Presidential Debate

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote]Bush said early in the debate that Sen. Kennedy was the most liberal man in the Senate. That caught me by surprise, because I have heard time and time again that Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards are the two most liberal men in the Senate, so I was surprised to hear Sen. Kennedy thrown up there was the most liberal. Later in the same debate, President Bush said that Sen. Kerry was the most liberal in the Senate -- contradicting his earlier statement that Sen. Kennedy was.[/quote]

Don't tell me that you missed that Bushism? That was Bush dishing out his garbled talk. He didn't throw Kennedy in there. He accidentally called Senator Kerry "Senator Kennedy" (this is understandable, though)

I certainly have no qualms about anyone that wants to call Bush on where he falls short with protecting human life. But I will say that Bush did win the pro-life argument in this debate when referred to the life issues as a matter of ethics. Ethics, plain and simple. Not just some "article of faith" or "personal belief" but a simple matter, even outside of religion, of what is right, and wrong. Catholic social teaching doesn't mean theocracy, but it does call for acting on what is ethically right and wrong. The common good of all humanity concerns what is simply right and wrong.

I actually find Kerry a little more likeable as a person than I did a couple months ago (doesn't mean I'll vote for him because I won't), but to be honest, when I saw him speak about abortion for the first time, to this woman that asked him about it, I really did not get the impression that when he spoke of "life beginning at conception" -- I really did not get the impression that this is what he really believes. I did not sense that in his response, at all. I am not passing judgment on his soul, here. But from his body language, I was bothered by the way he backed away and seperated it as "respecting that belief."

And I know the response will be "look at his legislation, of course he doesn't believe it" -- true.

But I was really struck by his response. I got a greater sense of wanting to have at least "some" respect for life from Bill Clinton when he spoke about it, than Kerry.

God have mercy on us all. I'm going to bed. God bless.

[Andrea348]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Oct 9 2004, 03:55 AM'] [/quote]
:thatsfunny: my thoughts exactly when i saw that long post.

I thought Bush did a good job. He definately was less condescening towards Kerry than Kerry was to Bush. It was hard to watch because all they kept doing was attacking each other and I'm not all about wasting my time with that.

I told my friend last night, if we ever have a presidential candidate that just lays down what they believe in and refrains from attacking the other candidate, people will probobly be so stunned and want to vote for this person. My theory anyway.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

(Good Friday) [quote]And yet there are still not enough people willing to adopt children. Rather than trying to solve this problem, President Bush, his brother Jeb and Republicans in Florida have limited the number of perfectly acceptable adults able to adopt children by not allowing gay men and women the opportunity to adopt a child who was not wanted by his or her heterosexual parents. Apparently, Bush and his Republican brother and friends in Florida would rather see more abortions than adoptions by gay men and women.[/quote]



We want children who are adopted to be raised by and in a family, correct? How is it, then, that a 'partnership' of homosexuals will be able to raise a child?

It takes one man, and one woman to raise a child, a father and mother, not a father and father, or a mother and mother.

If one wants to instill beliefs in God in a child at a young age, then the individuals raising that child cannot, in living life, contridict who God is, and what God calls us to be.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

Also:

If one cannot stand one one's own morals in public life, then what are they to stand on?

[Craftygrl06]

my boyfriend toledo is over here and he says: don't trust the online polls. think about the demographic which has the most access to computers and the Internet. You got it, white urbanites. As in, usually Democrats. As in, the polls were skewed.

Edited October 9, 2004 by Craftygrl06

[Theoketos]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Oct 8 2004, 09:24 PM'] *banging my head on my desk*

He's pulling out the "I'm a Catholic, I was an altar boy" thing again.

Yeah, well you're a $%$#$@$#@ Catholic Mr. Kerry!!!! [/quote]
Gasp!

When he said this part he basically said that Religion is not reasonable and that is why he can not vote on it.

Translation

If my my faith was arbitrary, then I would not let it affect me pesonally either, espcially in the political realm.


I Respect your Lunacy as well Kerry, I Respect that you need not to be President.

[Paladin D]

[i]MSNBC poll is now closed, the results are:[/i][b]Bush 35%, Kerry 35%[/b]

[i]FOX News poll is still open, the results are currently:[/i][b]Bush 53%, Kerry 46%[/b]

[i]CNN poll is still open, the results are currently:[/i][b]Bush 22%, Kerry 75%[/b]


Both FOX News and CNN polls are on the front page, MSNBC poll has a link to it on the front page.

[Paladin D]

[b][i]Poll: Bush, Kerry tie in 2nd debate[/b][/i]
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/09/debate.main/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/09/...main/index.html[/url]


[b][i]For those who missed the debate, click here to read the transcript[/b][/i]
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6209704/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6209704/[/url]


[i][b]Interesting poll, if you could vote this week for a President, who would it be? Bush is in the lead[/b][/i]
[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6092749/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6092749/[/url]




Interesting thing from [b][i]MSNBC[/b][/i]:

[i]The debate by-the-numbers
18 questions: 4 on Iraq, 3 on economic policy, 2 on health care, 1 on abortion, 1 on stem cell, 1 on the Supreme Court, 1 on the Patriot Act, 1 on Iran, 1 on the military draft, 1 on terror, and 1 on the environment

No. of times buzzwords were used:

Pres. Bush
Terrorists—17
Wrong—7
My opponent—7
Taxes—26
Threat—10
Iraq—10

Sen. John Kerry
The president—68
Plan—33
Iraq—11
Lost jobs—10
Alliance—9[/i]

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Paladin D' date='Oct 9 2004, 10:37 AM'] [i]MSNBC poll is now closed, the results are:[/i][b]Bush 35%, Kerry 35%[/b]

[i]FOX News poll is still open, the results are currently:[/i][b]Bush 53%, Kerry 46%[/b]

[i]CNN poll is still open, the results are currently:[/i][b]Bush 22%, Kerry 75%[/b]


Both FOX News and CNN polls are on the front page, MSNBC poll has a link to it on the front page. [/quote]
What, are you surprised?

[Good Friday]

[quote name='qfnol31'][quote name='Good Friday']Please name one time in which Sen. Kerry has flip-flopped or lied.[/quote]

Iraq War.[/quote]
Sen. Kerry didn't flip flop over the Iraq War, he has had a consistent approach to the situation with Iraq the entire time. His position was that the American President should have the authority to be able to use force, but this President abused that authority and rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. Even though Sen. Kerry authorized the use of force, he has disagreed since the very beginning with the way this President used that authority -- and his position has been consistent. Thanks for trying, though.

[quote name='qfnol31']Bush can't do anything with that any more because Congress has got its nose stuck in everything and all his administrative agencies which control a lot. It is also Congress who does bills for money. The President has no control on this.[/quote]
I'm not sure you're right about Bush being able to do nothing, but even if that is the case -- why did he make it seem as if he's going to do something about it? He said that his answer was that we would not use taxpayers' money on abortion, but it's been happening and will continue to happen. That was dishonest.

I'm still not sure why Bush is unable to do something. You said it's because Congress has the power of the purse, but both houses of Congress have had a Republican majority for quite some time. Why haven't they been able to stop funding to Planned Parenthood? Maybe that's just not a priority for the Republicans.

[quote name='qfnol31']If you understand the Constitution correctly, you'll realize that Roe vs. Wade was unConstitutional and all the laws banned by it were not. Bush doesn't say this, but it's implied in what he says (call it good politics).[/quote]
Now, that's just wishful thinking. The Supreme Court, the body responsible for interpreting the constitutionality of laws, has consistently ruled for over thirty years that Roe v. Wade was constitutional and that these laws opposing it and further rulings are unconstitutional. Now that the Supreme Court has done this for thirty years, there's no way to get around it. Even Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, has not been able to oppose the strong precedent set by the Supreme Court. No one who strictly interprets the Constitution will be able to overcome this strong precedent, and so far no appointee -- Republican or Democrat -- has. Why are we to expect that now they suddenly will? It's been over thirty years.

[quote name='qfnol31']Adoptions do not directly affect abortions. My sister is a good example. Bush and Jeb are fighting many things, and you keep trying to undermine each one. Homosexuals cannot get married, why should they be able to raise children as though they are married?[/quote]
If adoptions don't directly affect abortions, then why did your candidate mention adoption in conjunction with limiting the number of abortions? I was quoting him, after all, and then I replied to what he said.

The fact is that the choice here isn't between homosexuals or heterosexuals, it's a choice between homosexuals or no one at all. There aren't enough heterosexuals in Florida and in many other states willing to adopt, so now it's a choice between allowing homosexuals to adopt children to at least give them a permanent home or shipping them from foster home to foster home, to people who in many cases are just trying to abuse the foster care system to get benefits and money for themselves. Is the foster care system really a better alternative to Catholics than homosexuals adopting?

[quote name='qfnol31']No, those who failed are the liberal progressives who try to interperet the Constitution however they see fit to each situation. He did all he could. That's more than Kerry can say by far, and not something that he would even attempt to do.[/quote]
He's done what he could? He's done nothing at all of substance. Is that all he could do? He hasn't stopped a single abortion here or anywhere else in the world. Why is that acceptable?

[quote name='qfnol31']I don't believe I'd call either candidate a liar, though I'd call one false.[/quote]
Bush lied when he said that we would not use taxpayers' money to fund abortion; he lied when he said that the partial-birth abortion ban would limit the number of abortions; and he distorted when he connected the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to abortion.

[quote name='qfnol31']Money takes second place to morals. Maybe he distorted some, accidentally, that's not immoral. Maybe the media distorted some, accidentally, that's not immoral.[/quote]
Lying isn't moral, even if it's lying about money. It seems unlikely to me that one can make so many distortions and tell so many outright lies and all of them be accidental, but even if that is the case, that only proves that President Bush is incompetent instead of being just an outrageous liar.

[quote name='qfnol31']Bush has not lied about being pro-life. He upholds it.[/quote]
Ask Judie Brown from the American Life League if President Bush is pro-life, and if he has upheld pro-life values. I think she'd disagree with you. In fact, she already has -- publicly, and more than once.

[quote name='Andrea348']I told my friend last night, if we ever have a presidential candidate that just lays down what they believe in and refrains from attacking the other candidate, people will probobly be so stunned and want to vote for this person. My theory anyway.[/quote]
Both Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards tried to operate that way, but Bush wouldn't allow it. It's not possible for one candidate to continue slamming the other candidate and the other candidate just not respond. If Bush had just laid out his plans instead of viciously attacking Sen. Kerry, then I'm sure Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards would have stuck to that, too. That is, after all, how they started.

[quote name='Mrs. Bro. Adam']If one wants to instill beliefs in God in a child at a young age, then the individuals raising that child cannot, in living life, contridict who God is, and what God calls us to be.[/quote]
First of all, I'd think it would be more important that children have a home than the morals they're going to be given. The simple fact of the matter is that there are too many heterosexuals who are too selfish to adopt children, and if we don't allow homosexuals to start adopting children in many states, then they're simply going to be shipped from foster home to foster home. Is that an acceptable alternative to a stable, loving home?

Secondly, your assertion that homosexual persons contradict who God is -- practically saying that we are not made in the image and likeness of God -- is contrary to Catholic teaching, which says that all people, even gay people, are made in the image and likeness of God. Other than that, I'm not even going to dignify it with a further response.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]Sen. Kerry didn't flip flop over the Iraq War, he has had a consistent approach to the situation with Iraq the entire time. His position was that the American President should have the authority to be able to use force, but this President abused that authority and rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. Even though Sen. Kerry authorized the use of force, he has disagreed since the very beginning with the way this President used that authority -- and his position has been consistent. Thanks for trying, though.[/quote]

Yeah, I think every four-year-old should be given the right to have matches, but by golly, if he uses them and starts a house on fire, am I to blame?

I'm sorry, but your logic falls flat. This is the same concept used in making abortion legal, i.e. "I'm not pro-abortion, I'm pro-choice. I give the woman a choice and she chooses murder, but that doesn't mean I did anything wrong!"

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

[quote]I'm still not sure why Bush is unable to do something. You said it's because Congress has the power of the purse, but both houses of Congress have had a Republican majority for quite some time. Why haven't they been able to stop funding to Planned Parenthood? Maybe that's just not a priority for the Republicans.[/quote]

The Republicans have tried, but it is not always a simple majority that is needed.

Also, more of our pro-life legislation would work if the extremely liberal-biased and corrupted judges in our judicial system wouldn't take it on themselves to legislate. They are US judges, not Roman tribunes.

[quote]Now, that's just wishful thinking. The Supreme Court, the body responsible for interpreting the constitutionality of laws, has consistently ruled for over thirty years that Roe v. Wade was constitutional and that these laws opposing it and further rulings are unconstitutional. Now that the Supreme Court has done this for thirty years, there's no way to get around it. Even Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, has not been able to oppose the strong precedent set by the Supreme Court. No one who strictly interprets the Constitution will be able to overcome this strong precedent, and so far no appointee -- Republican or Democrat -- has. Why are we to expect that now they suddenly will? It's been over thirty years.[/quote]

That's a spin and you know it.

1. The Supreme Court is not infallible.
2. The Supreme Court is liberal-biased.
3. Even Sandra Day O'Connor? Come on! Reagan appointed neutral judges and this one happened to come to the conclusion that abortion was constitutional. Other neutral judges haven't.
4. No where is the right to privacy, the basis of Roe v. Wade, mentioned in the Constitution, except when it is implied that executive branch forces cannot enter a private house without a warrant.
5. No where is abortion supported.

