Reply #26 September 3, 2004 10:50 AM from PolMach Forums Top

that you don't realize that the beast in Revelation would be FAR more likely (assuming he/she comes from America) to be a Republican than a Democrat, primarily because the majority are fooled into thinking he/she is a Christian.

Actually, the Antichrist is supposed to come from Europe, where they're already in the works with the EU. And just because he's a Republican doesn't mean he's been put here by Satan. It's sad that you would suggest that. I'm sure John Kerry is an ok kind of guy. I don't condemn him because he's a Democrat. A true Christian wouldn't.

Reply #27 September 3, 2004 11:04 AM from PolMach Forums Top

Citzen MommaErn:

I respectfully disagree. I think that it's much more likely that if there is going to be a literal fulfillment of Revelation, the Beast's will rise from the political left.

I'd strongly suggest check out the novel "Father Elijah." It's an awesome Christian politcal thriller. I hated all the Christian literature I read until I found Michael O'Brien, he's thoughtful and faithful. His series "Children of the Last Days" of which Father Elijah is a part, shows how liberalism is much more suceptible to Satan's rise than the left.

Reply #28 September 3, 2004 11:04 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

And just because he's a Republican doesn't mean he's been put here by Satan.

Umm, I never said that. I was speaking to Marvin, who has maligned democrats consistently as pure evil, and republicans as agents of God. I would ask that you refrain from putting words in my mouth in the future.

As for the antiChrist coming from Europe, yes, I believe that as well, which is why I added the qualifier. There are, however, differing analyses, and I won't summarily dismiss those either.

I do appreciate your final statements, though.

Reply #29 September 3, 2004 11:21 AM from PolMach Forums Top

To reply #4 Citizen sandy2
Abortion is NOT a right! It is a "courts OPINION", NOT a law OR a right, but an opinion!

And to reply #19 Jay Walker
You are correct about Republicans being there for 24 out of 36 years. But it WAS NOT a republican who had "sex" in the oval office and then LIED about it on the stand!

Reply #30 September 3, 2004 11:28 AM from PolMach Forums Top

I want you to catagorically, for the record, for everyone, here show ONE time that GW has "lied"! But rest assured that I can quote quite a "few" times Sen. Kerry HAS lied! Starting with his supposed medals from Vietnam. Even the US NAVY is questioning both his bronze AND silver stars.

Reply #31 September 3, 2004 11:33 AM from PolMach Forums Top

Reply #24 By: Citizen Mr Arex - 9/2/2004 3:43:29 PM Though I don't believe Bush is "surging" (like someone else asked, where is the poll that says this?), he has taken the edge away from Kerry, and I believe he can continue to do so. Kerry, even though I support the man, is really lame. He shouldn't have spent as much time as he did defending himself agains the swift boat ads (even though the ads were LIES!). There are more important issues at hand than the Vietnam War. I thought Pres. Clinton gave a great speech at the DNC which should be Kerry's theme for this campaign. Kerry should be telling voters that if they want four more years of a war without a plan, a sluggish economy, no international allies, a failing education system, then Bush is their man. He needs to state the differences between him and Pres. Bush, and how he plans to run the country. Instead of veterans coming to his aid to support him in public, he needs more prominent political figures to do that. He can't keep talking about the past or mistakes of the past. Kerry needs to talk about the present and the two possible futures - the future under Bush, or the future under Kerry. If he does that, Kerry's words should have more of an impact than Bush's umbrella terms such as "freedom" or "vision".

What an uninformed person you are! GNP is up as is the stock market, unemployment is DOWN (a sluggish economy?) And WHO gives a rat's butt about international allies? Do you "honestly" think the french would "ever" help us? Get real.

Reply #32 September 3, 2004 11:45 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

And WHO gives a rat's butt about international allies? Do you "honestly" think the french would "ever" help us? Get real.

Certainly, Bush's rhetoric hasn't made others in other countries too inclined to support American (mis)adventures around the world. It's always interesting to me to see the strong isolationist constituency in the US - even admidst ever increasing evidence of the inter-dependance of the world. Jettisioning allies concerns for short-term gain doesn't seem all that smart to me, or truly in the long-term interest of the US (or anyone else in the western world for that matter), for some short term gain(s).

