Quietfire Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 (edited) This I think should explain alot. How soon we forget everything that happened after Sept. 11. This is something I knew people would forget. The feeling we had shortly after that horrendous event have faded and will continue to fade until one day, the whole thing will be blamed on President Bush, or some other pathetic reasoning. For example, does anyone remember the entire Senate standing together singing "God Bless America" shortly afterward? That is something I will never forget, even when they started to critisize the President. ~An Ode to America~ We rarely get a chance to see another country's editorial about the USA. Please read this excerpt from a Romanian Newspaper. The article was written by Mr. Cornel Nistorescu and published under the title "C"ntarea Americii (meaning "Ode To America") on September 24, 2002, in the Romanian newspaper Evenimentulzilei ("The Daily Event" or "News of the Day") ~ Why are Americans so united? They would not resemble one another even if you painted them all one color! They speak all the languages of the world and form an astonishing mixture of civilizations and religious beliefs. Still, the American tragedy turned three hundred million people into a hand put on the heart. Nobody rushed to accuse the White House, the army, and the secret services that they are only a bunch of losers. Nobody rushed to empty their bank accounts. Nobody rushed out onto the streets nearby to gape about. The Americans volunteered to donate blood and to give a helping hand. After the first moments of panic, they raised their flag over the smoking ruins, putting on T-shirts, caps and ties in the colors of the national flag. They placed flags on buildings and cars as if in every place and on every car a government official or the president was passing. On every occasion, they started singing their traditional song: "God Bless America!" I watched the live broadcast and rerun after rerun for hours listening to the story of the guy who went down one hundred floors with a woman in a wheelchair without knowing who she was, or of the Californian hockey player, who gave his life fighting with the terrorists and prevented the plane from hitting a target that could have killed other hundreds or thousands of people. [i]How on earth were they able to respond united as one human being?[/i] Imperceptibly, with every word and musical note, the memory of some turned into a modern myth of tragic heroes. And with every phone call, millions and millions of dollars were put in a collection aimed at rewarding not a man or a family, but a spirit, which no money can buy. What on earth can unite the Americans in such a way? Their land? Their galloping history? Their economic Power? Money? I tried for hours to find an answer, humming songs and murmuring phrases with the risk of sounding commonplace. I thought things over, but I reached only one conclusion... Only freedom can work such miracles. > > Cornel Nistorescu President Bush did what was needed to be done in the wake of the attacks to protect this country, and all of us. Yes, even you. Peace. Edited July 26, 2004 by Quietfire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oik Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 I put unsure because I really mean yes and no. I feel that he has done some good and also needs work. You all need to send an e-mail to Bush (seriously, even if you think he will not read it or that someone else reads all his mail(which i'm sure is the situation)), and tell him what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 Quietfire, I am going to disagree with you there. Only for the reason that I see wearing tee shirts and flying flags and that nonensense (at least that is what it is to me) as well nonensense. It is an extreal show and doesn't nessecarly reflect the inner thoughts and feelings. And when I critize Bush, well 9/11 didn't change that. I was an outspoken critic before and after 9/11. And that unity (and love by the overseas press, lol) was very short lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtins Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 I couldnt be more satisfyed with bush- hes doing an awsome job in an amazing amount of pressure and criticizim and defending our great nation. GO BUSH!!!! DUBYAH RELODED IN '04!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 [quote name='the protector' date='Jul 25 2004, 07:42 PM'] Yes, Bush has been such a crusader in the pro-life movement. He has put forth hundreds of billions of dollars toward its cause. I mean, if there is one issue he has placed at the forefront of his term, it has been the termination of abortion. ...no. [/quote] You should check out the July 17th entry on [url="http://www.xanga.com/dabeenabobba"]my blog[/url], where I posted tons of evidence showing that groups like Planned Parenthood hate Bush for his "anti-choice" actions. Actually, most of my sources came from pro-abortion websites. I'll post it here, too: What's a DaBeenaBobba blog entry without the requisite political or religious rants? You know your past two months have been horrible without them. (Admitting it is the first step.) Soon, I'll devote an entire entry to which political issues are the most important to me, and why they are the most important. I'll also explain how I prioritize issues, and how I view war and the death penalty to be on a different par from issues such as abortion, gay "marriage," embryonic stem cell research, et al. For now, though, I'm going to limit myself to talking about one simple facet of an issue. (Did that make sense?) There are many things I dislike about Bush's policies. First and foremost, I wish Bush were more pro-life. He supports abortion in the cases of rape, incest, and the "life of the mother," which is really tantamount to espousing a lesser pro-"choice" stance. (For the record, even Dr. Alan Guttmacher, a now deceased abortion advocate and