drmiler drmiler

John Kerry is going to LOSE!

▼

John Kerry is going to LOSE!

from JoeUser Forums
To all of you hopefuls out there, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here"! I live in PA which is "one" of the swing states. The Catholics in PA (practising catholics anyway) have been asked NOT to vote for John Kerry (by the dioces because of his stand on abortion. And to top it all off he's been "shown" once again to be a "liar".! The US NAVY has challenged his "supposed" earned medals while in Vietnam. Here's the link on that. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/3/110242.shtml
politics
17,318 views 58 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
They don't have a birth certificate, they aren't a citizen of America, etc. I could go on for hours.


So do you advocate the opportunity for a woman to have an abortion in the ninth month of the pregnancy?
Reply #27 from PolMach Forums Top
Well, I think we need to look beyond the 'he's my uncle' and 'she's my aunt'. Think of the people out there who want to do it?? If America is land of the free, then why should a woman not have the right to choose? Why should a man not have the right to choose? Think about that.


Problem I have it further opens up the definition of Marriage, so that it could eventually let a man marry a sheep, would it be alright for that man to get a tax break because he is married even though it is a sheep, what doesn't he have the right to choose who he wants to marry.

You know, I would seriously like to know how many Ancient Civilizations used as support for some arguments allowed gay marriages, granted some defended with the argument "well look at those civilizations royal families marrying brother and sister", well Royal Families are just messed up in the past and today I think enough proof is out there for that, but if you look outside those royal families and the common joe and jane, how many were gay marriages? My Psychology teacher pointed out that if homosexuality was genetic than it would have died out, so a genetic argument doesn't work, other than it's a person's right to choose their sex partner, so why still should it be allowed, how about we do it the democratic way, and let each state decide how they are going to deal with it or is there something wrong with putting something that affects all of us to a vote?

Onto abortion:
I guess you are right in some ways---but that statistic was taken between some women in America. That is not the real thing. That is the 'rough estimate'. And also, so a woman can't afford it, or doesn't want to take care of it---they have the choice to. One thing that gets me mad is when these Republican-wackos say that you are aborting a 'real live human being', but they are not actually. They don't have a birth certificate, they aren't a citizen of America, etc. I could go on for hours. Still---back to the civil rights issue: it is a women's right to choose.


Though I think everyone of us here wouldn't have this argument if we were aborted. I think its going to take time and serious debate and consideration to figure this completely out.
Sins of a Solar Empire II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
So sayeth all that I have talked to. And BTW tthat includes ME! 8 years with the US NAVY I think would qualify me to be included in that group?


You made a HUGE generalization that I contested. Seeing as I live on a military base and socialize primarily with service members and their spouses, I can tell you now that your generalization . . .

His "lies" will cost him the votes from "anyone" who has served in the military.


. . . cannot possibly be true. You can't presume to speak for everyone who is currently serving, or has ever served, in the military . . . just as I cannot presume to speak for all mothers of 7 & 3 year old boys. It doesn't work that way. Am I nitpicking with you? Yes. Why? Hell if I know . . . probably just because I'm a jerk.

THE END
Reply #29 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes. He is going to lose unless G. W. Bush suddenly scream like Howard Dean. I thought Kerry has a chance until the GOP convention. Kerry got no bounce and Bush got bounce. Sure, I understand bounce is short-live and doesn't tend to stay, but the usually part is not Bush got a bounce, but Kerry got no bounce. How can anyone interpret a no bounce? Before the GOP convention, there are two explainations to the "no bounce" effect for Kerry. One is that the country is very polarized, and there is very few independent voters. Therefore, no significant amount of people would possible change their minds. The other explanation is that the Democrat National Convention sucks. No offense, but this is the worst convention result for the last 50 years. So the word "suck" is accuate. I used to believe the first explanation, that is the number of independent voters are few in this election, but the GOP bounce proved me wrong.

Thus, no matter which party you belongs to. You have to agree that the DNC was a bad show, so bad that the Democrats aren't even excited about it. (If the Democrats are excited, then there should be a small bounce among likely voters, because mroe Democrat are exicted about Kerry and they are now more likely to vote. However, we don't see that).

