# Kerry´s mistakes



## lercarafridi

One of the biggest was to have posed as an intellectual in those mid western states where culture and education are regarded a contagious illness (no offence meant).


----------



## calzetin

No offence meant? Then, you mean it's a fact?
Lercarafridi dont be so hard. Think that maybe they dont have it so easy as you to get high education. If you think it's expensive to study in a spanish university, check the prices in America. 
Access to education makes a difference, and when the mayority cant afford it... you know, after all it's the mayority who decides who's going to be the president.


----------



## Sharon

No offense taken, Lercarafridi, at least not by me. I am from Ohio, the "deciding" state in this election. I actually read a news story online stating..."The whole world holds its breath as Ohio decides" or something to that effect.

I have never had a great interest in politics, so I am sure you will receive much more informed answers than mine. I am 37 years old, and I have never been registered to vote, until this year. I always felt that making an uninformed choice was worse than making no choice at all, and that my one little vote wouldn't matter. This year I actually was moved enough to register and go vote...and apparently my one little vote didn't matter. 

As far as education (and being intelligent) being treated like a contagious illness, I could regale you with tales of ostracism, but I'd rather not, so I'll simply agree with you. (Oh, but to this day, I hold a grudge against my high school History teacher, and my Psychology teacher also.) 

Calzetin, yes, the cost of college is very high here, but that's not a reason to vote against someone who can afford it. I want a President that can say "nuclear," amongst other things.


----------



## Tomasoria

After all this discussion, I think we all think the same in this Forum: WE DON'T LIKE THE OUTCOME OF THIS AMERICAN ELECTION.

   I'm wondering if there is any supporter of Mr.W Bush down here??

   saludos


----------



## Dale Dolores

Any opinions on the following website?:

http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg


----------



## calzetin

joylolade said:
			
		

> Any opinions on the following website?:
> 
> http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg


----------



## quehuong

lercarafridi said:
			
		

> One of the biggest was to have posed as an intellectual in those mid western states where culture and education are regarded a contagious illness (no offence meant).



I voted for Bush instead of Kerry without hesitation and without regrets.  Btw, I do believe Kerry is an intellectual not posing as one.  I live in Missouri (MO), and many people in my state are trying very hard to be educated.  Let's see the stats in 50 years.

joylolade,

http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg

Good comparison and contrast.


----------



## pollyb

QH
WHY? did you vote for Mr. Bush?
Pollyb


----------



## garryknight

quehuong said:
			
		

> Let's see the stats in 50 years.


 Let's hope we're all still here in 50 years.


----------



## pollyb

quehuong
I just opened that web-site you posted in regards to the comparison to Tuesday's election results and the slavery issue in the 18th and 19th century and I still ask the question to you "why did you vote for Mr. Bush?" 
Pollyb


----------



## Tormenta

garryknight said:
			
		

> Let's hope we're all still here in 50 years.






Garry,

I don't want to be hard, but most of us won't  

Tormenta


----------



## quehuong

(Mr./Ms.) Polly,

My instinct tells me that you are an elder gentleman, but I can't be sure so I place (Mr./Ms.) in the parentheses.  Please correct me anytime.

Do you think that Sen. Kerry could transform the nation in 4 years?  



> "why did you vote for Mr. Bush?"



I'm certain you've read opinions on both sides of the issue, so I'll just say one little thing.  I believe he is the better candidate for the next presidency.  Sen. Kerry is good, but not better.  

Mr. Knight,

You'll be 104 years old.  A great age.  I also hope that I'll be alive then and see the fruits of our labor.  I'll be 74.


----------



## Tormenta

I would not want you guys to list MY mistakes   

Cariños ,

Tormenta


----------



## quehuong

We'll be very objective, sen~ora.   

Cariños


----------



## ElectronicPrincess

quehuong said:
			
		

> I voted for Bush instead of Kerry without hesitation and without regrets.  Btw, I do believe Kerry is an intellectual not posing as one.  I live in Missouri (MO), and many people in my state are trying very hard to be educated.  Let's see the stats in 50 years.
> 
> joylolade,
> 
> http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg
> 
> Good comparison and contrast.



Oh my goodness.  Although I'm of French ancestory, my family line has been in the USA since before the USA Civil War.  My ancestors fought for the winning side: The North.

