Jump to content

Home

Bush got OWNED!!! (Presidential Debate)


Acrylic
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The people will ellect whoever gives them what they want. The majority of the people seem to want to become more liberal. Bush is Christian, Kerry says he's Christian but his actions prove otherwise. Liberal America doesn't want to hear about morals, they want gay marriages and the continued choice to kill their children. Listening to Kerry, just made me lose even more respect for him.

"I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military"

Yeah, that's why you voted against aid for the military. His "plan" changes constantly with his stances. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just because someone doesn't have the same beliefs as you doesn't make them less moral, or less justified in their reasoning, accept that people have different faiths and beliefs. John Kerry has said he's christian, and until he openly says he's not I can't question it. Many people do things that other christians say aren't christian, hell the whole catholicism, is it christianity debate has been discussed to hell.

 

John Kerry has voted for AND against military aid, but what the republicans don't want you to know is what the underlying issues of the bill were that made him vote no one time, and yes another. You see there are multiple parts to a bill, you either vote for it all, or against it all. What the Bush campaign won't tell you is what all was in the bill in it's entirity.

 

I'm neither pro-kerry or anti-bush. I'm pro-edwards.

 

 

and I'm tired of this slanderous "liberal" bull you republicans sling around.

 

Yes, because everyone against Bush is some sodomite, gay, hippy that just wants christian values thrown out ;)

 

 

PS: one reason I never take christianity seriously is becuase noone can tell me what exactly is christianity, because they're all fighting over who is.

 

is it the baptists? the lutherans? the catholics? the Episcopelians? the greek orthodox?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jdome83

Kerry says he's Christian

 

Which should really be a reason to vote against him, except that his opponant is far more indoctrinated into that silly superstition.

 

Originally posted by Jdome83

"I have a better plan to be able to fight the war on terror by strengthening our military"

Yeah, that's why you voted against aid for the military. His "plan" changes constantly with his stances. :rolleyes:

 

You should check your facts before simply buying into the fundamentalist-extremist line of BS. There seems to be precious little difference between Xian-fundamentalists and Muslim-fundamentalists. They each prefer to kill their enemy and whatever civilians get in the way and call it a crusade/holy war.

 

Kerry didn't vote against "aid for the military" so much as he did against the riders that came with the bill and the blank check it gave the executive branch. The vote against the recent $87 billion was to demand accountability of the funds. To suggest it was an attack of any kind on American servicemen is simply an ignorant statement.

 

Also ignorant is the criticism of the voting record of a member of Congress who is running for the office of President. Representatives and Senators are expected to reflect the desires of their constituents. The expectations of a President are somewhat different. That Kerry even has a voting record is significant and notable. Bush, by the way, doesn't. In fact, his political experience is nearly as capable as his public speaking ability. As a governor of Texas, he was merely a figurehead, since Texas is a state in which the Lt. Governor actually initiates policy and is active in legislature.

 

In the debate, I'd say that both sides had the factual problems that RP pointed out and both sides made some good points. I'd call it a draw in content and information. But it was clear that Kerry kicked Bush's butt in style and public speaking. Bush was clearly flustered on several occasions and obviously aggitated when his soundbites-for-applause lines couldn't get the same effect they would with an audience. This demonstrates the need he has for consistent ego massage. I still think Kerry sounds too much like a preacher, though.

 

CPT Wilson: You can get the debate transcript here, at this link.

 

If I find a video link to the debate, I'll link it in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Skin, off topic, but do you have a list of non-Christian candidates for president?

 

While religion of the candidate really shouldn't be an issue period, IMHO, your statement makes it sound like you wouldn't trust any religious person with the presidency, period (since all religions are equally non-rational from a atheist's point of view). So why bring it up? Silly superstition indeed!

 

Bush's religion is a red herring (like JFK's was all those decades ago). The only reason anyone should care is that the so-called 'Religious Right' backs Bush. But they are called the 'Right' for a reason. They wouldn't back a left-leaning candidate in favor of a republican, would they?

 

Anyway, the reason any candidate makes an issue out of his religion (like any 'character' issue) is to pander to his audience (America is majority Christian). It's just like when a president kisses his wife or hugs his kids in front of the cameras (oh, he's a family man, he must be of strong moral character!).