Planned Parenthood supporter, [url="http://www.all.org/about/decapp03.htm"]admitted[/url] that cases where abortion would save a woman's life are rare to the point of nonexistence. It should also be noted that he said this in 1967, when medical technology wasn't nearly as advanced as it is today. For those of you who don't know, I'm against abortion without exception.) Bush, however, would do less damage to the pro-life cause than would Kerry. He's furthered the culture of life to some degree (not enough, IMO) since he's been in office, e.g., he's reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which withholds governmental funding from international "family planning" groups that provide abortion. Compare that to [url="http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/"]John Kerry's position[/url], in which he's said that the "right to choose" is something he promises to work to protect. He's also said, as you'll see if you click on that link, that he plans on appointing only pro-"choice" judges. Overturning Roe v. Wade would be impossible with Kerry as President. While Bush has said that being pro-life won't be the litmus test he'll give to potential judicial appointees (which is too bad), Kerry has recanted his original position (or has he? You never know with Kerry) and now says that he'll only appoint pro-life judges if they won't overturn Roe v. Wade. Not only that, but voting for Kerry will help to further the anti-life agenda, as he'll provide abortion providers (in this country and around the world) with ample funding, I'm sure. This Spring, I caught some of the pro-abortion March For Women's Lives on television. Many of the [url="http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/000493.html"]speakers there[/url] decried Bush's lack of support for "reproductive rights." Frankly, groups that advocate freedom of "choice" see the Bush administration as a huge threat. Heck, NARAL: Pro-Choice America has an anti-Bush webpage called [url="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/bushvchoice/"]Bush v. Choice[/url] ([url="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/bushvchoice/getinformed/images/poster-web2.jpg"]this[/url] is of especial interest); [url="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/030114_waronwomen.html"]Planned Parenthood hates Bush's anti-"choice" policies[/url]; [url="http://www.now.org/eNews/may2004/051704march.html"]NOW (the National Organization For Women) is quaking in its boots[/url], and they're desperately afraid that Bush's reelection could equal a significant damper on the pro-"choice" movement. While you're at it, you might want to check out [url="http://www.thetruthaboutgeorge.com/women/index.html"]this site[/url], too. Are you wondering how leading pro-"choice" groups view Kerry? If you really want to know, do a little research at the [url="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/"]Planned Parenthood[/url], [url="http://www.naral.org/"]NARAL[/url], and [url="http://www.now.org/"]NOW[/url] websites. It's obvious which candidate they prefer, and it's obvious why they prefer him. I realize that I probably sound like I'm preaching to the choir here, as my rantings are aimed at my fellow pro-lifers. Those of you who are pro-"choice" will probably vote for Kerry, so you probably found this post totally irrelevant. I posted this because I've been coming across self-proclaimed pro-life Christians who plan on voting for Kerry. I'll have more to say on this soon, as there is still so much to say on this very issue. © Jennifer Benjamin By the way, it also seems that [url="http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/stemcell.html"]Kerry supports embryonic stem cell research[/url]. He also seems to have beef with Bush's stance on this. You might dislike some of Bush's policies, but no pro-lifer who is educated about the issues would say that the Iraqi War is worse than abortion. Like I pointed out in [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=15523"]this thread[/url], [u]millions upon millions[/u] of children die each year from abortion, whereas only thousands of people have died in the entire Iraqi War. God bless, Jennifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the protector Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 (edited) So Bush is the better candidate because he created MORE violence in the world? Check out [url="http://hem.passagen.se/replikant/nuclear_nightmare.htm"]this article.[/url] Most specifically the part labeled, "Dubya's Excellent Nuclear Adventure" and on. This administration had devised a nuclear strategy in response to the Iraqi military's possible use of chemical or biological weapons during US occupation. Luckily, as we have learned, there are no stockpiles. He wasn't given a reason to retaliate with nukes. That would have been quite ironic (and horrifying) in an operation titled "Iraqi Freedom". Edited July 26, 2004 by the protector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 [quote name='the protector' date='Jul 26 2004, 03:09 AM'] So Bush is the better candidate because he created MORE violence in the world? [/quote] How is killing babies [i]not[/i] violent? If anything, supporting the killing of innocent children by the millions (as Kerry does) is by far more violent than any war this world has every seen. I'm sorry, but the numbers and the facts just aren't on your side. God bless, Jennifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the protector Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 (edited) Were there no abortions under the Bush administration? When Bush was inaugurated, did all abortions just cease? More importantly, will abortion be outlawed in a second Bush term? His primary goal as president isn't to end abortion. No matter what bones he may throw to his pro-life voters, it's far from being his top concern. millions killed in abortion + thousands killed in war > millions killed in abortion I believe that adds up to more death. Edited July 26, 2004 by the protector Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeenaBobba Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 [quote name='the protector' date='Jul 26 2004, 03:43 AM'] Were there no abortions under the Bush administration? millions killed in abortion + thousands killed in war > millions killed in abortion [/quote] Unfortunately, yes. But, if you clicked on the links I posted, you'd see that Bush has done a lot to decrease abortion in this country. Believe me, pro-abortion groups don't hate him for nothing. [quote]More importantly, will abortion be outlawed in a second Bush term?