Hey,

So i'll post an email i send to my pastor regarding the upcoming election. I'd like to here what you guys think.

________________________________

Hello Pastor Bob,

My name is michael hess. I used to go to CBFC

frequently before i went to college. Back in 2000, I

remember clearly you encouraging the congregation to

vote for "the godlier candidate" adding "if you don't

know who the godlier candidate is talk to me after the

service".

I don't think i'm reaching very far in assuming that

you were talking about George W Bush, the current

president. I came to a service not too long ago where

you mentioned the war in Iraq, saying something like

"i'm not sure what we are doing there".

I was wondering if your stance on George Bush has

changed since the 2000 election. I'd be lying if i

said i wasn't a bit "put off" by your encouragement

back then. I know your stance on many issues of

Christianity have been unapoligetic and i respect you

for that, but i think the issue of who is the "godly

candidate" was not as clear then and certainly is not

clear now.

In Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11"

there's a clip of George Bush speaking to a large

group of extremely wealthy buisness people. "This is

a great crowd: the haves...and the have-mores" he

continues, "some people call you the elite, I call you

my base". Now i'm not a big fan of Michael Moore, but

i am i big fan of Jesus Christ. Didn't Jesus Christ

say "You cannot serve both God and Money"? (Matt 6:24)

Throughout the Bush presidency, he has done many

things to benefit the wealthiest 5% of America, most

notably the 2 massive tax cuts, to which the largest

5% got the highest cut.

Also, i take issue with Mr. Bush's overtness in his

faith. I don't think Christian should be ashamed of

their faith, but doesn't Jesus instruct us to pray in

the closet, in secret? (Mat 6:6) Certainly this

verse's meaning is somewhat in question, but i take it

to mean that we as Christians should not make an

effort to pray in a manner that attracts the praise of

men. With seemingly the entire religious right in

America behind him, i think that's exactly what he has

done.

There's also the question of the Death Penalty. I am

not confident enough to say whether Jesus was for or

against the death penalty, but i personally am against

it. What does bother me is that as an evangelical

Christian, we should be doing EVERYTHING we can to

prevent people from dying without at least hearing the

Good news about Jesus Christ. During Mr. Bush's time

as governor of Texas, he personally signed off on the

execution of 152 people. Ragardless of the

"christianality" of state execution, surely as a

Christian Mr. Bush should've been there to share the

word with them. But there's no record of that.

In general Mr. Bush seems resolute in condemning

people. His stance of "with us or against us",

referring to our enemy as "evil" saying "these are the

kind of people you can't talk to" is all i think

contrary to Jesus' view of people. Not that our

enemies aren't doing horrible things, and i'm

certainly not going to comment on the morality of war.

I just think this "they're evil, period" additude is

at odds with Jesus' additude.

So, I personally will be voting for John Kerry in

november. I'm not going to tell you who you should

vote for, this email's sole purpose is to get you to

at least consider that the issue of who is the

"godlier candidate" is not as cut-and-dry as you

seemed to suggest back in 2000.

Sincerely,

Michael Hess

that pastor is gonna feel like a dipshit

Bishop,even though I haven't always agreed with the opinions you have presented in this forum,your posts have always been intelligently presented.I do respect your opinions.However, this particular thread appears to be more a political statement than a religious issue.

Yeah, you've got a point. I considered it before posting. The reason i posted it here was because i hoped it would start a debate about the Godliness of our current "leader" and maybe about leaders in general. I didn't think this thread would turn into a political issue debate.

Also if there are any Christians on the forum who are still under the illusion that Bush has a monopoly on morality, they'd be more likely to see it here than in the politics forum.

I honestly doubt that anyone with any serious level of "godliness" would survive very long in today's political arena.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Back in 2000, I

remember clearly you encouraging the congregation to

vote for "the godlier candidate" adding "if you don't

know who the godlier candidate is talk to me after the

service".

I don't think i'm reaching very far in assuming that

you were talking about George W Bush, the current

president.

ok, i have to admit that you would know your pastor better than i. But from what you wrote, i am wondering if your pastor meant that he would point out what the Bible has to say, and that you should use that as your guide to decide. He may have indeed been trying to steer people into voting for Bush, I just dont see that by what you wrote.

Also, your email left out information as to the other choice(s) in 2000. How Godly were they. I dont follow politics much, so i dont know, nor can i remember what the other canidates were like. In my view, politics has always been boring, lead by a pack of liars seeking thier own agenda, or returning favors to others that have helped said aganda...but thats just my opinion.

It would have been interesting if Pastor Bob had repied to your email, and if you had included it.

Nah, at the time it was obvious he was basically saying "if you're christian, you should vote Bush". When he said "if you don't who the godly candidate is..." it was a joke, the congregation laughed.

If i get a response, i'll be sure to post it.

Regarding the other candidates, that's not the point of the email. The point is that the choice is not so clear that "if you're christian you vote bush". I have a case for Kerry, but i wanted to keep it fairly short, Bob is (as most pastors) a busy man.

[This message has been edited by theBishop (edited 08-22-2004).]

theBishop, I think you might want to read this: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Otherwise, you might look a bit silly.

Particularly this bit:

quote:

Another Bush joke is presented as an obvious joke, although important context is missing. Near the end of the movie, Bush speaks to a tuxedoed audience. He says, "I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base." The joke follows several segments in which Bush is accused of having started the Iraq war in order to enrich business. As far the movie audience can tell, Bush is speaking to some unknown group of rich people. The speech actually comes from the October 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The 2000 event was the 55th annual dinner, which raises money for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves.



Gore joked, "The Al Smith Dinner represents a hallowed and important tradition, which I actually did invent." Lampooning his promise to put Social Security in a "lock box," Gore promised that he would put "Medicare in a walk-in closet," put NASA funding in a "hermetically sealed Ziploc bag" and would "always keep lettuce in the crisper." Mary Ann Poust, "Presidential hopefuls Gore and Bush mix humor and politics at Al Smith Dinner," Catholic New York, Oct. 26, 2000. So although Fahrenheit presents the joke as epitomizing Bush's selfishness, the joke really was part of Bush helping to raise $1.6 million for medical care for the poor. Although many a truth is said in jest, Bush's joke was no more revealing than was Gore's claim to have founded the dinner in 1946, two years before he was born.



Heres a source that the article sites: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/18/politics/main242210.shtml

Seriously, don't EVER rely on Michal Moore, he lies through his teeth. That being said, your pastor trying to tell the congregation how to vote doesn't exactly seem like a moral thing to be doing.

Yeah, i didn't see that exact page, but my infinite wisdom was able to infer that Bush was probably joking.

It's immaterial.

Even if he was kidding, he was Kidding On The Sqaure (joking, but also not joking) because Bush *has* done a shitload to support the richest 5% of americans, and i didn't need Michael Moore to tell me that.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Yeah, i didn't see that exact page, but my infinite wisdom was able to infer that Bush was probably joking.

It's immaterial.

Even if he was kidding, he was Kidding On The Sqaure (joking, but also not joking) because Bush *has* done a shitload to support the richest 5% of americans, and i didn't need Michael Moore to tell me that.

Yeah, you certainly have that right.

theBishop: where have you been? anyway top post... may i add this for all the yanks out there:

http://go.sojo.net/campaign/takebackourfaith

I've been on totse, mostly in the Rock forum. I dunno, it seemed like for a while there was a lot of the same types atheists who have less rationale for their beliefs than i do. just talking shit on here. That and debates over what "true satanism is". I just sort of lost interest.

this is intresting, because bush does present himself as evangical christian (or something that sounds similar), and rides his religion to get votes. i remember some commentator saying earlier in the year that bush was doing something (on some special religious day) to remind voters he is his religion. (if any of that makes sense)

id be interested to hear if he has undermined his own religious stance with his greed, and lost support. do post a followup.

Bush for sure uses his "faith" to further his campaign. Visit any christian message board, and nearly all of the members will be pushing this same message, "If you are a christian, you have to vote Bush, if you vote otherwise your not a true christian."

They obviously don't say it so blatantly, well most don't, but it is their main rhetoric and you can definately pick up on the inuendo.

John Kerry kinda does it too. I find his parallels to Kennedy fascinating. JFK <> JFK. PT boats <> Swift Boats. Catholic <> Catholic. Assassinated <> Soon to be assassinated.

p.s. John Kerry is gonna be on The Daily Show tonight. That should be entertaining.

Of all the things to cite to illuminate the president's catering to the rich (Thats called being president though), you pick a Michael Moore clip and expect to be taken seriously?

And- not that I am christian, and not that I even believe in voting, but, technically your pastor is right; he didnt say, "Vote for the godliest man you know." He said, pick the more Christian. That is obviously George Bush.

quote:Originally posted by Spirit of '22:

technically your pastor is right; he didnt say, "Vote for the godliest man you know." He said, pick the more Christian. That is obviously George Bush.

Sorry, but you can't be a Christian and wage war. They are mutually exclusive.

Sprit of '22: It doesn't matter that i used a Bush quote from a Michael Moore movie. The point is Bush said it. It's not like Michael Moore created the whole thing with 3d animation. And the clip itself isn't PROOF that Bush caters to the rich, it's just a fitting introduction to the idea, which granted i don't go into in detail on but it's not a secret to anyone.

And you're missing the whole point of my corespondence if you say George Bush is "obviously" the godlier candidate. I spend 3 paragraphs on why i think he's NOT the godlier candidate.

And regarding voting, Let's say you have to fight off a massive army by yourself. Except you're only given a small pistol. Would you use the pistol, as futile as it may be, or would you just lay down like a pussy and get your shit ruined? Voting is our small pistol, luckily there are a lot of us. (Yes, i know that Jesus would say turn the other cheeck, so there's no reason to point out my hipocracy)

Rust: Regarding war, i would initially agree with you, however Thomas Aquinas spent a long time figuring war into Christian thought in his "Just War" theories. I'll let you decide for yourself how convincing they are.

http://www.gospelcom.net/watkins/justwar.htm

theBishop

theBishop: Yeah, i know what you mean.. either way its good to see you back

Do you believe that God would support a man that lies ?

"Knowing the above, what do the FITREPs selectively released by the Kerry campaign say about John Kerry as a junior officer in the U.S. Navy?

Kerry’s FITREPs are awash in dings, and some of the reports border on the adverse, particularly his combat FITREPs. The FITREPs convey significant performance problems and suggest problems in conduct, so much so that it is surprising that the campaign chose to release them. This may suggest that the FITREPs held from public view are even more adverse.

In what would customarily be an opportunity for a glowing “swan song” FITREP, the Commanding Officer of USS Gridley (DLG-21) tacitly blasts Kerry on his departure for Swift Boat duty by ranking him significantly below the norm in desirability for virtually every Navy assignment possible -– command, staff, whatever. He is a ship handler who is dinged in ship handling. He is in line for command, but his CO doesn’t want him near the bridge. He is slammed in all performance areas –- most notably and significantly in initiative and reliability. The “nice” narrative emphasizes performance in collateral duties, but in the grades and marks, the CO is telling the selection board and detailer loud and clear that this officer is lazy, unreliable and not suited for command. 3 SEP 68 (W.E. HARPER).

Another “swan song” opportunity is lost when Kerry departs a brief tour of duty as an Aide. Kerry is dinged in staff desirability, management and military bearing by Rear Admiral Walter Schlech (2 MAR 70 Schlech) while Kerry served as Schlech’s Aide. The Admiral makes considerable mention in the narrative section about Kerry’s ambition to run for Congress, and no doubt the glowing words were meant as a parting gift to someone who might become a member of Congress. The narrative notwithstanding, any detailer or selection board would consider the FITREP a bad one. Had Kerry remained in the Navy, it would be difficult to “sell” him to a new Aide assignment when his last boss, an Admiral, had dinged him in precisely those attributes indispensable for Aides.

The real performance problems are evidenced in FITREPs for his operational tours.

Because it is a FITREP that only covers about a month, LCDR Grant Hibbard’s first FITREP on Kerry should simply be marked “not observed” all the way down the line -– no grades, marks or narrative. Significantly, LCDR Hibbard chooses otherwise. Hibbard detects a personal behavior problem – a conduct problem – and smacks him for it in the report. He also dings Kerry on initiative and cooperation, just like his last CO in Gridley. 17 DEC 68 (HIBBARD).

In his FITREP for his combat tour as Officer in Charge of a SWIFT Boat -– arguably the most important FITREP among those released by the Kerry campaign –- Kerry is not dinged but slammed in command, seamanship and ship handling and in all major leadership traits (28 JAN 69 ELLIOTT). To Kerry and perhaps to other junior officers, it is an okay FITREP. To detailers and selection boards, it is a negative fitness report that borders on the adverse. LCDR Elliott ranks him well below the norm in traits essential for command: force, industry, analytical ability, judgment and more.

The PCF squadron commander, LCDR Elliott has 15 officers in his command, and his report (28 JAN 69) offers an excellent breakout. Elliott ranks his officers in two groups, the top and the bottom, and Elliott ranks Kerry among the top group. Or does he? Just like Hibbard, Elliott “red flags” Kerry in conduct by downgrading him significantly in judgment and personal behavior. When viewed in the context of the total FITREP, it is very clear to a detailer or selection board that Kerry probably ranks 7 of 15. He’s a “pack player” at best, but this is a worrisome FITREP to detailers and selection boards, because the significant flaws Elliott finds are in two critical areas: leadership traits and personal conduct. Moreover, because personal conduct issues have been raised by past commanders, detailers and selection boards would certainly conclude that the officer has exhibited major flaws in leadership and conduct over a sustained period of time that limit both his promotability and his salability to positions of responsibility. None of Kerry's evaluators had access to his previous FITREPS -- his commanders observed the same flaws independently. " from http://www.swiftvets.com/staticpages/index.php?page=Fitreps (click on the link to see the definitions of the terminology used in this analysis)

I was in the Navy myself, and subject to over 12 of these FITREPS during my service. I can attest to the accuracy of the methodology and terminology used in this document.

If you can believe for a moment that abortion is murder (which any Christian should believe), do you think God would support a candidate that advocated this ?

- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Abortion.htm]

What about a hypocrite ? Or a communist ?

- http://hail.he.net/~danger/kerrylied/staticpages/index.php?page=20040711225111152#cont

I don't think that there is any evidence in Kerry's record that would indicate that he possesses the character and resolve necessary to be the leader of the world's greatest nation.

I believe that George W. Bush is a godly man. That he tries to adhere to his religious beliefs, all while making this country a great place to live in.

- http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/convention.htm

I also believe that he is human, which means he has, and will make mistakes.

But so has (and so will) Kerry. But the bottom line is, who is the godly man, of the two ? Kerry's superiors in the Navy contuinually cited him as lazy,

uncooperative, self absorbed, and inefficient. Doesn't sound like someone I would like to have running my country !

In closure, here is a stint on Michael Moore:

- http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/moore.htm

Michael Moore has admitted to hating Americans. He has called you all stupid, and every chance he gets he defames us in foreign countries.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-25-2004).]

quote:I believe that George W. Bush is a godly man. That he tries to adhere to his religious beliefs, all while making this country a great place to live in.

Yeah, maybe if you're part of the elite....

I also don't agree that a pastor's personal political views should be propagated on the pulpit.

If that was what he was doing, it was inappropriate.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-25-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Yeah, maybe if you're part of the elite....



You didn't look at any of the links. Why don't you try seeing the other side of the coin for a change ?

What are you basing your opinion on ? Liberal media propaganda ?

Just look at the links. You might learn something.

You can also read about these issues in the book "Weapons of Mass Distortion" (I forget the author).

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-25-2004).]

By the way, I am upper middle class...definitely not part of the "elite".

I received the refund from Pres. Bush's tax cut.

I have a job. A well-paying job...which was virtually non-existent after 9/11. This is because the unemployment rate has dropped to an all time low, under Pres. Bush's command.

I was paid more while in the Navy when Bush became president than I had ever been previously. (we received 3 raises in one year !)

It is obvious that the facts of what Bush has done for this country are widely ignored, or misrepresented.

The reasoning behind it is that Democrats seem to think they can do whatever they want, without recourse. This follows directly along with the ideology that the pagan belief system is based upon.

I know that was a broad statement...and I am definitely not saying that Democrats can't, or haven't been, Christians.

Too tired to expound right now.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-25-2004).]

BULLSHIT the media is liberal. The media is whatever the fuck it wants. It was nice and fucking concervative when clinton fucked his intern - practically no international news bloody got through. World War 3 could have started, but it wouldn't matter, cause CLINTON FUCKED HIS INTERN.

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY THINK THAT BUSH IS DECENT?

I'm not going to say Kerry is great either, but for fucks sake, WAR IS NOT CHRISTIAN.

This is why I fucking left. Because of the warped morality.

You talk about abortions being bad, yet you support a leader who has caused the deaths of fuck-knows how many people.

Thanks to Clinton, and Bush's daddy, Iraq was crippled, many people were living very simple, basic lives. But they had family, and they had relationships.

YOU FUCKERS TOOK THAT AWAY.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR TAKING AWAY A CHILD's PARENTS, OR SOMEONES CHILD. That applies both to the Iraqi's and to soldiers who were sent.

But what the fuck, it doesn't matter what I say, because your a fucking brain dead conservative shithead.

I hate you people. I really hate you.

Not personal hate, but I hate you for what you do to the world.

I hate the fucking olympics too. FUCK that. There are people dying because they don't have the most basic necesities for life, but that doesn't fucking matter, because we need out sports, and the ego trips for fucking atheletes.

Fuck them. "OOOOHHH, I can run 100 metres in 10.3 seconds, cause I've had the best training my Hypochristian country can get me, it doesn't matter that the dude in the next lane comes from a village without clean water, it doesn't matter that he has 10x the raw talent that I have, because *I* have had the opportunities, and I will get the gold. NEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeee its so fucking glorious!

Fuck this. I fucking hate the way the world is. I HATE fundementalist Christianity.

I hate it because you have no interest in improving the world, or peoples lives, you have no fucking interest except for converting more sheep, while letting the world FUCKING ROT, and waiting for the FUCKING RAPTURE.

God dammit. I want people to be fucking happy, I want to live a nice, peaceful, happy life, with likeminded people, and I want everyone to have that opportunity. I don't give a shit if thats all there is or what, I don't bloody care.

'You hate justice and pervert all that is right...

Her leaders take bribes when they decide legal cases, her priests teach for profit, and her prophets read omens for pay. Yet they claim to trust the Lord and say,

“The Lord is among us. Disaster will not come upon us!” '

-Micah 3

It seems a bit redunant to post this after dearestnight_falcon's serve.... but what can i say but amen?

quote:By the way, I am upper middle class...definitely not part of the "elite"

RoFL... in a country where the bottom 40% of people have 0.2% of net worth and the top 20% of income earners have 56.2% of all income....

(these stats are a bit old btw)

quote:

I have a job. A well-paying job...which was virtually non-existent after 9/11. This is because the unemployment rate has dropped to an all time low, under Pres. Bush's command.

Wars tend to have that effect on an economy... funny how just as your economy starts hitting the shitter again... BANG.... global war on terror..

heaps of extra govt. spending, jobs being created, economic growth fuels more job creation, more consumption.... gotta love it

quote:The reasoning behind it is that Democrats seem to think they can do whatever they want, without recourse.

Funny, that seems ALOT like US foreign policy

Edit:dodgey UBB code



[This message has been edited by inquisitor_11 (edited 08-25-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Rust: Regarding war, i would initially agree with you, however Thomas Aquinas spent a long time figuring war into Christian thought in his "Just War" theories. I'll let you decide for yourself how convincing they are. http://www.gospelcom.net/watkins/justwar.htm

Well, I would say they are not convincing at all.

Not to mention that in 13th Century, the Crusades where still going on. What do you expect Thomas Aquinas to say? That they were wrong? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

----

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



I have a job. A well-paying job...which was virtually non-existent after 9/11. This is because the unemployment rate has dropped to an all time low, under Pres. Bush's command.

I was paid more while in the Navy when Bush became president than I had ever been previously. (we received 3 raises in one year !)

It is obvious that the facts of what Bush has done for this country are widely ignored, or misrepresented.

Sorry, but unemployment figures don't cut it. They don't represent waht is really happening, that is, that Bush has lost more jobs than he has created, something had had not happen in the US since the Great Deppression! He will end this year with less jobs than he had in 2000!

