Aren't the states deciding to ban gay marriage? He made a mistake about WMD... He also took out a ruthless dictator who managed to kill thousands upon thousands of his own people let alone the people from surrounding countries. Casualties are part of war. It's sad but it happends.

Dolce,
understand I'm not advocating a theocracy or anything like it. I believe in a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy.
I don't want the government telling me how to pray or what to believe about the Bible. That's a double-edged sword that I know full well can swing both ways.
I'm talking about having a sense of moral certainty. Bush has it. Kerry doesn't. You may not always agree with it, but he is his own man and as has the courage to live with the consequences of his convictions. Right or wrong. Kerry is led by the notion of telling people what he thinks they want to hear and then doing what he thinks is most politically expedient.
I can live with civil unions (while at the same time personally discouraging what I consider to be sinful and harmful behavior). As far as abortion is concerned, there are two ways of defining the debate ... the constitutional right of the mother to control her body and the constitutional right of the unborn infant to live or have a chance to live ... both are legitimate in my view.
I'm against the Patriot Act wholeheartedly. It wouldn't take much for a future president and DOJ (see Janet Reno) unsympathetic to Christianity to brand fundamentalist Christianity as hate speech, quickly place evangelical churches on a "terror watchlist" and soon we'd see church phones tapped and ministers arrested for hate speech if they preach Romans 1:26-27. In fact, I suspect that very well will be the case in the next decade.

I dont think your understand what Im trying to say :wink:

Bush can't deal with his convictions, NCAR.

Didn't you watch the debates and the press meetings? Bush always, always, ALWAYS, reassured that invading Iraq was the right thing.

I was just wondering. Is Bush trying to ban gay marriage or are the states voting on it by their own? I'm curious about this cuz I really don't know.

My My, so kerry has not moral certainty? WOw, well coming from a christian, as you claim to be, thats a little judgemental no? Please...tell me about George Bush and JOhn Kerry and their differing moral convictions, IM very interested...you know, since you have that power and all :wink:

I'm pretty sure it's a state issue. Bush was trying to pass an amendment that would effectively ban gay marriage, but I think it was tossed. 11 states voted on it, and all voted to put up an amendment restricting marriage to a bond b/w a man and a woman.

Ask Krem, NCAR, Mike V, dolcevita, makeshift_wings, etc. to clarify. They'd know more than I would.

No he's not.

Nope, he sent them there to disarm a madman who could and was willing to sell WMD's and WMD program to terrorists.

Yes he is the one responsible. He's also responsible for keeping us safe, you know.

No he doesn't.



Yup, my money are a big deal to me.

That's cause he always believed that.

Yes. I'm glad we see eye to eye on this. There are many religious practices I am personally turned off from, but I don't think their pracitces should be anywhere near federal legislation. Fortunately, laws are made to be applied to in a general/broad way. Unfortunately that means exceptions can't be made or the legislative language could easily be turned on its head and directed at any other space deemed appropriate at the time (more on the PATRIOT Act to come).



Well forgive me, I hadn't been aware that this thread was about Kerry at all. So I'll answer that. I don't think Kerry per se was all that wishy washy as an individual. I think the Democratic party has been insecure since Carter. I think Kerry did as good a job as possible when pooling from a non-existant Democratic party agenda and an undefined voting constituency. So in those regards, yes, Bush has more "convictions." I do think its much easier to have "Convictions" such as his when you're an idealogue. And no, I do not think the entire Republican party is a bunch of ideologues. I just think he is, and those 10% of voters I mentioned earlier that I didn't care to pander to. I wish the Democrats were more consistent, but I'd prefer they be "politically" expedient than "religiously" expedient. That's just me. But I will acknowledge our inability to get some backbone into the party. Hopefully that'll change. Or a good independant candidate will come along and mobilize citizens in a different way.



Yes. I've been studying it for class and that language is going to be resurrected in very unanticipated and ugly ways 50 years down the line. It freaks me out just thinking about how it turned FISA on its head so quickly. In our need to legislate crisis, we're going to have that same legislation create our culture. Don't worry, I'm pretty sure along with those Christians you just mentioned, and anyone living in Montana, the Jews are going to get tapped up pretty hard too. In fact everyone is. And whoever isn't directly, the gag terms will start to bring on self-censorship, and that really bothers me. Get that Act the hell out of here, along with those extended statutes that were drawn up last year.

-Dolce

I'll ignore the rest but this is getting stupid. He couldn't and there is no evidence he would. Only the fucking intent to get some, now has there ever been a dictator without intent?

We talked about this before, but I'll repeat it again: go read the 9/11 commission report; go read the Darfur report and look up the history of Saddam in power. He used WMD's in the past, he was willing to cooperate with the terrorists, we thought he had WMD's before we went to war there (although, if those explosives that allegedly went missing were not WMD's, then how come the IAEA started such a ruckus?). There may be a lot of dictators with "intent", but Saddam was the only one who actually showed that he was perfectly willing to use those weapons.

Hey krem, I wanna ask you something...I need your opinion(Honestly this is a real question...no sarcasim)
WHy is it that America wants to disarm everyone who has WMD's, but its ok that WE as America have WMD's?

Well, we don't want to disarm everyone who possesses WMD. France, England, Russia, China, Israel, and many more countries possess some type of WMD, but we're not trying to disarm them. The thing is, when you have countries with dictatorial or rogue regimes in possession of such powerful weapons, there's just no telling what they are going to do with it. They could start a very bloody war with their neighbors, or sell those weapons to terrorists who could then use them against us. It's not about "they can't have what we have". It's about protecting ourselves.

Did you know that 'mandate' sounds kinda gay?

Oh c'mon LMR, lets get serious for a minute here. If you're going to play that hand than everyone either should be armed to the hilt or disarmed down to exposing weak flesh. You can look at it in many ways, but one reason countries refuse to completely disarm is to hold other's in check. Think where we'd be if the U.S. hadn't had a standing army or weapon shipments in WWII.

That being said. the difference between some countries being armed while others should eliminate their WMD is that some countries prove to hold themselves in international check, while others do not. This is the primary issue I had with the U.S. entering Iraq, which was quite a bit different than the earlier experience with the Taliban. Our "international check" so to speak, is the U.N. In theory the many conventions and policy that have been erected in the past were done so as a safe-guard that would ensure countries could keep weapons but not pose a sort of "renogade" or "rogue" threat. We had plenty of support immediately following 9/11 which was the "go ahead" to use force. we did not have that same support when entering Iraq and that makes us the renegade threat. Had we observed previously existing policy than there is no indication we should abandon all our arms. But if you think N. korea is going to be disarmed now (and should be) after seeing that there is no indication we won't do what the hell we want anyways, than yes, they aren't going to give up without a fight.

I think its perfectly okay to have weapons if we can prove ourselves to handle them maturely. We do, in fact, need a "permission slip" from other countries to go ahead and use them. That is the safeguard that makes it okay for us to have them. If it really was just vigilante international policy, than yeah, everyone should horde their weapons and aim them wherever they so choose to. But, hopefully, it is not. That is why we are worried about N. Korea having weapons (to use at will) while others should not be worried that we have them (to use at will).

-Dolce