• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why I will vote for Kerry

thaiboxerken said:
I will vote for Kerry, not because he's the better man, but because he probably can't get things done.

Bush get's things done, but they just happen to be the wrong things.

Kerry is less dangerous.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't care much for him, and while he has some good ideas they'll never get implemented, but at least he won't try to amend the Constitution to please his god.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why I will vote for Kerry

Blue Monk said:
I see, since the French won’t cooperate then all hope of help from the International community is lost. Sure, that makes sense.

I see, when Bush encourages the International community to help in stabilizing Iraq he’s speaking to Syria, Iran, North Korea and the Sudan. Whew, no wonder we’re having problems.

I see, since the International community did not support us in going into Iraq it is most important that we do not let them turn a profit. They foolishly had doubts that there were any WMD. The fact that they were right is of no consequence.

So now it makes perfect sense to me. Since they refused to help us rid the world of WMD that didn’t exist they have no right to any profits from reconstruction. We’ll just keep all the profits and all we have to do is accept a considerably larger pile of American corpses. Yeah, that’ll really show ‘em.

Now, if they want to help that’s fine but they can’t have any of the profits. Nosireebob, we’re keeping the dough. I’m sure our fine American men and women in uniform will be all to happy to die to keep those ungrateful foreigners from ripping the bread from Halliburton’s mouth.

Sure their help would lower our body count but, hey, not at the expense of profits.
Click to expand...

You missed the point of the exercise.

WMD didn't exist? Where's your proof? We know he had them and used them.

Are we back to the Halliburton secret contracts again?
 
TragicMonkey said:
I agree. I don't care much for him, and while he has some good ideas they'll never get implemented, but at least he won't try to amend the Constitution to please his god.
Click to expand...

He won't have too please his god. Several states already have done so and many more have it up for vote.

Kerry has had plenty of bad ideas that never got implemented too.
 
merphie said:
He won't have too please his god. Several states already have done so and many more have it up for vote.
Click to expand...

But that isn't enough. One or more of those states might vote the wrong way, which is why the amendment was proposed.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why I will vote for Kerry

merphie said:
...Are we back to the Halliburton secret contracts again?
Click to expand...

It is spelled F - O - R - B - E - S...
:p
 
TragicMonkey said:
But that isn't enough. One or more of those states might vote the wrong way, which is why the amendment was proposed.
Click to expand...

So Kerry supports the idea, but not the amendment. What is to keep him from passing a statute law?

The same goes for the amendment. Enough states may not vote for it.
 
merphie said:
So Kerry supports the idea, but not the amendment. What is to keep him from passing a statute law?

We've already got one, and it doesn't seem to work.

The same goes for the amendment. Enough states may not vote for it.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't make the attempt any better, just because it might fail!
 
merphie said:
Already got what?

It doesn't mean Kerry can't introduce law to congress.
Click to expand...

Defense of Marriage Act. Signed by Clinton.

And good heavens, yes, there's nothing physically stopping Kerry from changing his mind if elected and pushing for the amendment. But that hardly makes it more feasible to vote for Bush, who is already pushing the amendment. Possibilities are not all equally likely. If you expect candidates to suddenly reverse themselves and do the opposite of what they say, do you vote for the one you disagree with?
 
In the "Wish I'd Said That" department:

What Bush and his advisers seem to understand is that there's a larger picture here. Repeatedly whining "but Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!" makes about as much sense in a global context as "but Germany didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor!"

But it was more than just the content of the address that struck me. There's something about listening to Kerry that's reminiscent of an empty suit -- of someone reading what others told him to say, because it polled better. Kerry has the exact same expression and delivery and speaking style now speaking against the war as he did last year speaking in favor of it. Listen to him give an address on any issue -- it's far too easy to imagine his same words and gestures and cadences saying the opposite.

Luckilly with Kerry, on almost every issue, you can find a video recording of him saying the exact opposite, so maybe that's why.
Click to expand...