Apparently, his "command" sucks big-time.



quote:If you can believe for a moment that abortion is murder (which any Christian should believe), do you think God would support a candidate that advocated this ?

There's a difference from advocating abortion, and leaving it up to choice. Even Jesus left things up to choice in many respects.

quote:What about a hypocrite ? Or a communist ?

1. Hypocrite? You claim people should see both sides, and then claim Kerry is the hypocrite?

Please play this video:

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html

2. Oh no! He's a communist! He had a a photo taken with communists! Something Jesus would never do! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Geez, your full of shit.

quote:I don't think that there is any evidence in Kerry's record that would indicate that he possesses the character and resolve necessary to be the leader of the world's greatest nation.

Yeah, just look at Bush's character and resolve:

1. Smoking Marijuana

2. Snorting coccaine

3. Not attending the National Guard.

4. Driving drunk

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-25-2004).]

Jesus would vote for peace, and medical marijuana.

quote:Sorry, but unemployment figures don't cut it. They don't represent waht is really happening, that is, that Bush has lost more jobs than he has created, something had had not happen in the US since the Great Deppression! He will end this year with less jobs than he had in 2000!

Apparently, his "command" sucks big-time.

At the end of Clinton's term, the unemployment rate was at 6.2%.

President Bush inherited an economy that was sliding into recession after the high-tech bubble of the 1990s burst, and then came the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001. He acted decisively to jump-start the economy by giving tax relief to families in the United States, and last year he and Congress passed a package to spur business investment by reducing the double taxation of dividends, expanding the expensing of equipment for small businesses and allowing temporary bonus depreciation.

Over the past year, the gross domestic product has grown by 4.8 per cent, among the fastest rates in 20 years, and the economy has shown a net gain of about 1.5 million jobs.

As of July, 2004, the unemployment rate was at 5.5%. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm This may only be marginally better, but it IS better, not worse, as the media would like us all to believe.

How does this "suck big-time" ? (gotta love your affinity for eloquence)

"Total employment rose by 629,000 to 139.7 million in July, and the employ-

ment population ratio--the proportion of the population age 16 and over with

jobs--increased to 62.5 percent. The civilian labor force also increased over

the month, rising by 577,000 to 147.9 million, and the labor force participa-

tion rate rose to 66.2 percent." http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

"Over the 2002-12 decade, total employment is projected to increase by 21.3

million jobs, or 15 percent. Over the previous decade (1992-2002), total

employment grew by 20.7 million jobs but at a slightly faster rate, 17 percent.

(The definition of employment used in these projections differs from

the definitions used in other BLS programs. See table 1.)" http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecopro.nr0.htm

'Health care and social assistance added 20,000 jobs in July; employment in the industry has risen by 292,000 over the year." http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm

Please view the graphs indicating employment trends here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/ces_cps_trends.pdf

October 2001 - Employment fell sharply in October, and the unemployment rate jumped to 5.4 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Nonfarm payroll employment dropped by 415,000 over the

month, by far the largest of three consecutive monthly declines. The job

losses in October were spread across most industry groups, with especially

large declines in manufacturing and services.

November 2001 - Employment fell sharply for the second month in a row in November, and the unemployment rate rose to 5.7 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics

of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Nonfarm payroll employment

dropped by 331,000, following an even larger decline in October. As was

the case in October, job losses in November were widespread.

December 2001 - Employment continued to decline in December, and the unemployment rateedged up to 5.8 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Nonfarm payroll employment decreased by 124,000 over the month and by 1.1 million over the last 4 months of 2001. In December, job losses continued in manufacturing, transportation,

and trade; these losses were partially offset by employment gains in

services and government.

I see little difference in the numbers between Clinton and Bush. How does this equate to the "worst economy America has ever seen" ?!

As far as bush on drugs:

"At the "Rock the Vote" debate, the moderator inevitably asked,. "Which of you are ready to admit to having used marijuana in the past?"

"Yes," said John Kerry, leading off. "Yes," said John Edwards . "Yes," said Howard Dean. None of these three baby-boomer candidates said anything beyond their short, declarative affirmations. None followed with a hurried explanation that it was just a few times, that it was some kind of "youthful indiscretion," or that he didn't inhale. The implication of their answers seemed to be, "Yeah, so what?"

In fact, the defensive answers tended to come from those replying in the negative. "No," said Dennis Kucinich. "But I think it ought to be decriminalized."

"I grew up in the church," said Al Sharpton. "We didn't believe in that."

"I have a reputation for giving unpopular answers," said Joe Lieberman. "I never used marijuana. Sorry!"

In the next day's news coverage, the admissions of marijuana smoking were largely ignored."

Source: Steven Holmes, NY Times Nov 9, 2003 http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Drugs.htm

"U.S. Senator (D-MA) and Presidential candidate, admitted to smoking marijuana in response to question during Rock the Vote/CNN debate, Tuesday 4 November 2003" http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_celebrities_with_illicit_drug_history.html

It's ok for Clinton to put cigars in the nether regions of his young political assistant's WHILE IN OFFICE (a mistake), but it's not ok for Bush to be caught drunk driving when he was 30 (over 20 years ago!), which was also a mistake ?

At what point did the requirements for presidency begin to include "perfection" ? There hasn't been a SINGLE PERFECT PRESIDENT in the history of the world.

I am not advocating drunk driving, nor lying about it. What I do advocate is looking at the facts objectively, and recognizing the harsh reality of the world we live in.

Kerry has repeatedly lied about his service as a Swiftboat Commander. He lied to his chain of command about the nature of his "wounds", in order to receive medals he didn't deserve. He lied about events that occured during missions, so that he could look like a hero, when he clearly was not.

You obviously didn't read the FITREPS. Once again, you blatantly ignore the facts.

And after he received the medals he lied to get, he threw them over a fence in disdain for the Nixon administration. Shows how much they meant to him...

"According to a new book, three independent sources close to the Bush family report that Governor Bush was arrested in 1972 for cocaine possession, and taken to Harris County Jail, but avoided jail or formal charges through an informal diversion plan involving community service with Project P.U.L.L., an inner city Houston program for troubled youths at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston's dirt-poor Third Ward. (In another new book, reporter Bill Minutaglio, writes that the year of community service was arranged by the Governor's father, ex-president Bush, after he caught Bush Jr. driving drunk.)

The author of this book, J. H. Thompson, has some interesting scandals of his own. Of course, his own flaws don't disprove what Bush did or didn't do, but the way Thompson has responded certainly undercuts his credibility. First, he admitted to a reporter from Slate Magazine that he made up at least one detail, that one of his informants spat tobacco into a styrofoam cup during their (phone!) interview.

Then, reporters -- or perhaps Bush campaign operatives -- found that the author apparently is an ex-convict, on parole for hiring a hit man to kill a former boss. That doesn't mean he can't research, of course, but Thompson's credibility suffered greatly as he claimed it was someone else, despite incredible similarities between his resume -- including unexplained job gaps during the prison years -- and confirmation from his parole officer that indeed, the author named J. H. Thompson is the one who did time." http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine

Clearly speculation. No police reports. (doesn't mean it didn't happen, but does it mean that it did ?)

I have no comment about his service in the National Guard, since I can only find references posted on "progressive" websites. (i.e. democrat) If I could get both sides of the story, I would address this.

What I can say is that after only 4 1/2 months in Vietnam, Kerry used his "get out of jail free" card.

“John Kerry has long insisted that using the three-injury loophole to leave combat early was his own idea, but Kerry's fellow Swift officer Thomas Wright, who served on occasion as the OIC (Officer in Charge) of Kerry's boat group, contradicts that claim. Wright reports that he "had a lot of trouble getting Kerry to follow orders," and that those who worked with Kerry found him "oriented towards his personal, rather than unit goals and objectives." He therefore requested that Kerry be removed from his boat group. After John Kerry qualified for his third Purple Heart, Thomas Wright and two fellow officers informed him of the obscure regulation, and told him to go home. Wright concluded, "We knew how the system worked and we didn’t want him in Coastal Division 11." “http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=KerryinVietnam

Sounds like a hero to me !

What about what Kerry votes for ?

Kerry Voted 98 Times For Tax Increases Totaling More Than $2.3 Trillion.

Kerry Voted At Least 126 Times Against Tax Cuts Totaling More Than $5.3 Trillion.

Kerry Voted Against 2001 And 2003 Bush Tax Cuts.

Kerry Voted Twice For Largest Tax Increase In U.S. History.

Kerry Voted For Higher Taxes On Social Security Benefits At Least Eight Times.

Kerry Voted Against Marriage Penalty Relief At Least 22 Times

Kerry Voted Against Expanding Child Tax Credit At Least 18 Times.

Kerry Voted For Higher Gas Taxes On The Middle Class 10 Times And He Once Supported A 50 Cent A Gallon Gas Tax Increase.

In 1995, Kerry Voted For A Resolution That Said Middle Class Tax Cuts Were Not Wise. The sense of the Senate amendment, killed on a motion by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), said, "reducing the deficit should be one of the nation's highest priorities, and that a middle-class tax cut would undermine and be inconsistent with the goal of achieving a balanced budget." (H.J. Res. 1, CQ Vote #67: Motion Agreed To 66-32: R 49-3; D 17-29, 2/14/95, Kerry Voted Nay)

According To A Democracy Corps Poll (August 2-5, 2004), 61 Percent Of Likely Voters Think "Will Raise Your Taxes" Describes John Kerry "Well." (Democracy Corps Poll, Conducted August 2-5, 2004, 1013 Likely Voters, Margin of Error +/- 3.1%, ]www.democracycorps.com) (http://www.democracycorps.com)[/b)

Boy. What a great guy ! Sounds like he has the “people” and their welfare in mind.

Let us not forget that he voted in SUPPORT of the war, then voted against it, citing that the way the money was going to be spent was unsatisfactory. HE WOULD STILL HAVE GONE TO WAR.

Then, he lied about it.