 

Even if all Christians don't agree on everything (or virtually anything) the idea of something to identify people with the candidate is strong.

 

It's like if he likes baseball. You go, whoa, he likes baseball, he must be my man! You pick something a lot of people believe in and emphasize that characteristic. If he had some characteristic that most people hated, he'd downplay it.

 

But there's also the notion that being a believer in Christianity makes you a more moral person (which is not true, since there are plenty of examples of Christians who are not very moral I'm sorry to say).

 

I'm Catholic, but my being Catholic has no bearing on whether or not I'll vote for Kerry, and I judge Bush's performance by his actions, not his professed beliefs.

I'm not voting for "Christian of the Year" I'm voting for future President of the United States.

 

As to the debate, I watched it on the internet two days ago. I think Kerry gave a much better presentation. Bush was constantly on the defensive, repeating himself and generally looking weak and unprepared. Kerry dodged a few questions, but ultimately he looked like a better speaker who was more prepared. However, I still disagree with both men, and I realize that only a few specific issues were covered in this first debate (obviously issues relating to Bush's own performance in two key important areas, the Iraq war and national security). I'm sure Bush's handlers will better prepare him for the next few debates (if they care about him winning at all).

 

The thing is, the debates aren't open to third parties, they had those "Rules" put up for the media to follow (to avoid people seeing stuff like Bush Sr. looking at his watch during the debates with Clinton & Perot), and the debates are more like entertainment and how good a candidate looks on TV. It's supposed to be about the issues, but oh well.

 

Such is the nature of public debates. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have them, but they could stand to be improved to give more substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit, my post above was more in response to something I heard on the radio yesterday than to the quoted text. I'm an avid NPR listener (the only thing close to "fair and balanced") and the local station, KERA, aired some soundbites of local voters. One of them made the comment, "a vote for Bush is a vote for God."

 

Your point about a "non-christian" candidate is well-taken, since in our nation of christian majority such a candidate would have little chance. Be it a Muslim or an atheist. Even an agnostic. The so-called christian right would likely label the candidate an agent of the devil or some such. And I don't think I'm exaggerating.

 

I actually don't harbor discontent or malcontent toward christianity in general, and apologize for the "silly superstition" comment. That is my perspective on religion, but I realize, too, that others are very serious.

 

But I disagree that Bush's religion is a red-herring. I think Bush's religious influences are very much a reason for "not" voting for him. More than once he's alluded to the notion that he's doing "god's work" and has made religious comments about his foreign policy beliefs.

 

To sum up, Kerry is a candidate that is motivated by logic and reason, while Bush is one that is motivated by belief.

 

Perhaps a separate thread would be good for discussing Bush/Kerry in regard to religion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, because everyone against Bush is some sodomite, gay, hippy that just wants christian values thrown out

I don't think that. If I thought that I wouldn't even listen to John Kerry. In fact, most of my friends are Democrats. I'm saying that Kerry is trying to be a gay marriage and abortion supporting Christian, which is a contradiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jdome83

I'm saying that Kerry is trying to be a gay marriage and abortion supporting Christian, which is a contradiction.

 

He could believe in letting people choose, but personally he opposes it. If he does feel that way, then he gets some kudos from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that Kerry is trying to be a gay marriage and abortion supporting Christian, which is a contradiction.
I think it's about time people like yourself started voting for political candidates based on their SECULAR beliefs, not their religious orientation. Bush is so steeped in religion that it's impossible to divine where his dogmatic sensibilities end and his political beliefs begin.

 

Religion should be UTTERLY separate from political office in a modern, civilised democratic state. Politics is (or should be) about law, economics and foreign policy and the like, and very little else. Classical morality (based on monotheistic claptrap) has no place in the management of a modern country.

 

Leave the religion to the religious leader of your choice, and elect an official to the office of prez whom you think will make your COUNTRY economically strong, just and respected around the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

I think it's about time people like yourself started voting for political candidates based on their SECULAR beliefs, not their religious orientation. Bush is so steeped in religion that it's impossible to divine where his dogmatic sensibilities end and his political beliefs begin.

 

Religion should be UTTERLY separate from political office in a modern, civilised democratic state. Politics is (or should be) about law, economics and foreign policy and the like, and very little else. Classical morality (based on monotheistic claptrap) has no place in the management of a modern country.

