Kerry lovers! What makes him so much better than Bush anyway?

[Dreadsox]

Dreadsox,

I'm having a hard time understanding how this was waffling or just not trying to offend his core supporters. Are you saying that if you don't believe in gay marriage, then to prove it you should try and constitutionally ban it? Do you not see the conflict between church and state on this? Kerry has stated he doesn't support gay marriage, but that is a religious belief, and I hope we can agree that religion should not be the prime force behind Constitutional amendments. The minute we erase the line between church and state, we basically spit on the Constitution and every thing it stands for, and large sections of America's people (and not just homosexuals) stand to lose their rights. Amendments have always been added to include people and extend the rights to everyone, not to exclude people from equal rights and protection.

It's not waffling, it's rightfully recognizing where government shouldn't go.

I am not going to get into it, since apparently we cannot discuss what we view as negative about Kerry. There are NUMEROUS examples of him riding the fence.

I cannot tell from your tone if you are lecturing me on an issue I am familiar with and have spoken out about in numerous threads in here.

In my opinion, having lived in the State of Massachusetts for as long as Senator Kerry has been in office, and having worked in the office of a gay Congressman for two years, I am pretty sure about what I mean when I say he is waffling. Again, respectfully others may view it another way.

He is for giving the legal rights up to, but not including marriage. This gives him tremendous flexibility on his position. He can be against gay marriage and for civil rights, without pissing off both sides of the issue.

 

[BVS]

No, I HAVE read all the posts here. I only commented on the "not Bush" ones because those are the ones I'm concerned with. I have no comment on the others, so I didn't post one, but that doesn't mean I didn't read them. I do not feel I broke my own rules, because the 'not Bush' thing was one of the points of this thread.

Here's what you said...

I am starting an alternative/equal time thread for the other side. As with the other thread, let only the supporters post here.

and you don't see where you crossed that line?

You still haven't shown me where anyone has said Kerry will stop the world and everything will be OK.

So yes I believe your comments about how you are "scared beyond words if this mentality is going to decide the election", were out of line and lacked any reasoning except that it doesn't match your political leanings.

 

[BostonAnne]

That is your opinion, and I am not going to bash him in this thread. I read it as being unable to make a tough choice. ANd I have mentioned in here how he and his office responded to many of the soldiers I served with's concerns.

I have made positive comments about him in this thread. I will stick with those. My only point was I see it is as not making a choice so as not to offend his core supporters.

I thought that your comment about him waffling was your opinion too. Does my post have less merit because it's my opinion?


I will try research what happened to the soldiers that you served with and Kerry. I agree that it shouldn't be in this thread - so that's why I suggested to put it somewhere else. I'm sorry I missed past posts to not understand your history.

Lastly, - my opinion again - but I think that Kerry isn't making a choice so as not to offend the swing group, not his core supporters. I think that his stance says that he will opt to be pro choice & pro gay marriage if the legislation is there to deal with.

 

[BostonAnne]

I don't have to agree wholeheartedly with everything Kerry says. If he supports civil unions, then that's all I can reasonably ask given the current political climate.

While it shouldn't be more that you can reasonably ask - I do believe that the current political climate is why it appears that he his waffling. I think it is best to walk the fine line in between, otherwise he will be labeled as too liberal - which seems to be a dirty word in this country right now.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

otherwise he will be labeled as too liberal - which seems to be a dirty word in this country right now.

Yeah...I'm confused as to when/why that started happening. .

Anywho...yeah, if a person opposes gay marriage personally, but still allows people to go ahead and do it, go ahead and allow for homosexuals to be able to do something relationship-related, I can live with that. I'd much, much rather elect somebody who's willing to let people live their lives the way they see fit, regardless of whether or not they personally agree with those people's ways of living, than I would somebody who's willing to discriminate against people and refuse to let them have the same rights as everybody else.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

Yeah...I'm confused as to when/why that started happening. .

The "conservative" label was a dirty word through the 60's and 70's and liberals used the label to maintain the power edge. Reagan changed the direction and gave conservatives the edge in the label game.

 

[ThatGuy]

Newt Gingrich also picked up this banner in 1996 when he published this list.

 

[Diemen]

Hear what you want to hear, believe what you want to believe.

The twisted way followers overlook Kerrys opposition to gay marriage is amusing.

Yes. Yes indeed. You are so right! I mean, if they were to reallylook at his opposition to this issue, then by golly, they'd all be voting for Bush.

Oh wait, instead of just personally believing it's wrong, Bush believes it's wrong and also wants to constitutionally ban it.

Gee, which one's worse?