"Bush's campaign has hammered Kerry over his vote to authorize military action and his vote a year later against $87 billion in funding for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kerry has said he voted against that measure because it would have financed the war with borrowed money. He voted for a defeated alternative that would have rolled back some of Bush's tax cuts to pay for the conflict." http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

"GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (Reuters) - Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said on Monday he would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing force against Iraq even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found." http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249%7Ctop%7C08-09-2004::17:46%7Creuters.html

"At the same time, the Democratic presidential nominee said that his goal as president would be to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during his first six months in office through diplomacy and foreign assistance." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html



Can't even make up his mind about how we should handle Iraq. Yes, let's go to war, but don't put any troops there ! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

My basic point in all of this is that Kerry is not competent enough to run this country.

Period.

How does this relate to religion ? I think I have touched upon several issues that Democrats support, which clearly go against the will of God.

For this reason, I will vote for the Christian. The man who is not afraid to say the word "God", or recite the National Anthem the way it was intended to be recited.

A man who is not ashamed of his values, and stands by them consistently when making his political decisions.

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-25-2004).]

quote:[1. Hypocrite? You claim people should see both sides, and then claim Kerry is the hypocrite?

Please play this video: http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_7131.html

2. Oh no! He's a communist! He had a a photo taken with communists! Something Jesus would never do!

Geez, your full of shit.

I have seen both sides, and am of the opinion that Bush is the better choice for this country. I don't see how that denotes hypocrisy.

I won't watch your video, until you watch mine. You clearly did not, based on your uneducated response to the FACTS.

I didn't say that he WAS a communist, but on more than one occasion, Kerry has been photographed schmoozing with communists.

Have you seen the photos on display at the Vietnamese Communist Museum of War Crimes ? Kerry is there, in all his glory, being honored as a "hero", indicating that the North Vietnamese appreciate him as someone they can depend on.

Kerry, photographed while attending a meeting of North Vietnamese Communists in Paris, trying to conduct his own private peace agreement.

Partly due to some of his anti-war efforts, the South Vietnamese are to this day ruled by godless-communism.

I am not advocating war. It is a necessary evil, no matter the president.

But I truly feel that his past is a declaration to us all that he has no intention of making sure our country is secure, and safe from terrorists.

He claims that he advocates the war in Iraq, but that he would have done it more efficiently, and only as a last resort (as though President Bush did not).

However, Iraq spent 10 years, threatening us, and finding ways to divert our weapons inspectors.

During other skirmishes, they used bombs that they weren't even supposed to have.

And let's not even talk about the atrocities that occured while Saddam was in power, against his own people ! (his son systematically murdered any member of an Iraqi team that lost an olympic event)

You obviously don't care about the truth. Nothing I can say, or references I can provide, will help you see how wrong you are about voting Kerry in as President. Because you simply don't want to.

And what, by the way, does Jesus have to do with communists ?

I am full of something *looks up*, but it isn't "shit".

You sure know how to flood a thread digital_savior.

It is the preachers' job to guide his flock. If he believes that the media is biased and leading people astray, it is his duty to correct this. When did it become immoral to preach what one believes is right? I think it becomes wrong whena preacher says you should vote a certain way or you're not a christian, but giving his view of what is right is not immoral.

I wouldn't call that flooding. I would call that providing documentation and resources which support my opinion on why Kerry is the WORST choice for president.

Which I doubt you even read...are you one of the many that think what you see on TV is all the reality you need ?

Why don't you give an actual opinion...or a thought process...or SOMETHING valuable and pertinent to this thread ?

I spent a lot of time on these posts, and they are in NO way a form of flooding.

quote:Originally posted by choytw:

It is the preachers' job to guide his flock. If he believes that the media is biased and leading people astray, it is his duty to correct this. When did it become immoral to preach what one believes is right? I think it becomes wrong whena preacher says you should vote a certain way or you're not a christian, but giving his view of what is right is not immoral.

Not off the pulpit, it's not.

Any time you're replying to yourself, i consider it flooding. You replied to yourself more than 4 times.

Part of the reason flooding is worthless is because people stop paying attention. I read about 30% of your text.

Most of the news i get from cable television i feel is either fair, or conservatively biased. That's why i buy books from writers on both sides of the ideological axis, read news papers, and read webpages.

Meanwhile, you're points seem to be culled mostly from Conservative thinktank pages and Republican attack ads. Congrats.

Regarding choytw: My personal inclination is that you're incorrect. I don't think it's a pastor's place to tell his congregation who to vote for. Regardless, IT"S NOT THE POINT OF MY EMAIL!

The message i'm trying to convey is that if you're going to tell a congregation who to vote for, next time choose a candidate that isn't at odds with the Son of Man on more than a few issues. In my opinion, unless Jesus is running for office, the pastor should stay out of it.

One last word on digital_savior's many posts: Maybe you should go back to the top of the thread and see who started it. I provided my thought process, and my opinions, now we're discussing it. My thoughts are the center of "SOMETHING VALUable and pertinent" I STARTED THE THREAD! In a follow up post, I said that i had hoped this wouldn't turn into a political policy discussion, rather, we would discuss a pastor's place in politics, the necessity f(or lackthereof) of godliness in politicians, and what constitutes godliness. I thank you now for shooting that hope i held all to shit. You alone have turned this into a political discussion.

Not only that, you have gotten nasty, more so than anyone else in this thread.

Your behavior is disappointing.

Thanks,

theBishop

Part 1 of 2:

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

At the end of Clinton's term, the unemployment rate was at 6.2%.

President Bush inherited an economy that was sliding into recession after the high-tech bubble of the 1990s burst, and then came the terrorist attacks of Sept 11, 2001. He acted decisively to jump-start the economy by giving tax relief to families in the United States, and last year he and Congress passed a package to spur business investment by reducing the double taxation of dividends, expanding the expensing of equipment for small businesses and allowing temporary bonus depreciation.

Over the past year, the gross domestic product has grown by 4.8 per cent, among the fastest rates in 20 years, and the economy has shown a net gain of about 1.5 million jobs.

1. Like I said, unemployment figures don't prove anything. If you had a clue of what unemployment figures show, you would know that they do not include people who are not activly seeking employment or that have been unemployed for more than a given amount of months (usually 6).

2. Please, could you provide a source that claims the US has had a net increase in jobs? Unemployment figures wont cut it, like I said. What does show a possible net increase is the amount of paying jobs in the country.

These picture shows otherwise:

http://www.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Total%20Payroll%20Jobs,%201993-2004.gif" width="90" height="90 (http://www.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Total%20Payroll%20Jobs,%201993-2004.gif">quote:

As of July, 2004, the unemployment rate was at 5.5%. <A HREF="http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm This may only be marginally better, but it IS better, not worse, as the media would like us all to believe.[/quote]

See above. Unemployment rates do not show an increase in jobs. They are in effect useless when they are not compared to other data.

quote:

How does this "suck big-time" ? (gotta love your affinity for eloquence)

1. See above.

2. I don't need to use big words, to prove my point. Do you understand what I meant? Yes? Then I did my job. No? Then you show you have a lack of brain power by not being able to understand the simplest of terms.

quote:

It's ok for Clinton to put cigars in the nether regions of his young political assistant's WHILE IN OFFICE (a mistake), but it's not ok for Bush to be caught drunk driving when he was 30 (over 20 years ago!), which was also a mistake ?

Where have I said it was okay? Nowhere. Stop putting words in my mouth.

To answer the question, I would certainly put driving while under the influence as a worse offence than that of adultery.

The law agrees.

quote:

At what point did the requirements for presidency begin to include "perfection" ? There hasn't been a SINGLE PERFECT PRESIDENT in the history of the world.

I am not advocating drunk driving, nor lying about it. What I do advocate is looking at the facts objectively, and recognizing the harsh reality of the world we live in.

Sorry, but that goes both ways. Either we look at both candidate's faults, which would includes Bush's DUI, or we don't look at anything.

You're using the "nobody is perfect" argument on Bush, but not on Kerry. That's the problem.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-26-2004).]

Part 2 of 2:

quote:

Kerry has repeatedly lied about his service as a Swiftboat Commander. He lied to his chain of command about the nature of his "wounds", in order to receive medals he didn't deserve. He lied about events that occured during missions, so that he could look like a hero, when he clearly was not.

Bush started a war, in which he either lied or exagerate the facts. He is therefore responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.

Tell me, what do you consider worse, lying, or being responsible for thousands of innocent civilians?

quote:

You obviously didn't read the FITREPS. Once again, you blatantly ignore the facts.

How the hell does anything that I said show "me not reading the FITREPS"? Where the hell have I said anything that would indicate I didn't?

quote:

And after he received the medals he lied to get, he threw them over a fence in disdain for the Nixon administration. Shows how much they meant to him...

1. There is actually no proof of this.

2. He actually denies it.

3. I see no problem with it.

quote:

Clearly speculation. No police reports. (doesn't mean it didn't happen, but does it mean that it did ?)

Bush has never wanted to answer questions about it, (omission) and if I'm not mistaken, has not released any of his records.

quote:

What I can say is that after only 4 1/2 months in Vietnam, Kerry used his "get out of jail free" card.

Sounds like a hero to me !

To me, it does. I would use every single legal recurse in the world to get out of Vietnam. After all, those recurses are there for a reason. He used them.

quote:What about what Kerry votes for ?

Boy. What a great guy ! Sounds like he has the “people” and their welfare in mind.

It's pathetic that I have to argue with someone who has less knowledge of Congrssional votes than I do, and I don't even live in the U.S. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Here's a lesson:

Votes show nothing. Main bills have other bills attached to them. You could have a bill reducing X and at the same time, increasing Y.

If you don't want to increase Y, then you vote against it! But of course, the Media/Washington spin will be that "HE VOTED AGAINST X!!!!" and not menton of Y.

If Bush would have been in Congress, or the Senate, he would have the same "flip-flops" or "bad voting" record.

quote:

Let us not forget that he voted in SUPPORT of the war, then voted against it, citing that the way the money was going to be spent was unsatisfactory. HE WOULD STILL HAVE GONE TO WAR.

1. He gave the authorization for use of force, that does not equal him voting for it.

2. He did not vote against the war, he voted against a certain plan for funding it.

quote:

Can't even make up his mind about how we should handle Iraq. Yes, let's go to war, but don't put any troops there

He didn't say 'don't put any troops there'. Apparently you don't know how to read...



quote:

How does this relate to religion ? I think I have touched upon several issues that Democrats support, which clearly go against the will of God.

Yes... like 'abortion'... which I then refuted... like him being a 'hypocrite'... which I then showed you how Bush was an even worse one...