JW

Reply #33 September 3, 2004 11:59 AM from PolMach Forums Top

Whether it surged or didn't surge, the damn polls are going to go back and forth like waves against a shore until the Vote in November.

"Hom - sar" - StrongBad

Reply #34 September 3, 2004 2:33 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

[I'm not sure I've got this quotation thing working right, so in case it isn't...this is me responding to the call to show ONE Bush lie]

I have no illusions that my response will satisfy anyone who thinks Bush is God's perfect little angel who never lies or makes a mistake. We can play semantic games until we are blue in the face about whether something is a "lie," a "slant" or merely "misleading." But here goes. Foregoing the obvious choices of WMD or Iraq-Al Queda connections; sidestepping more politically acceptable (but no less reprehensible) manipulations of statistics; avoiding the usual failed delivery on a campaign promise or twenty, here's ONE lie for Bush:

In pushing Congress to pass its controversial Medicare bill, President Bush promised that "corporations have no intention to what they call 'dump retirees'"[Presidential Remarks, WhiteHouse.gov, 10/29/03] from their existing prescription drug coverage. But Bush's own health officials estimate that millions will be cut off from their existing drug coverage because of the new Medicare law. According to government documents obtained by the New York Times, the Bush Administration now estimates "that employers will reduce or eliminate prescription drug benefits for 3.8 million retirees when Medicare offers such coverage in 2006." That represents one-third of all the retirees with employer-sponsored drug coverage. Medicare's new benefits are often less comprehensive than those offered by employers. ["Medicare Law Is Seen Leading to Cuts in Drug Benefits for Retirees," New York Times]

Arguably, the President is also responsible for the lies of his administration, so here's TWO that go to Cheney and his relationship with Halliburton:

Vice President Dick Cheney has repeatedly assured Americans that he has positively no involvement in directing billions of taxpayer dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton, his former employer. In September of 2003, he told NBC's Meet the Press that his office has "absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts."["Cheney denies role in Iraq deal", The Boston Globe, 9/15/2003] In January of 2004, he told Fox News Radio, "I don't have anything to do with the contracting process, and I wouldn't know how to manipulate the process if I wanted to." ["Cheney faults 'desperate' attacks on Halliburton", CNN.com, 1/23/2004] But, according to new evidence, Cheney's office "coordinated"["Cheney Coordinated Halliburton Iraq Contract: Report", Common Dreams News Center, 5/31/2004] the Halliburton contracts and had the Pentagon specifically seek its input in constructing what ultimately became a multi-billion-dollar contract. According to the New York Times, the Pentagon discussed a $1.9 million planning contract with "senior Bush administration officials, including the Vice President's Chief of Staff"["White House Officials and Cheney Aide Approved Halliburton Contract in Iraq, Pentagon Says", The New York Times, 6/14/2004] before inking the deal. According to the Los Angeles Times, three companies were vying for the lucrative contract which was seen as the precursor to a much larger, $7 billion contract. But instead of following the normal competitive civil service contracting process, the Times reports that Bush administration political appointees overruled the advice of Army lawyers and simply gave Halliburton the contract.["Appointee's Role in Halliburton Pact Told", Los Angeles Times,6/14/2004] That decision was then brought to Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who reviewed the contract and raised no objections to the non-competitive process.

Cheney has denied having any financial stake in Halliburton receiving massive government contracts, claiming, "I severed my ties nearly four years ago when I ran for Vice President."["VP Interview with Wolf Blitzer, CNN", WhiteHouse.gov, 3/2/2004] But Cheney still receives about $150,000 a year in deferred compensation from Halliburton["Contract Sport", The New Yorker, 2/9/2004] and still owns about 433,000 company stock options["Halliburton asks employees to help defend company", CNN.com, 10/25/2003]; options which could become more valuable as the company's revenues rise. That fact was enough to lead the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to bill Cheney's continued financial ties a "potential conflict of interest."["Cheney may still have Halliburton ties", CNNmoney.com, 9/25/2003] And yet despite all these questions, the Bush administration's allies formally blocked any testimony from Halliburton employees about the matter.["Whistle-blowers say Halliburton rife with waste", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 6/15/2004] Specifically, when Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) presented a slate of witnesses to the House Government Reform Committee, they were prevented from appearing by Republicans. That move led Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to demand the appointment of a special counsel to independently investigate the situation. ["Senator Seeks Halliburton Special Counsel", Reuters, 6/14/2004]

Have at it, then. I am sure this is all just liberal bias or opinion masked as journalism or partisan bickering. I only ask that when you newspeak these lies into "innocent misunderstandings" or "liberal spin" you test your alleged "Kerry Lies" with the same bulls**t detector.

