Thread: Kerry at odds with Dems & Repubs in South

Wow, a GOP website that promotes anti-Kerry discussion, who woulda thunk it.

Are you saying you think the topics are a lie??

This sounds like CYA

Kerry Said His Vote Did Not Indicate Support For Gay Marriage But Rather Against “Fundamentally Ugly And Flawed” Nature Of Debate. “I will vote against this bill, though I am not for same-sex marriage, because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political, and it is fundamentally flawed.” (Senator John Kerry [D-MA], Congressional Record, 9/10/96, pp. S10107)

There certainly is no support for their cliams. Sure, they point to his voting record which is true, but what would Southern Republicans know about what Southern Dems want? I have no idea what a Southern Dem wants, but the tone of the article is that they are trying to TELL the dems what they want. I spose it is irrelevant because Bush seems to be pulling away in the polls.

I liken it to Cindy Margolis. When Cindy Margolis said she was the most downloaded woman on the internet, there is no way that was true. There was Pam and many others that would have had that distinction on name recognition alone. The more she kept perpetuating the rumor, the more people went to her site to see what the hubbub was all about. So in essence, she made shit up just to get to where she wanted to be, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Personally, I don't think she ever was downloaded more than Pam Anderson, but that is a whole nother can of worms.

Somehow I can't imagine why anyone wold assume that a political party's web site would be the source for NEWS....but then some people are more loyal to The Party than to concepts of democracy.

Since this is nothing more than a public relations web site to promote a political party's spin on information, I noticed that they only listed five disagreement votes with congressional members from the states listed - hardly a large enough number to indicate divisiveness.

It would have been interesting to note that President Bush himself was just in Pittsburgh campaigning for Pennsylvania Senator Spector, a moderate Republican who is being seriously challenged by a fundamentalist in the primary. Bush endorsed the incumbent apparently out of fear that, if the fundamentalist wins the primary later this month, voters may elect the Democratic opponent and the GOP could lose control of the Senate this fall.

There appears to be a growing amount of discord between moderate Republicans and those on the extreme right, and the President is apparently having increasing difficulty keeping the two sides under the GOP banner. I guess we wouldn't be reading that news on the GOP web site....

Originally posted by Dale Mabry
Wow, a GOP website that promotes anti-Kerry discussion, who woulda thunk it.

Ahh..don't despair too much.....and ya know, those ABC Poll numbers are related to a $50 million ad campaign that the Prez has been running for the last several weeks in many states.

It's gonna be a close one. . .his approval ratings are a bit above those of his father and Jimmy Carter, who both lost re-election, but far below those of Reagan and Clinton, who both won second terms.

Originally posted by dg806
http://www.gop.com/news/read.aspx?ID=4095

Hey DG, you sure pissed off the democrats

Originally posted by craig777
Hey DG, you sure pissed off the democrats

That's only because he' not allowed to piss ON them.

I am not a democrat, I refuse to follow the flock of sheep mentality that most people who are partisan one way or the other are guilty of.

Originally posted by Dale Mabry
I am not a democrat, I refuse to follow the flock of sheep mentality that most people who are partisan one way or the other are guilty of.

That's OK, I still thing DG wants to piss on you.

P.S. I honestly think most of the members here feel the same way as you, it's just that they identify MORE with one party or the other.

Yeah, I really kinda pick and choose. I follow the republicans on defense, guns, and stuff like that, but when it comes to censorship or rights like abortion and gay marriage I follow the dems.

Yea Dale those kid's can sit in their corners, I'm going the "straight up the middle, fuck ya'll, stay outta my way and don't fuck with my right's route" There is only straight up truth's no bending it to the right or left.

Originally posted by craig777
Hey DG, you sure pissed off the democrats

You are certainly making assumptions here about party affilation when I don't think you'll necessarily see me endorsing a particular political party. But then, I take my responsibilities as a citizen a little more seriously than those who prefer being directed by a Party Chairman.

Originally posted by Dale Mabry
I am not a democrat, I refuse to follow the flock of sheep mentality that most people who are partisan one way or the other are guilty of.

I don't tend to believe that a citizen is supposed to be aligned with one party or "the other"...there are multiple parties and points of view. After years of working as a journalist, I don't consider political propaganda worth the paper (or web site) it's composed on. And I agree....as much as the radical right claims the left is too socialist, the other extreme is fascism, and I've been disturbed over the increasingly similar rhetoric used by extremist factions. People who disagree with The Party's policies aren't "patriotic," should be "arrested," aren't really "Americans."
The NEA is a "terrorist" organization, etc. . .