There will be a great groundswell of discontent.  I'm an Army veteran like my Dad and older Brother.  We, like many veterans that the USA corporate media ignores, voted for John F. Kerry.

My Brother's best friend from the Vietnam Conflict died a slow and horrible death from Agent Orange Exposure.  Our military young people will, in incresing numbers aquire cancer due to elevated uranium exposure sent to Iraq in the form of our "smart bombs."

George W. Bush and the Republican Party have the USA media on their side.  Unfortunately many Americans are not given unbiased news that the UK and Europe receive.

I cried for my country and the world when George W. Bush declared his mandate for four more years of his republican party rule.

It's a sad day indeed for the loyal opposition, i.e., those of us who are Democrats.

Kerry's only mistake is that he did not have a vicious "Karl Rove and Kathrine Harris" types for his campaign management.  That he was a TRUE war hero of high intelligence.  A man who would have made America and the world more safe.  Yes, his great mistake in the age of sound bytes was that he IS "The Genuine Article", i.e., honest and sincere.


----------



## cuchuflete

ElectronicPrincess said:
			
		

> Oh my goodness.  Although I'm of French ancestory, my family line has been in the USA since before the USA Civil War.  My ancestors fought for the winning side: The North.
> 
> I cried for my country and the world when George W. Bush declared his mandate for four more years of his republican party rule.
> 
> It's a sad day indeed for the loyal opposition, i.e., those of us who are Democrats.



Dear Princess,
The loyal opposition also includes many of us who are independent of any party.  We march together with Democrats when common sense unites us.

Your ancestors fought for what was then perceived as the winning side.
But the military victory didn't change the hearts and minds of the losing states, and on Wednesday we learned of the consequences.  There is an obvious, and frightening parallel to the Halliburton - Bush subsidiary in Iraq.

Let's keep the faith, Sister, and not just cry.  I'm sure the next four years will offer ample opportunities for good works on behalf of our fellow citizens.  We can influence our local state representatives through letters and calls and meetings, participate in local and state politics, and let our Senators and Congressmen and women know what we believe in.  The next four years do not have to be a lamenting, lamentable waste, despite the loss this week.

Best regards,
Cuchu


----------



## ElectronicPrincess

Please accept my sincere gratitude Cuchu.    

You're right, there's always hope.


----------



## vachecow

I think that oppinions are going to varry differently depending on whom we support......but I believe that the Dems would have won hands down if they had picked anyone but Kerry......he was a war hero, but his record was pretty bad (not necessarily any better that Bush's)....and there is no question that Americans clearly wanted Bush more than Kerry (again, not my oppinion; w/ 51% of the popular vote, it was the largest margin of victory since his dad)


----------



## garryknight

Tormenta said:
			
		

> I don't want to be hard, but most of us won't


 I didn't mean *us*! I meant humans in general.


----------



## Tormenta

garryknight said:
			
		

> I didn't mean *us*! I meant humans in general.




I understood that, Garry, this is why I did this:      


Tormenta


----------



## lymoon

i heard that 2 judges from the suprem court are not in very good health, and that if they die, the president would have to pick someone else. do u know if these two judges are republican or democrats?


----------



## GYPSY

Well said.


----------



## vachecow

lymoon said:
			
		

> i heard that 2 judges from the suprem court are not in very good health, and that if they die, the president would have to pick someone else. do u know if these two judges are republican or democrats?



I know the one judge is a republican for sure.  The other I am not sure.  Remember: Either way the republicans win, because a new justice will be in there for maybe 30 years.


----------



## Silvia

QH: is polly a man? I guess I was thinking of Pollyanna!


----------



## quehuong

ElectronicPrincess,

Majority Rule does not say that the minority should kowtow.  I expect a lot from the Democrats* during the next four years.

Ms. Silvia,

Only (Mr./Ms.) Polly can answer that question.  My instinct is just an instinct.


----------



## Dale Dolores

I found this to be a hilarious take on Psalms.  Someone forwarded it to me. Just for laughs.

=====================================================
Bush is my shepherd, I shall be in want.

He maketh me to lie down on park benches,

He leadeth me beside the still factories

He restoreth my doubts about the Republican party.

He leadeth me onto the paths of unemployment for the party's sake.