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-26-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I won't watch your video, until you watch mine. You clearly did not, based on your uneducated response to the FACTS.

What video? Oh, and please show me how I've "not watch (or read) what you have posted".

quote:

I didn't say that he WAS a communist, but on more than one occasion, Kerry has been photographed schmoozing with communists.

Bullshit. You implied it, because you asked the question if God would support a communist.

Moreover, by your logic, Jesus was a whore, a murderer, a liar, a thief and a overall scumbag... after all, he had been seen with all of those.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

Have you seen the photos on display at the Vietnamese Communist Museum of War Crimes ? Kerry is there, in all his glory, being honored as a "hero", indicating that the North Vietnamese appreciate him as someone they can depend on.

Kerry, photographed while attending a meeting of North Vietnamese Communists in Paris, trying to conduct his own private peace agreement.

Once again, this shows nothing. Not only can you say the same thing about Jesus Christ, but about Donald Rumsfeld!

IMG]http://www.unknownnews.net/rumsfeld-saddam.jpg[/IMG]

That's even after knowing he had used chemical weapons against the Kurds!

quote:

I am not advocating war. It is a necessary evil, no matter the president.

... and how was this war necessary in anyway?

quote:

He claims that he advocates the war in Iraq, but that he would have done it more efficiently, and only as a last resort (as though President Bush did not).[/b

You cannot claim you have exhausted all possibilities when you attack while the inspections are going on! That is NOT a last resort.

quote:[b]

However, Iraq spent 10 years, threatening us, and finding ways to divert our weapons inspectors.

During other skirmishes, they used bombs that they weren't even supposed to have.

And? That calls for Inspections. The peace accord the U.S. signed and agreed to called for UN Inspections in case of illegal weapons. Not war.

quote:

And let's not even talk about the atrocities that occured while Saddam was in power, against his own people ! (his son systematically murdered any member of an Iraqi team that lost an olympic event)

1. Lets talk about the 1.5million Iraqis that died because sanctions the U.S. supported and wanted to be imposed on Iraq. Even after the UN had released a report citing all the deaths.

2. But please, show proof of these alleged murders. While I do not deny Saddam killed, 90%+ of all the deaths where done with U.S. support! Saddam killed less people in the last 10 years than the U.S. did in 1 year!

quote:

You obviously don't care about the truth. Nothing I can say, or references I can provide, will help you see how wrong you are about voting Kerry in as President. Because you simply don't want to.

Hilarious! You've shown nothing and then claim I don't want to see the truth. You're pathetic.

quote:

And what, by the way, does Jesus have to do with communists ?

Read. You implied that kerry was a communist. I said that Jesus was known to be friends with murderers, and other low-life. And as if communists were bad...

quote:

I am full of something *looks up*, but it isn't "shit".

Well I just assumed since that's what I smelled after reading your poor excuse for an argument http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-26-2004).]

Once again, a post riddled with hostile opinions, and no supporting evidence.

If you can't stop speaking to me as though I were an idiot (which I am clearly not) I will just have to stop replying to you.

And while this may not seem like a threat to you, I doubt you would have this much fun ridiculing someone that doesn't ever respond back.

There is nothing pathetic about my posts. Pathetic would more accurately describe your attempts to "refute" the facts that have been posted. You have not done that by giving your obviously jaded opinion.

Here is the list of sources I cited:



- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/jec.nr0.htm (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm (Bureau of Labor Statistics)

- http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Drugs.htm (New York Times)

- http://www.fact-index.com/l/li/list_of_celebrities_with_illicit_drug_history.html (Wikipedia)

- http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#cocaine (Democratic Advocacy site)

- http://www.democracycorps.com (Democratic Advocacy site)

- http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/ (CNN)

- http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/381249%7Ctop%7C08-09-2004::17:46%7Creuters.html (non-biased)

- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html (WashingtonPost)



Yeah, there are a bunch of fundamentalist Christian references for ya !

This is how I know you didn't read my posts and links.

quote:(which I am clearly not)

Nice, that's a great way to get respect on a message board.

[This message has been edited by theBishop (edited 08-26-2004).]

Ugh, this is so impossible. You people can't possibly believe anything presented to you by any sort of media, honestly. The right controls all media sources, which requires them to annihilate any sort of liberal news or opinions, including anything done by Moore. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. There are far too many republicans this day and age, not only because the democrats are severely discredited, but also because the republicans have too much damn money.

ModelFifteen

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Once again, a post riddled with hostile opinions, and no supporting evidence.

If you can't stop speaking to me as though I were an idiot (which I am clearly not) I will just have to stop replying to you.

And while this may not seem like a threat to you, I doubt you would have this much fun ridiculing someone that doesn't ever respond back.

Here is the list of sources I cited:



You should have saved your words, and said you can't refute my argument. It would have had the same result.

Your sources mean nothing because I'm not denying that what they said was true! Get it? Yes, those unemployment figures may be correct? So what? I'm telling you that unemployment figures don't prove anything!

The net gain does. Clearly, Bush does not have a net gain of jobs.

quote:

There is nothing pathetic about my posts. Pathetic would more accurately describe your attempts to "refute" the facts that have been posted. You have not done that by giving your obviously jaded opinion.

Boy, you're a smart one aren't you? Care to point out where I have tried to refute any of your facts?

Something tells me you wont... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

This is how I know you didn't read my posts and links.

How? Posting links is how you know I didn't read them? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Once again, I'm not denying anything of your sources. You would have known this if you had a decent amount of reading skills or a decent amount of brain cells.

Now, refute my arguments, or shut up.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

edit - not that one sorry, the other dude

See? SEE?

Every side will claim that the media is against them!

The media is out for itself.

As for Saddam being a nasty bastard - Damn right... why didn't you do something about it earlier?

I mean, he killed thousands of Kurds, but it didn't seem to matter then did it?

And the Sanctions... they killed something like half a million children in the years they had been in effect.

Infant mortality DOUBLED. Fuck that.

Thats evil.

Making the people suffer for the Sin's of the leader... oh wait... that actually IS what god would do isn't it.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

[This message has been edited by dearestnight_falcon (edited 08-26-2004).]

Damnit, I hate coming into the middle of an argument with Digital Savior.

Cause all the posts are so goddamn long, I can't get into them unless I was there from the beginning.

ahh, well, another thread Big Sean is left out of.........

aTribe: i've been here from the beginning, and i wish i hadn't started the thread. Just goes to show you, you can't try to guide the direction of a thread, you can only hope someone doesn't hijack it.

quote:Partly due to some of his anti-war efforts, the South Vietnamese are to this day ruled by godless-communism.

quote:Boy you're ignorant. South Korea is a republic!

Not trying to piss you off any more, but i gotta laugh.

&lt;/geography nazi&gt;

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Not only that, you have gotten nasty, more so than anyone else in this thread.

Your behavior is disappointing.



Are you serious that she has been more nasty then me?

As much as I dislike Digital_Savior's posting habits, I'm not going to lie, I get bloody worked up about this sort of stuff, and am probably more nasty then she is in this instance.

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Not trying to piss you off any more, but i gotta laugh.

&lt;/geography nazi&gt;



Well, that is funny. It was an honest mistake http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

Not trying to piss you off any more, but i gotta laugh.

&lt;/geography nazi&gt;



Thanks for pointing that out, so I didn't have to. *winks*

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:

Are you serious that she has been more nasty then me?

As much as I dislike Digital_Savior's posting habits, I'm not going to lie, I get bloody worked up about this sort of stuff, and am probably more nasty then she is in this instance.

Thank you for your honesty. I may have been nasty, but fail to see it in hindsight.

It seems I am only nasty to those that don't agree with my stand on things.

What about my posting habits is not palitable ? Their content, or their length ?

If it is their content, that follows along the lines of what I said previously.

If it is their length, not only did I not realize that there was a size limit to posts here on Totse, but in order to adequately convey my opinion, many references and statistics were necessary.

I would rather have them be too long, ane be informed, than short and pointless, like some have been.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Any time you're replying to yourself, i consider it flooding. You replied to yourself more than 4 times.

Part of the reason flooding is worthless is because people stop paying attention. I read about 30% of your text.

Most of the news i get from cable television i feel is either fair, or conservatively biased. That's why i buy books from writers on both sides of the ideological axis, read news papers, and read webpages.

Meanwhile, you're points seem to be culled mostly from Conservative thinktank pages and Republican attack ads. Congrats.

Regarding choytw: My personal inclination is that you're incorrect. I don't think it's a pastor's place to tell his congregation who to vote for. Regardless, IT"S NOT THE POINT OF MY EMAIL!

The message i'm trying to convey is that if you're going to tell a congregation who to vote for, next time choose a candidate that isn't at odds with the Son of Man on more than a few issues. In my opinion, unless Jesus is running for office, the pastor should stay out of it.

One last word on digital_savior's many posts: Maybe you should go back to the top of the thread and see who started it. I provided my thought process, and my opinions, now we're discussing it. My thoughts are the center of "SOMETHING VALUable and pertinent" I STARTED THE THREAD! In a follow up post, I said that i had hoped this wouldn't turn into a political policy discussion, rather, we would discuss a pastor's place in politics, the necessity f(or lackthereof) of godliness in politicians, and what constitutes godliness. I thank you now for shooting that hope i held all to shit. You alone have turned this into a political discussion.

Not only that, you have gotten nasty, more so than anyone else in this thread.

Your behavior is disappointing.

Thanks,

theBishop

I replied to myself ?! Where ? I have been exclusively replying to Rust.

Part of the reason for posting on Totse is to get your point across. Another part of posting here is to attempt to educate the public.

It is not too often that a Christian perspective is given in the media, and I believe that the majority of people in this country are hand-fed by their televisions, and have been grossly misled.

If you don't know the questions to ask, how can you ask them ?

If all you hear is anti-Bush propaganda, then wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that you will inevitably be anti-Bush ? I don't think that is such a far-fetched notion.

I don't think that people know what an abortion really entails. So, I post photos and videos of the actual procedure being done, so that those out there who advocate it can be EDUCATED (at least) about their support for such a heinous act.

When I first started coming to Totse, I was ridiculed for not citing sources for my statements, and now that I am doing that, I am being ridiculed for making my posts too long.

Well, they all have a point. A point which cannot possible be condensed for the comfort of the viewer.

If the intention of coming here was to actually gain knowledge, reading a relatively long post wouldn't be an issue.

However, I believe it is quite the contrary.

I think people come here to take out their aggression against those that do not agree with them. It would be politically incorrect for men to speak to women in the manner that they do on Totse in person.

Unless you were at a political rally of some sort, I doubt you would hear someone yelling, "You're an idiot because you're a Christian !" In my 25 years on this planet, it has yet to happen to me, and I don't hide my faith.

I believe this is a venue for hostility. There is very little objective thinking going on here, and a whole lot of intolerance.

I would like you to support the assumption that you reside under that the media is CONSERVATIVELY biased. Do you remember the news caster who said this: "No matter how you feel about Bush, he is still our President." ? I believe this was aired on ABC. (I could be wrong, but at any rate, it was a major network) As though his opinion mattered !

We have gone from a country that relied on fair reporting, to a country that is force-fed liberal journalism. The objectivity is gone.

I re-cited the sources that I used in my posts, and some were official government agencies, while still others were newspapers such as the Washington Post. Oh, and don't forget the link I gave to a story headlined by CNN. How can you say that these are "Conservative Thinktank Pages" ? ABSOLUTELY NOT !

"We" aren't discussing anything. Rust and I have been doing the majority of the debating. I haven't seen anything from you that is actually on topic for quite a while.

I am sorry if the direction of the thread wasn't exactly what you had intended.

Your lack of participation is disappointing. (then you attack those that are participating)

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Nice, that's a great way to get respect on a message board.

[This message has been edited by theBishop (edited 08-26-2004).]

So, it's ok for him to imply that I am a moron, but not ok for me to say that I am clearly not ?

Hmmm...

quote:Originally posted by NewModelFifteen:

Ugh, this is so impossible. You people can't possibly believe anything presented to you by any sort of media, honestly. The right controls all media sources, which requires them to annihilate any sort of liberal news or opinions, including anything done by Moore. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. There are far too many republicans this day and age, not only because the democrats are severely discredited, but also because the republicans have too much damn money.

ModelFifteen

HAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!

Please give some evidence of how the media leans towards the RIGHT !!

I want your TV, because it seems to be the only one that has this problem.

quote:You should have saved your words, and said you can't refute my argument. It would have had the same result.

Your sources mean nothing because I'm not denying that what they said was true! Get it? Yes, those unemployment figures may be correct? So what? I'm telling you that unemployment figures don't prove anything!

The net gain does. Clearly, Bush does not have a net gain of jobs.

Boy, you're a smart one aren't you? Care to point out where I have tried to refute any of your facts?

Something tells me you wont...

How? Posting links is how you know I didn't read them?

Once again, I'm not denying anything of your sources. You would have known this if you had a decent amount of reading skills or a decent amount of brain cells.

Now, refute my arguments, or shut up.

I didn't have to refute you...for one thing, you didn't give anything to refute, except your feeble opinion. I obviously can't refute that. Secondly, I listed the resources for the facts BEFORE you ever came into the picture, so I believe it is YOU who has the burden of refuting the evidence.

I posted more than unemployment figures. If you had read my posts in their entirety, you would have seen that. (another indication that you didn't) I showed how Kerry also smoked Marijuana, so I don't know how your statement about Bush doing the same thing holds any merit. I also showed what Kerry has voted for, which has been nothing but tax increases, and the irradication of Bush's tax cuts. He isn't a man for the people, he is a man for himself. That, to me, is scary.

If the things that I posted are true, why would you continue to support a candidate that is obviously not trustworthy, reliable, or honorable ? You may say the same thing about Bush, but in that case, neither is better than the other, and you should vote for Nader. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

On the website I gave for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the NET GAIN is there for review by the general public. Again, if you had investigated the site, you could have easily found that information.

Even though the net gain of jobs has increased, I find that irrelevant. If the unemployment rate is down, then that means beyond a shadow of a doubt THE JOBS ARE OUT THERE. Why do more jobs need to be created ? It is apparent that the one's that were already existent are being filled.

Refute, discredit, nullify...whatever you would like to call whatever it is you are doing, you are obviously trying to show that I am wrong about Bush.

No, posting the links to show that you didn't read them by making comments like, "Hilarious! You've shown nothing and then claim I don't want to see the truth. You're pathetic.”, and “Please, could you provide a source that claims the US has had a net increase in jobs?”



I have shown QUITE A BIT. I did provide sources for the net gain, on the BLS site. YOU DIDN'T READ THEM, based on your responses.

If you weren't denying the facts presented by defending Kerry via attacking Bush, what exactly would you call it ?

My reading skills are just fine. You only serve to discredit yourself by saying things like that.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I didn't have to refute you...for one thing, you didn't give anything to refute, except your feeble opinion.

1. I posted more than my opinion, once again if you had any decent reading skills you would see this.

2. Even if we take what you say as true (which it isn't) you could post counter-arguments, which you didn't. That clearly speaks badly of you, and your argument.

quote:

I obviously can't refute that. Secondly, I listed the resources for the facts BEFORE you ever came into the picture, so I believe it is YOU who has the burden of refuting the evidence.

Once again, you prove you can't read!

I AM NOT DENYING THE EVIDENCE.

Get it?

quote:

I posted more than unemployment figures. If you had read my posts in their entirety, you would have seen that. (another indication that you didn't)

And I replied saying that unemployment figures don't show anything... care to tell us how the fuck that shows I'm ignoring facts?

quote: I showed how Kerry also smoked Marijuana, so I don't know how your statement about Bush doing the same thing holds any merit.

And I didn't argue against those facts. Once again, how the hell does that show me ignoring evidence?

quote:

If the things that I posted are true, why would you continue to support a candidate that is obviously not trustworthy, reliable, or honorable ? You may say the same thing about Bush, but in that case, neither is better than the other, and you should vote for Nader. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

You're talking to a Socialist, do you really think I don't think Nader is a better candidate? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:

On the website I gave for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the NET GAIN is there for review by the general public. Again, if you had investigated the site, you could have easily found that information.

No. You posted a "net gain" in unemployment figures. I already told you, that does not equal a net gain in jobs.

Part2:

quote:Even though the net gain of jobs has increased, I find that irrelevant.



Once again, you show you do not know what "net" means. Jobs where being lost, and Bush has still not had a net increase in jobs!

quote:

If the unemployment rate is down, then that means beyond a shadow of a doubt THE JOBS ARE OUT THERE. Why do more jobs need to be created ? It is apparent that the one's that were already existent are being filled.

Once again, unemployment figures do not count people who are not looking for work, or people who have been looking for work for more than a given amount of months,

Unemployment figures show nothing.

quote:

I have shown QUITE A BIT. I did provide sources for the net gain, on the BLS site. YOU DIDN'T READ THEM, based on your responses.

No you did not. You had sources for a net gain in unemployment which does not equal a net gain in jobs!

So, the question still stands, how the fuck is that me not reading the sources?

quote:

If you weren't denying the facts presented by defending Kerry via attacking Bush, what exactly would you call it ?

Showing that Bush is equal or worse than Kerry. Is that concept totally lost on you?

quote:

My reading skills are just fine. You only serve to discredit yourself by saying things like that.

You keep replying with things that I have already refuted, you keep saying that I'm ignoring you evidence when I have not. The only logical conclusion is that you're either a moron, lazy or that you have a vision impediment.

..........

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

HAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!

Please give some evidence of how the media leans towards the RIGHT !!

I want your TV, because it seems to be the only one that has this problem.



If that isn't absolute proof, I don't know what is... every side claims the media is against them.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Thank you for your honesty. I may have been nasty, but fail to see it in hindsight.

It seems I am only nasty to those that don't agree with my stand on things.

What about my posting habits is not palitable ? Their content, or their length ?

If it is their content, that follows along the lines of what I said previously.

If it is their length, not only did I not realize that there was a size limit to posts here on Totse, but in order to adequately convey my opinion, many references and statistics were necessary.

I would rather have them be too long, ane be informed, than short and pointless, like some have been.

Its more what you used to do... filling the whole first page up with threads :P

It was sorta overkill, and no one would have time to respond to them all.

And yeah, the sheer volume of text is a little large, but I guess that can't be helped.

quote:"Even if we take what you say as true (which it isn't)...I AM NOT DENYING THE EVIDENCE."

*LAUGHS* !!!!

quote:"And I replied saying that unemployment figures don't show anything... care to tell us how the fuck that shows I'm ignoring facts?"

Yeah, because you relied heavily on that aspect of my posts ONLY. Which would indicate one of two things: that you either ignored the rest, or you can't refute any of them...just like you didn't refute the unemployment facts by saying "they don't matter". A President's ENTIRE track record matters, and I believe that would include the nation's unemployment. If the people who "aren't actively looking for employment" aren't being taken into consideration, who the hell cares ? Can't just sit around on your duff and expect to have the same rights as the rest of the hard working Americans in this country. If you are disabled, you get a check. If you are able-bodied, why aren't you looking for work ?

quote:"And I didn't argue against those facts. Once again, how the hell does that show me ignoring evidence?"

Never said it did. In that statement I was pointing out that the reasons for you attacking Bush's competency were not valid, since Kerry is guilty of the same offences.

quote:"You're talking to a Socialist, do you really think I don't think Nader is a better candidate?"

I was being facetious...I forgot that such things are lost on you, as well as valid points.

quote:"No. You posted a "net gain" in unemployment figures. I already told you, that does not equal a net gain in jobs."

It appears that it is YOU who doesn't know how to read, not me. I didn't say I had posted net gain statistics for jobs. I said that the information you were looking for was located on the website I provided, which is why I know you didn't look at it. It's there, plain as day, for anyone to see. Put a little effort into your hostility, would ya ?

quote:"Once again, you show you do not know what "net" means. Jobs where being lost, and Bush has still not had a net increase in jobs!"

Uhhh...yes I do. *lol* What a jerk you are ! You trip on your own words, and don't even know it. The majority of the jobs that were lost during the Bush administration occured because of the events of 9/11. You tell ME how ANYONE could have kept us from falling into a recession ? Use your head. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Since then, net gain in jobs HAS INCREASED. Again, I say look at the website. *sighs*

quote:"No you did not. You had sources for a net gain in unemployment which does not equal a net gain in jobs! So, the question still stands, how the fuck is that me not reading the sources?"

There were statistics for unemployment AS WELL AS INCREASE IN JOBS. So, the question still stands, you didn't read the website, did you ?!

quote:"Showing that Bush is equal or worse than Kerry. Is that concept totally lost on you?"

Nope. And I still don't agree. Bush's character is what it all really boils down to. Kerry is so wishy washy that it is hard to see any sort of inspiring character in him. Basically, all you're saying is that no matter what I say, you are going to argue with it, because you are a materialist/socialist, and I am a Christian. You never clearly made your point that you had not intention of voting for Kerry, which is what I was led to believe, based on your Bush Bashing, and lack of information about your opinion on Nader. I don't think it matters who votes for Nader, because he won't get the Presidency. I think voters have a responsibility to contribute to the voting of candidates who actually have a shot. Since Nader doesn't, to vote for him is moot, and is pretty irresponsible, in opinion. If you vote Nader, you might as well not vote at all. (I like Nader, but he doesn't have a shot)

quote:"You keep replying with things that I have already refuted, you keep saying that I'm ignoring you evidence when I have not. The only logical conclusion is that you're either a moron, lazy or that you have a vision impediment."

And since you're relying solely on misconceptions here, I'd venture to say you're actually a really nice guy. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by dearestnight_falcon:



If that isn't absolute proof, I don't know what is... every side claims the media is against them.

I didn't say the media was against anyone (except Bush *lol*)...what I did say is that they are pretty liberal in their reporting techniques, and they lean towards the left. It is very obvious, and if you'd like, I can post MANY instances of this. Only with your permission, of course...that way, no one will get offended when I post something large.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Its more what you used to do... filling the whole first page up with threads :P

It was sorta overkill, and no one would have time to respond to them all.

Previously posted:

quote:As much as I dislike Digital_Savior's posting habits, I'm not going to lie, I get bloody worked up about this sort of stuff, and am probably more nasty then she is in this instance.

It sounded as though that were a "present-tense" opinion to me. I haven't posted like I did in the beginning in a LONG time.

quote:And yeah, the sheer volume of text is a little large, but I guess that can't be helped.

I apologize for that. Read them if you have time, but if you don't, they aren't really directed at you, so no worries. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

As I said, I try not to post uninformed opinions...especially those that I cannot back up with actual data. I would be ridiculed for it...

Though when I do post references, I get ridiculed for that, too. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Bishop, any response from your pastor yet ? I am interested in hearing whether his opinion has changed or not.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



*LAUGHS* !!!!

Did you smash your keyboard with your head in order to produce such an idiotic response?

I said, "even if we take that as true..." (that being, that I only gave my feeble opinion).

Reading is fundamental. You should learn how to do it correctly. You being given lessons by someone who doesn't have English as his first language, is pathetic on your part. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



quote:Yeah, because you relied heavily on that aspect of my posts ONLY. Which would indicate one of two things: that you either ignored the rest, or you can't refute any of them...just like you didn't refute the unemployment facts by saying "they don't matter". A President's ENTIRE track record matters, and I believe that would include the nation's unemployment.



It doesn't matter when trying to prove a net gain in jobs, because once again, umeployment figures don't prove that!

If you want to use them to show how good Bush is, hurray! But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there has not been a net gain in jobs, which is a fact!

quote:If the people who "aren't actively looking for employment" aren't being taken into consideration, who the hell cares ? Can't just sit around on your duff and expect to have the same rights as the rest of the hard working Americans in this country. If you are disabled, you get a check. If you are able-bodied, why aren't you looking for work ?

Can't you see the problem with that? That clearly means unemployment figures are flawed when considering a deficit or net gain in jobs or when considering the effect of a President as a whole.

90% of the U.S. could be unemployed, but if all of them had been unemployed for more than 6 months, then you could claim the unemployment rate is 0%! The U.S. must be in good shape in that case, right? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Never said it did. In that statement I was pointing out that the reasons for you attacking Bush's competency were not valid, since Kerry is guilty of the same offences.

1. My goal was to show how Bush was equal or worse to Kerry, if you claim Bush has comitted those offences, just as Kerry has, then I suceeded.

2. Kerry did not do coccaine, and he did not drive drunk.

quote:It appears that it is YOU who doesn't know how to read, not me. I didn't say I had posted net gain statistics for jobs. I said that the information you were looking for was located on the website I provided, which is why I know you didn't look at it. It's there, plain as day, for anyone to see. Put a little effort into your hostility, would ya ?

Sorry but the burden is on you to "put an effort". I don't have to do shit because it is you who claimed he had a net gain in jobs.

quote:Uhhh...yes I do. *lol* What a jerk you are ! You trip on your own words, and don't even know it. The majority of the jobs that were lost during the Bush administration occured because of the events of 9/11. You tell ME how ANYONE could have kept us from falling into a recession ? Use your head. Since then, net gain in jobs HAS INCREASED. Again, I say look at the website. *sighs*

A net gain that DOESN'T EXIST, "increased"? What a joke.

You mean that there was an increase in jobs. That IS NOT THE SAME as a net increase.

Once again I ask, do you know what "net increase" means?

quote:There were statistics for unemployment AS WELL AS INCREASE IN JOBS. So, the question still stands, you didn't read the website, did you ?!

See above. An increase in jobs is not the same as a net increase.

quote:

And since you're relying solely on misconceptions here, I'd venture to say you're actually a really nice guy. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

What misconceptions? Again, you keep bringing things up I already refuted, hence you're either a moron, lazy or blind. There are no other answers, that is it.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-27-2004).]

quote:Did you smash your keyboard with your head in order to produce such an idiotic response?

It is so sad that you can't even see that you contradicted yourself. I laughed, because I felt it was sufficient. You had already made yourself appear to be incapable of congruant thought.

quote:I said, "even if we take that as true..." (that being, that I only gave my feeble opinion).

[quote][b]Reading is fundamental. You should learn how to do it correctly. You being given lessons by someone who doesn't have English as his first language, is pathetic on your part.

The pot calling the kettle black. Your use of the English language is astounding. Look at that fantastic display of vocabulary, and grammatical usage ! Do you think you are really hurting my feelings ? Don't you recognize that everyone else is reading your posts as well, and they can clearly see who is the more educated (or even cognizant) of the two of us ?

This is not a competition. It is not about who is smarter than the other person, and you were the first and only individual who resorted to using personal jabs, which is a clear sign that you don't have a valid point.

quote:It doesn't matter when trying to prove a net gain in jobs, because once again, umeployment figures don't prove that!

And once again, you are proving your inability to comprehend the text presented. I didn't say that unemployment figures represented a net gain in JOBS. I told you to look at the website that you obviously didn't look at, because both statistics were provided.

Shall I say it one more time ?

quote:If you want to use them to show how good Bush is, hurray! But I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that there has not been a net gain in jobs, which is a fact!

And you're ignorant. READ THE WEBSITE. It is an official government site, dedicated towards the reporting of economic status based on statistics.

There has been a net gain in jobs. In the healthcare industry, as well as the farm industry.

quote:Can't you see the problem with that? That clearly means unemployment figures are flawed when considering a deficit or net gain in jobs or when considering the effect of a President as a whole.

Of course I see a problem with it. I see a problem with lazy ass Americans whining about how their unemployment check has run out.

I cannot tell you how many ways I have survived this life, but some include being unemployed because of the events of 9/11. EVERY BUSINESS WAS CLOSING. I exhausted my unemployment money, because there really WERE NO JOBS. Things have changed dramatically since 2001...for the better.

When the jobs were available, I had no problem getting one.

And since the jobs have increased in number, and are available to anyone, there really is no excuse for someone not to be actively looking for work. (aside from disability)

But I don't believe this bears a correlation to the effectiveness of our President. I believe it reflects the complete apathy the American people have fallen under, as a whole.

quote:90% of the U.S. could be unemployed, but if all of them had been unemployed for more than 6 months, then you could claim the unemployment rate is 0%! The U.S. must be in good shape in that case, right?

No...they are still being shown in the graphs as being unemployed. When a person that is unemployed begins to work legally, it is registered in many different government databases (primarily, the IRS). Since the population is counted on a monthly basis, it is reasonable to assume that when the unemployed (past 6 months) begin to work, the statistics begin to reflect an increase in the number of employed individuals. In this case, the unemployment statistics would inevitably decrease. This is strictly based on the population of the US. It's simple math and subtraction.

quote:1. My goal was to show how Bush was equal or worse to Kerry, if you claim Bush has comitted those offences, just as Kerry has, then I suceeded.

But for me, it becomes a question of motive, and morality. I believe that Bush is human. I believe he has, and WILL make mistakes, just like anyone else on the planet.

But are those mistakes for self gain ? Are they intentionally evil ?

Kerry's track record would indicate that he is only out for himself, and doesn't much care what lengths he must go to in order to achieve maximum comfort and happiness.

I can't see how someone with this mentality could be an effective President. You ahve to be virtually SELFLESS (in a perfect world). I believe Bush is a genuinely good man, and that he is more capable of this than Kerry is. And since the election is really down to those two, Bush would be the better candidate, by this rationale.

quote:2. Kerry did not do coccaine, and he did not drive drunk.

Nope...you're right. At least not that we can prove anyway, and I believe I gave supporting evidence that there was nothing solid against Bush regarding the cocaine charges. It's still speculation. "Innocent until proven guilty", remember ?

But Kerry abandoned his shipmates during a war when they needed him. He was impossible to work with, and his chain of command detested him. He was lazy, and self-important, and cared very little for the welfare of the "team".

He has yet to disclose his entire service record from his military service, which would indicate he has something to hide.

He lied about events that occured in Vietnam while he was serving there, and all but one of his "band of brother's" has testified to this.

His moral character makes him unfit for command.

quote:Sorry but the burden is on you to "put an effort". I don't have to do shit because it is you who claimed he had a net gain in jobs.

I have put more effort into this thread than anyone else. The research I have done in providing supporting evidence for my belief that Bush is the better candidate for Presidency proves this.

You have given nothing but opinions, danced around your true intentions for arguing, and really haven't contributed anything of value at all.

You're right..."you don't have to do shit". And you have reminded us of that repeatedly with your hollow reply's.

quote:A net gain that DOESN'T EXIST, "increased"? What a joke.

Is it really so painful to educate yourself on what is really going on ? Just give it a try. For posterity. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:You mean that there was an increase in jobs. That IS NOT THE SAME as a net increase.

Once again I ask, do you know what "net increase" means?

Net gain is what is remaining after all deductions have been made, as for expenses.

I still don't see how this is not an accurate representation of the fact that the amount of jobs has increased, not decreased, which is the most important aspect of this conversation, according to you.

quote:See above. An increase in jobs is not the same as a net increase.

Read above. Your point is moot, and uninformed.

quote:What misconceptions? Again, you keep bringing things up I already refuted, hence you're either a moron, lazy or blind. There are no other answers, that is it.

You are a walking misconception. The fact that you can't see it...*shrugs*

Again, you didn't refute anything. *laughs*

Yep...I'm a moron, lazy, AND blind !

Pretty accomplished, for a mongoloid.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 08-27-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

It is so sad that you can't even see that you contradicted yourself. I laughed, because I felt it was sufficient. You had already made yourself appear to be incapable of congruant thought.

Tell me, how did I contradict myself? You make these baseless an errouneus allegations all the time. Never have I seen you back them up.

Once again, what I claimed was not true was your allegation that I 'merely stated a feeble opinion'. THAT was not true. I was not stating that the evidence was not true, hence how did I contradict myself?



quote:The pot calling the kettle black. Your use of the English language is astounding. Look at that fantastic display of vocabulary, and grammatical usage !

Yes, my English skills are lacking, but I can say for a certainty that they are better than yours. At least, I know how to read and conprehend, something you've shown time and time again you cannot. (e.g. See above)

quote:And once again, you are proving your inability to comprehend the text presented. I didn't say that unemployment figures represented a net gain in JOBS. I told you to look at the website that you obviously didn't look at, because both statistics were provided.

Shall I say it one more time



You just said this: "Over the past year, the gross domestic product has grown by 4.8 per cent, among the fastest rates in 20 years, and the economy has shown a net gain of about 1.5 million jobs."

While only providing a source of unemployment figures.

You either provided an irrelevant source (i.e. unemployment figures) or you were claiming that unemployment figures proved a net gain in jobs.

Which one is it?

quote:And you're ignorant. READ THE WEBSITE. It is an official government site, dedicated towards the reporting of economic status based on statistics.

There has been a net gain in jobs. In the healthcare industry, as well as the farm industry.

I have always been talking about the US as a whole not jobs in one sector.



quote:

But I don't believe this bears a correlation to the effectiveness of our President. I believe it reflects the complete apathy the American people have fallen under, as a whole.

YOU were using the unemployment figures to praise Bush, if they are flawed, if they don't present a clear picture, then how the hell can you present a praise?

Once again, there has not been a net gain in jobs, hence nothing to praise Bush about.

quote:No...they are still being shown in the graphs as being unemployed. When a person that is unemployed begins to work legally, it is registered in many different government databases (primarily, the IRS). Since the population is counted on a monthly basis, it is reasonable to assume that when the unemployed (past 6 months) begin to work, the statistics begin to reflect an increase in the number of employed individuals. In this case, the unemployment statistics would inevitably decrease. This is strictly based on the population of the US. It's simple math and subtraction

The point, which you missed, is that unemployement figures wouldn't show the real number of unemployed individuals in the U.S. even if 90% of the US was unemployed!

THAT'S how flawed they are!

quote:But for me, it becomes a question of motive, and morality. I believe that Bush is human. I believe he has, and WILL make mistakes, just like anyone else on the planet.



So can Kerry. Your point is therefore moot.

You either apply this rational to both, or none.

quote:But are those mistakes for self gain ? Are they intentionally evil ?

Starting a war without enough evidence, lying about it, and killing 12,000 people is not "evil" to you?

quote:Kerry's track record would indicate that he is only out for himself, and doesn't much care what lengths he must go to in order to achieve maximum comfort and happiness.

Yes, and Bush isn't. The no-bid contracts for Haliburton and the like are just fairy tales...

quote:You have given nothing but opinions, danced around your true intentions for arguing, and really haven't contributed anything of value at all.

You're right..."you don't have to do shit". And you have reminded us of that repeatedly with your hollow reply's.



Once again, "I don't have to do shit" because it is YOU who are making the claims. So back them up or shut up.

quote:Is it really so painful to educate yourself on what is really going on ? Just give it a try. For posterity.

This coming from someone who thinks something that doesn't exist, 'increased'? http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)



quote:Net gain is what is remaining after all deductions have been made, as for expenses.

I still don't see how this is not an accurate representation of the fact that the amount of jobs has increased, not decreased, which is the most important aspect of this conversation, according to you.



NOW we're getting somewhere.

For there to be a deficit in jobs, it means that the amount of jobs DECREASED. Not increased. That speaks badly of Bush.

Yes, jobs are now being created... after he lost millions of them. He lost so many, that in November, he will have less Jobs than he started with. Something that has not happened for decades! THAT'S why it speaks badly of Bush.

quote:Read above. Your point is moot, and uninformed.

How the hell is it moot? It clearly speaks badly of a President, when he ends up with less jobs than what he started with.

quote:You are a walking misconception. The fact that you can't see it...*shrugs*

Again, you didn't refute anything. *laughs*

Yep...I'm a moron, lazy, AND blind !

Pretty accomplished, for a mongoloid.



You forgot "pretentious-whore"... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-27-2004).]

Well, you just talked your way out of any future debating with me.

You cross the line, just like the rest of the pagans.

Grow up.

I'll admit, I may have crossed the line with the "whore" bit, but "prententious" was right on the money.

A pity you don't want to debate anymore, I was looking forward to seeing squirm when explaining how there supposedly was a net increase in jobs...

quote:just like the rest of the pagans

nice...

Other than Sniper Piper, Bishop, I haven't seen any Christians on here calling other people retarded, or a douche bag, or moronic.

HAVE YOU ?

If you'd like a list of names and their supposed pagan affiliation, I'd be more than happy to comprise one for you.

The personal jabs are unecessary, and do nothing to add to the atmosphere of Totse.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

I'll admit, I may have crossed the line with the "whore" bit, but "prententious" was right on the money.

A pity you don't want to debate anymore, I was looking forward to seeing squirm when explaining how there supposedly was a net increase in jobs...

There wouldn't be any squirming, because I already told you where to look for the info. if you don't even know the statistics, it isn't worth debating about, because you are still ignorant of the facts.

So, have a nice day.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

There wouldn't be any squirming, because I already told you where to look for the info. if you don't even know the statistics, it isn't worth debating about, because you are still ignorant of the facts.

So, have a nice day.

... and I already told you that it is YOU who have to provide that information. The burden of proof falls on YOU, not me!

I know the statistics, that's why I'm confident that you cannot provide them. You not providing them, and in effect saying "you look for them", just serves to support my position.

And you think I'm not justified in saying you don't read...

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=action.election&item=petition_flash

funny stuff

That was awesome, and exactly right on.

Thanks for the laugh !

many people i know from church are pro-bush conservative shitheads. the first thing they say when they talk about why they support bush is, "he's a Christian and all Christians should support each other." i remember afew years ago when a democrate was running for senate in my state and he claimed to be a Christian and had alot of support from his church (and others), but the people at the church i know were like, "well im not sure i want to vote for him."the other candidates never claimed to be Christians.

this seems to be similar to your pastor Bishop. the church that i know ppl from is a baptist church and they talk alot of stuff about how other christians are "corrupt" and whatnot, does this sound familiar to u? i heard something interesting the other day which was: "perhaps its time we stop living like Christians and start living like Christ."

something else thats pretty interesting:

It was a beautiful Sunday morning. People were filling the church to its fullest capacity! As they entered, each were given a bulletin filled with announcements, topic of today's sermon, what songs they would sing and who to pray for. At the end of the line stood an older man. His clothes were filthy and you could tell that he had not bathed in days. His face was covered in whiskers where he had not shaved for a very long time. When he reached the usher, he removed his tattered old brown hat in

respect. His hair was a long, dirty, tangled mess. He had no shoes on his feet, and wore only soiled, black socks.

The usher put his fingers to his nose and glared at the old man and said, "Uh, I'm sorry sir, but I'm afraid we can't let you in. You will distract the congregation and we don't allow anyone to disrupt our service. I'm afraid you'll have to leave."

The old man looked down at himself and with a puzzled look on his face, he placed his old brown hat back upon his head and turned to leave. He was sad as he loved to hear the choir sing praises to the Lord. He loved to watch the little children get up in front of the church to sing their little songs. He carried in his pocket a small worn out Bible and loved to see if the minister preached a passage from the Bible that the old man had underlined. He was respectful enough and didn't want to cause

any commotion, so he hung down his head and walked back down the steps of the big brick church. He sat down on the brick wall near the edge of the church yard and strained to listen through closed doors and windows to the singing going

on in the church. Oh how he wished he could be inside with all the others. A few minutes had passed by when all of a sudden a younger man came up behind him and sat down near him. He asked the old man what he was doing. He answered, "I was going to go to church today, but they thought I was filthy and my clothes are old and worn, and they were afraid I would

disrupt their service. Sorry, I didn't introduce myself. My name is George." The two gentlemen shook hands and George couldn't help but notice that this man had long hair like his. He wore a piece of cloth draped over his body tied with a royal purple sash. He had sandals upon his feet, now covered with dust and dirt. The stranger reached out to touch George's shoulder and said, "Hello, George, don't feel bad because they won't let you in. My name is Jesus, and I've been trying to get into this same church for years, and they won't let me in either." --author unknown

[This message has been edited by soul flayer (edited 08-29-2004).]

Jesus isn't good enough for a lot of churches these days. The religious right has become the pharisees of the new testament.

Good luck with life, Digital_Savior, i'll see you in the afterlife.

Gasp... don't tell me we just missed the rapture?!?!?!?!

Can u seriously see a dirty, wild eyed Jew with crazy socialist ideas fitting into many churches?

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Jesus isn't good enough for a lot of churches these days.

That is so... so... sad, yet true. http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/frown.gif)

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

The religious right has become the pharisees of the new testament.



thats a good way to put it

btw, still no reply from that pastor?

[This message has been edited by soul flayer (edited 08-30-2004).]