Slanted sources:

[Parkbandit]

Do the Liberals around here look a little desperate lately? I bet if I were to post a link to a story from Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.. they would be the first in line to tell me how ignorant I was to post from such a biased source. Yet when they do it.. the whole "So does it mean it's not true" defense comes out.

So which is it..

I just would like clarification on this and what everyone's stand on it is. I'm sure I could go to Drudgereport.com or NYpost.com and find some real juicy stuff on Kerry. I just find the source pushing their own agenda too much.. so I tend to discount their message.

Thoughts?

[Back]

For myself, I like to dig deeper than the news story. If a story makes a claim, I like to see if I can’t find the government agency report that actually backs up the claim. For example, when a story says Bush has doubled his support among blacks, go to the Census Beaurea and check up on it. Things like that. (BTW, Bush has doubled his support, from 6% of blacks voting for him to 12%)

If there are anonymous sources or sources who wish not to be identified or ”a top government official said this...”, I take the whole thing with a grain of salt.

When something interests me I check as many sources as I can to see if it can be corroborated, where the sources come from, who is reporting it and so on. Google news is great for this.

Actually, the internet is great for it these days.

[Wezas]

For me - I know most of the news sources that are convservative - but I don't know all of the liberal slanting ones.

I too, take stories from The Washington Post, CBS, etc. with a grain of salt just like I take stories from Fox News and other conservative news sources.

Drudge I will not look at unless there is a link to a better news source. He's been wrong so many times about the things he's said that it's almost like he's a Conservative National Enquirer.

These days if it's not on the AP or factcheck.org, I'll wait to see if *all* the networks pick it up (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX) and skim through all of them to weed out the opinions and find the facts.

As for GeorgeWBush.com and JohnKerry.com - It's tough. Because sometimes it's difficult to say what is "a plan" and what is "fact". Factcheck.org comes in handy though.

[Back]

Yeah, I tend to believe FactCheck.org also. They back up everything with reports from the sources.

[TheRoseLady]

What I find to be true on these boards is that instead of debating the merits or not of an issue, many people just automatically say "well...that's just the liberal media - you can't believe anything they say..." - there's no effort whatsoever to address the issues. In some cases I think it's because they truly don't have a command of them or frankly don't care.

Even in the face of providing information directly from a candidate himself, you are still ridiculed.

I've yet to find any source that is acceptable in the eyes of the conservatives, even people have argued that the statistics released by our own government under Bush aren't accurate.

It's called diversion and the lack of desire to bring anything of substance to the table.

This phrase is actually quite appropos in this scenario -

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Think about that, just because a blog reports something or a filthy "liberal" source doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong and likewise the same with the right. Do we all honestly believe that all of the media is so liberal? If so then why in the hell aren't we hearing more about the issues with Majority Leader Tom DeLay? Why are we seeing the pundits and hacks showing polls that make you think that one side is doing so much better but fail to even mention anything about the margin of error or that they are in a statistical dead heat.

Christ, CNN did that in the last week with a Columbus Dispatch poll from September that had Bush way in the lead - the reporter had to point out to the anchor that the poll was several weeks out dated and that the race in Ohio is much closer. In fact, according to one poll that I saw (haven't found more) Kerry is ahead by 2 but it's still a statistical dead heat.

You won't find many conservatives really discussing the issues because how can you? Bush has failed miserably on jobs, healthcare, homeland security, environment, Iraq - the only thing that I think that he has in his favor was his ability to unite the country and world after 9/11 - which has been frittered away.

Do I believe everything coming from the left? No. But I do bother to question it and I can say with absolute certainty that I am more than willing to give my vote to a person who appears to have plans than to someone who is a compassionate conservative to the extreme right with the spending habits of a tax and spend liberal.

There's no desperation in my situation. I am confident in my vote, and feel that I am fully informed.

We are still waiting for someone of the conservative side to actually demonstrate why Bush is a better choice. I doubt we'll see much of that, we'll see more of the same - diversion and avoidance.

[CrystalTears]

I don't bother anymore. I grew seriously tired of being told I was a moron for voting for Bush and that he has done nothing for this country yet will stand by their candidate even though he's pretty much abandoned his senate job for all of this. In the last month I've seen mostly Kerry voters be totally rude to Bush voters, having no respect for their decisions, regardless of where they get their information. I'm done with it all.

[Warriorbird]

BS.

[CrystalTears]

See what I mean? :P

[Parkbandit]

My issue lies with the obvious double standard on this message board when it comes to sources and responses. It's actually quite laughable and hypocritical.

[CrystalTears]

The only sourcing thing that makes me absolutely nuts is when people (as well as John Kerry in his own goddamned debate!) tell me to go to www.johnkerry.com as a way to get my information. That, alone, makes me tear my hair out.

[Prestius]

I like factcheck.org as well.

In fact .. it's pretty much the only one I trust to be impartial these days. I think that citing stories from sources that typcially vet their sources, whether it leans conservative or not, is just fine.

It's when the sources clearly haven't a shred of journalistic integrity and a clear political agenda when things get more dicey.

You expect me to beleive the Drudge Report or CNS News, without question. Stories from Mother Jones, Common Dreams, etc are also equally suspect.

I think it's important to research your opinions and this involves looking at a wide vareity of sources. Taking what they say without question is usually not a good idea.

-P

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
The only sourcing thing that makes me absolutely nuts is when people (as well as John Kerry in his own goddamned debate!) tell me to go to www.johnkerry.com as a way to get my information. That, alone, makes me tear my hair out.

If you want details on his plan, why would you not go there? That just makes no sense to me.

You have to have another source to spell it out for you?

Is it hard to understand that both Bush and Kerry can't possibly outlay their entire plans in 2 minute questions?

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
My issue lies with the obvious double standard on this message board when it comes to sources and responses. It's actually quite laughable and hypocritical.

The only thing laughable is that we never see anything concrete from the conservative side. It's all aneddotal and name calling.

I know I have asked at least 10 times for someone to explain why they feel that Bush is the better candidate, and we get diversion.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
If you want details on his plan, why would you not go there? That just makes no sense to me.

You have to have another source to spell it out for you? When Kerry's site has no mention of how much his plans will cost, yes. Yes I do.

[DeV]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
I know I have asked at least 10 times for someone to explain why they feel that Bush is the better candidate, and we get diversion. His record speaks for itself.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Parkbandit
My issue lies with the obvious double standard on this message board when it comes to sources and responses. It's actually quite laughable and hypocritical.

The only thing laughable is that we never see anything concrete from the conservative side. It's all aneddotal and name calling.

I know I have asked at least 10 times for someone to explain why they feel that Bush is the better candidate, and we get diversion.

The information is there if you care to look. Personally, I don't feel like stating my opinion on why George Bush is the best choice every week when a liberal accuses me of not being able to communicate why I am chosing one candidate over another.

And yes, we already know the canned #1 response why one would vote for Kerry. "Because he's not Bush".

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
I know I have asked at least 10 times for someone to explain why they feel that Bush is the better candidate, and we get diversion. His record speaks for itself.

Exactly.. just as Kerry's voting record over the past 20 years speaks for itself.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Parkbandit
My issue lies with the obvious double standard on this message board when it comes to sources and responses. It's actually quite laughable and hypocritical.

The only thing laughable is that we never see anything concrete from the conservative side. It's all aneddotal and name calling.

I know I have asked at least 10 times for someone to explain why they feel that Bush is the better candidate, and we get diversion.

The information is there if you care to look. Personally, I don't feel like stating my opinion on why George Bush is the best choice every week when a liberal accuses me of not being able to communicate why I am chosing one candidate over another.

And yes, we already know the canned #1 response why one would vote for Kerry. "Because he's not Bush".

Hon - As you know I'm a registered Independent. I select individually, not along party lines.

I realize that you like your guns and all but I can't understand why it's so hard to just state, I like Bush because x, y, z.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by TheRoseLady
I know I have asked at least 10 times for someone to explain why they feel that Bush is the better candidate, and we get diversion. His record speaks for itself.

Exactly.. just as Kerry's voting record over the past 20 years speaks for itself.

Please elaborate on his record for us.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Exactly.. just as Kerry's voting record over the past 20 years speaks for itself.

Please elaborate on his record for us.

Don't you know? According to bush he voted to raise taxes 300....er...200...er...100...err...80-some times.

Depending on which debate you're watching.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Parkbandit
My issue lies with the obvious double standard on this message board when it comes to sources and responses. It's actually quite laughable and hypocritical.

The only thing laughable is that we never see anything concrete from the conservative side. It's all aneddotal and name calling.

I know I have asked at least 10 times for someone to explain why they feel that Bush is the better candidate, and we get diversion.

The information is there if you care to look. Personally, I don't feel like stating my opinion on why George Bush is the best choice every week when a liberal accuses me of not being able to communicate why I am chosing one candidate over another.

And yes, we already know the canned #1 response why one would vote for Kerry. "Because he's not Bush".

Hon - As you know I'm a registered Independent. I select individually, not along party lines.

I realize that you like your guns and all but I can't understand why it's so hard to just state, I like Bush because x, y, z.

I like Bush because he's not Kerry. That seemed to work for you the other way around, so I will assume you not to be a hypocrite and be fine with this answer.

If it's not, here the Reader's Digest version:

Economically I agree mostly with Bush
Domestically, I agree mostly with Bush
International policy wise, I agree mostly with Bush

I believe Bush will do whatever it takes to keep this country safe from terrorists.

I find very few things I agree with Kerry on.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by Parkbandit
Exactly.. just as Kerry's voting record over the past 20 years speaks for itself.

Please elaborate on his record for us.

Don't you know? According to bush he voted to raise taxes 300....er...200...er...100...err...80-some times.

Depending on which debate you're watching.

Show me how many times he's voted to reduce taxes. I'm willing to wager you that in his 20 years, he's voted to raise taxes more than he's voted to maintain or lower them.

I simply do not believe I need to work until the middle of April each and every year for the US Government. I simply don't believe we need to be funding all the bullshit handout programs for the lazy fucks in this country.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

I like Bush because he's not Kerry. That seemed to work for you the other way around, so I will assume you not to be a hypocrite and be fine with this answer.

If it's not, here the Reader's Digest version:

Economically I agree mostly with Bush
Domestically, I agree mostly with Bush
International policy wise, I agree mostly with Bush

I believe Bush will do whatever it takes to keep this country safe from terrorists.

I find very few things I agree with Kerry on.

Since you know me personally, I am shocked that you would claim that I said that I was voting for Kerry because he's not Bush. I don't ever remember uttering those words. I am voting for Kerry because:

Economically, I agree mostly with Kerry
Domestically, I agree mostly with Kerry
Internationally, I agree mostly with Kerry

I believe that Bush has done whatever to protect this country that benefits him and his long list of GOP contributors.

I will take Kerry's 19 years of service on the Foreign Relations Committee any day of the week.

I am voting for Kerry because I believe he is credible and I believe what he says.

Thank you for answering.

[Ilvane]

CT, I respect what you are saying about voting for Bush, but you are not looking at the sites, you are not researching things, and you are voting for Bush, though I know some about you, and it sort of surprises me that you would vote that way.

Bush is good at making himself seem compassionate, "nice" and sometimes strong, but in reality most of what he has done has not strengthened America, been compassionate to any other than the rich folk, for the most part, and created an insane deficit.

The kind of things he is planning for his next term like working on Social Security, and his faith-based programs seem to make me a bit more than nervous. His disregard for the woman's right to choose is downright scary..his administrations belief that they can legislate rights and add a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is scary..His believing that even civil unions are not acceptable--yet when he was asked on it before, it was let the states decide. The patriot act, and it's cuts on civil rights..the economy..His complete disregard for our allies, and also for intelligence that said his main reasons for going to Iraq was mostly based on wrong information..I could go on forever.

All I know is I am voting for a change from what we have. Kerry brings something we need, a different way of going about things.

I'm not insulting you when I say you need to read more about John Kerry than you have. I think you may find more in common when you read up more.

-A

[Edited on 10-20-2004 by Ilvane]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I simply don't believe we need to be funding all the bullshit handout programs for the lazy fucks in this country. Did it say somewhere that Kerry was attempting to do something along these lines? If so, can you point me in the direction of some factual information pertaining to this?

[Ravenstorm]

One of the biggest issues has no slant to either side:

Whoever the next president is, he'll be appointing anywhere from one to four Supreme Court Justices in the next four years. And that is an effect on the country that could last decades.

Regardless of Iraq, the economy or anything else of a more transient nature, I do not want Bush's ultra-right belief system ruling the highest court of the land.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
The kind of things he is planning for his next term like working on Social Security, and his faith-based programs seem to make me a bit more than nervous. His disregard for the woman's right to choose is downright scary..his administrations belief that they can legislate rights and add a constitutional amendment against gay marriage is scary..His believing that even civil unions are not acceptable--yet when he was asked on it before, it was let the states decide. The patriot act, and it's cuts on civil rights..the economy..His complete disregard for our allies, and also for intelligence that said his main reasons for going to Iraq was mostly based on wrong information..I could go on forever.It's scary how you think Kerry is different. The only things I can pick out that are different are his stance on abortion and civil unions, but I don't believe you have the Bush camp's position on civil unions right.

[CrystalTears]

And see, I don't need to be told that I don't read enough to not get a good idea about what Kerry stands for. Is it so bad to accept that I don't agree with his agenda?

I saw and taped all three debates. I went to Kerry's website and downloaded his 200+ page plan and didn't see anything to get me all excited about. I sat through those debates rather open-minded. I nodded with both Bush and Kerry about some issues, squirmed with others. I squirmed more when Kerry spoke.

I don't want someone new, basically. I don't think Kerry is strong enough to take over the country right now.

[Ilvane]

Actually I researched it, I'll have to find the thread. He doesn't support them. I wish he did.

-A

[Chelle]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I don't bother anymore. I grew seriously tired of being told I was a moron for voting for Bush and that he has done nothing for this country yet will stand by their candidate even though he's pretty much abandoned his senate job for all of this. In the last month I've seen mostly Kerry voters be totally rude to Bush voters, having no respect for their decisions, regardless of where they get their information. I'm done with it all.

Agreed. I count myself as done with it all.

[Ilvane]

Honestly, what does he have to do to be strong enough?

Your favored candidate ducked out of the Vietnam war, then fumbled his way through failed business after failed venture..then became president by appointment by the Supreme court..Alienated our allies, with the exception of a select few, made gross errors in Iraq, Afghanistan, allowing the assault weapons ban to expire..etc etc.

Kerry on the other hand served bravely in Vietnam, then when he came back and saw things going so wrong, he protested it and was a strong voice for those who became against it when they came back. He has had a distinguished career as a Prosecutor, Senator, Lieutenant Governor, and has had 19 year on the Foreign Relations committee. He is strong on social issues, and unlike Bush, actually has a plan to stabilize Iraq and eventually bring home troops(not that soon, but is also ready to start talking to our allies, rather than at them, like Bush). He's not in the pocket of the NRA, who endorse Bush so magnificently.

Please, I'd really like to know..what makes Bush strong, except his stubborness is admitting his mistakes, and wanting to take one road regardless of what disasters may lie ahead?

-A

[Edited on 10-20-2004 by Ilvane]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
...but I don't believe you have the Bush camp's position on civil unions right.

From the Republican Platform:


We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.

From the FMA:


Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

How much clearer do you want it? Would you also like the text of state Constitutional amendments that will be up for vote or voted on already? Ones that quite clearly bar any and all form of civil union? Of course, quite a few of them don't mention that part on the ballot that people see when they vote so they just think they're 'protecting marriage'.

Raven

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I simply don't believe we need to be funding all the bullshit handout programs for the lazy fucks in this country. Did it say somewhere that Kerry was attempting to do something along these lines? If so, can you point me in the direction of some factual information pertaining to this?

Certainly.. look up "Typical Liberal" and I'm sure you will find the answers to your questions.

[Ilvane]

Thanks Raven.

I think it's sad they need to divide people like that. I also think it's sad that it is necessary to "Protect marriage" from gay couples, when the sanctity of marriage is already pretty limited, considering almost half of marriages end in divorce. So why isn't Bush pushing for more marriage counseling? :lol:

-A

[CrystalTears]

Okay, I'll bite. I'm just going to focus on "oooo Kerry's big plans for civil unions". Since people LOVE to tell me to go to his site and check out his plan, I did.

Here's a search for civil unions.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/kerrycivilunion.gif

Gee that's interesting. Not a thing. So I ran a search on marriage. This is the ONLY reference I found.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/kerrymarriage.gif

Okay fine, let's look up something about abortion.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v412/Jemah/kerryabortion.gif

Now you're going to tell me I'm not going to enough sources. But you said that www.johnkerry.com is plenty! 263 pages and that's all there is? Don't tell me he can't expand on his issues if he's going to pdf the damned thing.

I give up, really, because there's no satisfying anyone. I don't want to vote for Kerry! Hello! Just don't try to insult my intelligence that I don't read enough when the one site that even Kerry advocates doesn't have the information I'm looking for. Thanks.

[Edited on 10/20/2004 by CrystalTears]

[HarmNone]

Heh. And people sometimes ask me why I stay the hell out of political conversations.... :smilegrin:

[Ilvane]

I'm not talking about it anymore. Obviously you aren't going to listen or bother to try to listen to what I'm saying, so forget it.

Kerry has outright said he was in support of civil unions, CT. But then you already have made up your mind.

I think it's sad when Bush convinces people he's good for the country. I can't wait to see the outrage if he gets re-elected and the things he wants passed get through. That should be enough of a wake up call.

-A

[CrystalTears]

I did hear you, I don't agree with it. I have not been the one telling people that they are stupid for voting for Kerry. All I get is "why do you agree with Bush and not Kerry" and when I state my side I'm not understanding you? WTF?

I heard Kerry. He said he was in support of not changing marriage to mean anything but man and woman, but he's not against same-sex unions but not marriage. Great, I'm aware of that. But nothing is set in stone IN HIS PLANS (which has been my point all along) so I'm supposed to go on simply his word and nothing else? I have a serious problem with someone who can't put things down, concretely, for all to see at any time. I shouldn't have to go to dozens of sites to find out WTF his stance is, especially when he says "go to www.johnkerry.com to see my plan". Okay I did! It said nothing! But yes, I'm supposed to follow him blindly simply because he's not Bush. Brilliant.

Yes I've made up my mind, so have you, so has lots of other people. So trying to tell me that I'm ill-informed, not listening, not understanding, when I have stated my stance is pretty unfair, as far as I'm concerned.

By the way, I'm not mad or angry at anyone over this. It's just this stuff that drives me nuts. :P

[Ilvane]

Let me just state very clearly, I never said anyone was stupid for voting for Bush. I just said you should be more informed in voting, and never said anyone was stupid, and did not infer that anywhere.

I've seen Bush campaign, and I hear all the lies, because well..I've been informed by sites like factcheck.org. I even write letters to Kerry headquarters when they should reword something because it is being seen as a distortion in those forums as well.

I'm just surprised you are voting for Bush, very much so. I don't pretend to understand it, but that's your choice. At least my vote will cancel yours out.;)

:heart:

-A

[Ravenstorm]

CT...

http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


Protect Women's Health And Right To Choose
John Kerry was an original co-sponsor of the Women's Health Equity Act, which ensures women's access to the highest quality and most advanced health care available. As president, John Kerry will increase funding for breast and cervical cancer research and treatment, require insurance plans to cover contraception and fight for a meaningful Patients' Bill of Rights to guarantee women direct access to their OB/GYNs. And John Kerry will only nominate individuals to the federal bench whose records demonstrate a respect for the full range of constitutional rights, including the right to privacy and the right to choose.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

And why can't people understand that the vagueness is not good enough for me? Right to choose meaning what? Allowing all abortions? Allowing some? If it means all, I'm not kosher with that stance, sorry. I don't believe in that. Bzzzzt! Really not voting for him.

And Angela, I never said that you personally called me stupid, but you did say that I don't read enough, don't listen, don't... whatever. And know what? Even if you convince me to believe that Bush totally sucks, it's only going to cause me to vote for Nader. None of you's are gonna win. :moon2: ;)

[Ravenstorm]

Also...

http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/lgbt/equalrights.html


Protecting Gay and Lesbian Families: John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Searching the entire site works better than the download. And sometimes the phrase needs to be changed. For instance 'right to choose' instead of 'abortion' and 'civil unions' instead of 'civil union'.

Raven

edited to note that certain people shouldn't hit 'post' seconds before I do.

[Edited on 10-20-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
How much clearer do you want it? Would you also like the text of state Constitutional amendments that will be up for vote or voted on already? Ones that quite clearly bar any and all form of civil union? Of course, quite a few of them don't mention that part on the ballot that people see when they vote so they just think they're 'protecting marriage'.

Raven

Incidentally, I read that the issue here in Ohio is especially prohibitive. Even our GOP Governor has come out and said that he is against the measure, said that it would be so open to litigation in the future.

I will vote against it regardless.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
How much clearer do you want it? Not that I don't trust you, but I couldn't find anything along those lines on rnc.org aside from slamming Democrats (including Joe Lieberman, heh). Do you mind posting a link?

I learned my lesson CT. It's really not even worth it. Don't bite anymore, they will just find ways to insult you because of your political views.

<3 CT missed ya! btw. :)

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Not that I don't trust you, but I couldn't find anything along those lines on rnc.org aside from slamming Democrats (including Joe Lieberman, heh). Do you mind posting a link?

I don't mind at all. Though I do find it amusing that one of the few times I don't post links to cite my sources, I get asked for them :)

The 2004 Republican Platform (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/Politics/Conventions/RNC-2004platform.pdf) (It's a pdf - search for 'protecting marriage'.)

Text of the FMA (http://tinyurl.com/6xhsd)

And if you go here (http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Your_Community&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=8471) you can see the text of any current or pending legislation in any of the various states. Such as Ohio's since TRL brought it up:


“Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."

Raven

[Wezas]

Originally posted by ParkbanditShow me how many times he's voted to reduce taxes. I'm willing to wager you that in his 20 years, he's voted to raise taxes more than he's voted to maintain or lower them.

I simply do not believe I need to work until the middle of April each and every year for the US Government. I simply don't believe we need to be funding all the bullshit handout programs for the lazy fucks in this country.

http://www.factcheck.org/article247.html


Bush has scaled back an earlier claim that Kerry voted 350 times for "higher taxes," a number we previously described as bogus . However, Bush is still using misleading numbers.

Of the 98 votes "for tax increases," 43 would not actually have increased taxes.

So, that leaves 55 tax increases over 20 years.

He has stated (in the final debate) that he has supported or voted for tax cuts over 600 times. Factcheck.org has not stated otherwise. And I'm having no luck finding anywhere that will dispute it.

[Back]

This coming from a guy with a big fat baby head for the demoratic party avatar? Boo hoo.

PB shows more of his loathing for Kerry than his support for Bush, both in his posts and his sig and avatar.

Every time someone critizes Bush, the excuses start coming, here, in the media, and right out of his mouth. Less excuses, more results. Oh, wait, we’ve seen what Bush’s results get us...

There are no facts with Bush other than he and his administration fucked up but won’t admit it. Nothing is ever their fault. Spend the Surplus? Clinton’s fault for causing a recession. Kerry wouldn’t do any better he’s a (insert favorite derogatory phrase of the week here)! Iraq doesn’t have WMDs? The CIA gave us faulty information. The Brits too! Every Kerry believed it!

Want to know why some of us keep at it here on these boards to try and keep the truth known? Do we really just want to piss you off for no other reason than to sit back in our chairs and laugh at the screen like some people around here do? Ok, backtrack...

You know why I come here and insist on trying to set the record straight? To try and help everyone see all sides of the issues through all the Orwellian red duct tape strangling the freedoms out of us?

Well, I’m just plain crazy, but aside from that, its not to just piss people off.

[Latrinsorm]

They make it sound a lot less bad, heh:

"The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives."

Although I'm sure some folks are worrid about that whole tyranny of the majority thing.

[Ravenstorm]

Because popular opinion should determine what legal rights American citizens are allowed to have?

You asked about civil unions and every one of those links states in black and white that the issue goes way beyond what the definition of marriage is. Each quite clearly bans any form of civil union, domestic partnership and can even be applied to legal contracts if said contract confers upon another a 'right' that is normally granted to married couples. That's what Bush, the religious right and (many of) the Republicans stand for. Not all. Not Ahnold. Not Pataki. But many.

And that's also, without any doubt, what any Supreme Court Justice appointed by Bush will stand for.

Raven

[Ilvane]

If public opinion was the way we determined rights, there never would have been the civil rights movement..Imagine that?

-A

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I simply don't believe we need to be funding all the bullshit handout programs for the lazy fucks in this country. Did it say somewhere that Kerry was attempting to do something along these lines? If so, can you point me in the direction of some factual information pertaining to this?

Certainly.. look up "Typical Liberal" and I'm sure you will find the answers to your questions. Oh gee.. that was helpful. Thanks anyway, PB.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ilvane
If public opinion was the way we determined rights, there never would have been the civil rights movement..Imagine that?Funny, I remember millions of people being for the civil rights movement. I guess books sure like to lie.
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Because popular opinion should determine what legal rights American citizens are allowed to have? People sure seem to get testy when I want to use my morality to decide what rights people get. I figured democracy was the next best choice. What would you suggest?

I'm not saying you were wrong about what the Republicans stood for, btw.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
People sure seem to get testy when I want to use my morality to decide what rights people get.

And you of course have no problem in having someone else's morality decide your rights, correct? So you'd be okay with prohibition again and making the US a 'dry' country? Or having all women forced to wear a burka and not allowed to get an education or job? Somehow, I suspect that everyone who wants to vote their morality would be up in arms if they were forced to follow someone else's.

And then of course, there's the fact that it's a selective morality. We don't need to once again get into all the other biblical bans that get conveniently overlooked because the so-called faithful don't want to follow them any longer.

Fortunately for Americans, the Constitution demands (among other things) that everyone be treated equally whether or not someone's morality finds it objectionable.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

In fact, I have Biblical justification to ignore specific parts of the Old Testament, but that's not the issue.
I suspect that everyone who wants to vote their moralityWhat do you suggest I vote with? Your morality? PB's morality? If a majority of Americans decide that drinking's wrong, why would I have a problem with it? That's how a democracy works. I might disagree, and encourage people to vote otherwise, but I don't know if I'd be "up in arms".

I notice you didn't provide any alternative to democracy. If we're not going to do what the majority wants, then we are necessarily doing what a minority wants. That works great for you if you're that minority, but it'd work a lot worse if it was the "Christians" that decided things.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
If we're not going to do what the majority wants, then we are necessarily doing what a minority wants.

You left out the third option: doing what you want, believing what you want, and not worrying about what the other person is doing or believing.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

Just so that I understand, you're saying to not have any kind of restrictions on anything and let people do whatever they want? Is that really how you want the country to be run?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
You left out the third option: doing what you want, believing what you want, and not worrying about what the other person is doing or believing.But then I wouldn't be voting, and P.Diddy would have Sean take me out to the desert.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Just so that I understand, you're saying to not have any kind of restrictions on anything and let people do whatever they want? Is that really how you want the country to be run?

That depends. Are you going to try to include obvious exceptions like murder into the argument? No, you can't kill someone else. No, you can't rape someone else. No, you can't do something to someone else if you don't have his consent (of someone capable of giving his consent).

If it doesn't affect you in any way other than your tender sensibilities, if it harms no one, then sure. Go wild. Or don't go wild. It's your life, not mine.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Ilvane
If public opinion was the way we determined rights, there never would have been the civil rights movement..Imagine that?Funny, I remember millions of people being for the civil rights movement. I guess books sure like to lie.That was a hard faught battle in which the majority of those "millions" were the people who were trying to obtain those rights for themselves and their way of life. Funny, I remember millions being against the movement as well. The truth is not too hard to find.

[Edited on 10-21-2004 by DarkelfVold]

[CrystalTears]

I just don't believe that's the way to govern a country effectively. Maybe you can find a little deserted island and try that concept there and see if it still works when it's serving millions of people.

I'm rather open-minded and even I wouldn't want to see people walking around naked at their whim. Why can't you kill someone? If it's not you or your family member, it's not affecting you, is it? What's the difference?

Just being a bit of a devil's advocate there.

[DeV]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Why can't you kill someone? If it's not you or your family member, it's not affecting you, is it? What's the difference?
Seriously, why do people use argument's such as these.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I just don't believe that's the way to govern a country effectively. Maybe you can find a little deserted island and try that concept there and see if it still works when it's serving millions of people.

I'm rather open-minded and even I wouldn't want to see people walking around naked at their whim. Why can't you kill someone? If it's not you or your family member, it's not affecting you, is it? What's the difference?

Just being a bit of a devil's advocate there.

Why not walk around naked? Because someone who doesn't want to see it can't change the channel. Why can't you kill someone? Because someone isn't consenting to be killed. (Yes, I'm for assisted suicide in certain cases.)

A great number of so-called "moral" issues, affect no one but those engaged in them. Aside from bothering someone else's sensibilities, it doesn't affect anyone else. And that's the 'live and let live' that I am a proponent of.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

In a way I was being facetious, but actually, if you think about it, killing another person is wrong for morality reasons. So why is that wrong and the death of a baby not wrong? Why chose one over the other? Either you allow morality for most situations or not at all. You can't pick and choose like that, it doesn't work.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
In a way I was being facetious, but actually, if you think about it, killing another person is wrong for morality reasons. So why is that wrong and the death of a baby not wrong? Why chose one over the other? Either you allow morality for most situations or not at all. You can't pick and choose like that, it doesn't work.

Interesting point, CT. Wonder why Bush supports the death penalty. Didn't Texas have some unbelievably high number of executions while he was Governor?

I guess he picks and chooses about which lives matter.

[Hulkein]

Babies are innocent beings. Convicted criminals are not. Doesn't seem very hard to pick or choose there.

Yes, I know people have been wrongfully executed but forensic science is pretty damn good nowadays.

[CrystalTears]

I'm actually against death penalties. Yes, for the 100th time, I don't agree with everything that Bush stands for. Big surprise. However I'd rather have people who have murdered and raped others to get killed than innocent children, but that's just my opinion.

[xtc]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by CrystalTears
In a way I was being facetious, but actually, if you think about it, killing another person is wrong for morality reasons. So why is that wrong and the death of a baby not wrong? Why chose one over the other? Either you allow morality for most situations or not at all. You can't pick and choose like that, it doesn't work.

Interesting point, CT. Wonder why Bush supports the death penalty. Didn't Texas have some unbelievably high number of executions while he was Governor?

I guess he picks and chooses about which lives matter.

I can answer CT's question quite simply. An unborn child is guilty of no offense, a serial murder is quite guilty. I hope you can see the difference between the two.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
That depends. Are you going to try to include obvious exceptions like murder into the argument? No, you can't kill someone else. No, you can't rape someone else. No, you can't do something to someone else if you don't have his consent (of someone capable of giving his consent).

If it doesn't affect you in any way other than your tender sensibilities, if it harms no one, then sure. Go wild. Or don't go wild. It's your life, not mine.If you don't see how that's just as much pushing of morality as me saying abortion is bad, we're never going to get anywhere. (aka what CT said)

Being unfamiliar with how gubernatorial pardons work, I'd be hesitant in using Texas' history against Bush. However, a single incidence of capital punishment is just as wrong as a single incidence of abortion. When there's 660,000 dead babies a year and less than 70 dead adults a year, though, it's kind of hard to worry about capital punishment.

[TheRoseLady]

Originally posted by xtc

I can answer CT's question quite simply. An unborn child is guilty of no offense, a serial murder is quite guilty. I hope you can see the difference between the two.

I think it's hypocritical to be honest. I am for the death penalty and I'm pro-choice.

Let's not get into the discusson about when a fetus is viable and all that.

I just find it amazing that some life is precious and other life is not.

[CrystalTears]

So someone that committed a crime enough to land him in jail and get the death sentence is more important than a life that wasn't given a chance to live it?

You can't deny that a fetus is not a life. To say it's anything less of a life is giving people reigns to destroy it so that they don't feel as bad. It's still a life regardless of the stage it's at.

Sorry, didn't mean to open that door, unfortunately morals were bring brought into play and I couldn't just sit here and say that one moral issue is greater or lesser than another when that's all a matter of personal ethics. You have to go with the majority on that rather than the minority.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by TheRoseLady

Originally posted by xtc

I can answer CT's question quite simply. An unborn child is guilty of no offense, a serial murder is quite guilty. I hope you can see the difference between the two.

I think it's hypocritical to be honest. I am for the death penalty and I'm pro-choice.

Let's not get into the discusson about when a fetus is viable and all that.

I just find it amazing that some life is precious and other life is not.

There's nothing hypocritical about it at all. Using that logic, people would have to be against abortion, capital punishment, furs production, meat eaters, pest elimination, etc...

And using your logic.. I imagine you are pretty happy we are killing and dying in Iraq. I imagine you are completely for war.

[Edited on 10-21-2004 by Parkbandit]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
You can't deny that a fetus is not a life.

Actually, I can. Is it alive? Certainly. So are the egg and sperm that started it off. So are the cells in your finger that die any time you get a paper cut. But I don't consider a fetus a baby: certainly not in the first trimester and perhaps not even in the third.

The difference is that a 'person' is self aware and conscious. A fetus is not. A person has a right to life (though it can be forfeited - yes, I'm pro death penalty in certain cases). Killing someone violates that person's right unless he gives it up. There is no right to be born. A fetus is all potential not actuality.

Certainly you might disagree. If you do, don't have an abortion. I fully support your right to choose not to and will never demand that you have one if you don't want one.

Which has nothing to do with civil unions or slanted sources but what the hell. Threads wander.

Raven