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
17,315 views 58 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
You may very well be right about Kerry losing. And that's a shame that religion is such a factor. Seems odd to me that these Catholics are against Kerry for his views on abortion, and therefore will most likely vote for Bush (if they vote at all) despite the hundreds, if not thousands of wrongful and senseless murders (by both Coalition and "Enemy" forces) to his name. I guess to these conservative religious people, it's reprehensible to abort a fetus in the woom, but once they pop out they are fair game in the name or revenge, oil and financial gain.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
You may very well be right about Kerry losing. And that's a shame that religion is such a factor. Seems odd to me that these Catholics are against Kerry for his views on abortion, and therefore will most likely vote for Bush (if they vote at all) despite the hundreds, if not thousands of wrongful and senseless murders (by both Coalition and "Enemy" forces) to his name. I guess to these conservative religious people, it's reprehensible to abort a fetus in the woom, but once they pop out they are fair game in the name or revenge, oil and financial gain.


Actually I wrote those in the wrong order. He's gonna lose alright but the "main" reason is he lies "alot". His "lies" will cost him the votes from "anyone" who has served in the military. And I "really" hate to tell you this but if you are reffering to the war in Iraq? We DID NOT do it for oil OR financial gain. And there is no proof to show that we did. That is of course unless you start spitting out the typical Democratic BS.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
His "lies" will cost him the votes from "anyone" who has served in the military.


You are wrong there, my friend.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
doc..............YOU ARE RIGHT. BUSH WILL WIN BY LANDSLIDE PROPORTIONS. THIS WILL SHOW THAT THE FARCICLE MOORE MOVIE COMPLETELY BACKFIRED ON THE DEMOS. EXCEPT FOR THE BLACK PEOPLE, MOST AMERICANS ARE VERY BRIGHT AND LITERATE VOTERS.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

EXCEPT FOR THE BLACK PEOPLE, MOST AMERICANS ARE VERY BRIGHT AND LITERATE VOTERS


only those who dont spell it 'fagot'

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

have been asked NOT to vote for John Kerry (by the dioces because of his stand on abortion


i certainly hope the bishops/archbishops/cardinals put that in writing.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #6 By: kingbee - 9/5/2004 4:15:15 AM

have been asked NOT to vote for John Kerry (by the dioces because of his stand on abortion




i certainly hope the bishops/archbishops/cardinals put that in writing.




They don't need to. And there ain't spit Kerry can do about it even if they did put it in writing. BTW this is NOT a new thing ....that is unless you forgot that Kerry was told NOT to take communion because of that. They just finally got around to saying something to their congregations.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #3 By: Texas Wahine - 9/5/2004 2:46:57 AM

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


You are wrong there, my friend.


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? And to tell the truth.....personally I think he's a chicken s**t a**hole!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

The US NAVY has challenged his "supposed" earned medals while in Vietnam


according to the link you posted, the navy isnt challenging anything. 

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
In launching the formal probe the Navy was responding to a referral from the Pentagon's inspector general's office - based on a complaint filed by the Washington-based legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, Fox News reported Friday.

Story Continues Below



In a letter to Judicial Watch, the inspector general's office said: "Concerning our allegations of violations of Uniform Code of Military Justice, we have the responsibility to ... 'report suspected or alleged violations.' We have informed the secretary of the Navy of the allegations."
Former Navy Secretary John Lehman, who has challenged the authenticity of his signature on one of Kerry's war decorations, told Fox that Navy records needed to be "thoroughly researched and the facts established."

Most of the questions about Kerry's combat record appear to be based on processing errors, Navy sources told the news network.

However, even if the errors were based on inadvertent mistakes, any corrections would force the top Democrat to acknowledge that citations touting his heroism that have been posted to his Web site for months were false - a development that could have devastating political consequences.


If this ain't a challenge then I don't know what one would be!!! They are launching an investigation on his medals. What then is an investigation but a challenge of the precepts put forward by someone
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
They don't need to. And there ain't spit Kerry can do about it even if they did put it in writing.