 

Leave the religion to the religious leader of your choice, and elect an official to the office of prez whom you think will make your COUNTRY economically strong, just and respected around the world.

 

Personally, I feel that a President's first priority is to forego personal beliefs and do what he feels is right for the people, not that what he feels right the people should follow. In other words, I feel a president should let gay marriage pass, because even if they feel it is wrong, because he would know there is only something to gain for the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1st of all: I support Kerry over Bush, I just like Kerry better, though I rooted for Bush in the last elections, he lost my trust.

2nd: Religion should not be an issue, he's christian, all right, so what if he supports gay marrige and abortion? I mean Christians fire people all the time, that doesn't mean they're hypocrites, are they?

3rd: You were wrong spelling the topic title, the correct form is: OMG! BUSH GOT 0WN3D!1!!!!!1111!!oneoneoneone K3RRY 1Z t3h L337

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel a president should let gay marriage pass, because even if they feel it is wrong, because he would know there is only something to gain for the American people.
Marriage is an idiotic religious institution. It should be totally abolished, not given to YET ANOTHER social group.

 

Having said that, I believe that religious people should be able to have any sort of ceremony they wish to consecrate their l0v3. *spit* I just don't think it should have any standing in law at all.

 

Thus, the idea of allowing homosexuals to marry in a CHRISTIAN fashion would be doubly silly, since Christianity does not recognise homosexuality as a valid life-partnership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

marriage is actually a sociological structure, religions just took it and bastardized it.
Nope. Marriage is the result of a religious consecration of a simple life-partnership arrangement. The fact that it still has legal standing is merely indicative of how behind the times our nations are.

 

You can be against something but allow people to do it, it's called being a good person, turn the other cheek and all that.
Sounds very christian to me. ;)

 

What you're proposing is to allow christians to hold their own beliefs... but to allow homosexuals- who patently do not conform to christian doctrine- to dictate what christian belief should be. That sounds a little uncharitable to the christians as far as I'm concerned. It's their little club, if they don't want gay people to play with them, no pun intended, that's their call.

 

But religion should have no impact on secular law. That's really the last word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

But religion should have no impact on secular law. That's really the last word.

There I agree - religion should have no impact on secular law, and secular law should have no impact on religion.

 

Which is why the courts getting involved in the Boy Scouts - which is a *christian* organization - was wrong and anti-constitutional.

 

If someone wants to form a 'First Church of We Hate White People' or whatever, or exclude men or women or minorities based on their religion, then it should not be the place of the federal government to intervene.

 

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone wants to form a 'First Church of We Hate White People' or whatever
Hmm, hatred is a little too extreme to be excused by religious freedoms IMO. Christianity does not purport to hate homosexuals, that's why it's okay for them to exclude homosexuals based on their behaviour and therefore contravention of christian values.

 

But if christianity was the "first church of we hate gays" I might take a dimmer view of their standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw some research somewhere that showed that people who watched that "Daily Show" (whatever that is) were better informed than people that watched serious shows, people that watched nothing and people that read the newspaper.

 

I'd guess it is something a little similar to Rory Bremner in the UK, as i'd expect that you'd find people who watch that are more well informed than people who watch the news or read our "independent" papers (all owned by the same guy who owns all YOUR stations and papers BTW...)

 

---------

 

I hear cheny did ok in his debate, which i find surprising as i thought edwards would be able to nail him into the ground,. He has been much more forthright in stating "speculative evidence" as fact, and only a day or two back said that there was NO LINK between al quaida nad saddam, having stated earlier as a FACT that there was. Talk about flip flopping.

 

That and the fact that HIS voting record is absolutely disgracefull. (Slightly to the right of hitler.) Can't see why edwards couldn't nail him, given the ammount of ammo out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by toms

That and the fact that HIS voting record is absolutely disgracefull. (Slightly to the right of hitler.) Can't see why edwards couldn't nail him, given the ammount of ammo out there.

 

Could have been as simple as Edwards couldn't find a way of doing it without flat out saying it. Its always better to trap your opponent in his own web. Of course, it may have something complicated, such as Cheney being able to cover up his tracks with sly wordplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...