Yea though no weapons of mass destruction have been found, thou continueth to fear evil.

Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy deficit spending, they do discomfort me.

Thou anointeth me with never-ending debt,

And my days of savings and assets are all over.

Surely poverty and hard living shall follow me all the days of thy administration

And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever


----------



## lercarafridi

> QUOTE=calzetin]No offence meant? Then, you mean it's a fact?
> Lercarafridi dont be so hard. Think that maybe they dont have it so easy as you to get high education. If you think it's expensive to study in a spanish university, check the prices in America


.

Are you trying to say that a US citizen cannot afford college? Or is it that SOME US citizen would sooner spent their income in things other than education? No I do not think it is expensive to study in a Spanish or any university. I always felt the money needed to pay for a tuition fee is never enough, it is an INVESTMENT and ANYONE who cares about formation and knowledge would do their best to set a list of priorities where their money should go.



> Access to education makes a difference, and when the mayority cant afford it... you know, after all it's the mayority who decides who's going to be the president.



Majority? Even the less favoured classes in the US have a chance to send their offspring to university: sports. Besides the US is the country with the highest number of universities in the world, around 1,200; so those who do not attend them is because they disregard how culture can change their lives.
Anyway, as I see you felt offended, accept my sincere apologies.


----------



## jakkaro

joylolade said:
			
		

> Any opinions on the following website?:
> 
> http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg



Very Interesting!!!!


----------



## jakkaro

[

I believe he is the better candidate for the next presidency.  Sen. Kerry is good, but not better.  

You still haven't given any arguments WHY Bush should be "better" for the next presidency?? Maybe because he finally will have the official excuse to end up with the iraqui population, and start the next war with Iran or any other nation that has (of course) hidden the nuclear weapons that are threatening the world (or the US)??

When you are saying Mr Kerry is Good, but not better, what makes you think that Bush is better that Kerry??


----------



## pollyb

quehuong said:
			
		

> (Mr./Ms.) Polly,
> 
> 
> 
> HTML:
> 
> 
> my instinct tells me that you are an older gentleman
> 
> My instinct tells me that you are an elder gentleman, but I can't be sure so I place (Mr./Ms.) in the parentheses.  Please correct me anytime.
> 
> Do you think that Sen. Kerry could transform the nation in 4 years?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certain you've read opinions on both sides of the issue, so I'll just say one little thing.  I believe he is the better candidate for the next presidency.  Sen. Kerry is good, but not better.
> 
> 
> Quehuong
> I can't imagine what ever gave you that impression of me? But you have never answered my original question to you, "Why did you vote for Mr. Bush?"
> I don't want to hear about what you think of Sen.Kerry, I want to honestly know what you feel about Mr. Bush.  please reply
> 
> Pollyb


----------



## vachecow

pollyb said:
			
		

> quehuong said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Mr./Ms.) Quehuong
> I can't imagine what ever gave you that impression of me? But you have never answered my original question to you, "Why did you vote for Mr. Bush?"
> I don't want to hear about what you think of Sen.Kerry, I want to honestly know what you feel about Mr. Bush.  please reply
> Pollyb
> 
> 
> 
> Itry to stay neutral in politics, but Quehuong does not seem to be replying, so I thought I would come in with a little help.
> Why would I vote for Bush????
> 1) I feel that he is honest (please note, I mean no offense to anyone, and if there are any disagreements, please state them; I would enjoy hearing what you have to say and explaining myself in depth)
> 2) Since 9/11 the economy has gotten better
> 3)  acording to the "9/11 Comission Report" 9/11 wasn't his fault
> 4)  he has improved hameland security  (i mean, he created the department, so ya know)
> 5)  several other reasons, I just want to know what you think about those
> *LASTLY>>>>>* I am NOT saying that he is perfect, but I do think that he was better than Kerry....there is indisputable evidence that everyone's favorite Texas Ranger has made several mistakes
Click to expand...


----------



## dave

vachecow121 said:
			
		

> Why would I vote for Bush????
> 2) I am aganst gay marriage (again, no offense) and so is he



vachecow, I'd be grateful if you'd keep your homophobic views to yourself, or at least restrict them to a more appropriate forum - they are inevitably going to cause great offence here. Thanks.