[quote]Is the foster care system really a better alternative to Catholics than homosexuals adopting?[/quote]

I live five minutes from Boys Town in Omaha. You see if they turn down a single child.



[quote]He's done what he could? He's done nothing at all of substance. Is that all he could do? He hasn't stopped a single abortion here or anywhere else in the world. Why is that acceptable?[/quote]

Please stop ignoring the facts. President Bush, by executive order, has cut out foreign abortion funding. That means that foreign governments, to continue to fund abortions, must either allocate funds away from other causes, which they don't want to do, or they must raise taxes, which they don't want to do. If they have done either and if abortion rates have stayed the same, then at least the citizens are loosing out on other things and may call for financial changes to allow less abortions so that the money doesn't have to be reallocated.

[quote]Bush lied when he said that we would not use taxpayers' money to fund abortion; he lied when he said that the partial-birth abortion ban would limit the number of abortions; and he distorted when he connected the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to abortion.[/quote]

Prove those three statements or don't use them.

[quote]Ask Judie Brown from the American Life League if President Bush is pro-life, and if he has upheld pro-life values. I think she'd disagree with you. In fact, she already has -- publicly, and more than once.[/quote]

But she still knows that Bush is the best chance we have for the cause of life and I can guarantee you she wouldn't agree with your opinions on Kerry.

[quote]First of all, I'd think it would be more important that children have a home than the morals they're going to be given. The simple fact of the matter is that there are too many heterosexuals who are too selfish to adopt children, and if we don't allow homosexuals to start adopting children in many states, then they're simply going to be shipped from foster home to foster home. Is that an acceptable alternative to a stable, loving home?[/quote]

You're placing material possessions above the good of the soul.

[quote]Secondly, your assertion that homosexual persons contradict who God is -- practically saying that we are not made in the image and likeness of God -- is contrary to Catholic teaching, which says that all people, even gay people, are made in the image and likeness of God. Other than that, I'm not even going to dignify it with a further response.[/quote]

This is a no spin zone.

Teresa did not say that, so don't try to twist her words. She said that homosexual activity and homosexual unions contradict God and God's laws. You are implying that she made an ad hominem attack on homosexual persons and I will not allow that kind of blatent distortion.

[the_rev]

[quote]QUOTE (the_rev)
"This is the first time I've met John Edwards, he's senator Nobody"


We know now that, like so many things from the Bush/Cheney campaign, that was a lie. Cheney had, at the very least, met Sen. Edwards at the National Prayer Breakfast.
[/quote]



When I went to the presidential rally, There were many people there. I was standing next to a lady, but we didn't talk. If someone would of taken a picture, they would have thouth, we met. When in actual reality, we never talked. This is solely your own opinion whether or not they met. No evidence has ever been given.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Oct 9 2004, 10:02 AM'] Sen. Kerry didn't flip flop over the Iraq War, he has had a consistent approach to the situation with Iraq the entire time. His position was that the American President should have the authority to be able to use force, but this President abused that authority and rushed to war without a plan to win the peace. Even though Sen. Kerry authorized the use of force, he has disagreed since the very beginning with the way this President used that authority -- and his position has been consistent. Thanks for trying, though. [/quote]
You don't let a guy go to war until you agree with what he's doing. Otherwise you're not really being honest about allowing him power. For Kerry to say otherwise offers a logical fallicy.

[quote]I'm not sure you're right about Bush being able to do nothing, but even if that is the case -- why did he make it seem as if he's going to do something about it?  He said that his answer was that we would not use taxpayers' money on abortion, but it's been happening and will continue to happen.  That was dishonest.[/quote]

Well, one, most people don't realize what the administrative state is today. He tried. It has a lot to do with Wilson and FDR and their philosophies getting into everything, but they've messed up the system so bad that the President can't be the President, but he still tried to do all that he should have been able to do, according the the Constitution. It's a pretty complex issue, but there are many things that Congress and the Supreme Court do that were not allowed by the Constitution. For one, unless it goes against the Constitution, the Supreme Court cannot cut down state laws. However, that's exactly what Roe vs. Wade did.

[quote]Now, that's just wishful thinking. The Supreme Court, the body responsible for interpreting the constitutionality of laws, has consistently ruled for over thirty years that Roe v. Wade was constitutional and that these laws opposing it and further rulings are unconstitutional. Now that the Supreme Court has done this for thirty years, there's no way to get around it. Even Sandra Day O'Connor, a Reagan appointee, has not been able to oppose the strong precedent set by the Supreme Court. No one who strictly interprets the Constitution will be able to overcome this strong precedent, and so far no appointee -- Republican or Democrat -- has. Why are we to expect that now they suddenly will? It's been over thirty years.[/quote]

Hey, it may be wishful, but it's correct. Not everyone thinks in the liberal progressive mindset so prevelant today. Take me for instance. Or my professor. Or Dr. West from the University of Dallas (he's really cool, I recommend you research him some. The Constitution party does uphold these beliefs, for the most part. If Bush is honest, I should hope that he appoints some of them.

