Well now, that's very interesting. Citation?

gay marriage

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rrygays12.html

abortion

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5014629/


I didn't read it all that well the first time. It says he would consider them, not necessarily prefer them. I've also read several places that he is against abortion morally, although he is big on the right to abortion.

Its amazing how a man who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people can even be considered "religious". Its even more amazing that some of you actually support him for the fact that he is "religious. Religion is not about dropping bombs on a country that was absolutely zero threat and killing thousands. Religion is not about giving to the rich and taking from the poor. Religion is not about constantly lying to the public. The list can go on and on. Although I am not religous, or for that matter believe in religion at all, I do know that Mr. Bush does not know what religion is.

For all those who support him based on his so called religious ways, you might as well support Al Qaeda also. They murder in the name of god, as does Bush.

Rdr4evr, your lecture is duly noted.

Some of us who support our President would like to believe that you would consider that we have anticipated such sentiments as yours, have heard them before, and find them unconvincing. We don't live in a vacuum. There are many threads on this forum where you may type your thoughts in the most reasoned way you are able. I don't see this thread as the best place to type extreme antithetical rhetoric - unless one is interested in enflaming the thread. That wouldn't be an advisable way to proceed.

mojo, i have to agree with DR. you seem to be faulting him for having his religous beliefs and not forcing them on others. which is kinda what the US is founded on.

yatzr, i read an article/interview with him, if i remember correctly, he said he would appoint anti-abortion judeges as long as the would be willing to overturn roe v. wade. and i don't remember him saying that a ban of gay marriage at the constitutional level would ever be necessary, but that he does support civil unions, not marriage.

Oh. He'd consider it. If Roe v. Wade wouldn't be placed in danger. Not good enough. Not even close.

(And I already knew that I disagree with both candidates on gay marriage. I was interested in the abortion claim only.)

My comment was directed at Kerry and a few others. Being Catholic he fights for abotion rights something his church is against. Gay marriage is a problem for Catholics as well which he sways back in forth on that issue. I am not saying someones religion should dictate what their policy is but if it differs don't proclaim yourself a good Christian when several Cardinals have out right said he shouldn't even receive communion.

I differ with you opinion on a vision. He took a collapsing economy and turned it completely around. Weathered the largest attack on the US since WW2. Made failed attempts at reaching out to the other side like letting Kennedy write the education bill. Brought tax relief to the middle class that was promised by the previous administration yet never delivered. I differ on your opinion of leading. Folowing the scandal plagued UN is not leading neither is avoiding tough choices or by relying on polls to set policy. Bush can hardly be blamed for the divide in this country as it was there during the Clinton second term. Remember 2000? Bush won by several hundred votes and that was before he took office which you could hardly blamed on him. IMO Clinton should take most of the blame for this as he turned every group against each other with his class warfare.

I am truly curious, as you fit the mold of a large portion of the voting public. Given the unfortunate choice of candidates......who will get your vote at this point?

I made a post earlier in this thread briefly explaining why I support Bush. He'll be getting my vote, barring some huge unforseen event. There's actually quite a bit I don't like about Bush's positions, but abortion and defense are high priorities in my mind.

The issue I have is: it's true the apparent tone of the video is clear. He does however interview people that have good things to say about him- campaign supporters; old college roommates; etc. Again I havent seen Moore's film, but when I see documentaries like this; its not about the video itself making Bush look bad- but merely exposing his past actions and those associated with him.

I would truly like to see any evidence that the disturbing data in this video is false. I'm not presenting that as a challenge; its not my intention to come off frictional like that. I sincerely would be grateful to have information that clearly shows these things to be lies. If not I will admit his character both seen and unseen and the power behind him makes it truly difficult for me to see him in a good light.


By the way you may have a case to dispute the truth behind what is stated about his military service in the video. His records have recently been destroyed somehow.

If you watched the video is there a specific part you feel is way off course?

I guess my only other question is; how would you feel or your view be effected if the information was shown to be accurate?

here's an interesting article somewhat related to this discussion:

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/32/features-lewis.php

kind of a strech with the gay marriage comments.
however, the case can be made that certain politicians engage in religious name-dropping while ignoring elements of scripture.

just remembered...i went to a talk with senator norm coleman from minnesota.
as he was speaking of his faith, and referencing one of his favorite passages from the book of david. unfortunately, this book does not exist...but perhaps it was an honest mistake?

To answer the original post concisely:

I support Bush because he realizes that the greatest danger to this country right now is radical Islamic countries.

They threaten us by:

a) exporting radical Islam to more countries, including our European allies

b) threatening to hold the oil supply hostage

c) threatening war on Israel, which would result in the second war in which nuclear weapons were used.


Bush has shown that he isn't a paper tiger, which was critically important to the safety and security of this nation.

Excellent, that is one of the best answers I have heard yet.

Now....

How many people are going to catch what you are really saying?

Hmmm.......