----------



## cuchuflete

dave said:
			
		

> vachecow, I'd be grateful if you'd keep your homophobic views to yourself, or at least restrict them to a more appropriate forum - they are inevitably going to cause great offence here. Thanks.



Good morning Dave,

Your note raises an interesting point:  Do we 'need' or at least want, a sub-forum where we could post controversial, and even potentially offensive ideas?

Here's my thinking:  When conversation in the other forums, especially Culture, continues on for a while--because the topic elicits great interest--it is common for one or more people to make remarks which, despite a lack of intent to wound, may be genuinely offensive to some or many colleagues.  At the same time, these 'offensive' remarks may represent the heartfelt opinion of the writer.  
I don't want to see this sort of thing spoil the overall collegial ambience of the forums; I also don't care for any form of censorship.

Thus, I am wondering if we might benefit from a 'room' where people enter with the understanding that there may be a free-for-all battle of ideas, with no consideration to restraint.  Those who don't want to engage in reading or joining such conversations would simply stay away.

What do you think?

Thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## dave

cuchufléte said:
			
		

> Good morning Dave,
> 
> Your note raises an interesting point:  Do we 'need' or at least want, a sub-forum where we could post controversial, and even potentially offensive ideas?
> 
> Here's my thinking:  When conversation in the other forums, especially Culture, continues on for a while--because the topic elicits great interest--it is common for one or more people to make remarks which, despite a lack of intent to wound, may be genuinely offensive to some or many colleagues.  At the same time, these 'offensive' remarks may represent the heartfelt opinion of the writer.
> I don't want to see this sort of thing spoil the overall collegial ambience of the forums; I also don't care for any form of censorship.
> 
> Thus, I am wondering if we might benefit from a 'room' where people enter with the understanding that there may be a free-for-all battle of ideas, with no consideration to restraint.  Those who don't want to engage in reading or joining such conversations would simply stay away.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Thanks,
> Cuchu



I was thinking along very similar lines yesterday evening while reading pollyb's 'America Bashing' thread. However, for purely selfish reasons I concluded that it might not be such a good idea. This is because I know that curiosity would get the better of me and I wouldn't be able to keep out of such a forum, and then I would end up forming a very low opinion of many of my forero colleagues (I even have trouble talking to someone rationally if I know s/he reads a particular newspaper!), I would be likely to lose my temper, no doubt a lot of people would get upset by some of my views and everyone would form a very low opinion of me (if they have not done so already)! I tend to take political issues far too seriously, and just don't trust myself!

Dave


----------



## cuchuflete

dave said:
			
		

> I was thinking along very similar lines yesterday evening while reading pollyb's 'America Bashing' thread. However, for purely selfish reasons I concluded that it might not be such a good idea. This is because I know that curiosity would get the better of me and I wouldn't be able to keep out of such a forum, and then I would end up forming a very low opinion of many of my forero colleagues (I even have trouble talking to someone rationally if I know s/he reads a particular newspaper!), I would be likely to lose my temper, no doubt a lot of people would get upset by some of my views and everyone would form a very low opinion of me (if they have not done so already)! I tend to take political issues far too seriously, and just don't trust myself!
> 
> Dave



Thanks for the reasoned reply Dave.  I share your faults--I'm a 'political junkie' and sometimes throw moderation out the window in a discussion.
I don't take quite so far as you suggest with regard to one's choice of newspaper, but perhaps that's because newspaper readers are a dying breed on this side of the puddle... Here I listen to the opposition's radio commentators, and then when I hear someone parroting their lines, I ask the person what they think, not what they can repeat by rote.  This is not suggested as a way to make friends!

Thanks again,
Cuchu


----------



## belén

dave said:
			
		

> vachecow, I'd be grateful if you'd keep your homophobic views to yourself, or at least restrict them to a more appropriate forum - they are inevitably going to cause great offence here. Thanks.



The "censorship" point is a difficult one, on one side, I believe Vachecow shoulnd't censor himself, if he decides to state the reasons why he voted for Bush and for him, gay marriage is a factor to consider to elect a President, he is in his right, of course, not only to do it, but also to say it.

I think his comments brings polemic, but stating them, he gives us a chance to answer him back, to share what we think about his reasoning for voting Bush. If you advice him to restrict his homophobic views, we will be missing an important piece of information as for why he voted for Bush, as it is obvious this issue is important to him.