---
You know, with all due respect to those bringing up points against Kerry, this thread was started for those who supported Kerry, in the same fashion as the Bush Lovers thread. And in the same fashion in which the Kerry supporters have left the Bush thread alone, it would be nice if the Bush supporters would leave this one alone. Start another thread for debate if you feel it necessary.

 

[Dreadsox]

I thought that your comment about him waffling was your opinion too. Does my post have less merit because it's my opinion?


I will try research what happened to the soldiers that you served with and Kerry. I agree that it shouldn't be in this thread - so that's why I suggested to put it somewhere else. I'm sorry I missed past posts to not understand your history.

Lastly, - my opinion again - but I think that Kerry isn't making a choice so as not to offend the swing group, not his core supporters. I think that his stance says that he will opt to be pro choice & pro gay marriage if the legislation is there to deal with.

I am puzzled....not surprising....I have not said your opinion does not count. I do not agree with yours.

CLose to three hundred letters to his office. Not one response. Kennedy at least gave us the form letter response, as did the congressman I worked for.

If Kerry came out firmly on the issue he would not be able to say his position is like the president, giving him the ability to court swing voters that he may not be able to court otherwise.

Please notice, not one mention of the issue by name, based on my recollection, last night by the candidate.

He will say only that he is for equal protection under the law for the rights. That is walking up to the line, but not crossing it by granting marriage rights. By doing this, he can be safely viewed as the next best thing to a candidate that would support marriage since Bush would support neither.

If he is able to come out against the wishes of the church in his upbringing on the issue of abortion, how is this different from gay marriage. This to me is an inconsistency.

He is picking his issues and stances for political reasons. He cannot court the center independants and republicans by coming out in favor of gay marriage.

 

[Dreadsox]

You know, with all due respect to those bringing up points against Kerry, this thread was started for those who supported Kerry, in the same fashion as the Bush Lovers thread. And in the same fashion in which the Kerry supporters have left the Bush thread alone, it would be nice if the Bush supporters would leave this one alone. Start another thread for debate if you feel it necessary.

With all due respect, some of us, have. For someone like myself, who is still undecided, talking through issues is helpful. If I were to vote based on education and for a plan to remove nukelear material from making it into the market for terrorism, I would vote for Kerry. I would also take into account your point, one which I made in the Bush thread I think almost a week ago, that I am not in favor of changing the constitution, a document that in my opinion gives rights to itws citizens, into one in which restricts the rights of its citizens.

But I am not going to base my vote on these few things.

 

[oliveu2cm]

WHERE does this 'funding' come from??! The pockets of hard working Americans paying taxes, millions of whom believe abortion is murder. We do not want our money used to pay for something so very wrong and immoral. That makes me 'sick.' Taking our money and using it to fund something we do not approve of is irresponsible leadership fueled by someone else's belief system!

Something so controversial should NOT be funded by US tax dollars. We owe those foreign clinics nothing, we are doing it to be nice. Why shouldn't the gift of our money be held to certain standards and conditions? I wouldn't want it any other way.

I have to respond to this, because one of the things that upsets me about Bush isn't only how he treats women in other countries, but how he treats women in America. Since you post that we don't have any obligation to support women in other countries, I'll stick with those in the USA. Not only that, but I will expand to include men, who also are being impacted and hurt by Bush's religiously-fueled lawmaking. (I am posting only snippets, but the entire articles referenced are important so if anyone has further interest I would suggest reading them in full. All emphasis below is mine.)

Bush will only support programs and health clinics in the USA where "abstitence only" is preached. He throws a "quarter of a billion dollars to unproven programs that censor discussion of contraception, thereby failing to help young people protect themselves against unintended pregnancies, HIV and STDs[,]" despite the fact that providing responsible sex education is something that "[o]ver 125 national health organizations and the American public strongly support."

"George Bush's proposed 2005 budget cuts funding for veterans' healthcare and public housing....<snip> Yet when it comes to abstinence education, money seems to be no object. Bush's budget recommends $270 million for programs that try to dissuade teenagers from having sex, double the amount spent last year." -Bush's Sex Fantasy

"Much of that money would be given in grants to Christian organizations such as Youth for Christ and to anti-abortion groups operating so-called crisis pregnancy centers, outfits that masquerade as women's health clinics but deliver a strongly anti-abortion message and often medically inaccurate information. <snip> Experts in sex education and AIDS prevention say that in a country where the vast majority of people lose their virginity before their wedding night, these lessons aren't just distorted, they're dangerous. "

Maybe this is why that "Texas has the nation?s highest teen birth rate among girls age 15 to 17, and nearly half of all new sexually transmitted disease infections occur among people age 15 to 24." -msn.com

Bush's lack of funding to programs like Planned Parenthood and support of the Christian organizations to teach abstinence is wrong. Not only that, but the majority of parents agree: "seventy-five percent of parents want their children to receive a variety of information on subjects including contraception and condom use, sexually transmitted infection, sexual orientation, safer sex practices, abortion, communications and coping skills, and the emotional aspects of sexual relationships."