Those who use words of fear the most to describe others are usually the first to use those same tactics themselves.

I don't necessarily fault people who, by their own nature, need to be directed and disciplined by a single doctrine. They just need to be more forthcoming about admitting that they feel most secure in a social system where they are told how and what to think and everyone mirrors the same thoughts.

Originally posted by kbm8795
Ahh..don't despair too much.....and ya know, those ABC Poll numbers are related to a $50 million ad campaign that the Prez has been running for the last several weeks in many states.

It's gonna be a close one. . .his approval ratings are a bit above those of his father and Jimmy Carter, who both lost re-election, but far below those of Reagan and Clinton, who both won second terms.

this is not true........his numbers are very similiar to Clinton's and Regan's at this point in their first term.

Originally posted by Dale Mabry
Yeah, I really kinda pick and choose. I follow the republicans on defense, guns, and stuff like that, but when it comes to censorship or rights like abortion and gay marriage I follow the dems.

Yeah I know how you feel Dale. But if you vote Democrat, were doomed!

Originally posted by topolo
this is not true........his numbers are very similiar to Clinton's and Regan's at this point in their first term.

I'd like to see the source for that information, if you can find it.

Here's an interesting tidbit....an activist minister in Denver provided the following opening prayer to the state legislature. It's becoming rather increasingly common for activist religious leaders to use their invitation to open state legislative sessions by linking their political agendas to religious beliefs. When you read it at first, it almost sounds innocent....until you realize that he left out a few hundred other religions in this country. Some of these groups seem to forget that many state constitutions don't equate religious beliefs with morality...they separate the words in their state constitutions.


CitizenLink Extras

April 20, 2004



Lastly, on a related note: The Rev. Bill Carmody has come under fire from liberals for his stirring prayer to open the April 13 session of the Colorado House. That's because Carmody boldly made reference to the "vacuum of morality in public debate" that has occurred since elected officials have decided it's good politics not to cast votes based on their religious convictions.

Here's the text of Carmody's prayer:

Forty years ago, John F. Kennedy, who was running for president, was under intense scrutiny for his Catholic faith. He made a pledge to the nation that he would not allow his faith to influence his decisions as president. He honored that pledge.

Sadly, politician after politician has followed in Kennedy's footsteps and no longer bring their faith with them in public office. This has led to a vacuum of morality in public debate. Politicians now claim, "I am personally opposed to this but I can not let my morality and/or faith influence my decisions."

I ask you, Almighty God, to change this.

I ask that the Catholics here present in this chamber bring their faith in making public policy decisions. I ask that evangelicals bring their faith when they vote on public policy. I ask that mainline Protestants bring their faith into the public square. I ask that the Jewish people here present bring their faith with them when they vote on issues of public policy. I ask that all people of faith here in this chamber truly be first and foremost, people of faith.

I ask that the representatives here present today will be men and women of God. If it costs them elections, so be it. It will bring this nation closer to God. Our nation needs people of God to represent them in public office. Our nation has seen enough of people who claim to be a person of God yet never bring God or their faith into the public debate.

Almighty God, please change and convert the hearts of all representatives in this House.

May they be the antithesis of John Kennedy. May they be women and men of God and may their faith influence and guide every vote they make. May God bless this chamber and our state.

Jeesh, what a long post. So here is what I foresee as the problem. Exactly what happens when a president throws his religion/morality into his decisions? Well, the president is 1 faith and the United States is many. So when he goes ahead and pushes a religious agenda by using his faith to rule his decision making, he is forcing his religious beliefs onto others who may not have the same religious beliefs as he does.

Sure, that is great if the president is your faith, but what if he is not? You get fed what is right and wrong and if you religion disagrees with that, you could get into trouble practicing some religious beliefs. What I find interesting is that most of the people who support Bush are of the same faith as he is. Is this not exactly one of the reasons Sadaam was taken out, one party had control over a multi-faith country? Isn't the goal now to have a government representative of the many religions of Iraq? I find it interesting that this is the goal considering it is not the case over here. I would guarantee that if the current president was Muslim, yet had the same political agenda as Bush, there would be far fewer supporters.