Some Kerry supporters say it is all smoke in the RNC. Look, I disagree with their bitter argument, but let's pretend they are right. Let's say, the RNC didn't really get any real message to voters. But here is the catch. Even if you believe it is all smoke in the RNC, at least they have "smoke" and maybe something real there too. The problem is not the RNC convention, the problem is not the RNC bounce. Historially, nomittees get bounce from their convetion about 5-15 points. The question which Democrat has to really face and try to answer is "Why didn't Kerry get any bounce at all -- something truely historical" This is the question Kerry supporters have to answer. Stop explaning the obvious (bush has a bounce). Try to explain and understand the real problem. If Kerry is to lose, the problem is not Bush. The problem is himself. During DNC convention, Bush stopped visible campaigning. So why didn't Kerry get any bounce during the DNC when Bush is not visible. The factor is not Bush.
Reply #30 from PolMach Forums Top
Yes. He is going to lose unless G. W. Bush suddenly scream like Howard Dean.


And just start blabbing on about how he is searching for his precious, hehehe mmmm Smeigol Dean / Gollum Dean, so far Dean would have been a better challenge for Bush than Kerry, cause Dean's got spunk.

What doomed Kerry is that he had no great political record to speak of, so they relied on his vietnam record, which a military record no matter how great, do not a president make.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
What doomed Kerry is that he had no great political record to speak of, so they relied on his vietnam record, which a military record no matter how great, do not a president make.


It would have been difficult for Kerry's campaign to put Kerry's record as the prime focus, as much of his record appears at odds with the platform he is running on. This left him little, except for his war record, which probably seemed like a good idea to try to counter the widely held belief that Democrats are weak on defense.
Reply #32 from PolMach Forums Top
Dean wouldn't do. In fact, the Bush team (during the democrat primary) made the assestment that Dean is easy and Liberman is tough. Dean is a northeastern liberal. He may have some crazy spark but most people won't vote for him. Why? Look, he is running at on a liberal plateform, right? The only way for a candidate who run on the extreme side of their party and win to energize the hell out of his own party. To get them all out to vote for you and not rely on independent voter. But look at Dean, he didn't make it close in primary, he is not number one, he is not number two, and he might well not be number three if Gephart and Wesley didn't drop out early. Dean only won one state (maybe two). How can someone win one state in his own primary win Bush. Dean, a liberal democrat who cannot energized his party to vote for him, has absolute no chance to run against Bush.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
A line from the RNC convention says it best bout Kerry's problem...."He (kerry) would have to do a google search to find out where he currently stands on an issue!"

I forget who said it but it is prob the best overall political statement in a while.....

Dick Gephart or Joseph Lieberman were far more qualified candidates for the dems to run....I may strongly disagree with them but atleast I know if they make a statement regarding an issue...they will stand by it.....Kerry hasnt learned this political stategy in 19+ years in politics....and America is still waiting for him to talk bout his senate experience for longer than the 22 seconds during the DNC convention

this among other things (x-mas in cambodia, issues regarding his medals on his dd214 and dd215, testimony of alleged war crimes, meeting with N. Vietnamese officials while the war was going on) are finally taking a toll on him....while I'm not sure if this is gonna be a landslide for bush...he will wil
Reply #35 from PolMach Forums Top
Two Navy officers told an interesting thing to me last week. The latest rumor running through the Navy is that the investigation, cited in the original post, is started for one reason. The Navy has asked Kerry five times for his authorization to release the AARs and other detailed reports about his four months in Vietnam. He has refused. The only documentation released by Kerry is his awards and a few other items. (This includes all of his medical records, but he has only release a summary by his doctor of those.)

The rumor is that someone read one of those unreleased documents and what was read revealed major faults in his awards documentations. Kerry may not allow these records to be released, but that does not prevent the Navy personnel from looking at them for legal reasons.

Call it party politics, but the bombshell may land in Kerry’s lap just before the elections when the review of those records will be open to the JAG personnel.