Instead, the abstinence-only programs are teaching things such as

"There is no way to have premaritial sex without hurting someone." Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p.35"

and factually incorrect information like:

"A specific blood test for Chlamydia can detect the presence of the disease." Sex Respect, Student Workbook, p. 44. (Chlamydia is a bacterial infection of the cervix or penis. It cannot be detected through a blood test.)"-No New Money for Abstinence

"The White House is proposing to double federal money devoted to abstinence-only education to $273 million in FY 2005 (Brody, 2004)." I'm sure none of the money will go to fund programs that supply information about sex education to students beyond abstinence.

What he is doing is a crime. Teenagers have the right to the facts, and to be taught about the ways they can protect themselves and their health. I can't morally support this.

 

[BVS]

Thank you for that info. Yeah Bush's appointees have also been pretty scary, he seems to pick them using the same logic.

 

[Diane L]

Proud To Be The "L" Word

otherwise he will be labeled as too liberal - which seems to be a dirty word in this country right now.

I'm proud to call myself a liberal.

Any one with me on this?

 

[najeena]

Absolutely. I'm just as proud to be liberal as a conservative is proud to uphold his or her beliefs. I don't believe that our country was founded so that we should have to toe a line that someone else decided was the right place to stand. Separation of church and state couldn't be more important, and that separation is imperiled now.

 

[BVS]

We need both, that's like saying peanutbutter or jelly would have to be a bad word. It's needed for balance and no one likes an unbalanced sandwich.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

While I agree abstinence only is ridiculous and unrealistic, I still think the line should be drawn on supporting or funding anything related to abortion. Olive since when did you switch sides? When I was reading this forum before you were not in favor of abortion either.

 

[oliveu2cm]

While I agree abstinence only is ridiculous and unrealistic, I still think the line should be drawn on supporting or funding anything related to abortion. Olive since when did you switch sides? When I was reading this forum before you were not in favor of abortion either.

I'm not in favor of abortion. But I am in favor of a woman having the right to choice. I think they are two separate issues, which I know may be hard to accept. Anyone who is against abortion should try and eliminate the need for abortions and support proper birth control education and use, which I don't see GWB doing. Taking away choice, and therefore safety, resorts women back to having to use coat hangers to perform their own abortions. This isn't the answer.

I also see GWB cut back in health funding and support for women in general, not just with birth control issues. This worries me, too. Women fight enough battles in this world, we don't need extra challenges like having birth control information removed from government websites and so forth. To be honest, when he tried to appoint a very stringent Christian to head a women's health board on the FDA, who believed women need to pray to allievate menstrual cramps, I realized that we cannot have religious beliefs controlling people's health, decisions, and our country.

So while I may hope women do not have to face the choice of having an abortion, I do believe they have the right to make that choice. I also believe men and women should be as informed as scientifically possible about precautions and consequences before and after sex, as well as the alternatives available. The current administration isn't supporting that, and that makes things more dangerous for everyone, teenagers especially.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

I'm not in favor of abortion. But I am in favor of a woman having the right to choice. I think they are two separate issues,

I don't think so. If you favor ANYONE being allowed to have their child killed, you ARE in favor of it. If a politician says he's personally against it, but still votes in favor of letting someone else do it, then the deaths of the babies are on his hands.

I cannot see a difference between this rationale and saying, if OJ wants to shoot his wife, that's his choice, but I couldn't personally do such a thing and I am personally opposed. Some things are so evil, such as the murder of an unborn child, NO ONE should be allowed to 'choose' it. If you do, why not just repeal all laws and let everyone 'choose' everything for themselves? We can't 'choose' everything, and there are laws that restrict us from 'choosing' certain things, and this should be one of them!

I'm sorry but "CHOOSING" is NOT more important than a life, I can't understand how anyone could think that, I really can't!

Though it is VERY sickening and redundant, the words CHOOSE and CHOICE are ALWAYS used to cover up what abortion really is, because there really is no other argument, and to me, it's not a good enough one to justify killing and stopping a beating heart. Not just me, NOBODY should be allowed to do that, and I certainly don't want my tax dollars going to kill somebody else's child because they 'chose' to do it

 

[Diemen]

See, that's the big thing though - that is your opinion. Many other people have a different opinion. To set down a national law banning abortion would be just as divisive and controversial to millions of other people as approving abortion would be to you.

And speaking of no other argument for abortion, I'd just like to add that there is no pure black and white on this issue. What if the mother's health is in jeopardy? And what about those mother's who lack the skill to raise a child - the ones who end up abusing them, abandoning them or even worse, killing them once they're outside the womb? Wouldn't a first trimester abortion be a better option?

Not everyone lives the same kind of life with the same quality as you or I do.

Slightly on, but slightly off-topic - what do you think about the morning after pill?

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Ho hum, we've been through all that 'mother's health' and 'rape and incest' shit in the last thread about the topic. Also, I think I explained the 'my opinion' thing in my last post here- some things are so bad, they are against the law for EVERYONE, and this should be one of them.That's why I used the 'kill the wife' scenario, to try to illustrate how stupid it is to say, oh, I wouldn't do that but I won't stop somebody else from doing it.' There is no question, KILLING is wrong! You can do whatever else you damn well please, but don't kill anyone, not even your own child. And don't start the 'it's not a baby' shit, if it's not a baby, then dammit, you're not pregnant. It's not only a baby if it's convenient to you, it's always a baby!

There is no need to even discuss this anymore, because most people hate the topic, and the only arguments anyone can possibly use to defend it are 'choice' and that does not justify or rationalize the killing of the baby any more than it would be okay for someone to 'choose' to kill their wife, or husband, if they were an inconvenience. Hey, if it's legal to 'choose' to do away with lives that interfere with my life, and I have a 'right' to choose, why can't we all choose whatever we want? I want to own an uzi. I want to go spraypaint my neighbor's house. See how stupid and empty and ridiculous the 'choice' shit realy is? No, of course you don't, you're only going to come back with 'but it's a woman's choice!' because that's all you can say, because there is no other argument, and the one you have is worthless!

I've said all I'm going to say on this, everyone knows where I stand!

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Ho hum, we've been through all that 'mother's health' and 'rape and incest' shit in the last thread about the topic. Also, I think I explained the 'my opinion' thing in my last post here- some things are so bad, they are against the law for EVERYONE, and this should be one of them.

I'm so glad you think "rape and incest" are shit, but not good enough reasons for an abortion. Unless you've been in the shoes of someone who has had to go through the horrors of either of those things, I think you have no idea what it's like to be faced with that kind of a decision.

 

[Diemen]

And I think that's a major problem with your view, BP - it appears you can't see this through anyone's eyes but your own.

Oh, and btw, thanks for keeping the Kerry thread to the Kerry supporters. We do appreciate it.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Sigh. I don't mean they are shit, I mean dragging that into the abortion debates over and over is old shit. There would never be a law that didn't allow for that, and the health thing.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Oh, and btw, thanks for keeping the Kerry thread to the Kerry supporters. We do appreciate it.

Exactly.


I'm going to the Bush thread now to tell them they all want "four more years of hell."

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

Sigh. I don't mean they are shit, I mean dragging that into the abortion debates over and over is old shit. There would never be a law that didn't allow for that, and the health thing.

OK, gotcha.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Sigh. I don't mean they are shit, I mean dragging that into the abortion debates over and over is old shit. There would never be a law that didn't allow for that, and the health thing.

Actually Bush has banned late-pregnancy abortions which, "[a]ccording to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists a DX[,] "may be the best or most appropriate abortion procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman." (ACOG Statement of Policy: Abortion Policy, September 2000.)"

Nebraska filed suit against this ban mainly because "[t]he Nebraska law also outlawed the D&X procedure even if doctors considered that method the best way to protect a woman's health." (emphasis mine.)

Bush isn't interested in the whys or hows or psychology behind these women's choices. Already his abortion bans do not allow caveats for a woman's health and safety! Thank God physicians out there fight this and states (31 since Nebraska) say that it's unconstitutional - and that's mainly because the law is so incredibly dangerous for the pregnant woman's life. Or maybe her life doesn't matter?

 

[oliveu2cm]

I know this thread is not about abortion but I want to reply to this.

I'm sorry but "CHOOSING" is NOT more important than a life, I can't understand how anyone could think that, I really can't!