Now for my personal opinion: I don't understant people against gay marriage, it is a law that should be given for granted, everybody, independently of their sexual orientation, should have the right to chose getting married or not .Not a book full of laws. What I find hard to understand why somebody would consider the gay marriage issue important enough to vote one candidate or the other.


----------



## vachecow

dave said:
			
		

> vachecow, I'd be grateful if you'd keep your homophobic views to yourselfQUOTE]
> Very sorry....like I said "no offense meant to anyone", but it is a big issue in the US, and I feel it would be impossible not to offend anyone if I were to truly answer pollyb's question.  Look at issues that I did not go into: 1) War in Iraq 2) Abortion 3) Rich vs. poor, as in the current tax situation
> How would you answer those without offending anyone?????  Personally, I think that was a loaded question.  And yes, I know, I did not have to answer that question.  But someone had to answer it. Sticking up for what you believe in in a basic moral princible, is it not??  Still, I'm very sorry.


----------



## vachecow

belen said:
			
		

> Now for my personal opinion: I don't understant people against gay marriage, it is a law that should be given for granted, everybody, independently of their sexual orientation, should have the right to chose getting married or not .Not a book full of laws. What I find hard to understand why somebody would consider the gay marriage issue important enough to vote one candidate or the other.


I agree, it should not affect the way people vote.  But in the last election I fear that it did.  And I am not against gay people.  They have reserch to prove that it can be genetic.  I also don't see why they can't have some of the rights that married people have.
Again, I am sorry if I offended anyone.


----------



## quehuong

Polly,

A grandparent?;-)  Congratulations!  

When I posted my previous answer, I didn't realize that you really wanted me to be specific.  So, these are the key issues that I strongly support:

1.  No Child Left Behind.  
2.  Gay Marriage.  
3.  War in Iraq.​


----------



## cuchuflete

vachecow121 said:
			
		

> dave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vachecow, I'd be grateful if you'd keep your homophobic views to yourselfQUOTE]
> Very sorry....like I said "no offense meant to anyone", but it is a big issue in the US, and I feel it would be impossible not to offend anyone if I were to truly answer pollyb's question.  Look at issues that I did not go into: 1) War in Iraq 2) Abortion 3) Rich vs. poor, as in the current tax situation
> How would you answer those without offending anyone?????  Personally, I think that was a loaded question.  And yes, I know, I did not have to answer that question.  But someone had to answer it. Sticking up for what you believe in in a basic moral princible, is it not??  Still, I'm very sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make a good point Vache...some people will choose to act offended in the face of a contrary position on an issue.  Mature, thoughtful people will argue their ideas, without intent of offense.  If offense is taken, that is a conscious choice on the part of the offended.
> 
> I think you have been fair and open in stating what you believe.  I happen to disagree with some of it, yet I am not in any  way offended.
> 
> Now here is a piece that some may find offensive.  I post it as a point of departure in a discussion, not to offend but to provoke people to offer their views, and to argue the merits of their positions.   Those who may choose to take offense may say so freely.  They would better serve their own, contrary,
> opinions by rebuttal rather than wails of offended agony.
> 
> Here goes:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "... cheerfully trashes my home state. In Walking the walk on family values, William V. D'Antonio points out that
> President Bush and Vice President Cheney make reference to "Massachusetts liberals" as if they were referring to people with some kind of disease. I decided it was time to do some research on these people, and here is what I found.
> The state with the lowest divorce rate in the nation is Massachusetts. At latest count it had a divorce rate of 2.4 per 1,000 population, while the rate for Texas was 4.1.
> Not to be obnoxiously Massachusetts-centric here,
> The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people." The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
> In fact,
> For all the Bible Belt talk about family values, it is the people from Kerry's home state, along with their neighbors in the Northeast corridor, who live these values. Indeed, it is the "blue" states, led led by Massachusetts and Connecticut, that have been willing to invest more money over time to foster the reality of what it means to leave no children behind. And they have been among the nation's leaders in promoting a living wage as their goal in public employment. The money they have invested in their future is known more popularly as taxes; these so-called liberal people see that money is their investment to help insure a compassionate, humane society.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Silvia

lercarafridi said:
			
		

> I always felt the money needed to pay for a tuition fee is never enough, it is an INVESTMENT and ANYONE who cares about formation and knowledge would do their best to set a list of priorities where their money should go.
> Even the less favoured classes in the US have a chance to send their offspring to university: sports. Besides the US is the country with the highest number of universities in the world, around 1,200; so those who do not attend them is because they disregard how culture can change their lives.