Oh, and there is nothing in that judges ruling that is anti-religous. There is nothing condemning religion, it is just making sure that the mother does not use religion to condemn homosexuality. It does not state that the child must not be raised religious. Another example of you are either for us or against us, there is no on-the-fence with religion.

Just my point of view, disagree or not, it is still fairly obvious that religion is playing quite a role in the current administration. You see Dg, I don't see it as if I vote Democrat I am doomed, I see it as if I vote Republican I am voting for christianity to rule, which I will not do. I agree with many principles of christianity, but that does not mean everyone should be meant to conform tp it's moral values

My bad, Dale....I didn't intend to copy that first long part of that last post...now if I can figure out how to delete that portion...

And for me, it isn't about voting Republican = voting "christian"..to me, that concept is a manufactured crock. Religious activists don't hold a copyright on faith or morality - their own dirty laundry would indicate that they have difficulty enough managing members of their own church's sinful activities, let alone attempt to regulate everyone else's lives.

What that minister failed to mention (gosh, and is it possible for an evangelical minister to distort truth at all?) is that John Kennedy's pledge was made in response to Republican charges that, since he was a Catholic, he would take direction from the Pope on issues involving the rest of the Nation. At the time, The Party tried to assert that this was a "protestant" nation, and that a Catholic president would have to place dictation from the Pope above the national interest.

Apparently, that minister advocates that legislators, who are elected to represent ALL the people in their districts, and who take an oath of office to uphold the state constitution, NOT the political positions of their Church become proxies of their individual faiths. No wonder they've been pushing for federal legislation allowing churches to openly endorse political candidates and campaign for them.

Why can't a man if elected President use his religious beliefs in making decisions. I think it is just as wrong for all of you that have no religious feelings to say that President Bush can't have any either or you won't like him, or that he can't make any decisions that are based on his religious beliefs.

I have a friend that just came back from two weeks in India working with the Lepers over there. That's right John, were not all scum. In India if you profess to be a Christian you are killed. What kills me is that if you have to say "Under God" in this country and don't want to say it then you will have a temper tantrum and pout.

Let's make this country Muslim and speak Arabic and if you do something wrong you are killed for doing it.

I think many people here in the United States need to go spend a year in a Third World country to see what it is like. This is a great country and President Bush is a good President.

Originally posted by craig777
Why can't a man if elected President use his religious beliefs in making decisions. I think it is just as wrong for all of you that have no religious feelings to say that President Bush can't have any either or you won't like him, or that he can't make any decisions that are based on his religious beliefs.

I have a friend that just came back from two weeks in India working with the Lepers over there. That's right John, were not all scum. In India if you profess to be a Christian you are killed. What kills me is that if you have to say "Under God" in this country and don't want to say it then you will have a temper tantrum and pout.

Let's make this country Muslim and speak Arabic and if you do something wrong you are killed for doing it.

I think many people here in the United States need to go spend a year in a Third World country to see what it is like. This is a great country and President Bush is a good President.

You are clouding the issue here - the point the minister made is that their religious faith should first and foremost guide state policymaking - that is a lot more than simply an "influence." There are lots of reasons why both the federal and state constitutions limit the participation of religion in government. For one thing, Catholics are guided by directives from the Pope, who approves appointments of high officials in different countries. Obviously, the Pope isn't an American citizen. Protestant denominations have their own governing councils that shape and form their positions on biblical interpretation and policies - none of those officials are elected from the public at large nor, in many cases, do they even represent their own members.

When I vote in an election, I'm supposed to be selecting a candidate who I believe may best represent the viewpoints of myself and will take responsibility for upholding the constitution and the rights of all the residents of the district - not by FIRST basing policy decisions on the interpretations and policy statements of their individual ministers or churches. If we wanted that type of government, both political parties should be scrapped and replaced by a party representing each religious group in this country.

Assuming that those who don't agree with mixing Church and State have "no religious feelings" is not only defamatory but a violation of my constitutional right to worship as I CHOOSE - not at the direction or definition of "christianity" imposed by your own religious beliefs or the beliefs or elected officials who have a responsibility to all citizens.

No one suggests that President Bush is not entitled to worship as he chooses - however, his job is to uphold the Constitution, and not serve as an endorser of particular religious interpretation. The Constitution prohibits a religious "litmus" test as a qualification for holding public office for a reason, yet some Americans continue to assert that only "approved Christians" (meaning those who will push their religious agenda) are eligible to hold office and influence public policy.