The argument about commiting murder (i.e. OJ Simpson) is completely different. OJ can walk away from the woman if she is bothering him. She can live on her own, and he can live on the other side of the Earth and choose not to have any financial responsiblity towards her. He doesn't need to house her inside of him for 9 months or deal with the socioeconomic and psychological ramifications of pregnancy or parenthood. He doesn't need to clothe and feed her or find another living situation that will take care of her. But a woman needs to do all those things, and more, for her child. And she should have the right to choose not to. No, I don't think abortion should be used as birth control (i.e. no condoms, pill, etc, only abortion), but with the right awareness it won't have to be.

A woman isn't necessarily choosing something as simple as "life or death." There are so many other factors and people involved, and I think it's important to consider them for women.

Think of the already born children in the family, who won't have any food to eat because the mother is out of work again due to pregnancy, and there soon are medical bills and another mouth to feed. What if a mother is trying to protect the children she already has, to be able to feed and shelter them? Is that wrong? Another child could flush their hopes of an adequate life down the toilet. What's the solution in that situation- not to have sex? Then that has to be told to the drunk husband/boyfriend/neighbor. Tell that to the couple who are in a deeply loving committed relationship who are trying to keep their heads financially above water, and want to have sex as it's an important part of a relationship. Birth control should be taught and accessible, yes, but what if that couple's condom breaks? Why should people's choices be eliminated- not everyone is going willy nilly having rampant sex and abortions as birth control. They make a decision that will stay with them for a long, long time. And sometimes those decisions are for other people's lives, health, safety. Sometimes even for the unborn child's protection.

What do you say to the woman whose news of pregnancy will grant her a beating from someone? To a woman who does not want to raise a child in a violent environment, and is too poor/insecure/mentally or physically unable to leave that environment?

If programs like Planned Parenthood are not funded, then people have nowhere to turn for alternatives. Poor people (probably middle-class, too!) do not have easy access to adoption options without these types of clinics. But they have access to a coathanger, I can tell you that. And if it sounds brutal, that's because it is. It's cutting off a woman's, a man's, a family's options. Options for survival. Options to save the woman's life during pregnancy complications. Options to feed the children they already have. OPTIONS.

 

[U2luv]

I don't think so. If you favor ANYONE being allowed to have their child killed, you ARE in favor of it. If a politician says he's personally against it, but still votes in favor of letting someone else do it, then the deaths of the babies are on his hands.

I cannot see a difference between this rationale and saying, if OJ wants to shoot his wife, that's his choice, but I couldn't personally do such a thing and I am personally opposed. Some things are so evil, such as the murder of an unborn child, NO ONE should be allowed to 'choose' it. If you do, why not just repeal all laws and let everyone 'choose' everything for themselves? We can't 'choose' everything, and there are laws that restrict us from 'choosing' certain things, and this should be one of them!

OJ killing his wife is ILLEGAL according to the law, so there is NO choice. Abortion is LEGAL, and though I am personally against abortion, I agree with OliveU2cm that I cannot tell another that she does not have that choice.

I respect Kerry, I do NOT respect Bush. Though Kerry is not perfect (who is?) I feel that he is better qualified to be President on the grounds that he looks at ALL aspects of a situation, among other things. Unlike Bush, he doesn't try to force his religious beliefs on others around the world. This country is made up of ALL religious beliefs.

There are many things about Bush I do not like and I find unacceptable in a President. I don't have time at this moment to go into my full reasons, but they HAVE been stated quite clearly elsewhere in this thread by others so I'll leave it at that.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Olive- banning late term abortion is the best thing Bush has done since he's been in office, and it's the one reason I'd like to see him stay in. It's nothing but brutal, hideous murder. A well formed baby is pulled out by the head, they cut its spinal chord, suck out its brain, and crush its skull. You call that a fucking 'choice' if you like, I see murder. The baby CAN feel pain at that age. It's sick! I have to agree with what LLABM said on this once, I can't see that one life is more valuable than the other. If a baby must be violently destroyed to save someone else's life, that doesn't make it right. There has to be a better way.

u2luv, that's what I'm trying to say about LEGAL and ILLEGAL- both are KILLING, yet one is bad and one is a 'choice?" I say, no, they're both killing or they're both choices. A lot of 'choices' have been taken from us by laws, and I believe abortion (with a few exceptions) should be too. The idea of leaving a 'choice' up to a person's individual conscience is ridiculous! Some things are bad, and should be stopped for everybody- among them murder, robbing a store, and abortion.

There really have been some people who believed stealing or hurting someone was not wrong to them in their own personal opinion. So you HAVE to have laws. We also need laws to protect the unborn from those who have no conscience for their lives.

 

[nbcrusader]

The abortion issue is moot. There is a Republican President, and a Republican Congress. Abortions have not slowed down one bit. It is a non-issue because it will take more than the action of the Administration to stop it.