1. College is overrated
2. It's not a matter of quantity rather than quality. In my opinion, I repeat - in my opinion - the quality of American college education is low. Many American people with a college degree cannot spell. This is a clear indication of how bad the educational system is. Mind you, I've heard in the US you can get a college degree about fast food. (That's just an example, there are far odder degrees around)
3. Judging people depending on whether they have a college degree or not makes you really snobbish and high-toned.
4. People like you make me think tuition fees should be more expensive.

That said, I believe talking about politicians can be a waste of time, they talk enough for everyone


----------



## cuchuflete

belen said:
			
		

> Now for my personal opinion: I don't understant people against gay marriage, it is a law that should be given for granted, everybody, independently of their sexual orientation, should have the right to chose getting married or not .Not a book full of laws. What I find hard to understand why somebody would consider the gay marriage issue important enough to vote one candidate or the other.



Hola Bé-

I too have a couple of thoughts on this, in chronological order:
1. Vache stated opposition to gay marriage;
2. Dave-whom I like and respect, assumed Vache to be 'homophobic', which he may or may not be, regardless of his views on homosexual legal union.
3. Vache implies in a later post that he is not homophobic.

I conclude that Dave may have 'jumped the gun', that Vache, like most people I have met who oppose 'gay' marriage, is, no offense intended, but provocation intended, crazy.  Why should another couple's marital status have any effect on my own?  If I enjoy a solid marriage, or suffer a poor one,
that's my business, and not anyone else's.  If the people in the house next to me are married or single, married or not, why should I care?  They are human, and have chosen to share their lives together.  If they are good neighbors, that's wonderful.  

I do not 'tolerate' homosexuals, for that would imply my own superiority.  I *accept* that people come in many styles, sizes, tastes, and yes, sexual preferences.  None of this presents any threat of upset to me or the legal institutions of marriage.  If one does not care for it, for whatever reason, one need not participate.

It's just like this forum.  If you get troubled or offended by what you read, you may reply civilly, or not return.  But please don't feel threatened if you
find opinions contrary to your own.  Think about them.  You may still disagree or even change your mind, but there is no logical cause to feel frightened by
an idea with which you may disagree.

Finally, I happen to agree with what Belén has written.  If you don't like that, or think I am wrong, please express your disagreement.  You may or may not persuade me, but I, and you, will benefit from the exchange of ideas.

Thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## Silvia

Whether a couple is man+man, woman+woman, or the more traditional man+woman, it is a couple. (I won't mention man+child, boy+grandma etc., this thread is hot enough   )

Now let's go behind that (or beyond that).

Why do people get married? They do in order to make their union public, otherwise there'd be no need to get married. It's a way to state: "I want to live with this person all my life long, and I commit to it"
Now, is a married couple a family? Is a family a unit forming the fabric of society? Are we part of it? Then yes, we should care about one another.   

Peace everybody!

P.S.: I didn't mention ethical issues, this is not a symposium, is it?!


----------



## vachecow

cuchufléte said:
			
		

> Hola Bé-
> 
> 3. Vache implies in a later post that he is not homophobic.
> 
> I conclude that Dave may have 'jumped the gun', that Vache, like most people I have met who oppose 'gay' marriage, is, no offense intended, but provocation intended, crazy.  Thanks,
> Cuchu



Look:Thank you. I am not homophobic.  I know a few gay people.  I wouldn't have even known that they were gay untill I was told.  There is nothing wrong with gay people.  So I see your point. there is not much reasoning for going against gay marriage.  There are a few reasons, but I think I'm gonna try to stay away from this thread in the future~~~~see ya'll around


----------



## Silvia

Vachecow, this is so funny! You're a man with a feminine name!