Link
 
BPSCG said:
What Bush and his advisers seem to understand is that there's a larger picture here. Repeatedly whining "but Iraq didn't attack us on 9/11!" makes about as much sense in a global context as "but Germany didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor!"
Click to expand...

Oh, I hadn't realized that. Now that I know about the global context, I guess conquering Country B really does help us defeat and capture Organization A, which was based elsewhere.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Defense of Marriage Act. Signed by Clinton.

And good heavens, yes, there's nothing physically stopping Kerry from changing his mind if elected and pushing for the amendment. But that hardly makes it more feasible to vote for Bush, who is already pushing the amendment. Possibilities are not all equally likely. If you expect candidates to suddenly reverse themselves and do the opposite of what they say, do you vote for the one you disagree with?
Click to expand...

So it's already law? And the amendment would cover what?
I don't think a reversal matters. I won't vote for Kerry.
 
merphie said:
So it's already law? And the amendment would cover what?
I don't think a reversal matters. I won't vote for Kerry.
Click to expand...

I didn't think you would. The amendment to the Constitution proposes to define marriage in all the states in one way, and forbid the states the right to have any other definition. The Defense of Marriage Act
(http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm)

also defines marriage, but says that the states cannot be forced to accept another states' marriages if of a certain type. It doesn't forbid gay marriage nationwide, and it doesn't permit gay marriage nationwide. The constitutional amendment proposed is to forbid gay marriage nationwide, superseding the DoMA. The reason the DoMA couldn't rule nationwide was that it would have had to have been a constitutional amendment to have that kind of clout.

Personally, I don't care much for this particular issue. What alarms me is that Bush is very willing to meddle with the Constitution over such a matter, and trample on the rights of the states to decide for themselves.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I didn't think you would. The amendment to the Constitution proposes to define marriage in all the states in one way, and forbid the states the right to have any other definition. The Defense of Marriage Act
(http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm)

also defines marriage, but says that the states cannot be forced to accept another states' marriages if of a certain type. It doesn't forbid gay marriage nationwide, and it doesn't permit gay marriage nationwide. The constitutional amendment proposed is to forbid gay marriage nationwide, superseding the DoMA. The reason the DoMA couldn't rule nationwide was that it would have had to have been a constitutional amendment to have that kind of clout.

Personally, I don't care much for this particular issue. What alarms me is that Bush is very willing to meddle with the Constitution over such a matter, and trample on the rights of the states to decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

No, because if they wrote it into law then Federal law superscedes state law. If they banned it in the statutes then the states must follow it.
 
merphie said:
No, because if they wrote it into law then Federal law superscedes state law. If they banned it in the statutes then the states must follow it.
Click to expand...

Federal law doesn't supercede state law if the Federal law is in violation of the Tenth Amendment (the one that says the states get the powers not expressly given to the Federal government). The Federal government doesn't have the power to decide matters such as marriage laws unilaterally.

Of course, this hasn't stopped them from usurping state powers on countless other occasions, but that's flamebait for another occasion.
 
BKITU said:
Federal law doesn't supercede state law if the Federal law is in violation of the Tenth Amendment (the one that says the states get the powers not expressly given to the Federal government). The Federal government doesn't have the power to decide matters such as marriage laws unilaterally.

Of course, this hasn't stopped them from usurping state powers on countless other occasions, but that's flamebait for another occasion.
Click to expand...

Ok, so are you saying that all federal law is worthless? (except for things declared in the bill of rights)

That would mean I would only have to pay state taxes. It would mean i could go to California and grow weed for medical use and the feds couldn't touch me.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Oh, I hadn't realized that. Now that I know about the global context, I guess conquering Country B really does help us defeat and capture Organization A, which was based elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Well, seeing as how Organization A, and a lot of its buddies, is flooding into Country B to get shot and killed in large numbers by the deadliest people on earth, yeah, it does. Better than having Organization A over here shooting at you and me, which, unless I'm very much mistaken (and I'll bet you five bucks I'm not), they've said they'd love to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom