only the energy sector is expanding(Damn I just can't figure why) and somewhere the policy makers are gonna have to face the fact the Iraqis can't "go home" cause they are home. This is why they WON'T quit and now we will have to figure out what to do. Because , even if we can't blame our LEADERS, we might think about holding them accountable since they have managed to spend most of the "rebuilding cash" on the war. Can you say "Tax Increase" boys and girls? I told me! [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Like I said before, we didn't have much of a choice on election day. I was trying to figure out who was better. That didn't work. Then it was who was worse. Not much help there either.
I just hope John McCain gets the nomination next time around. For either party.
i know it probabally wont happen....but if hillary clinton makes a run for the office, how many of you would vote for her?
After 8 years of Clintons I don't knoiw if I could vote for her or not. Slick Willey was a pretty good president overall, I just can't see either one of them as honest people.
honest and politician should never EVER EVER never be used in the same sentence.
Like the old Johnny Cash song- " John , Bill, Fred -anything but those two!" [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
I agree with you about the sources issue, but it always amazes me how sources are viewed as liberal whenever they say something that the other side don't like....yet they probably get on here and quote stuff from Rush Limbaugh lol
Its true, sources are an issue, but just because someone says something bad about a conservative doesn't make them liberal or even worse, wrong.
"You can argue then and say oh that shouldn't be allowed, but yet you will allow capital punishment"
To compare abortion to capital punishment in my mind is ludicrous...you are talking about an innocent unborn baby being on a paralell to someone who was found guilty of a heinous crime by a jury of peers?!? That is the same kind of hocus pocus logic gives liberals such a bad name in this country and why they get butt slammed at the polls in the moral heartland "red states." It just doesn't hold water... I know you probably wasn't thinking about it that way and didn't mean any offense to what you said but think about the victim's(and their family) of some of the convicts who have been put to death next time and how these individuals destroyed their lives and ask them if it would be ok with them if the state had decided to keep them alive on taxpayer dollars at the rate of 25,000 per year for the rest of their lives.? I wonder how that would make them feel?
"but yet you will allow capital punishment, isn't that murder as well?"
Just to answer your question: NO, capital punishment is not murder. Murder is the crime of UNLAWFULLY killing a human being. Capital Punishment is lawful in Virginia and many other states.
Yes in Virginia and many states but not all, so if its allowed in some, its ok, but in others its not, showing difference of opinions and views. There is no 'absolute right' answer. Obviously you are in favor of capital punishment, its legal in Virginia. Abortion is legal in Virginia. So technically both are fine, so if you can rationalize capital punishment being legal, which is the murder of someone (and yeah I know that most all are guilty but if one or two aren't, then you're killing an 'innocent), then how is it much better when push comes to shove? I mean to me that is being subjective to your personal views. Its ok to murder in a war, its ok to murder someone who done someone wrong or hurt others, but if a baby could kill a mom, well tough luck mom, deal with it.
Again, I'm not for uncontrolled abortion but I also am not for it being against the law completely. I mean we have speed limits, some may not like them but we have them. We have other restrictions on things. Make abortions extremely restrictive, fine. You won't stop them but you might reduce them a lot. Prosecute the ones doing illegal back alley variety that will pop up as soon as you outlaw them but to just have an on or an off button I think is wrong and the comparison is not like comparing a chevy truck and a ford truck. Its more like comparing a a Yugo and a Coal Truck. There are plenty of differences, big differences but in the end, they both are vehicles.
Capital punishment and abortion are two completely different topics, but in the end, someone is being killed by someone else.
I hate to be repetitive but once again you referred to capital punishment as murder...capital punishment is not murder and killing of an innocent baby versus killing of a convicted heinous criminal is not something you can compare to each other. You said something about a baby killing his mother...did this baby know this? Was this unborn baby aware of that it was doing this? C'mon man...not even worth going any further
Hate to be repetitive myself but at the end someone is dead, and if you were the one being killed or the family of the one being killed, I dare say you would say they are murdering you, particularly if you're innocent or *gasp* you might be, because we know no jury has ever convicted an innocent person.
I go back to what I said, at the end of the deal someone is dead.
Oh wait you mentioned was the baby aware, so now it's intent. So if someone just intended to rob someone, but not shoot or kill someone then they are ok and shouldn't be viewed badly?
Again, I'm not for abortion without restraints, totally against it but I'm also totally against just making a law to prevent them completely.
I mean if thats your view, so be it but I know if I'm married to someone and thus hopefully love them and they tell me that I'm gonna lose this person I love due to them having a baby, as much as I'd be looking forward to the baby, I'm not giving up the person I love for someone, as much as I'm looking forward to, that I've never met. I mean you can't 'recreate' a wife that dies, but unless there is something 'bad wrong' you can try to have a kid again.
I won't even get into the concept of a girl getting raped and getting pregnant and trying to force her to have a baby that she had forced on her.
Again though, I am against abortion and if there is abortion even in these circumstances, I would want them to be early early abortions if at all possible.
I guess it comes down to all parties being innocent if you believe we have the right to play God and decide who gets to live or die. I personally don't think God intended for us to decide between which life is more important between an innocent mother and an innocent baby...you say just have another child like its a baby factory or something...that is a innocent human life and it isn't to be written off as if you can get another one at Wal Mart...You can rationalize any way you want to but I've been face with such decisions and could have chosen the easy way out...those who can do it and live with themselves ok whatever but for us to make it legal in our society is wrong and we will pay the price for morality(lack there of) in the long run.
gonna have to agree with rock on this one
the two scenarios are VERY similar and to say they arent is just being dismissive...the real question isnt should abortion be aloowed but at what point should abortion be illegal...i think after 6 months of pregnancy that it should,in fact, be illegal
by then if a woman has not made up her mind, then she should go ahead and have it and let it be adopted, but most of the ones who want it know very soon that they do not want the babies...like a rape victim, they would know pretty quick they would wanna have an abortion, and thats fine by me...but at 6 months, the baby is prob done most of its developing
the only difference about capital punishment is that there is no argument about whther a "life" is being taken or not...we know the man is living that we are going to kill, we know he sees, feels, smells and all that good stuff...can we say the same for a fetus??
So now you want to play God and decide when a fetus is considered a life? Alot of babies can be born at less than 6 months and still survive...but you say those babies can be killed and its ok? What message are we sending here folks? This barbaric disregard for innocent unborn babies is scary to me.
No, I don't want to play God, I want to let the person who is affected play God, not you, not me, not the Government. It's their body and without their body, the baby wouldn't be in the first place, so I think they have some say in the matter. I mean if you don't let a person have a say in their own body, what kind of message is that sending??? Hi you're a citizen but you have no rights with regard to yourself. I agree that there should be a point of 'well its not allowed' but in a nutshell you're about a prime example of why we can't get a logical middle ground. Instead of being logical and saying hey there might be times where they are necessary, you go to an absolute nature, and those wonderful absolute views are what keeps there from being any compromise and maybe getting the law changed and it turning into an 'emergency procedure' and not a 'ordinary procedure'.
They do have a say in their own body: abstinence, birth control etc....if i don't want to have children then hmmm hey i better not have sex. No one asked me if I would include a rape provision so I didn't give an answer...that may have made my view appear absolute when it reality it may or may not be...I will say that "middle ground" in a Biblical and moral sense is only going to lead to trouble...people have to choose between right and wrong. If its wrong and immoral then its wrong and immoral and you can't make it "kinda" right by bringing in a bunch of "what ifs" and "oh wells"....as Aaron Tippin once said "you've got to stand for something or you will fall for anything."
I'm not trying to preach because God knows I am far from perfect but lets get rid of this "middle ground" mentality when it comes to morality. A happy medium is good when it comes to most things because it means both sides can come to a compromise. But middle ground when it comes to morality and humanity issues means that you are neither hot nor cold and you know what will happen to this country if we are luke warm.
Hmm that ended quick?
This thread is like the single wing offense , you never know where its going. It started with a post of a news article about Ford cutting jobs then the economy then Liberals vs. Consevatives then Abortion and Gays then Terrorism then Bible interpretation then Bush bashing then Hillary's possible (GOD forbid) run for President and back to abortion . I need a program just to keep up. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Don't go to Rye Cove for a program, I heard they didn't have a program.