Maybe it's just rumors, but these two guys did not think so.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
B*llS**t!!! Thay have endorsed NO candidate! They just said don't vote for this one. What they didn't say and you obviously didn't catch was, vote for "this" candidate. So "once again" I repeat, they have done NOTHING illegal!


Wrong, because actually, I was incomplete in my wording which was advocating for or against a candidate.

If they truly told people not to vote for Kerry, then, yes, their tax exempt status should be removed.

As to how I know these things, well it's simple. I am a minister, and I have 4 family members (father, uncle, uncle, aunt) who are either active or retired ministers. So I DO know the law pretty well!

Oh, and, if you can't keep a certain decorum to your conversations, I am not going to reply further. Just because you believe your church has the right to bully people into voting for or against their candidates of choice doesn't make it so, and my pointing it out doesn't give you the right to curse me, and, frankly, it's indicative of lower intelligence.
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

If this ain't a challenge then I don't know what one would be!!!


i agree.  youre having difficulty discerning the difference between judicial watch challenging kerry's medals and the navy investigating judicial watch's claims--which will very likely turn out to have as much validity as the swiftboat vets truth.  if kerry has any sense, hell realize honor has become a badly devalued currency in this election and stop trying to defend his against attacks by those to whom the word--and the concept--means nothing.

Reply #38 from JoeUser Forums Top

If they truly told people not to vote for Kerry, then, yes, their tax exempt status should be removed.


exactly.  i was just about to address that issue but gideon did it more competently than i would have.

Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Call it party politics

Maybe it's just rumors


a mixture of both seems most likely.

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #36 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/6/2004 2:22:35 AM
B*llS**t!!! Thay have endorsed NO candidate! They just said don't vote for this one. What they didn't say and you obviously didn't catch was, vote for "this" candidate. So "once again" I repeat, they have done NOTHING illegal!


Wrong, because actually, I was incomplete in my wording which was advocating for or against a candidate.

If they truly told people not to vote for Kerry, then, yes, their tax exempt status should be removed.

As to how I know these things, well it's simple. I am a minister, and I have 4 family members (father, uncle, uncle, aunt) who are either active or retired ministers. So I DO know the law pretty well!

Oh, and, if you can't keep a certain decorum to your conversations, I am not going to reply further. Just because you believe your church has the right to bully people into voting for or against their candidates of choice doesn't make it so, and my pointing it out doesn't give you the right to curse me, and, frankly, it's indicative of lower intelligence


Actually Gidieon it's NOT my church, I'm a Lutheran. But I live in a predominantly Catholic region (Pittsburgh,PA). I apoligize for the cursing. Somtimes I tend to get carried away. But again as I said before that ain't going to happen. They can ill aford to anger that large of a block of voters weather what they're doing is wrong or not.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #36 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/6/2004 2:22:35 AM
B*llS**t!!! Thay have endorsed NO candidate! They just said don't vote for this one. What they didn't say and you obviously didn't catch was, vote for "this" candidate. So "once again" I repeat, they have done NOTHING illegal!


Wrong, because actually, I was incomplete in my wording which was advocating for or against a candidate.

If they truly told people not to vote for Kerry, then, yes, their tax exempt status should be removed.

As to how I know these things, well it's simple. I am a minister, and I have 4 family members (father, uncle, uncle, aunt) who are either active or retired ministers. So I DO know the law pretty well!

Oh, and, if you can't keep a certain decorum to your conversations, I am not going to reply further. Just because you believe your church has the right to bully people into voting for or against their candidates of choice doesn't make it so, and my pointing it out doesn't give you the right to curse me, and, frankly, it's indicative of lower intelligence


BTW if what they were doing was illegal, I'd be willing to bet the farm "John Kerry" would be SCREAMING his head off and bringing legal action against them!
Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
dr,

It's not illegal in a criminal sense, it is an IRS issue. And I guarantee, if they are publicly advocating for or against a candidate, the IRS is looking into it. My point was, I highly doubt the Catholic church is making such public proclamations, because it has been made clear to ministers of all faiths that this is the law since it was enacted.