There was a time in this country's history when people were killed if they didn't meet the definition of "christianity" as decided by a particular religious group. The Puritans, for example, long had a doctrine that if native Americans did not convert to Christianity, they were to be killed. Of course, they had their own definition of christianity, which, similar to certain American fundamentalist groups today, didn't recognize certain other denominations as Christians, too.

As for saying the words "under God" MY definition of what that means doesn't have to be defined by your particular religion OR your definition of what God IS or ISN'T. As increasingly difficult as it seems for a lot of Republicans to understand this year, no one holds a copyright on the Creator, nor exclusive rights to Divine assistance. Political elections in this country aren't supposed to be about competing religious organizations or beliefs.

Originally posted by kbm8795
You are clouding the issue here - the point the minister made is that their religious faith should first and foremost guide state policymaking - that is a lot more than simply an "influence." There are lots of reasons why both the federal and state constitutions limit the participation of religion in government. For one thing, Catholics are guided by directives from the Pope, who approves appointments of high officials in different countries. Obviously, the Pope isn't an American citizen. Protestant denominations have their own governing councils that shape and form their positions on biblical interpretation and policies - none of those officials are elected from the public at large nor, in many cases, do they even represent their own members.

When I vote in an election, I'm supposed to be selecting a candidate who I believe may best represent the viewpoints of myself and will take responsibility for upholding the constitution and the rights of all the residents of the district - not by FIRST basing policy decisions on the interpretations and policy statements of their individual ministers or churches. If we wanted that type of government, both political parties should be scrapped and replaced by a party representing each religious group in this country.

Assuming that those who don't agree with mixing Church and State have "no religious feelings" is not only defamatory but a violation of my constitutional right to worship as I CHOOSE - not at the direction or definition of "christianity" imposed by your own religious beliefs or the beliefs or elected officials who have a responsibility to all citizens.

No one suggests that President Bush is not entitled to worship as he chooses - however, his job is to uphold the Constitution, and not serve as an endorser of particular religious interpretation. The Constitution prohibits a religious "litmus" test as a qualification for holding public office for a reason, yet some Americans continue to assert that only "approved Christians" (meaning those who will push their religious agenda) are eligible to hold office and influence public policy.

There was a time in this country's history when people were killed if they didn't meet the definition of "christianity" as decided by a particular religious group. The Puritans, for example, long had a doctrine that if native Americans did not convert to Christianity, they were to be killed. Of course, they had their own definition of christianity, which, similar to certain American fundamentalist groups today, didn't recognize certain other denominations as Christians, too.

As for saying the words "under God" MY definition of what that means doesn't have to be defined by your particular religion OR your definition of what God IS or ISN'T. As increasingly difficult as it seems for a lot of Republicans to understand this year, no one holds a copyright on the Creator, nor exclusive rights to Divine assistance. Political elections in this country aren't supposed to be about competing religious organizations or beliefs.

What issue am I clouding,

President Bush is a Christian and makes decisions based on that.

President Clinton made decisions based on his dick.

Originally posted by Dale Mabry
I am not a democrat, I refuse to follow the flock of sheep mentality that most people who are partisan one way or the other are guilty of.

Ditto, and I dont follow any one party either.

Originally posted by craig777
Why can't a man if elected President use his religious beliefs in making decisions.

Because not everyone who elected him is christian and not everyone in this country is either. Separation of Church and State, although it is obvious that this administration is not against re-writting the constitution.

Originally posted by craig777
What issue am I clouding,

President Bush is a Christian and makes decisions based on that.

President Clinton made decisions based on his dick.

President Bush SAYS he is a Christian - that doesn't mean he meets the definition of Christian for every denomination or religious organization or every individual in this country. Making decisions based first and foremost on his personal definition would indicate that he upholds his views about his religion before his responsibilities about the Constitution.

I'll ignore that remark about Clinton - many Americans could probably make the same assertion about Bush and invading Iraq and link it to sexual frustration.

It's not the religion thing to me. There are tons more areas where I disagree with democrats. One of my biggest isssues right now is the way democrats use smear tactics against rebulicans no matter who for whatever reason. And Kerry would say tamoto if Bush said Tomato. He wants to repeal the patriot act. And he's the best the democrats had. Sheesh!