Reply #35 September 3, 2004 3:06 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Am I alone in thinking that Nixon did more to undermine people's faith in the presidency than Clinton?

I only ask that when you newspeak these lies into "innocent misunderstandings" or "liberal spin" you test your alleged "Kerry Lies" with the same bulls**t detector

Exactly. People are more forgiving when its someone they like.

Reply #36 September 3, 2004 3:13 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

It appears that President Bush is well on his way to winning a second term as president of the worlds mightiest nation.

I wasn't aware that George was running for office in Britain.

Reply #37 September 3, 2004 3:19 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Am I alone in thinking that Nixon did more to undermine people's faith in the presidency than Clinton?

I'm sure he did. Clinton had charisma, and that's enough for most people.

Reply #38 September 3, 2004 5:36 PM from PolMach Forums Top

It appears that President Bush is well on his way to winning a second term as president of the worlds mightiest nation. I wasn't aware that George was running for office in Britain.

Hah, Feuer Frei! Don't you mean Germany, after all who owns Rolls Royce, and who is your biggest banking firm beside the Swiss Bank, Deutsche Bank you say, well by jove I am shocked.

Wish I got invenmests into the Deutschemark before they went to the Euro, damn, oh well, by the by can you get a Burrito in England, how about some Coca-Cola? Make sure you don't spill that on your Nikes.

Reply #39 September 3, 2004 5:47 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

UPDATE…

September 3, 2004

HERE IS A COMPOSITE OF 4 POLLS RELEASED TODAY…

IN A 3 MAN RACE…
Bush……….53 percent
Kerry………40 percent
Nader.……..5 percent
Undecided…2 percent

IN A 2 MAN RACE…
Bush……….56 percent
Kerry………42 percent
Undecided…2 percent

It appears that the recent Republican Convention has given President Bush a solid bounce. The president might be on his way to a near landslide victory in November.

Reply #40 September 3, 2004 6:18 PM from PolMach Forums Top

As a sidenote Peter, I think the term world's mightiest nation should be one of the past, since now a days you might offend somebody like, say China for example, who could come in and uses it's largest Air Force and Army in the World on you, which wouldn't be good, probably more approriate to see a mighty nation of the world, but than again there are arrogant people everywhere who just have so much national pride it gets turned into a pissing contest.

Oh I had another question, since you are British or least I can infer that from your response, has the UK moved to using the Euro as well, or does the British Pound still exist, sorry about being a little ignorant on that, I know the Swiss (Are they apart of the EU?) still have the Swiss Bank Note, thought the British would keep some of their money considering it has pictures of Queen Elizabeth II on them.

Reply #41 September 3, 2004 6:24 PM from JoeUser Forums Top

Marvin,

I am going to have to ask for your source on this one; frankly, as I have followed the LP candidate, I have seen no polls, even among those released by the GOP, that have shown the numbers you are claiming. I would like the chance to look into this one further.

