Kerry is a bad candidate
 

You can tell that liberals do not like Kerry because the motivation behind his campaign is passive. The motivation is what ever Bush doesnt do...thats what we will do. There is a lot of second guessing by Kerry. Leaders don't second guess in this way. If Clinton (love him or hate him) were in this race, he would spin any news in to his favor...without actually saying so. The Bush campaign has its weak spots, but mostly because of Iraq. Everything else is going pretty well. It will be very hard for a boring unqualified liberal Senator to beat a war time president. Especially when no one really is in love with Kerry in the first place.

I'd rather have a passive boring unqualified senator then a irresponsible, stuborn, unintelligent, violent, hypocritical, war-mongering war-time president.

I don't want a president that counters in debates with insults and lies because he can't think of anything else. "I own a timber company? Thats news to me! Want some wood?"

I don't want a president that can't admit he is human and makes mistakes. I don't want a president that views himself as infallable. I don't want a president that views himself the hand of God. I don't want a president that thinks he knows what God wants and then uses that to justify things that are clearly not biblical. I don't want a president that protects his rich friends before protecting the nation. I don't want a president that uses fear and lies to brainwash people. I don't want a president that will call one of the greatest war heros of all time unpatriotic (talking Mc'cain here).

So you can say what you want about Kerry but the fact that he is not Bush is probably his strongest reason to vote for him as president. This isn't because he is a horrible canidate that can't stand on anything else. No this is because Bush is just that bad of a canidate.

ps. sorry for feeding the trolls

It seems democrats are so frusturated with the current admistration that they overlooked the fact that Kerry isnt the right canidate. I would have to think that if there was a Clinton like canidate running against Bush in this election he would have a substantal lead in the polls at this point.

Unfortunatly Clinton can't run again. I'd vote for him

rekna, you missed my point. Kerry is not a good candidate. but he might of been the best out of the 9 choices. 2008 will be a better year for libs. it will be Hillary vs. Edwards for the nomination. and then...you will see some passion. there is no passion for Kerry.

put it this way,,,,could you imagine marrying a girl because she wasnt like your ex-girlfiend? ive seen people do that and it never works. you gotta choose someone for what they offer. not what they dont offer.

You seem to be assuming that Bush will win

you have given no evidence that Bush is better than Kerry. In the debates Kerry looked very presidential. Bush on the other hand looked like a whiny little brat. Bush is a criminal who is hell bent on power. He uses his power to cause fear in order to get what he wants (which is more power).

Had the Democrats chosen a moderate for their candidate, this election would have been over by now, with Bush polling in the low to mid 30%s. They chose a guy as far left as Bush is right, so it's gonna be a figurative bloodbath.

I hope Bush wins. Kerry'd be a complete disaster, and would make Carter look good.

If Kerry wins, it will be more damaging to the Democratic Party than a landslide defeat. They need a candidate who supports some Democratic Party stances and some beliefs that are common to most Americans. Additionally, (s)he needs to support these positions because (s)he actually believes in them, not because it looks good at the podium and gets poll numbers up.

The only thing the Democrats could have done that is worse than running Kerry is to run Clinton.

This whole thread is full of assumptions and hyperbole. Although he's not the best candidate ever, I feel he is miles ahead of Bush in smarts, integrity and diplomacy.

I really can´t work up a lot of enthusiasm for Kerry but Bush and co. gotta go. The man has true contempt for his constituents and a delusioned arrogant belief in his god appointed superiority.
Kerry isn´t the ideal candidate by any stretch but he beats the hell out the lying manipulative sack of shit we got now. 4 more years of W might be the last 4 years of our lives.

This link to
<a href="http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269">http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docid=269</a>
Reinforces my point that Kerry has had a consistant position on the Iraq war.
Understand that Karl Rove has influenced you and many Americans by using,
with great success, the strategy of attacking the strengths of Bush's opponents in order to <br>distract attention from Bush's shortcomings by having Bush, Cheney, and cooperative media
(Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Fox News)
repeat the same distortions, half truths, and untruths over and over, in a highly coordinated presentation.
Did you know that Nixon met with Swift Boat officer O'Neill for an hour in
June, 1971, in an effort to blunt the impact that he perceived Kerry to
have on his Viet Nam policy?
Did you Know that Kerry initiated the Iran Contra investigation and exposed
the illegal support for the Nicaraguan Contras, the Reagan administration selling arms to Iran, as a freshman senator in 1985, gaining the support
of republican Jesse Helms by exposing the details of CIA operatives raising
money for the Contras by smuggling cocaine into the U.S.?
<a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB113/">Memos on
the Kerry Report, Contras and Drugs</a>

<a href="http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml">Kerry: With probes, making his mark</a>

Discern what elements of your opinions of Bush and Kerry have
been influenced by Karl Roves "psych ops", and what the facts
are about the candidate's resumes. IMO, Kerry's life experience involves
bringing the details of how two past republican presidents were
actually conducting wars, to the attention
of the American people. Kerry knows from experience what and who
he is up against. He has never waivered in 30 years of taking Nixon, then
Reagan, and now.....Bush on. The most important factor in all three of
these historic struggles is that Kerry was armed with the truth, and the
agendas of the 3 presidents could not stand up to public scutiny.

Instead of four more years of an administration that shrinks from it's obligation to demonstrate a dialogue with the press and the people, (14 Bush press conferences in 40 months, Cheney's secret energy task force, repetetive talking points instead of detailed answers to questions from the press and the people, carefully pre-screened audiences at campaign stops, illegal, well orchestrated effort to bottle up peaceful protestors in out of view, offsite, secure locations.....), I look forward to a new regime, led by
a head of state who has pursued and exposed past leaders who refused to
govern openly, or who even thought that they were not accountable to the
citizens who they took an oath to represent !

By the way.. Democrats are not liberals. No way in hell they are liberals. They are quite middle of the road. The Green party... now that's liberal.

btw, kerry is leading bush, but maybe that's a footnote to the diatribe.

oh yeah, and Halx, quite true.

people always sweep me in their 'democrat' rug when they speak to me ;)

I have to politely remind them, no, I'm a commie ;)

and an incorrect footnote to boot. (lame pun noted)

Liberals hate to be called liberal. I have never figured that out. Kerry is not middle of the road....at least not in America.

I am assuming Kerry will probably loose.

Or communist.

yes and hitler was a compasionate conservative

Host, Kerry has a long history of appeasement of America's enemies. You've got the whole Paris thing, the "Dear Commandante" letters, where Kerry encouraged Ortega to "lay low" with the Soviets while Kerry worked to kill the Contra's budget and after the budget was killed, THEN go to the Soviet Union seeking aid, et cetera. On top of that, you've got Kerry's consistent attempts to destroy the US military, by cutting needed programs.

Benedict Arnold was a real, live U.S. military hero. There's no doubt about that, no irregularities in his heroism, et cetera. Yet, despite this record of heroism, he became a traitor when he entered into talks with the British to surrender West Point. That's how he's remembered...as America's first real traitor. Kerry's treasonous actions FAR surpass Arnold's betrayal, and that's how he'll be seen in the future.

BTW, you suggest that I've bought into Rovian psyops. You're wrong. My loathing for Kerry far predates Rove's sojourn in the White House. In my book, I've considered Kerry to be a traitor for decades.

I'd like to disspell this new myth that the democrats have started saying.

Bush had a small ownership in a oil and gas company that later branched out into a timber business. This misunderstanding came out as a result as an error on factcheck.org and they have retracted that statement and corrected the error.

This is along the same lines as dems saying that Bush banned stem cell research. The only thing that Bush did was to not give any political funds to any new embyonic stem cells. There is still government funding for the original line of embryonic stem cells and there is full funding for adult stem cells which have shown more promise for cures than embryonic stem cells. Also, there is no ban on private funding to embryonic stem cells so if you believe in this, donate!

This type of stuff happens all the time on both sides and it drives me crazy.

Thank you for the links to mainstream news sources or archives to
facilitate fact checking that will allow me to agree with you or to attempt to
refute your insinuation that Kerry is less worthy than Benedict Arnold. The
way you worded your unsubstantiated post is Rovian, IMO.

Why are people assuming Hillary will run?