[quote]I'm still not sure why Bush is unable to do something.  You said it's because Congress has the power of the purse, but both houses of Congress have had a Republican majority for quite some time.  Why haven't they been able to stop funding to Planned Parenthood?  Maybe that's just not a priority for the Republicans.[/quote]

Good question, and now that I'm voting age, I'll write and ask.

[quote]If adoptions don't directly affect abortions, then why did your candidate mention adoption in conjunction with limiting the number of abortions?  I was quoting him, after all, and then I replied to what he said.[/quote]

I would think that he was saying that women should have the baby and then put them up for adoption. However, most of the time when you put a baby up for adoption they end up in an orphanage for a few years or a foster home for a short while. Sadly, in the United States, to adopt now costs some outrageous fee that no one can pay. I was also looking at a country like China. There are many kids in orphanages over there, and they're usually adopted, but it isn't because the government controls who adopts that there are so many abortions. Granted, in that country there are many forced abortions.

I happen to have three sisters who were born in circumstances that many Americans would have aborted them in. I love my sisters and wouldn't trade them for the world. If my parents practiced abortion, then I probably would have been one. I was kind of an accident (it's a long story) and I don't think my parents were quite ready to have me, for I was born almost exactly nine months after their marriage. This is why I fight against abortion so strongly.

[quote]The fact is that the choice here isn't between homosexuals or heterosexuals, it's a choice between homosexuals or no one at all.  There aren't enough heterosexuals in Florida and in many other states willing to adopt, so now it's a choice between allowing homosexuals to adopt children to at least give them a permanent home or shipping them from foster home to foster home, to people who in many cases are just trying to abuse the foster care system to get benefits and money for themselves.  Is the foster care system really a better alternative to Catholics than homosexuals adopting?[/quote]

Yes it is actually. Homosexuals cannot offer a stable environment and are missing many ideas of parenting. There cannot be a father and a mother which will end up with the kid(s) not having a full knowledge of a family. Also, in this case, it says to the kids that living out homosexual tendencies is okay, and it's not.

[quote]Bush lied when he said that we would not use taxpayers' money to fund abortion; he lied when he said that the partial-birth abortion ban would limit the number of abortions; and he distorted when he connected the Unborn Victims of Violence Act to abortion.[/quote]

Actually, that document secretly defines what an unborn child is, alive. It was a very smart move on the side of pro-lifers because eventually that can be transferred into other cases, such as forced abortion, etc. It was a very impressive law.

[quote]Ask Judie Brown from the American Life League if President Bush is pro-life, and if he has upheld pro-life values.  I think she'd disagree with you.  In fact, she already has -- publicly, and more than once.[/quote]

Ask Priests for Life, National Right to Life, Rock for Life, .... They all argue that Bush is the best candidate.

[quote]First of all, I'd think it would be more important that children have a home than the morals they're going to be given.  The simple fact of the matter is that there are too many heterosexuals who are too selfish to adopt children, and if we don't allow homosexuals to start adopting children in many states, then they're simply going to be shipped from foster home to foster home.  Is that an acceptable alternative to a stable, loving home?[/quote]

It is very important who brings the children up. Just because someone won't take them isn't a good reason to allow hemosexuals. We don't allow women priestsesses just because there is a shortage on men Priests. You don't compromise morals, do an evil act, for the sake of good.

[quote]Secondly, your assertion that homosexual persons contradict who God is -- practically saying that we are not made in the image and likeness of God -- is contrary to Catholic teaching, which says that all people, even gay people, are made in the image and likeness of God.  Other than that, I'm not even going to dignify it with a further response.[/quote]

A homosexual relationship contradicts the model set up by God. This model is between God and Israel. It's also between Christ and His Church. I think this is what MrsBroAdam meant, not that they're created outside of the Imago Dei (which is actually impossible).

[toledo_jesus]

opening up adoption to homosexuals won't solve the problem. Teaching people to abstain from sex before marriage will. duh.

anyway, back to the debate.

Edited October 9, 2004 by toledo_jesus

[Norseman82]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Oct 8 2004, 09:24 PM'] "I'm a Catholic, I was an altar boy" [/quote]
When Kerry said that, I actually farted.....




I guess you had to be there...