Reply #42 September 3, 2004 7:59 PM from PolMach Forums Top

I have no illusions that my response will satisfy anyone who thinks Bush is God's perfect little angel who never lies or makes a mistake. We can play semantic games until we are blue in the face about whether something is a "lie," a "slant" or merely "misleading." But here goes. Foregoing the obvious choices of WMD or Iraq-Al Queda connections; sidestepping more politically acceptable (but no less reprehensible) manipulations of statistics; avoiding the usual failed delivery on a campaign promise or twenty, here's ONE lie for Bush: In pushing Congress to pass its controversial Medicare bill, President Bush promised that "corporations have no intention to what they call 'dump retirees'"[Presidential Remarks, WhiteHouse.gov, 10/29/03] from their existing prescription drug coverage. But Bush's own health officials estimate that millions will be cut off from their existing drug coverage because of the new Medicare law. According to government documents obtained by the New York Times, the Bush Administration now estimates "that employers will reduce or eliminate prescription drug benefits for 3.8 million retirees when Medicare offers such coverage in 2006." That represents one-third of all the retirees with employer-sponsored drug coverage. Medicare's new benefits are often less comprehensive than those offered by employers. ["Medicare Law Is Seen Leading to Cuts in Drug Benefits for Retirees," New York Times] Arguably, the President is also responsible for the lies of his administration, so here's TWO that go to Cheney and his relationship with Halliburton: Vice President Dick Cheney has repeatedly assured Americans that he has positively no involvement in directing billions of taxpayer dollars in no-bid contracts to Halliburton, his former employer. In September of 2003, he told NBC's Meet the Press that his office has "absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts."["Cheney denies role in Iraq deal", The Boston Globe, 9/15/2003] In January of 2004, he told Fox News Radio, "I don't have anything to do with the contracting process, and I wouldn't know how to manipulate the process if I wanted to." ["Cheney faults 'desperate' attacks on Halliburton", CNN.com, 1/23/2004] But, according to new evidence, Cheney's office "coordinated"["Cheney Coordinated Halliburton Iraq Contract: Report", Common Dreams News Center, 5/31/2004] the Halliburton contracts and had the Pentagon specifically seek its input in constructing what ultimately became a multi-billion-dollar contract. According to the New York Times, the Pentagon discussed a $1.9 million planning contract with "senior Bush administration officials, including the Vice President's Chief of Staff"["White House Officials and Cheney Aide Approved Halliburton Contract in Iraq, Pentagon Says", The New York Times, 6/14/2004] before inking the deal. According to the Los Angeles Times, three companies were vying for the lucrative contract which was seen as the precursor to a much larger, $7 billion contract. But instead of following the normal competitive civil service contracting process, the Times reports that Bush administration political appointees overruled the advice of Army lawyers and simply gave Halliburton the contract.["Appointee's Role in Halliburton Pact Told", Los Angeles Times,6/14/2004] That decision was then brought to Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who reviewed the contract and raised no objections to the non-competitive process. Cheney has denied having any financial stake in Halliburton receiving massive government contracts, claiming, "I severed my ties nearly four years ago when I ran for Vice President."["VP Interview with Wolf Blitzer, CNN", WhiteHouse.gov, 3/2/2004] But Cheney still receives about $150,000 a year in deferred compensation from Halliburton["Contract Sport", The New Yorker, 2/9/2004] and still owns about 433,000 company stock options["Halliburton asks employees to help defend company", CNN.com, 10/25/2003]; options which could become more valuable as the company's revenues rise. That fact was enough to lead the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service to bill Cheney's continued financial ties a "potential conflict of interest."["Cheney may still have Halliburton ties", CNNmoney.com, 9/25/2003] And yet despite all these questions, the Bush administration's allies formally blocked any testimony from Halliburton employees about the matter.["Whistle-blowers say Halliburton rife with waste", Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 6/15/2004] Specifically, when Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) presented a slate of witnesses to the House Government Reform Committee, they were prevented from appearing by Republicans. That move led Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to demand the appointment of a special counsel to independently investigate the situation. ["Senator Seeks Halliburton Special Counsel", Reuters, 6/14/2004] Have at it, then. I am sure this is all just liberal bias or opinion masked as journalism or partisan bickering. I only ask that when you newspeak these lies into "innocent misunderstandings" or "liberal spin" you test your alleged "Kerry Lies" with the same bulls**t detector.

I will not even try to spin off the accusations made by you. For all I know you could very well be correct. However, reffering to "Kerry's lies", like I said even the US NAVY is questioning his Vietnam aquired medals. Mr Kerry has stated for the record that his Broze Star carries the "V' ( which means that it had been given 5 times). By the US Navy's OWN record, during the Vietnam conflict NO "v"'s were given to anyone! And that my good man is NO BS! As a retired military man (also US NAVY), I find this to be particularly heinious!

Reply #43 September 3, 2004 8:13 PM from PolMach Forums Top

It was the Silver Star not the Bronze, I think that's what's been in the news, from what I partially remember watching on Fox News.

Reply #44 September 3, 2004 8:22 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Found the article in question.

Kerry medal complaint reaches Navy secretary[LINK]
Excerpt:
The request was made by the public interest group Judicial Watch after news reports revealed Kerry's campaign website displays a document listing a "Silver Star with combat 'V'" even though the combat "V" device is never given with the nation's third highest award for heroism.

Yeah, so it was the Silver Star with V device, not Bronze Star.

Reply #45 September 3, 2004 8:41 PM from PolMach Forums Top

Reply #44 By: Citizen ShoZan - 9/3/2004 8:22:39 PM Found the article in question. Kerry medal complaint reaches Navy secretary[LINK] Excerpt: The request was made by the public interest group Judicial Watch after news reports revealed Kerry's campaign website displays a document listing a "Silver Star with combat 'V'" even though the combat "V" device is never given with the nation's third highest award for heroism. Yeah, so it was the Silver Star with V device, not Bronze Star.

You are quite correct. And I stand corrected.!

Reply #46 September 4, 2004 12:30 AM from PolMach Forums Top

In pushing Congress to pass its controversial Medicare bill, President Bush promised that "corporations have no intention to what they call 'dump retirees'"[Presidential Remarks, WhiteHouse.gov, 10/29/03] from their existing prescription drug coverage. But Bush's own health officials estimate that millions will be cut off from their existing drug coverage because of the new Medicare law. According to government documents obtained by the New York Times, the Bush Administration now estimates "that employers will reduce or eliminate prescription drug benefits for 3.8 million retirees when Medicare offers such coverage in 2006." That represents one-third of all the retirees with employer-sponsored drug coverage. Medicare's new benefits are often less comprehensive than those offered by employers. ["Medicare Law Is Seen Leading to Cuts in Drug Benefits for Retirees," New York Times]

And BTW the "controversial Medicare bill" has helped "alot more" people than it has hurt. If it wasn't for this "contoversial" bill, my parents would indeed be in DEEP do-do right now with their medical bills.

Reply #47 September 4, 2004 1:31 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Gideon........There are a lot of news websites around. That is where i get my information. But, of course, i check out the data first.

HERE ARE THE RESULTS OF A POLL TAKEN RECENTLY…

Being a strong leader: 58% said they trust Bush to provide strong leadership in difficult times, while only 36% said they trust Kerry to provide leadership in difficult times.

Terrorism: 58% trust Bush to handle the war on terror, while only 34% trust Kerry.

Iraq: 56% trust Bush to handle the war in Iraq, while 40% trust Kerry.

Leading the Armed Forces: 59% said they trust Bush to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces, while 34% said they trust Kerry.

Economic matters: 49% trust Bush more to handle the economy, while 42% trust Kerry.

Health care: 46% trust Kerry to handle health care problems, while 45% trust Bush.

Taxes: 54% trust Bush to handle tax policy, while 36% trust Kerry.

Reply #48 September 4, 2004 1:36 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

NOW GIDEON AND SOME OF THE REST OF YOU........ISN'T THIS POLL ON VARIOUS ISSUES SOLID PROOF THAT BUSH IS GOING TO WIN THE COMING ELECTION IN A LANDSLIDE??? JUST THE THOUGHT OF A FLIP-FLOPPING CASPER-MILQETOAST LIKE KERRY BECOMING PRESIDENT IS ENOUGH TO SCARE THE HELL OUT OF YOU!!!

Reply #49 September 4, 2004 1:37 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

There are a lot of news websites around. That is where i get my information. But, of course, i check out the data first.

These polls aren't consistent with the data from the websites I have seen, is what I'm saying. If you could please give us a link, I would appreciate it. I am well aware of how data can be manipulated, and I would like the chance to take a fair look at the information you're providing, is all.

Reply #50 September 4, 2004 1:37 AM from JoeUser Forums Top

Marvin: Can you provide a link or some other reference for those figures? That would be quite helpful in supporting your claim.