Dont Like Bush Or Kerry?

[morostheos]

I'm thinking I'll probably vote for Joe. Much better than voting for a pro-abortion candidate as an alternative vote! I could never vote for Dean, but Joe sounds good to me!

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='XIX' date='Apr 30 2004, 10:17 AM'] I think Dubya is a bit sketchy. I don't like his views on the environment or the death penalty.

But a kajillion times better than Kerry. At least Bush is pro life, but he still endorsed the pro choie Specter. blahhhh

I can't stand politics. [/quote]
I agree. I'm not crazy about Bush, either. He really isn't 100% pro-life (even over abortion), and he always puts those loopholes in his arguments against abortion. But, on the other hand, he'll definitely do less damage than Kerry will. Kerry is blatantly anti-life. Sure, he might be against the death penalty, but he's also for the unrestricted slaughter of preborn kids. I can't support that. So, if I vote at all, I'm going to vote for Bush.

There's no way that I'm gonna vote for a pro-abort/pro-"choice" politician.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Seatbelt Blue' date='Apr 30 2004, 11:17 AM'] I don't vote abortion because the President _does not have the power to change it_. Never has. Never will. I'm a staunch pro-lifer, and I, for a long time, refused to support Dean. But I have come, very reluctantly, to this side, and I honestly feel Dean is the best for this country.

[/quote]
That's not [i]necessarily[/i] true. The power to make abortion illegal again lies in the courts. How do you think pro-life judges get there? The President appoints them. And Sen. John Kerry has stated that he will only appoint pro-"choice" judges. I don't know where Howard Dean stands on this, but I wouldn't be too surprised if he was much worse, being that he has closer ties to the abortion industry.

The President can also sign the law that would end abortion; and if he appointed pro-life judges, they could enforce it.

[quote]To answer an earlier question, I don't think Bush is evil, nor do I think Kerry is evil. "Lesser of two evils" is a phrase implying two unpleasant choices. My biggest problem with Bush is that _his cabinet is nuts_. A vote for Bush is a vote for Ashcroft. Bush is also a _very_ divisive figure, and there are simply too many unanswered questions about Iraq. Now, I'm of the opinion that he had bad intelligence, and I still hope Bush wins reelection in November. Remember, this campaign of mine, which is finding a lot of support in the short time it's existed, is not geared to have Dean _win_ in November, but rather, to send a very message to Washington, and to help foster American populism.[/quote]

There's simply no contest between the war in Iraq and abortion. 4000+ babies are killed [b]each day[/b] by abortion. Not to play down the lives lost during the war, but less than 800 Americans have died during this [i]entire[/i] war. At least the Iraqis can defend themselves -- something innocent preborn babies cannot do.

[quote]Howard Dean, I am convinced, is our generation's Theodore Roosevelt.[/quote]

Howard Dean? Not even close.

God bless,

Jennifer

Edited May 1, 2004 by BeenaBobba

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Seatbelt Blue' date='Apr 30 2004, 11:20 AM'] As for Dean's stance on gay marriage, his stance is the Constitutional stance - leave it to the states. The Federal government has _no right_ to legislate on marriage _period_. Marriage has always been one of those issues where the states have sovereignty. It's not Washington's concern. Leave it to Richmond, Albany, Lansing, Sacramento, Des Moines, Boise, and Montpelier. [/quote]
I disagree. Leaving it to states, or cities, will create a Constitutional crisis. You have some states accepting it and others rejecting it. There's no uniformity. Leaving it to the states is pretty chaotic.

God bless,

Jen

[voiciblanche]

Bush isn't entirely pro-life, which annoys me. He also supports the death penalty. Also, a man who is more concerned with the popular vote than whether or not he's living good morals is not a man of faith to me. When I can vote, I'll never, ever vote for the person who compromises the life of a child. When it comes to abortion, a compromise is NOT acceptable.

[photosynthesis]

well, even though Bush is a man of faith, he's still capable of sinning just like everyone else. and he did wage a war on Iraq in which many died. He's also a huge supporter of the death penalty, which isn't a very merciful (or just for that matter) way to deal with criminals. but he did ban partial birth abortion which is one step in the right direction.

I think the Republican and Democrat party are both guilty of advocating policy that is against God's will. Republican economic policy is bad for the poor and they support war and the death penalty. The he democrats want to make gay marriage legal and uphold roe v. wade...so...I think both platforms have some good in them and some evil too and it's hard to choose because either way someone's going to die because of the way I vote.

[Matty_boy]

Howard Dean did sit on the board for planned parenthood and his wife was a nurse there. I can't believe you people are trying to get people to vote for that man. He's not evil, he was created in God's image, but he certainly is doing his best to screw that up.

[musturde]

No, No, vote for Ralph. He's Lebanese... that's all that matters.

[littleflower+JMJ]

im going to do my best to keep Kerry out of office (the pro-choice candidate) and by voting for any other party than the other one, the Rep, wont' help me do that.

im voting for bush. we need to keep kerry out.

[Seatbelt Blue]

Let me clarify one very important point:

My plan only applies to people in states which, like Virginia, Texas, and California, are pretty much dead-set to vote for either Bush or Kerry. The universe would impode if Virginia went democratic. It hasn't done that in forty years.

In Virginia, then, a vote for Kerry isn't going make a difference, so a vote for Dean is entirely neutral. In California, a Bush vote is equally futile, and a Dean vote is, then neutral to the major candidates.

[BurkeFan]

[quote name='Seatbelt Blue' date='May 1 2004, 07:09 AM'] Let me clarify one very important point:

My plan only applies to people in states which, like Virginia, Texas, and California, are pretty much dead-set to vote for either Bush or Kerry. The universe would impode if Virginia went democratic. It hasn't done that in forty years.

In Virginia, then, a vote for Kerry isn't going make a difference, so a vote for Dean is entirely neutral. In California, a Bush vote is equally futile, and a Dean vote is, then neutral to the major candidates. [/quote]
Your plan still involves compromising [i]everything[/i] by voting for a extremely pro-abortion candidate. That's the serious problem with it. It doesn't matter if it influences the election, the message sent is that Catholics will unquestioningly support candidates who violate everything they support in the ballot box. I can't fathom how you possibly can vote for Howard Dean in good conscience. You have a moral responsibility to vote for the pro-life candidate, and Dean's about as pro-choice as they come.
In Christ,
Dave

Edited May 1, 2004 by BurkeFan

[XIX]

Is there anybody who is more pro-life than Bush?

[annie]

Alan Keyes!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]This is not the way it HAS to work. We don't need to be stuck choosing the lesser of two evils.[/quote]

Voting for Howard Dean would be voting for the greater of three evils.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]In Virginia, then, a vote for Kerry isn't going make a difference, so a vote for Dean is entirely neutral. In California, a Bush vote is equally futile, and a Dean vote is, then neutral to the major candidates.[/quote]

But then, if Dean doesn't win, as he likely wouldn't, it would still end up with either Bush or Kerry. One might as well vote for either Bush or Kerry anyway!