Hillary and Bill have been almost absent from this campaign season, not ever even giving their support for Kerry. They want him to lose so Hillary can run in 2008 and not have to wait until 2012. Of course they couldn't say anything about Kerry that could be contributed to his loss so they don't anger thier base that could come back in 2008 and bite them in the ass.

I think it is obvious that Hillary is a power hungry person and will run in '08 if Bush get re-elect.

Then again, maybe this is too much of a conspiracy theory.

*cough* do you need a civics lesson, or a link to an updated portrayal of how the electoral votes are currently splitting?

Are you a kerry supporter?

Because I find it odd that you would speak about things you don't really know--unless you actually have been watching kerry's campaign closely for some odd reason.

President Clinton has been extensively campaigning for Senator Kerry all over the country--showing up with him, going to churches and various functions speaking on his behalf, and etc. He only stopped once he went into heart surgery, and even now Senator Clinton didn't rule out the fact that President Clinton might come back on the campaign trail if "his doctors let him."

They give their full support for this candidate, even to the point of giving him constant campaign advice. There were a few large stories explaining how President Clinton gave Senator Kerry advice from the hospital, and we saw a shift in the Senator's techniques (a shift that was positive).

Rekna didn't seem to care whether President Bush had a timber company or not; I understood his comments to be more focused on how Bush handled himself and his reply. Nitpicking on whether he received money from this or that company is pretty irrelevant to me. In fact, I supposed when I heard the exchange during the debate, that the President probably didn't even know his assets. His money is in a larger portfolia that is managed by a group of people--he likely doesn't know the extent of his own ownership any more than I know the extent of my IRA's ownership.

While I may know that I have a slice of a stock in IBM and Microsoft, I wouldn't know anything about an obscure entitiy.

In any case, we shouldn't be surprised to find that the larger company 'diversified' into smaller, unrelated entities. That was the Senator's point--that larger companies split into smaller ones and gain substantial tax savings/dodges by doing so. So your comments would tend to support the Senator's point moreso than refuting them.

But no democrats that I know of care whether the President actually owned a company--we are marveling at his stupidity: the comment was just as effective even if it was a hypothetical. But he turned the comment away from the reality of tax evasion into a stupid personal joke.

Bush is incapable or unwilling to engage in abstract thought. He had a similarly confused expression when the Senator was explaining that he didn't vote for the *partial birth abortion ban due to a 17 year old girl who would be forced to report to her parents (one of which abused her).

Did this happen? Did the Senator really know a 17 year old girl in such a situation?
Does it matter for the point to be valid or should he have taken 30 seconds from his reply time to explain to the denser community that he could very well be speaking hypothetically?

*s/b abortion bill, I conflated his points on accident

Host, do you really doubt that Kerry went to Paris and met with the NVA and Viet Cong? (he admitted as much under oath) Do you really doubt that he was a signatory of the "Dear Commandante" letters? (easy to FOIA, after all, IIRC Harkin wrote them, he signed them). Do you really doubt what his voting record on defense systems was?

This is all stuff in the public domain.

"Treason is Patriotic" is a pretty crappy campaign strategy...

We could talk hypotheticals to no end, but anyone who supports partial birth abortions is out of touch with the majority of the American people if you ask me. You could give hypotheticals allowing any horrible crime if you wanted to.

Anyways, he disagreed with requiring notification of parents because of the 17 year old, not partial birth abortions. You have to have parental support for any medical procedure, why should abortions be differnt? Of course it is a horrible situation that the girl would be in, but this is such a limited example that it would have to be taken on a case to case basis. Wouldn't you like to know if your daughter was going to get an abortion, and not thinking she was going to be gone for a few days? Abortion is something that teens should not be going through alone.

On his disagreement of partial birth abortions he says there is not a clause that lets it happen if the "health" of the mother is in questions. Well, there is a "life" of the mother clause which is important. The problem is that the health of the mother could be said to be anything, mental health, etc. She could say that it would cause her undue stress to have the baby and she would be qualified for a partial birth abortion.

I agree.

If the dems had actually chosen a moderate I might very well vote for him.

I also agree that a Kerry presidency will be a disaster as far as the war on terror goes.

I guess the latest is that he would work to reduce terrorism to "acceptable" levels.

Acceptable???

What the hell is that???

No one here that I'm aware of, nor is Senator Kerry, a supporter of the procedure, though, so that was just a preposterous assertion. Before passing a law, legislatures are ethically required to step through various hypotheticals in order to determine whether the law they are about to pass is going to adversely affect the population. It's not some mental exercise that you seem to attach to everyday discussions.

Obviously I'd want my daughter to tell me if she was considering an abortion. I wouldn't want to legally require your daughter to tell you if you were the one who raped her. The Senator explained this very clearly during the debate. If you didn't see him speak, I don't see much point in discussing his position.

You haven't demonstrated that you know what you're talking about in regards to the partial birth abortion bill, and I'm not going to argue about it.

Lebell, are you familiar with Ted Rall? He wrote an interesting article on why the Democrats need to ditch gun control as part of their platform.

I guess if either the Democrats or Republicans defended ALL of the Bill of Rights, they'd be libertarians...

We need to merge the NRA and the ACLU. That'd be fun!!! ;)

There are laws against raping your own daughter. So I'm guessing that if you rape your daughter and cause her to become pregnant with your own grandchild you won't have to worry about her telling you or she won't have any fear to tell you she is getting an abortion because you will be in jail for a very long time. That argument is a pretty piss poor one.

http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx@docID=275.html
Doesn't look like they retracted it to me. Not to mention Kerry's point is still valid reguardless of what time of buisness it is. His point was that Bush uses such a broad term to define small buisnesses that it inflates his stats (factcheck.org talks about this) Someone making $84 off a LLC should not be counted in the presidents stats of small buisness owners that will suffer and thus fire it's employees.

That is exactly the point Kerry made. Bush had no defense. He's so inept that all he could say was "want some wood?"

Thanks for just putting me down saying I don't know what I'm talking about, its a good way to get across your point.

The senator explained the very clearly doring the debate? Kerry NEVER explains anything clearly, he is always on both sides of the issues. If he is not a supporter of the procedure why in the hell did he vote against it?

athletics i'd watch it. Mod's don't put up with comments like that.

no offense intended to my man smooth, but since i know my civics and bush is ahead in the every electoral college projection ive seen (the nature of a poll brings suspect)...his comments do not make sense. it was just a quick turn of phrase regurgitated

http://www.electoral-vote.com/

This is a very complete electoral vote prediction sight that takes info from all legit polling companies

I didn't mean to put you down.

I'm not interested in arguing over this.

You didn't seem to be very knowledgable on the bill's details, and your comments looked like you were repeating things you've heard rather than you have actually read the bill itself.

Your comments (and your most recent comments seem to support this) about Senator Kerry made me think that you hadn't watched him debate, and if you had, that you weren't interested in understanding what he had to say.

If you have read the bill and you have watched the debates, I apologize for my assumptions to the contrary.

But I'm still not interested in arguing with you over it. And even if I were, are you interesting in learning why someone might be opposed to partial birth abortions yet not choose to implement what, in their professional opinion, was bad implemententation of a law to ban the practice? I don't pick that up from your statements. I don't make any assumptions about your intelligence other than I question whether you are deliberately ignoring nuance or are not able to conceptualize shades of gray.

It shows California as Weak Kerry. CA should be strong Kerry. Either this poll is way off, or something is not right in CA.

CNN has the electoral college at 301 Bush to 237 Kerry.

So...whatever. It will be a fun few weeks.

This website uses many different polls. Click on the state and you can see a history of where it stands. It may be that the last poll issued in california was an outlier.

none taken; here's another site with polling data to peruse:

http://www.pollingreport.com/

that's what the LA Times uses. They have Bush about 10 EC votes ahead of Kerry.

The guy who runs electoral-vote.com is a proclaimed Kerry-backer, so the stats he uses will be pro-Kerry when possible. www.realclearpolitics.com is on Bush's side, if you want to see a pro-Bush electoral count. I don't really trust what CNN is doing: they're interviewing pundits and campaign managers in swing states...why can't they just use their own polls?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/spe...lls/index.html says Kerry is in the lead in popular votes and you can see he has the momentum.

In addition the cnn polls are using gallup which has been over sampling republicans.