I hear ya bro. It sure lost me in a hurry. I thought it was pretty simple. Ford is cutting jobs, and possibly maybe a lot in the future. But oh well.
If it serves a purpose.
The reason it ended quick is I have enough sense to realize you're so close minded in your way of thinking that its pointless to discuss anything with you, and as opposed to you who will argue at the 2 degree mark of a circle for one thing and the 357 degree mark of a circle for another thing and can't realize how close the items are, and how there is a relevance of similarity in the two, again not saying they are the same but there is more that falls in the category of "same" than there is that falls in the category of "different" but you'll never see the full circle, you see little sections and decide they are miles apart. So I figure why waste my time typing.
Closed minded? I guess its funny because I could say the same about you Rocketer...but I won't because I don't know you, same as you don't know me. You have already said I gather my views based on what a political party believes without having any idea if that was the case. When I was in my late teens and early 20's yes I was more liberal than I am now and would have considered myself a democrat even though I have still never registered with either party.
I believed and still believe that the middle class and/or "working" class has it tougher than they should. I believed and still believe that we need a better way to run our health care system in this country. I believed and still believe that we have too many children living below the poverty level to be the richest country in the world. I believed and still believe that minorities need a strong voice in Washington. All of those things are strong Democratic party social issues right? However, as I got into my later 20's I noticed an increasing movement from left wing liberals and the ACLU(anti christ liars union) against issues of a moral connotation. In the days of FDR and Kennedy some of these issues being brought to the forefront I'm sure would have made them question their own party platform. Such things as gay marriage, abortion, Ten Commandments displayed in public, God being taken out of the pledge of the allegiance. You can argue all you want about whether it is right or wrong but I challenge you to find a sin that its spoken against more often in the Bible than homosexuality, in addition there is nowhere in the Bible that it could be interpreted that it could be "ok." Also it speaks about a fetus being known by God in the Bible. I ask you is there anywhere in the Good Book that it could possibly be interpreted that abortion is "ok"? Also the ACLU recently won a lawsuit against the Pentagon for sponsoring the Boy Scouts of America because in their argument they said that to be a Boy Scouts leader you had to take an oath to God....and yes I said they won!!! what a mockery.
It bothered me that I was often voting for candidates who belonged to the same party that the ACLU and many left wing activist groups were supporting. Yes, you may say well the ACLU and these other anti moral activist groups are not the same as the Democratic Party...well ok maybe not but who do these groups support? If they are supporting them then they must be voting their agenda. On the same token who does the Christian Coalition support? They also base their support on the party who is voting their agenda.
So to sum it up no I do not agree with everything that either party does...however, like many other Americans(republican prez, majority republicans in house and senate) morals happens to be the last thing I will compromise...If the Democratc Party could give me a candidate who would speak out against such atrocities I guarantee he/she would have my vote...Being a compassionate conservative I do wish our Republican leaders would do more in the way of some of the issues I mentioned earlier but when it comes to morals I cannot compromise my basic beliefs just to get a minor middle class tax break or a hardly noticeable decrease in health care costs....besides Clinton had all those years to do something about rising health care costs but the only thing that happened was they got even higher...So those of you who blame Bush and the Republicans for the prices at the pump, fine...go ahead and vote next time for a member of a party who is supported by anti-moral, anti- God and anti-Biblical groups who would like nothing more than to have you on their team....unwittingly they used to have me too, don't feel bad.
Everyone can change.
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
You can argue all you want about whether it is right or wrong but I challenge you to find a sin that its spoken against more often in the Bible than homosexuality, in addition there is nowhere in the Bible that it could be interpreted that it could be "ok."
[/ QUOTE ]
i heard that they was building a gay church in norton near prime sirloin...is this true or is it just a rumor?? j/w
That gives new meaning to T-bone :0
That would depend on the side of the street you are on [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
has any1 else heard this though ???
I've not heard anything of the sort...but it this day and age it wouldn't surprise me!
I know the people that are starting the church, granted they might have some homosexuality tendancies, they are very God loving people. Regardless of their views on sexual orientation, they are great promoters for Christ.
They are not promoting Christ if they are homos. To be a Christian, you have to be Christlike, and Jesus was not a homosexual.
lol here we go AGAIN same views different thread
is this a church FOR gays...or is it just an open church ran by gays?