What they can do, and is most likely, is advocate for or against certain ISSUES...they cannot name candidates, but they can leave the implications of their issues stances out there for their congregation...for instance, many conservative churches are advocating for the federal marriage amendment...pretty much any educated voter knows which president backs that piece of legislation.
Reply #43 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #42 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/6/2004 10:09:26 AM

dr,

It's not illegal in a criminal sense, it is an IRS issue. And I guarantee, if they are publicly advocating for or against a candidate, the IRS is looking into it. My point was, I highly doubt the Catholic church is making such public proclamations, because it has been made clear to ministers of all faiths that this is the law since it was enacted.

What they can do, and is most likely, is advocate for or against certain ISSUES...they cannot name candidates, but they can leave the implications of their issues stances out there for their congregation...for instance, many conservative churches are advocating for the federal marriage amendment...pretty much any educated voter knows which president backs that piece of legislation.



Excuse me sir but........ If the IRS is looking into it then it IS a criminal offense! There would be NO other reason for them to do it. So by your own words it's not illegal in a criminal sense and ain't spit going to happen about it
Reply #44 from JoeUser Forums Top
It may turn out that Kerry was even less electable than Howard Dean, with all the baggage from Vietnam, (throwing his medals at White House, calling his brothers war criminals, etc.) his 20 year Senate record of being on the wrong side of history time and time again on defense, and his obvious ambition to raise taxes on ALL Americans, and even after he raises those taxes, his spending plans will still triple the deficit. With the way the numbers are now, Kerry would have to defy history to prevail in the election.
Reply #45 from PolMach Forums Top
I agree a women has the choice. . . to keep her legs together. Abortion is murder plain and simple! Homosexuality is wrong, end of story! For myself, what I base my vote on is Morals, and it is very clear George W. has moral conviction and grit (sticks by what he says). Kerry is a typical liberal democrat who changes as much as the tides. Don't get me wrong there are a few good democrats out there. Americans need to get common sense back instead of leaning on their emotions so much. Look at how our country was founded and by whom; 97% of them were God fearing Christians. We need to get back to God if we want out country to be great again.

When you have an absolute (never changes) why go astray from it and try to change. Again, absolutes don't change 2+2=4 (ALWAYS) It doesn't matter how many bleeding heart liberal goofs try and say different. The sad thing is so many get caught up on arrguing about the results of a problem instead of the problem itself. If we want aAmerica to be great again, then get back to God. And, I don't mean whatever God you believe in. The one true triune God. God the Father, God the Son, and God the holy Spirit. The God of the BIBLE!
Reply #46 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW Gideon, this just in. The Democrats have "already" tried screaming "separation of church and state" over this! And they were very politely "shut down"!
Reply #47 from JoeUser Forums Top
BTW Gideon, this just in. The Democrats have "already" tried screaming "separation of church and state" over this! And they were very politely "shut down"!


drmiler,

The fact that you ignore the FACTS for your political bias, shows that you are rather ignorant and not worthy of my time to debate. Good day sir
Reply #48 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #47 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/6/2004 10:52:45 AM

BTW Gideon, this just in. The Democrats have "already" tried screaming "separation of church and state" over this! And they were very politely "shut down"!


drmiler,

The fact that you ignore the FACTS for your political bias, shows that you are rather ignorant and not worthy of my time to debate. Good day sir



Could you please explain to me just "how" I'm ignoring the "facts"?

Here's a "fact" for ya!
The benediction at the rally was given by retired bishop Rene Gracitas of Corpus Christi, Texas, who also was invited to give the invocation following Vice President Cheney's speech on Wednesday night. He told NewsMax that he believes he was invited "because in the middle of August I issued a statement in which I said that no Catholic could vote for John Kerry with a clear conscience."


"No Catholic could ever vote for John Kerry because he is 100 percent pro-abortion whereas President Bush is not," he told NewsMax just before Bush's speech.