As for electoral-vote.com he is a proclaimed kerry backer he lets that bias out right away. But he doesn't pick and choose data. The most recent poll is always used and he only denies poll places that are having problems (push polling, ect)

Who answers these polling questions? Is it by phone? Is there some dude in a suit hanging out at the mall near the Gap with a clipboard?

For electoral-vote they don't perform any of their own polls they use professional poles that are reputable, ie gallop ect. Click on the states and see who is doing the polls. Each polling place does it differently.

These polls don't include the internals. Those are pretty interesting since they are based on topics. I don't know how that changes things, but it sure makes me sleepy.

That is something I would like to know also. Out of all the people I know I dont know anyone who puts imput into these polls. Where do I sighn up to put in my vote for Kerry on these polls. So realy the only poll that does count is the actual election.
Back to the original topic, I dont care if Kerry would seem week as a choice for president, anyone is better than Bush. All you have to do is look at how divided our country is to see how bad of a president he is. We have had bad presidents before but never has the country been so devided.

daswig, you exhibit an anachronistic attitude and a mindset that was discredited in the 70's. You are talking to the wrong guy, if you expect me to
be influenced in the slightest by your twisted, early 70's, unsubstantiated (as in; where are your links to authoritative sources?) warhawk propaganda.
daswig, don't bother reading any of this......it is a waste of your time. You "know" what you "know". and history will not alter your opinion. If I tell you that history proved Kerry to be right about Viet Nam, and his prediction that
not ending that war by mid 1971 would result in the avoidable deaths of
5000 more U.S. troops by the time the U.S. inevitably pulled out in Jan., 1973
you would probably respond by posting that Kerry's 1971 anti war efforts
were a major influence in compromising the potential forU.S.victory in
Viet Nam. History, however, indicates that Kerry was right about Nixon's flawed Viet Nam policies, Reagan was wrong in the Iran-Contra activities.
and soon...that Bushco was wrong in turning the war on terror into the
tragic and deliberately misleading war in Iraq. 10 congressman signed
the "Dear Commandante" letters; Kerry was not a congressman:

Ok so you'd rather have someone who has absolutely NO idea of what he's doing and needs Clinton's team to tell him what to do instead of a guy who at least has a plan, an idea of how to run a country, and results which show that he can make the critical decisions in times of crisis? We have one of the strongest GDP growths in a long time. Looks to me like you've been listening to one too many Michael Moore documentaries. :rolleyes:

I also love how with such hatred toward Americans that thrive in countries like Iraq (which existed BEFORE this war even started), we want to pull out of the country. With each behedding, some people blame Bush, blame America, or blame our troops in combat. One look at the Berg behedding, or any other behedding can tell you why we need to take a stand and stop cowaring in the face of this scum of the earth. Oh... and need I mention God is used to justify these beheddings when obviously it's something that's immoral? On second thought... maybe we do need a "kinder, gentler war on terror". :lol:

I'd rather have a pacifist than a war monger. It is quite simple. I'm a strong christain and I cannot justify the intentional killing of thousands of innocencents.

As for Kerry not having a clue you are truely wrong there. I agree Bush can make decisions in the time of crisis unfortunatly they are typically wrong. But it's ok right? As long as bush keeps bribing people to vote for him by cutting taxes and then increasing spending and giving no-bid contracts to his friends he will stay in power right?

I don't want a currupt leader, which is what Bush is.

Strong Christian... You'd support a party which suppots the removal of the 10 commandments from our government buildings? You'd support the removal of "under God" from our pledge of allegance? You'd support a party which is for these things, yet thinks it's perfectly ok for a city in Michigan to hold a Muslim rally which boasts anti-American ideas? Christianity is a basis for much of our laws that govern our country, as well as the values which we hold dear. It is what our nation was founded on and that is a historical fact. You'd support a party that wants to get rid of history... strong Christian.

Kerry has realized, belatedly, just who he is running against, and it ain't Bush!
^Ice_Bat^, who would you utilize, if you hoped to sucessfully counter Rove,
if you ruled out the team of political strategists who have a recent resume
of achieving results in a presidential race against an incumbent Republican
president? I would criticize Kerry if he didn't enlist Carville et al in his fight
against Bush! A sign that you are a victim of Rovian strategy is that you
apparently believe that Bush, (the guy who demonstrated by his performances in the 2004 debates #1 and #2 that he is clearly not only unqualified and inadequate, intellectually and emotionally to be president of the U.S., let alone have a "plan" that he, and not Rove, conceptualized, crafted, and conveyed to the American people, who can not even pass himself off as a mature, 58 year old adult American male,) is capable of being
the leader of the free world with a better plan than Kerry's for our future?
Are you serious?
If the most powerful force ever to be assembled, invaded your country,
destroying all systems that maintained order and internal security in the
process of invading, and then did nothing while looting and lawlessness then
filled the gap created in the invasion, what would your reaction be?
Beheading is a gruesome tactic. Have you also considered the devastating
effects of U.S firepower that inadvertently kills and maims noncombatant
Iraqis?

Can you justify as necessary and moral, an elective war with all
new reasons for it's instigation and continuing prosecution, now that
Bush and Cheney's original and urgent reasons have been exposed as
empty, misleading, and contrived rhetoric. Could you ever contemplate that
"your president" is a war crminal who launched a pre-emptive war without
justifiable provocation? This is a reasonable and growing argument, whether
you have it in you to consider it, or not.

Bush, himself declared that he would not want to live in a country that was under occupation. You are incapable of looking at what happened in Iraq from any other perspective than that of an unquestioning, partisan supporter of
Bush and his puppetmaster, Karl Rove. Viceroy Paul Bremer revealed last
week that allowing looting and lawlessness in Iraq immediately after the
invasion is a root cause of the current violence there. Do you believe that
the enemy kiling our troops and civilian contractors in Iraq now, are foreign
fighters, streaming across vast, impossible to guard borders? Our military
commanders counter this notion. Bush's failed and misleading "war on terror"
are the catalyst for the beheadings that pique your myopic outrage, and
the creation of a hostile, Iraqi insurgency:

A true Christian would condemn Bush's unChristian instigation of war that is, not absolutely necessary, not support him. Rove has succeeded in persuading you
and the majority of Christian fundamentalists to unquestioningly support a
man who mouths the "Christian Ethic", but is not a member of a Christian
congregation, or attend worship services at a church. Rove instructed Bush
four years ago to declare that Jesus was his favorite philosopher, and that
he was a "saved" Christian and you "bought it". Please explain why Bush,
who agrees with you that "abortion is murder", a president whose party
controls both houses of congress, has not even introduced a legislative bill
designed to ban abortion? He paid lip service to your beliefs by signing a
bill so flawed legally as to insure it's intended demise, that only limits third
trimester abortion. Bush only has to "talk your talk" by mouthing whatever
Karl Rove conceives that will harvest your political support and you will overlook all of Bush's manipulative religious hypocricy and unChristian international agenda. Your Christian President and his Christian party crafted
a conservative Christian platform at the NYC convention last month , and
then never mentioned it during prime time. They paid lip service to your
conservative Christian agenda, and then trotted out prime time speakers
like pro choice advocates Giuliani and Shwarznegger. While you are distracted
by non-issues such as the public display of the ten commandments, Rove is
free to cultivate moderate non-Christian and non-religious voters by offering
them a knowing wink that assures them that he is only patronizing the Christian fundamentalist platform to stregthen Bush's base. Rove enjoys the
fact that you are so easy to keep under control, under the "big tent". Kerry
and his party won't pay lip service to your homophobia and your goal of
"Christianizing" this country. Bush and Rove fool you into believing that they
are sincerely attempting to accomplish your goals, but they will never give
you more than the minimum, because giving you more would lessen their
political power. Do you see any display of the text of the Republican party
platform in the main stream press? Rove knows that your platform items
will not attract swing voters, or even a majority of registered Republicans.
Let me guess....Rove has convinced you that Bush believes that "abortion is
murder", and that you have to be patient until he gets re-selected, and
then he'll stop at nothing to achieve a federal ban on all abortions, but
first, they have to lure some pro-choice Republicans into their "big tent"
by deceiving them into thinking that Bush is not serious about implementimg
your platform items. I like Kerry's honest answer, that he doesn't believe in
making laws that interfere with a woman's right to choose. Seems fairer to
women who can't afford to confidentially fly to another
jurisdiction where abortion is legally available, if your agenda should ever
actually become law in the U.S. I guess you will declare victory if you can
use the law to compell full term pregnancies for women who aren't wealthy.
I've always wondered how you would deal with knowing that the uterus of a wealthy woman is beyond your control. I guess you would find solace in
legislating compulsive pregnancies only for the women on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.

kerry is a bad candidate because he's making his campaign off promises that he cannot and will not fullfil

I would like to add: without raising taxes.

None of those things you mention prevent me from worshiping God nor anyone else. The bible does not tell us to force religion upon others. It tells us to inform them and then they can make a choice. Being forced into worshiping means nothing. God gave us free will so we could CHOOSE to love him. People have to make that choice on their own. If someone doesn't make that choice then it is between them and God and NO ONE else.

The intent is to display the MORALITY of this country. Not to impose religion. Christian ideas teach moral value which everyone should strive to maintain. The commandments are displayed as a reminder of one of the first forms of written law which laws subsequently have been based on.

Thats fine but if it offends people that they are there then remove them. I still know the 10 commandments and it doesn't harm my religion at all.

If your faith is so small that you need to see religious icons everywhere you look to reinsure you that you are correct I suggest you do some more soul searching. If everyone else on the planet didn't believe i'd still believe. It's called faith.

I'd rather not have 10 commandments displayed outside and have let needless deaths then have more needless deaths and have 10 commandments displayed.

Rekna, appeasement has never worked. Kerry makes Chamberlaine look like a piker at the "fine art" of appeasement.

Host: There was more than just the one "Dear Commandante" letter you quoted.

I'M the one living in the past?!? BWAHAHAAAA!!!! Even Hanoi Jane has apologized for her treasonous acts during her participation in the anti-war effort. Kerry still hasn't, since he still views treason as being patriotic.

Who let ann coulter in here?

As someone who has supported Senator Kerry from the day he announced, I will respectfully disagree with those who think he is a poor candidate. It is notoriously difficult to defeat an incumbent president, particularly while in the midst of a war. The Senator is statistically tied with the President and seems to have the momentum. Is John Kerry the IDEAL candidate - no, he is not. But he is certainly qualified and capable and if elected, will surprise many of you with his skill, leadership and political acumen. I spent yesterday(the day of the final debate) working for the Senator's campaign in Arizona and attending the rally after the debate. I was surrounded by excited, devoted and commited Kerry supporters. Certainly some were ABBers, but the vast majority were excited and passionate about their candidate. Never underestimate Kerry, others have and have usually regretted it.

<H1>MY POSTS CONTAIN REFERENCE LINKS TO SUPPORT MY STATEMENTS.
MY OPINIONS ARE FORMED BY RESEARCH INTENDED TO POST FACT
BASED, UNIMPEACHABLE ARGUMENTS. PLEASE DO NOT POST REPLIES
INTENDED TO COUNTER THE REFERENCED POINTS IN MY POSTS WITHOUT INCLUDING YOUR OWN REFERENCES WHERE I CAN CHECK, CONTEXT,
BIAS, AND RELIABILITY!</H1>
Notice that I am countering your "points" with info from web sources.....
in contrast to the content of your posts, which contain only your opinion.

Having Bush as president again is going to lead to all out Civil War II or World War III. That's my unbiased opinion :)

And then we all return to nothing, we all come tumbling down, tumbling down, tumbling dowwwwwwn...

All this negative comparison to Clinto?
I am beginning to think not only is Kerry more honest than Clinton but also more intelligent. The Viet Nam speaches he made, which conservatives quote out of context as much as they can, are a triumphant achievement for a kid in his early twenties.
This man should be compared to JFK not Clinton... At least JFK had better taste in women to have affairs with... Kerry on the other hand seems to have a nice looking rich woman of high intelligence and integrity crazy about him.

I think we could all agree people get offended too easily. This is kind of off topic of the 10 commandments thing, but people need to lighten up a little on some things. Take a deep breath sometimes and go eat some good ice cream or something...or what ever makes a person happiest.

The country was just as divided when Reagan was in office. We live in a divided nation and always have. Going back to the Civil War. Division equating in internal war is the grandest division of all.

Shows Bush up now. But polls are polls. I don't trust them much. Too irregular.