----------



## cuchuflete

vachecow121 said:
			
		

> Look:Thank you. I am not homophobic.  I know a few gay people.  I wouldn't have even known that they were gay untill I was told.  There is nothing wrong with gay people.  So I see your point. there is not much reasoning for going against gay marriage.  There are a few reasons, but I think I'm gonna try to stay away from this thread in the future~~~~see ya'll around



Vache-  thanks for entering into civil dialogue.  One of my points is that you have every right to express your opinion here.  Whether or not I may agree with you doesn't matter.  So long as you don't go out of your way to state your position in an offensive manner, you may and should continue to speak freely.

I am more offended by censorship than most anything a person might say.

Best regards,
Cuchu


----------



## badger

hi everybody.

greetings from Ireland.

I think think that the world is a more dangerous place since Mr Bush took office.

And I think it's because of him.

It's been said in this thread that most of us here won't be around in 50 years anyway.

But i'm seriously concerned about the the state that the world will be in for my children and grandchildren.

I'm looking at three of my six grandchildren as i type this.

Instead of destroying terrorism Mr Bush has sown its seeds and this harvest will be reaped for generations to come. 

In my lifetime i've seen hardmen come and go but reasonable men prevail in the end and have to pick up the pieces after all the damage these hardmen do or cause.

I'm a great admirer of the US and the american people and a voter can only vote for one candidate unfortunatly there are so many domestic issues tied together with Mr Bush's foreign policy and these can't be separated.

I'm not a so called "American basher"  Franklin Roosevelt is one of my greatest hero's. 

I promised myself that i wouldn't get involved in a discussion on this topic when i started using this forum a few days ago. But this is something that i feel so strongly about that I couldn't resist on this occasion.

My Kindest regards to everybody.

(except Mr Bush and the rest of his administration)

Badger   

ps this is probably off the original thread but not to some of the later postings.


----------



## Silvia

What's your problem, wazzup? It looks like my comment bothered you. I agree it was off topic, but mine's not the only one. Sometimes while talking of this and that, it happens.


----------



## jamie4063

Why can't Bush see his mistakes? He seems to go forward as if he's never made a mistake. There seems to be so much secrecy(sp?) and it makes me uncomfortable. 

Another thing...why do ya think Bush spent so much time in his ranch in Texas in the first year of his term? Is that why his businesses failed?

Why did he sit for 7 minutes in that class room? And....why weren't there more casualties in 9/11? 

The funny difference between a Republican and a Democrat is....A democrat will forget why he's mad, a republican will remember long past hell freezing over and use it in any mean way possible....that's what a liberal is....check out the article Jesus was a Liberal...search Google...




			
				vachecow121 said:
			
		

> Itry to stay neutral in politics, but Quehuong does not seem to be replying, so I thought I would come in with a little help.
> Why would I vote for Bush????
> 1) I feel that he is honest (please note, I mean no offense to anyone, and if there are any disagreements, please state them; I would enjoy hearing what you have to say and explaining myself in depth)
> 2) Since 9/11 the economy has gotten better
> 3) acording to the "9/11 Comission Report" 9/11 wasn't his fault
> 4) he has improved hameland security (i mean, he created the department, so ya know)
> 5) several other reasons, I just want to know what you think about those
> *LASTLY>>>>>* I am NOT saying that he is perfect, but I do think that he was better than Kerry....there is indisputable evidence that everyone's favorite Texas Ranger has made several mistakes


----------



## Janna82

vachecow121 said:
			
		

> 2) Since 9/11 the economy has gotten better
> why wouldn't the US economy get better, he started war on Iraq and said there were nuclear weapons they had to find, and he had to fight terrorism, and eventually, there were never any nuclear weapons found, and Iraqi people are going through hell, and most importantly they are PAYING the cost of the war that killed and is still killing them from their own MONEY!
> and Yes i believe the media is sooo bias, and nobody can ever get the whole clear picture


----------



## jamie4063

I agree!  If you think the media is bias, watch FOXNEWS...that is such a redneck network!





			
				Janna82 said:
			
		

> vachecow121 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Since 9/11 the economy has gotten better
> why wouldn't the US economy get better, he started war on Iraq and said there were nuclear weapons they had to find, and he had to fight terrorism, and eventually, there were never any nuclear weapons found, and Iraqi people are going through hell, and most importantly they are PAYING the cost of the war that killed and is still killing them from their own MONEY!
> and Yes i believe the media is sooo bias, and nobody can ever get the whole clear picture
Click to expand...


----------

