Aug. 5th, 2004
In case you had any doubts...  
...of this man's intentions. Hear it straight from the horse's mouth ass:
Bush Courts Catholics with Promises on Social Issues

DALLAS (Reuters) - President Bush promised on Tuesday to fight in a second term for conservative social causes from banning gay marriage to limiting abortion rights, in an appeal for Roman Catholic voters to support him over John Kerry, a Catholic.

In a meeting billed as a nonpartisan gathering of the world's largest lay Catholic organization, the Knights of Columbus greeted Bush, a Methodist, with standing ovations and shouts of "Four more years."

Supreme Knight Carl Anderson praised Bush for opposing abortion rights and gay marriage. "Thank you for restoring moral integrity to the office of the president," he said.

Article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/campaign_bush_dc

"Thank you for restoring moral integrity to the office of president"?? Are you effing kidding me?

These idiots are more concerned about their hatred of gays than they are about the fact that the President of the United States lied to the American people to start a war. That's not important. Never mind that he's alienated our allies. Who cares if Tony Blair is in trouble; our Spanish allies were removed from office because of him. Never mind the moral integrity it required to accept all those campaign contributions from his friends at Enron while they robbed the State of California and people's pensions. All that's unimportant, just so long as he stamps out the real threat—homosexuality. That's moral integrity?! They're so blinded by their hatred of us that they don't care about anything else! It's uneffing believable!

So, in addition to the wars he wants to wage in the Middle East, he's made it patently clear that he plans to continue his religious jihad against gays (and women). This man is a menace and must not be reelected. Maybe I'm missing something, but... I think you would either have to be a bigot or have your head wedged firmly up your ass to vote for Bush in November.
 
 
Mood: pissed off
Listening to: Thursday - Asleep In the Chapel
 
 
( Post a new comment )
ex_prezrober685 on August 5th, 2004 - 04:46 am
Hold on one fricken second - our Spanish allies were not removed from office because of President Bush. That's insane to even suggest. They were removed out of fear of further attacks. In other words, they couldn't stomach terror. Terror that didn't even come close to 9/11. And if you don't think Bush is huanted by 9/11, you're crazy.

Bush is for Civil Unions, why don't I hear any gays mention that when they say Gay Marriage? Oh, because Kerry is for the same thing. If you think by electing Kerry that you'll get any closer to having Gay Marriage, then your head is wedged firmly up your ass. More than 60% of the country is against Gay Marriage, it's got nothing to do with Bush - that's more people than will vote for Bush. Quit making Bush the issue on Gay Marriage when it's a national stupidity not an Executive one.

(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
(no subject) - michaepf on August 5th, 2004 - 07:40 am
ex_prezrober685 on August 5th, 2004 - 08:28 am
Bush and Kerry are equal on the issue of gay marriage because of the public. I don't know why people blame one man for the way a majority of the nation things.

"Bush is happy to bash gays to court voters; Kerry does not. You can't see the difference? "

Obviously you dont. The difference is this... Kerry won't because it's his base, Bush will because it's his base. The difference is NONE, zero, there is no difference. Especially since, they will both do what the public at large wants - aka - Civil Unions and not Gay Marriage. Once the public changes, they will change.

A Supreme Court appointment could affect the issue. I believe it wont. Because, just like gay sex a few years ago, the government has no compelling reason to discriminate. If this went to the Supreme Court, the worst the court could do is say "State's Rights" - which happens to be the way it is now. If they allowed sex, they'll allow marriage, there's just no legal way around it other than "State's Rights" - which isn't bad, because it leaves it up to democracy.

Spain was on the fence regarding a change of government before 3/11? Our terror attack was worse, to think it wasn't is loony. It's not pissing, it's fact and if you can't look at facts as the basis for how people make decisions - then forget even speaking up on the issue. Spain's involvement was not "roundly disapproved of" domestically - it was an even split, as it is now in America. During the war, they were more than evenly for it. So if you think the attacks weren't the difference, then you're going against what even Spanish political analysists are saying. It was a surgical strike by terrorists to remove a government and it worked.

And who says they're wrong - well, that's an opinion the depends on whether you can argue with a guy who wants everything you have. Are you willinto give it up?

Let's think logically here too - if terror had nothing to the Iraqi War then why bomb Spain? Well because of their involvement in the war of course, but why a terrorist strike if it had nothing to do with it? It's like seeing the color red and calling it white to think otherwise, at least in the case of Spain. But then, maybe my head is up my ass and yours is up the terrorists - because your willing to give up a government and pull out of a war that liberated a country and attempts to install a democracy.

Bush's "rhetoric" centered on WMD AND human rights, for God's sake, look at the State of the Union BEFORE we attacked - it said women were raped and people shot at without trial. It spoke of dictatorial oppression of basic freedoms. The difference is most people don't care about that as long as Saddam wasing going to kill them. So Bush saw the intel that told him there were WMDs and he told us and we saw he could hurt us and then we went to war. Those are the facts whether or not you choose to see them.

And yes, by that measure, we should fix Sudan and Saudia Arabia and most of the 3rd world and some of the 1st. But you know what, we're also fighting terror here and specifically - middle east terrorists. And better to take freedom there where it can affect the minds of other Arabs and show them the greatness of democracy, perhaps GOD FORBID helping to lessen the terror that many are bred with.

"The worst terror attack on European soil, simply pushed them to make the right decision."

That's just sad that you think giving in to terror was somehow right.

Hate Bush all you want, but for doing his job and what any other person would do in his place on based on the war and intel, is just hating for the wrong reason. The fact he doesn't like gays is acceptable for hating him. But, still not right.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
(no subject) - michaepf on August 5th, 2004 - 11:07 am
ex_prezrober685 on August 5th, 2004 - 12:06 pm
Regarding Spain: please cite the specialists instead of just referring blandly to them. Can you read Spanish?

The US never invaded Iraq in the name of terror - it was WMDs and Oppression. Spain joined for the same reasons.

"Any blow to America is a victory for terrorists. It doesn't mean that terrorism and the war are related beyond that level. The bait and switch "logic" doesn't impress me.

Bait and switch? If we're trying to defeat terrorists and every blow is a victory for them then it's obviously a terrorist issue. Don't serve me fish and tell me it's chicken, that's rediculus.

And yes, I'm pretty damn good at knowing my stuff. And if I don't know, I find the answers. Thanks for the compliment. What can I say, I'm among the best at what I do... puting things into perspective.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
The People's Exhibit A: Misleaderdavidology on August 5th, 2004 - 10:17 am
Fair. I don't think there was any one thing. What I heard from friends who knew people in Spain was that the subway attack really wasn't what did it. Supposedly they already disliked the leadership because of a number of reasons—one of them was the administration's siding with Bush on the Iraq war. If Bush had not taken us to war, however, that may not have happened. But of course that's just speculation.

I understand that neither candidate can come out in favor of gay marriage without harming their chances of winning the election. I think there's a difference between paying lip service to something vs. fanning the flames and actively targeting and escalating hostility towards a group of people in an effort to win over a bunch of bigots—it's like rallying against people of color or other faiths in order to win the votes of KKK members.

However, Bush and Kerry's positions seem quite different. Kerry isn't actively trying to amend our Consitution to discriminate against us. He didn't decide to make it a huge issue in this campaign as Bush gleefully has. If Bush is reelected, he has promised to continue this fight. If Kerry is elected, the idea of amending the Constitution dies right there. If you think we're going to be in the same place whether Kerry or Bush is elected, you're mistaken. Yes, Congress will keep trying to pass unconstitutional laws—all in vain—and in time they will all get overturned along with all of the unconstitutional laws in the various states (unless of course Bush can get another four years to appoint justices who will do his bidding).

I'm sick of being Bush's scapegoat. That man needs to GO, and the Republican Party needs to be sent a very strong message that fundamentalist politicians who let their religious bigotry stand in the way of their job and duty to their country do not win elections. If Bush wins, expect more of the same from the GOP—a continued slide away from conservative policy and towards appeasing the religious extremists pulling the strings.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
ex_prezrober685 on August 5th, 2004 - 10:39 am
Still don't agree on the Spain thing, all the articles I read showed an even split prior to the bombings and then the next day they had elections. They voted in fear and most the world agrees. Not saying they were wrong to fear but their fears did give in to terror and that I do believe is wrong. But that's a personal belief.

And you're right, Bush did take it up a notch with the whole Constitutional band on gay marriage, but he knew it wouldn't work. The sad thing is that he didn't know it was wrong. I'm sure in his head it was the right thing to do. But that aside, Bush kicks as on everything else. The War was just and right, economy is on the upswing, the terrorists have not gotten an attack in since 9/11. I'm feeling pretty good about the chances of Bush winning over Kerry who did nothing and does nothing.

I just won't vote for someone because they're not Bush. I think that's the wrong reason. Hell, Dean would have been better then Kerry cause then you could have said the guy stands somewhere and does something.

That's my peace.

Oh, and I <3 David.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Amalthiaamothea on August 5th, 2004 - 11:21 am
disagree
Saying Kerry hasn't done anything is going a bit far.

So are you saying no one on the senate works??? Because I don't buy that.

Kerry has been re-elected to the senate 3 times. That's more than Bush ever got. I'm sorry but being the Governor of a state does not necessarily qualify a person to run a nation.

Kerry has also had combat experience, I don't think he's a wuss who is going to turn tail and run from a fight. I honestly think he'll take the country in the right direction. And what's even better he's not a religious fanatic.

I'm sorry but half the world has troubles because of religious extremists. I don't want one in the White House another four years.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
ex_prezrober685 on August 5th, 2004 - 12:14 pm
Re: disagree
Bush was elected governor of the 2nd or 3rd (I forget) largest state in the country, TWICE. That's a hell of a lot more than Kerry's senate win 3 times in the small state MA.

What qualifies a person to be President is subjective, all you need is to be a US citizen and 35 years old. Anything after that is gravy/subjective.

I think Kerry's combat expierence - 30 years ago is irrelavent. What he did in 20 years before today is much more important and yet he won't discuss it with America. He runs from it because he knows the stuff he did will not be what most Americans want. I don't think he'll take us in the right direction at all. Religious fanaticism aside, Bush says where he stands and stands on his record. People can love him or hate him but they know what he'll do and that he's not afraid to fight.

I don't know if religious extremests are the problem, so much as Arab religious extremists. Let's face it, what's an extremist Christian going to make you do? Kill you for not praying in school? I think not.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Amalthiaamothea on August 5th, 2004 - 05:59 pm
Re: disagree
what you may not realize is that the Governor of Texas has very very little power. He appoints the men who do the work of running Texas.

I don't think it's really fair to compare a senator to a Governor. a governor only affects one state, and a senator has the potential to affect the nation.

Now I found this statement kind of funny
>I don't know if religious extremists are the >problem, so much as Arab religious extremists. >Let's face it, what's an extremist Christian >going to make you do? Kill you for not praying in >school? I think not.

Christian extremists have committed atrocities rivaling that of our Arab neighbors for 2000 years. Every religion has done shitty things. Christians are not any better than Muslims in this. Christians killed millions during WW2. Hitler was rather extreme in his religious views. Anyone who did not fit his standards; he killed. And from what I know Hitler was Christian.

The bottom line is, extremists of any religion are bad. You can classify sociopaths and extremist in the same group, except Sociopaths do know the difference between right and wrong.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
ex_prezrober685 on August 5th, 2004 - 10:58 pm
Re: disagree
I think you doubt the power of the Governor of Texas a little too much. Whether it's not much is a matter of oppinion really, so I'll not debate that.

The difference is that Christian extremists don't exist in modern times with the ability to kill like Muslim extremists. When you have to look back some 1,500 years, you come to that conclusion and the idea that Hitler was Christian is odd since he never attended a church while he was in power nor encouraged church attendence. He spoke of God but I think you and I both know he wasn't speaking of the Christian one.

Sociopaths are not extremists because extremists fundamentally believe that what they do is right... therefor they would fall more into Psychopath catagorization.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread) (Link)
Poet Guypharm1215 on August 5th, 2004 - 08:50 am
Bush is such a dork.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)
driftwoodsun on August 5th, 2004 - 10:34 am
I just don't want a President in the White House that's a religious extremist, personally.

Anyone who seriously believes that they were appointed to lead by God is a dangerous and unbalanced man.
(Reply) (Thread) (Link)