And here's another one for you from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette:

Catholic Bishops discuss integrity, permissible election activities
Monday, September 06, 2004

By Ann Rodgers, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette



Faith and politics are at issue in separate documents issued by the Catholic dioceses of Pittsburgh and Greensburg.

In Greensburg, Bishop Lawrence Brandt's first pastoral letter, "Integrity and the Political Arena," uses strong language against Catholic legislators who support abortion rights, but it backs the U.S. bishops' position that it is up to such legislators to voluntarily refrain from the Eucharist. A pamphlet from the Diocese of Pittsburgh reiterates church and Internal Revenue Service guidelines about what election-oriented activities are permitted or forbidden on church property.

Brandt reaches the same conclusion about dissenting legislators that Pittsburgh Bishop Donald Wuerl did in a May speech that the bishops' conference later echoed. But where Wuerl allowed that poor Catholic grounding and media obfuscation may have left some Catholic legislators confused about why the church opposes abortion, Brandt found little room for excuse. To pretend to be a good Catholic while erasing fetuses from the human race calls into question legislators' integrity and, therefore, their fitness for office, Brandt wrote.

"In view of the well-articulated, well-publicized, and consistent position of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years, and on the basis of dialogues which may have taken place concerning public officials' advocating questionable positions from the point of view of Catholic Church teaching, it is difficult to imagine that Catholic public officials or aspirants for public office could be ignorant of the fact that voting in favor of abortion legislation is gravely wrong and is a rejection of a core doctrinal holding of the Catholic Church concerning the sanctity of human life from the moment of fertilization," Brandt wrote.

Nevertheless, "I think the decision about the reception of Holy Communion should be put where it belongs -- on the person contemplating receiving Holy Communion. It should not be imposed on the bishop, on the priest, on the deacon, nor on the Eucharistic minister. That is 'passing the buck!'" he wrote.

In Pittsburgh, where Democratic Presidential nominee John Kerry, a vocal abortion rights advocate, has received communion at his wife's home parish of St. Scholastica in Aspinwall, some anti-abortion advocates picketed Wuerl's office. But the feedback that Brandt has received has been primarily positive, said Angie Burrows, a spokeswoman for the diocese.

"The most important issue for him, as the title of the letter suggests, is integrity," she said. "You can't espouse certain religious beliefs and then publicly act inconsistently with those beliefs."

The Diocese of Pittsburgh reissued its "Political Action Guidelines for Campaigning Activity at Parishes and Schools." The brochure emphasizes that while parishes and schools should apply Catholic values to public issues, partisan activity for candidates is forbidden.

Church organizations can register voters in a nonpartisan drive but cannot arrange for groups to work for a particular candidate. Distribution of any candidate survey "that evidences a bias toward certain issues" also is forbidden.

A parish may host a forum in which all candidates for an office discuss the issues, but it may not invite only selected candidates to address members, said Susan Rauscher, diocesan secretary for pastoral and social concerns.

Church property may not be used for purposes that contradict Catholic teaching. And a person whose conduct, voting record or public comments are contrary to church teaching should not be given awards, the brochure said.

Asked whether a legislator who favored abortion rights could speak at a parish on topics unrelated to abortion, Rauscher said that would be decided on a case-by-case basis.

"It would go through a review process. It gets a little gray. Some of the things that can weigh into it include whether or not they are in the middle of a political campaign, what information they were bringing and their expertise," she said.

The diocese reissues these guidelines about two months before every election, Rauscher said.

And GOOD DAY to you also!
Reply #49 from JoeUser Forums Top
Could you please explain to me just "how" I'm ignoring the "facts"?


With pleasure.

Do you consider the IRS webpage a legitimate source of info, or is it part of the vast leftwing conspiracy?

Link
Reply #50 from JoeUser Forums Top

In view of the well-articulated, well-publicized, and consistent position of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years


that's patent nonsense too (not cuz of the calendar confusion either)   abortion was only considered incidentally sinful--in that termination of pregnancy destroyed evidence of immoral sexual activity--for quite some time (like several hundred + years)