[/quote] It could be. Soon, there will be openings for Supreme Court judges. Overturning Roe v. Wade is much more possible with Bush in office, as Kerry has said that he will not appoint judges who plan on overturning Roe v. Wade. [quote]His primary goal as president isn't to end abortion.[/quote] Maybe not, but that's not the point. The point is that with him in office, there's a better chance in making abortion illegal again. [quote] No matter what bones he may throw to his pro-life voters, it's far from being his top concern. [/quote] You might say that Bush is just "throwing bones to voters," but you have yet to address the evidence I posted. It's very clear that pro-abortion groups think Bush is actually [b]doing[/b] more than throwing bones regarding pro-life issues. Not only that, but if you insist that Bush is just "throwing bones," then you'd also have to admit that Kerry could be throwing bones regarding his opposition to the Iraqi War. If anything, this is more probable given his wishy-washy, flip-floppy stance on this. [quote]millions killed in abortion + thousands killed in war > millions killed in abortion [/quote] I will not be perfectly satisfied until abortion is illegal again. Bush has done things for the pro-life movement, and I'd even say he has probably decreased the number of abortions in withholding funding from "family planning" groups. I don't understand your logic. Kerry has said that he will do nothing to make abortion illegal again. In fact, he's said that he wants to keep abortion legal. Under Kerry, the pro-life goal is impossible. Under Bush, it's not. You cannot lose sight of the goal. I'd respect your position more if you didn't want to vote for Bush or Kerry. But, how could you vote for someone who [b]sanctions[/b] the murder of millions of innocent children? At least Bush is opposed to abortion and isn't against laws limiting or prohibiting it. What nationality are you? Would you vote for someone who thought killing people of your nationality should stay legal, and would you vote for them if they've explicitly said that they won't appoint judges who would make killing you illegal? God bless, Jennifer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curtins Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 -Some people make the claim that abortion is equivalent to the war in Iraq. 44,670,812 U.S. unborn babies dead since 1973 due to abortion. 21 years [url="http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm"]http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm[/url] American Casualty due to war 1775 to Present 1,090,200 229 years [url="http://www.libraryspot.com/lists/listwars.htm"]http://www.libraryspot.com/lists/listwars.htm[/url] Now you do the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 [quote name='the protector' date='Jul 26 2004, 02:09 AM'] So Bush is the better candidate because he created MORE violence in the world? [/quote] Does anyone else find this statement funny considering the person who said it has a Pulp Fiction avatar? :rotfl: (No offense Protector, it just cracked me up!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iacobus Posted July 26, 2004 Author Share Posted July 26, 2004 [quote name='curtins' date='Jul 26 2004, 08:46 AM'] -Some people make the claim that abortion is equivalent to the war in Iraq. 44,670,812 U.S. unborn babies dead since 1973 due to abortion. 21 years [url="http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm"]http://www.mccl.org/abortion_statistics.htm[/url] American Casualty due to war 1775 to Present 1,090,200 229 years [url="http://www.libraryspot.com/lists/listwars.htm"]http://www.libraryspot.com/lists/listwars.htm[/url] Now you do the math. [/quote] Again I say, 1. numbers are pointless. Death is death. It doesn't matter who dies or how many SOMEONE DIES. and 2. if you insist numbers matter, the population of the world is 6.3 BILLION. Death toll if we start using nukes (nuclear winter, push off of axis, massive world ending strikes *heck India can end the world twice already*) would be a mere 141 times more than the all abortions from [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] till present. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dUSt Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 [quote name='Iacobus' date='Jul 26 2004, 12:54 PM'] Again I say, 1. numbers are pointless. Death is death. It doesn't matter who dies or how many SOMEONE DIES. [/quote] I'm afraid the Church disagrees with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagiDragon Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 I'll say it again: If you want peace, prepare for war. Bush has done that. Fight the small battles now, so that we don't have a full scale war on our hands later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flip Posted July 26, 2004 Share Posted July 26, 2004 the Pope himself said this was an unjust war... Father JP 2 disagrees with his actions... Also, what has Bush done for abortion? as far as i know, it is still legal. In 4 years, the Bush adminstration has not rid of us of this evil. are we to put faith in him that he will end it? i know with kerry, abortion will continue and rise. but with Bush, i have no doubt that abortion will continue. when will it END??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts