John Kerry is going to LOSE!

Published on September 4, 2004 By drmiler In Politics

To all of you hopefuls out there, "Abandon hope all ye who enter here"! I live in PA which is "one" of the swing states. The Catholics in PA (practising catholics anyway) have been asked NOT to vote for John Kerry (by the dioces because of his stand on abortion. And to top it all off he's been "shown" once again to be a "liar".! The US NAVY has challenged his "supposed" earned medals while in Vietnam. Here's the link on that. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/3/110242.shtml

Comments (Page 2)

Deaniac

on Sep 05, 2004

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! A bunch of racism here on this forum???

"doc..............YOU ARE RIGHT. BUSH WILL WIN BY LANDSLIDE PROPORTIONS. THIS WILL SHOW THAT THE FARCICLE MOORE MOVIE COMPLETELY BACKFIRED ON THE DEMOS. EXCEPT FOR THE BLACK PEOPLE, MOST AMERICANS ARE VERY BRIGHT AND LITERATE VOTERS"-your quote

You can't suppose that just because some 'black' (or brown because they can't be black or they'd match my bookshelves) Americans aren't very smart. Many people out there who are brown are very intelligent. We have tons of brown congressmen out there. We have Barack Obama and even the Republicans own Alan Keyes: two very smart, intelligent brown people in America. We have Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson, the Reverend Al Sharpton and Carol Mosely Braun. These are just few of the many smart brown people in America. I suggest that you should be suspended because of your hurtful remarks about some brown people. FYI: I am brown, and I am smarter than any person in my class. How do I know this? I receive all the awards in my class. I receive the better grades.. So, I suggest you take that back.

In the case of a debate, you can't suppose G.W. Bush is going to win in a landslide. Actually, I think that is a laugh. The American people are fed up with G.W. Bush's horrible policy on jobs, and the economy. Americans have lost almost 7 million jobs since G.W. took office. The economy has been unstable ever since. The environment is crumbling because of G.W.'s policy---can't you believe he believes in drilling in Alaska???---. America has been better during the days of Bill Clinton. Even Ronald Reagan. We need a John Kerry in the office of America. We need John Kerry and John Edwards fighting for American values, and universal health care. We need to stop outsourcing jobs. We need to stop, and think: the American people are very important. And if we don't take care of their needs, America will crumble.

Deaniac

on Sep 05, 2004

And this Catholic thing with the American people. I am pro-choice. I am pro-gay. And I am catholic. And I'm proud. If all men were created equal, then why should a man not be able to marry whoever he wants. Why should I care? Why should a sickly woman, who has the chances of dying if she births a baby be tortured into having a baby rather than having an abortion. And, before you answer WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR MOTHER? WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR FATHER? WHAT IF THIS WAS YOUR SISTER, OR BROTHER, or AUNT, or UNCLE?

pk65

on Sep 05, 2004

Well said Deaniac! You beat me to a reply to that racist BS! The right wing and GOP once again shows it's true colors!

Deaniac

on Sep 05, 2004

Thanks, and I hope that this Marvin Cooley guy gives a face-to-face apology to the brown people of America.

pk65

on Sep 05, 2004

I am also Catholic and proud of it. I am pro-life - but that means in ALL ways - not just abortion. I am against capital punishment as well as wars ( which no matter how precision our weapons are they still kill some innocent people) that are not in self defense. To me, that is much less hypocritical than these "so called" religious right to lifers that scream about abortion but go ahead and cheer Bush on for invading Iraq and for executing those committing major crimes.
I know I am off the subject of the thread to a degree, but was just responding to/adding to what Deaniac said above.

Deaniac

on Sep 05, 2004

It is okay to be pro-life, but I think some people need to realize, it isn't always good to be pro-life. It is sometimes good to think of the future.

pk65

on Sep 05, 2004

I agree Deaniac - especially when you mentioned what if it was your wife, mother, aunt, etc....That makes the WHOLE issue soo much more difficult and complicated. Tough issue no doubt!

drmiler

on Sep 05, 2004

Reply #15 By: Gideon MacLeish - 9/5/2004 4:25:54 PM

#1) That ain't NEVER going to happen. They (the government) does not want to piss off that big a block of voters!

#2) They would need a "legal" reason to do so. And that my friend, as they say does NOT exsist! They have done "nothing" illegal to warrent such an action.

Yes, they have. If they endorsed a candidate for public office from the pulpit, they are in very clear violation of the law, and the resultant penalty is removal of their tax exempt status. This has been clearly stipulated to ALL churches since the mid-1990's when the law was put in place to counter the Christian Coalition.

B*llS**t!!! Thay have endorsed NO candidate! They just said don't vote for this one. What they didn't say and you obviously didn't catch was, vote for "this" candidate. So "once again" I repeat, they have done NOTHING illegal! I'm sure glad "you" ain't my lawyer!

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

The Catholics in PA (practising catholics anyway) have been asked NOT to vote for John Kerry (by the dioces because of his stand on abortion.

You answered my question, I forgot,as long as you don't endorse (support by saying VOTE FOR) a candidate you CAN say don't vote for such and such.

Um, all I have to say is I don't mind gays, and don't like how some get treated as a second class citizen, but for the marriage thing, if my Uncle, who is gay (guess you could say I fit the stereotype of Puerto Ricans and how all of them seem to have one gay uncle, well than again he says he's not gay but his boyfriend is) says he doesn't want the marriage thing, than I am not going to support it, because he's a member of my family and I support his right to not want it. Also he is Catholic as well.

Onto Pro-Choice or at least my take on it.

Why should a sickly woman, who has the chances of dying if she births a baby be tortured into having a baby rather than having an abortion.

Who I think I got stats on that one, cause just for chits and giggles I wanted to know what was the ratio of healthy pregnancies aborted versus unhealthy pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother abortions.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
Link to Source [LINK]

So if you add up the last two you have 6.1%, 6 out of every 100 Babies (just a rough estimate) are aborted because of Health related risks, hmmmm, kind makes the argument kind of pale, and I don't think when they are talking about Health risks when it comes to being pro-life do you not have an abortion, could be wrong but that's my stance at least. Seems that most of reasons for aborting a child are out of inconvenience, which isn't that just sad?

As For Iraq:
Despite the many reasons, here is my reason for supporting it.

"De Oppresso Liber" Motto of the United States Special Forces (Green Berets) means "To Liberate the Oppressed", should be more than enough reason for Iraq, or do you believe Saddam was such a benevolent kind dictator, and it was all his sons who were bad.

Deaniac

on Sep 05, 2004

Well, I think we need to look beyond the 'he's my uncle' and 'she's my aunt'. Think of the people out there who want to do it?? If America is land of the free, then why should a woman not have the right to choose? Why should a man not have the right to choose? Think about that.

Onto abortion:
I guess you are right in some ways---but that statistic was taken between some women in America. That is not the real thing. That is the 'rough estimate'. And also, so a woman can't afford it, or doesn't want to take care of it---they have the choice to. One thing that gets me mad is when these Republican-wackos say that you are aborting a 'real live human being', but they are not actually. They don't have a birth certificate, they aren't a citizen of America, etc. I could go on for hours. Still---back to the civil rights issue: it is a women's right to choose.

messybuu

on Sep 05, 2004

They don't have a birth certificate, they aren't a citizen of America, etc. I could go on for hours.

So do you advocate the opportunity for a woman to have an abortion in the ninth month of the pregnancy?

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

Problem I have it further opens up the definition of Marriage, so that it could eventually let a man marry a sheep, would it be alright for that man to get a tax break because he is married even though it is a sheep, what doesn't he have the right to choose who he wants to marry.

You know, I would seriously like to know how many Ancient Civilizations used as support for some arguments allowed gay marriages, granted some defended with the argument "well look at those civilizations royal families marrying brother and sister", well Royal Families are just messed up in the past and today I think enough proof is out there for that, but if you look outside those royal families and the common joe and jane, how many were gay marriages? My Psychology teacher pointed out that if homosexuality was genetic than it would have died out, so a genetic argument doesn't work, other than it's a person's right to choose their sex partner, so why still should it be allowed, how about we do it the democratic way, and let each state decide how they are going to deal with it or is there something wrong with putting something that affects all of us to a vote?

Onto abortion:
I guess you are right in some ways---but that statistic was taken between some women in America. That is not the real thing. That is the 'rough estimate'. And also, so a woman can't afford it, or doesn't want to take care of it---they have the choice to. One thing that gets me mad is when these Republican-wackos say that you are aborting a 'real live human being', but they are not actually. They don't have a birth certificate, they aren't a citizen of America, etc. I could go on for hours. Still---back to the civil rights issue: it is a women's right to choose.

Though I think everyone of us here wouldn't have this argument if we were aborted. I think its going to take time and serious debate and consideration to figure this completely out.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 05, 2004

So sayeth all that I have talked to. And BTW tthat includes ME! 8 years with the US NAVY I think would qualify me to be included in that group?

You made a HUGE generalization that I contested. Seeing as I live on a military base and socialize primarily with service members and their spouses, I can tell you now that your generalization . . .

His "lies" will cost him the votes from "anyone" who has served in the military.

. . . cannot possibly be true. You can't presume to speak for everyone who is currently serving, or has ever served, in the military . . . just as I cannot presume to speak for all mothers of 7 & 3 year old boys. It doesn't work that way. Am I nitpicking with you? Yes. Why? Hell if I know . . . probably just because I'm a jerk.

THE END

Chemicalkinetics

on Sep 05, 2004

Yes. He is going to lose unless G. W. Bush suddenly scream like Howard Dean. I thought Kerry has a chance until the GOP convention. Kerry got no bounce and Bush got bounce. Sure, I understand bounce is short-live and doesn't tend to stay, but the usually part is not Bush got a bounce, but Kerry got no bounce. How can anyone interpret a no bounce? Before the GOP convention, there are two explainations to the "no bounce" effect for Kerry. One is that the country is very polarized, and there is very few independent voters. Therefore, no significant amount of people would possible change their minds. The other explanation is that the Democrat National Convention sucks. No offense, but this is the worst convention result for the last 50 years. So the word "suck" is accuate. I used to believe the first explanation, that is the number of independent voters are few in this election, but the GOP bounce proved me wrong.

Thus, no matter which party you belongs to. You have to agree that the DNC was a bad show, so bad that the Democrats aren't even excited about it. (If the Democrats are excited, then there should be a small bounce among likely voters, because mroe Democrat are exicted about Kerry and they are now more likely to vote. However, we don't see that).

Some Kerry supporters say it is all smoke in the RNC. Look, I disagree with their bitter argument, but let's pretend they are right. Let's say, the RNC didn't really get any real message to voters. But here is the catch. Even if you believe it is all smoke in the RNC, at least they have "smoke" and maybe something real there too. The problem is not the RNC convention, the problem is not the RNC bounce. Historially, nomittees get bounce from their convetion about 5-15 points. The question which Democrat has to really face and try to answer is "Why didn't Kerry get any bounce at all -- something truely historical" This is the question Kerry supporters have to answer. Stop explaning the obvious (bush has a bounce). Try to explain and understand the real problem. If Kerry is to lose, the problem is not Bush. The problem is himself. During DNC convention, Bush stopped visible campaigning. So why didn't Kerry get any bounce during the DNC when Bush is not visible. The factor is not Bush.

ShoZan

on Sep 05, 2004

Yes. He is going to lose unless G. W. Bush suddenly scream like Howard Dean.

And just start blabbing on about how he is searching for his precious, hehehe mmmm Smeigol Dean / Gollum Dean, so far Dean would have been a better challenge for Bush than Kerry, cause Dean's got spunk.

What doomed Kerry is that he had no great political record to speak of, so they relied on his vietnam record, which a military record no matter how great, do not a president make.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!