No, there isn't spit KERRY can do about it, but the IRS can revoke their tax exempt status....wouldn't THAT be news!
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
What's being challenged is whether he is misrepresenting the types of citations he received, specifically the Silver Star with Combat V (there is no such citation), and for displaying a possible falsified record on his website, supposedly signed by Former Navy Secretary John Lehman (who said he never signed or even saw it.

What will probably hurt Kerry the worst is his own words ""If you wind up being less than what you're pretending to be, there is a major confrontation with value, self-esteem and your sense of how others view you" regarding the same action taken by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jeremy Boorda in 1996. Kerry also said the error was "sufficient to question his leadership position."

Sometimes it seems Kerry is not quite aware of what he is doing.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #11 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/5/2004 8:16:11 AM

They don't need to. And there ain't spit Kerry can do about it even if they did put it in writing.


No, there isn't spit KERRY can do about it, but the IRS can revoke their tax exempt status....wouldn't THAT be news!



#1) That ain't NEVER going to happen. They (the government) does not want to piss off that big a block of voters!

#2) They would need a "legal" reason to do so. And that my friend, as they say does NOT exsist! They have done "nothing" illegal to warrent such an action.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

You may very well be right about Kerry losing. And that's a shame that religion is such a factor. Seems odd to me that these Catholics are against Kerry for his views on abortion, and therefore will most likely vote for Bush (if they vote at all) despite the hundreds, if not thousands of wrongful and senseless murders (by both Coalition and "Enemy" forces) to his name. I guess to these conservative religious people, it's reprehensible to abort a fetus in the woom, but once they pop out they are fair game in the name or revenge, oil and financial gain.


People are stupid like that. You may recall that many African Americans voted for Clinton, even though he had millions of African casualties to his name simply because he didn't care about people who weren't white.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
#1) That ain't NEVER going to happen. They (the government) does not want to piss off that big a block of voters!

#2) They would need a "legal" reason to do so. And that my friend, as they say does NOT exsist! They have done "nothing" illegal to warrent such an action.


Yes, they have. If they endorsed a candidate for public office from the pulpit, they are in very clear violation of the law, and the resultant penalty is removal of their tax exempt status. This has been clearly stipulated to ALL churches since the mid-1990's when the law was put in place to counter the Christian Coalition.
Reply #16 from PolMach Forums Top
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! A bunch of racism here on this forum???

"doc..............YOU ARE RIGHT. BUSH WILL WIN BY LANDSLIDE PROPORTIONS. THIS WILL SHOW THAT THE FARCICLE MOORE MOVIE COMPLETELY BACKFIRED ON THE DEMOS. EXCEPT FOR THE BLACK PEOPLE, MOST AMERICANS ARE VERY BRIGHT AND LITERATE VOTERS"-your quote

You can't suppose that just because some 'black' (or brown because they can't be black or they'd match my bookshelves) Americans aren't very smart. Many people out there who are brown are very intelligent. We have tons of brown congressmen out there. We have Barack Obama and even the Republicans own Alan Keyes: two very smart, intelligent brown people in America. We have Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely Braun. These are just few of the many smart brown people in America. I suggest that you should be suspended because of your hurtful remarks about some brown people. FYI: I am brown, and I am smarter than any person in my class. How do I know this? I receive all the awards in my class. I receive the better grades.. So, I suggest you take that back.

In the case of a debate, you can't suppose G.W. Bush is going to win in a landslide. Actually, I think that is a laugh. The American people are fed up with G.W. Bush's horrible policy on jobs, and the economy. Americans have lost almost 7 million jobs since G.W. took office. The economy has been unstable ever since. The environment is crumbling because of G.W.'s policy---can't you believe he believes in drilling in Alaska???---. America has been better during the days of Bill Clinton. Even Ronald Reagan. We need a John Kerry in the office of America. We need John Kerry and John Edwards fighting for American values, and universal health care. We need to stop outsourcing jobs. We need to stop, and think: the American people are very important. And if we don't take care of their needs, America will crumble.
Reply #17 from PolMach Forums Top
And this Catholic thing with the American people. I am pro-choice. I am pro-gay. And I am catholic. And I'm proud. If all men were created equal, then why should a man not be able to marry whoever he wants. Why should I care? Why should a sickly woman, who has the chances of dying if she births a baby be tortured into having a baby rather than having an abortion. And, before you answer WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR MOTHER? WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR FATHER? WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR SISTER, OR BROTHER, or AUNT, or UNCLE?
Reply #18 from PolMach Forums Top
Well said Deaniac! You beat me to a reply to that racist BS! The right wing and GOP once again shows it's true colors!
Reply #19 from PolMach Forums Top
Thanks, and I hope that this Marvin Cooley guy gives a face-to-face apology to the brown people of America.
Reply #20 from PolMach Forums Top
I am also Catholic and proud of it. I am pro-life - but that means in ALL ways - not just abortion. I am against capital punishment as well as wars ( which no matter how precision our weapons are they still kill some innocent people) that are not in self defense. To me, that is much less hypocritical than these "so called" religious right to lifers that scream about abortion but go ahead and cheer Bush on for invading Iraq and for executing those committing major crimes.
I know I am off the subject of the thread to a degree, but was just responding to/adding to what Deaniac said above.
Reply #21 from PolMach Forums Top
It is okay to be pro-life, but I think some people need to realize, it isn't always good to be pro-life. It is sometimes good to think of the future.
Reply #22 from PolMach Forums Top
I agree Deaniac - especially when you mentioned what if it was your wife, mother, aunt, etc....That makes the WHOLE issue soo much more difficult and complicated. Tough issue no doubt!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #15 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/5/2004 4:25:54 PM

#1) That ain't NEVER going to happen. They (the government) does not want to piss off that big a block of voters!

#2) They would need a "legal" reason to do so. And that my friend, as they say does NOT exsist! They have done "nothing" illegal to warrent such an action.


Yes, they have. If they endorsed a candidate for public office from the pulpit, they are in very clear violation of the law, and the resultant penalty is removal of their tax exempt status. This has been clearly stipulated to ALL churches since the mid-1990's when the law was put in place to counter the Christian Coalition.


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! I'm sure glad "you" ain't my lawyer!
Reply #24 from PolMach Forums Top
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.


You answered my question, I forgot,as long as you don't endorse (support by saying VOTE FOR) a candidate you CAN say don't vote for such and such.

And this Catholic thing with the American people. I am pro-choice. I am pro-gay. And I am catholic. And I'm proud. If all men were created equal, then why should a man not be able to marry whoever he wants.


Um, all I have to say is I don't mind gays, and don't like how some get treated as a second class citizen, but for the marriage thing, if my Uncle, who is gay (guess you could say I fit the stereotype of Puerto Ricans and how all of them seem to have one gay uncle, well than again he says he's not gay but his boyfriend is) says he doesn't want the marriage thing, than I am not going to support it, because he's a member of my family and I support his right to not want it. Also he is Catholic as well.

Onto Pro-Choice or at least my take on it.
Why should a sickly woman, who has the chances of dying if she births a baby be tortured into having a baby rather than having an abortion.

Who I think I got stats on that one, cause just for chits and giggles I wanted to know what was the ratio of healthy pregnancies aborted versus unhealthy pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother abortions.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
Link to Source [LINK]

So if you add up the last two you have 6.1%, 6 out of every 100 Babies (just a rough estimate) are aborted because of Health related risks, hmmmm, kind makes the argument kind of pale, and I don't think when they are talking about Health risks when it comes to being pro-life do you not have an abortion, could be wrong but that's my stance at least. Seems that most of reasons for aborting a child are out of inconvenience, which isn't that just sad?

As For Iraq:
Despite the many reasons, here is my reason for supporting it.

"De Oppresso Liber" Motto of the United States Special Forces (Green Berets) means "To Liberate the Oppressed", should be more than enough reason for Iraq, or do you believe Saddam was such a benevolent kind dictator, and it was all his sons who were bad.
Reply #25 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.

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.