ricco67 Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Cinco, Previous to his presidency, and a HALF of a term as a Governor of a state in which he has no real power, can you name his prior experience being relevent to a president? For the past several DECADES, every president has been a politician for most of their adult life dating back to Eisenhower, and even HE was a *5* star general!While, I'm not a fan of Kerry, he has more experience now to be President than George W. did when he first started running back in '99.Kerry has been in a war, been in various states of office since the Mid-70's and has been part of several Intelligence and oversight committe's. Sorry, that kind of experience beats George W's, Business background he touted when he was here in Texas. Let's not forget his Drunken and drug use during and after his college days (both well documented).Let's not also forget, before 9/11, he was being bashed by his domestic AND foreign policies. Both haven't changed much since 9/11 except for a couple of wars and invasions. Now...tell me again HOW George W. would be a better president than Kerry?Ricco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 4, 2004 Author Share Posted September 4, 2004 I guess your right on some parts, Ricco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Cinco, Previous to his presidency, and a HALF of a term as a Governor of a state in which he has no real power, can you name his prior experience being relevent to a president? For the past several DECADES, every president has been a politician for most of their adult life dating back to Eisenhower, and even HE was a *5* star general!While, I'm not a fan of Kerry, he has more experience now to be President than George W. did when he first started running back in '99.Kerry has been in a war, been in various states of office since the Mid-70's and has been part of several Intelligence and oversight committe's. Sorry, that kind of experience beats George W's, Business background he touted when he was here in Texas. Let's not forget his Drunken and drug use during and after his college days (both well documented).Let's not also forget, before 9/11, he was being bashed by his domestic AND foreign policies. Both haven't changed much since 9/11 except for a couple of wars and invasions. Now...tell me again HOW George W. would be a better president than Kerry?Ricco<{POST_SNAPBACK}>So what about drugs in college, who hasn't atleast tried them before? Anyone ever heard of peer presure? God, everyone is so quick to point fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houstonrush Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 I haven't tried them and most of my friends have not either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbanLandscape Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 I haven't tried them and most of my friends have not either.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I haven't, but I know a lot of people who used to. In fact, one guy I know did so much in high school that he caused permanent brain damage. He constantly loses his van. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 College stuff doesn't bother me in the least, but you misunderstood what I was saying. He drank and used drugs extensively AFTER college, he didn't really sober up (I think) until the mid 70's or 80's.Then we give clinton a hard time for "not inhaling."THAT is what I'm refering to. Mild drinking is almost a rite of passage during college, the same with SOME drugs. But after that, people should know better. Ricco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CincoRanch-HoustonResident Posted September 4, 2004 Author Share Posted September 4, 2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 I suppose you supports Marion Berry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepsouthtexas Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Let's not forget that the worst terrorist attack occured under Bush's watch. They had box cutters for crying out loud. So how can Bush say he's tough on terror? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepsouthtexas Posted September 4, 2004 Share Posted September 4, 2004 Medicare premiums to rise by 17%. This is bad news for Bush seeing how the elderly and the aarp go out to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 deepsouthtexas sez:Let's not forget that the worst terrorist attack occured under Bush's watch. They had box cutters for crying out loud. So how can Bush say he's tough on terror?In all honesty, the terror attack wasn't entirely GW's fault. The airlines have been fighting, kicking and screaming about more stringent security since the REAGAN years. Their argument was that it would slow down and inconvience people, etcetcetc...It was the governments that caved in to the airline lobby for letting them have their moronic reasons for lax security since the 80's.Ricco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Medicare premiums to rise by 17%. This is bad news for Bush seeing how the elderly and the aarp go out to vote.Well, that will make Florida even more confused this NOV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 In all honesty, the terror attack wasn't entirely GW's fault. Really? Because I thought the 9/11 attack was entirely George W. Bush's fault. Thanks Ricco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Actually, grade inflation is a well known problem at Harvard and Yale. I'm not making this up. A few years ago it was found that 89% of Harvard students graduate with some sort of honor. Both schools have in the past been notorious for the proportion of students earning A's or B's (presumably because of the high status of students and contributions of their families), and have in the past few years been trying to do something about it. My alma mater (U. of Chicago) perpetually made fun of the Ivy Leagues for handing out A's (although Chicago has a bit of a chip on its shoulder).The Bushes were a prominent New England family of original Yankee stock, who can trace several famous people (including I believe George Washington) on their family tree. Bush's dad was a Yale alum, and a member of Congress at the time his son got accepted.This is not intended as an argument for or against Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 College stuff doesn't bother me in the least, but you misunderstood what I was saying. He drank and used drugs extensively AFTER college, he didn't really sober up (I think) until the mid 70's or 80's.Then we give clinton a hard time for "not inhaling."THAT is what I'm refering to. Mild drinking is almost a rite of passage during college, the same with SOME drugs. But after that, people should know better. Ricco<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Um, Hence the fact it was the 70s... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Let's not forget that the worst terrorist attack occured under Bush's watch. They had box cutters for crying out loud. So how can Bush say he's tough on terror?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Just because the people at the air port didn't catch it, mean it was bush's fault. Why don't we blame every bad thing on the president of the time. Gosh darn Aberham licoln and his Civil war, its all his fault, because hes the one who let the union fall apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 The seperation of Church and State is addressed in the First Amendment of the Constitution, and I quote:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."The establishment clause calls for the seperation of Church and State. The free exercise clause prevents government interference with the practice of religion. Don't even bother arguing about it with me; take it up with the Supreme Court. While the words "seperation of church and state" do not literally appear in the Constitution, the intent is there. It was Thomas Jefferson who argued for "a wall of seperation between Church and State." It has served our country well, and we will not allow the current crop of religious nuts to take away our freedoms.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Separation of church and state is an often misunderstood thing. The goal of the framers of our Constitution was to prevent there being any sort of alliance between the new government and a religion; religion meaning a human institution characterized by certain beliefs about divinity. This was the case in Europe, where the Catholic clergy often mixed seamlessly with the nobility. What separation of church and state does not mean is that people should be prevented from expressing their faith through actions of government, when their faith tells them that this is necessary. So for example, the faith of many Americans tells them that the human being is sacred, even when an individual has done wrong. Hence, our country does not practice or condone torture. Our opposition to torture comes from this view of humanity as being sacred, as do all of our rights, and this view of humanity comes from religion. It may have been expressed at some point in non-religious terms, but trust me, it would never have arisen without religious faith.The same thing is true for many other laws, as well as symbolic actions such as putting "In God We Trust" on coins. The fact is, if we were to practice our government entirely without reference to God, it would still endorse a belief - that of atheism. You can't have it both ways. Think about it. Either you believe that the world is governed by God, or you don't. If you do believe so, why would you ever try to conduct something as mind-boggling as the government of a nation without His help? Why would you make laws affecting millions of people without mulling over what you think He would want? To decide laws and form policies without considering God's wishes already assumes an atheistic mindset. If the majority of our population ever becomes atheist, then I imagine our government will take on an atheistic character. But in the meantime, we can base our decisions on our faith in God without allying the state with a religion, and so we can thus have a "nation under God" while still maintaining "separation of church and state." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 hmm, And unless you've spoken to god, or "found" him, let me know, I have been looking for him all my life...<{POST_SNAPBACK}>He's probably been looking for you all your life.The best advice I can give for anyone who has not found God, and wants to, are these three mysterious words: "humble your heart." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Separation of church and state is an often misunderstood thing. The goal of the framers of our Constitution was to prevent there being any sort of alliance between the new government and a religion; religion meaning a human institution characterized by certain beliefs about divinity. This was the case in Europe, where the Catholic clergy often mixed seamlessly with the nobility. What separation of church and state does not mean is that people should be prevented from expressing their faith through actions of government, when their faith tells them that this is necessary. So for example, the faith of many Americans tells them that the human being is sacred, even when an individual has done wrong. Hence, our country does not practice or condone torture. Our opposition to torture comes from this view of humanity as being sacred, as do all of our rights, and this view of humanity comes from religion. It may have been expressed at some point in non-religious terms, but trust me, it would never have arisen without religious faith.The same thing is true for many other laws, as well as symbolic actions such as putting "In God We Trust" on coins. The fact is, if we were to practice our government entirely without reference to God, it would still endorse a belief - that of atheism. You can't have it both ways. Think about it. Either you believe that the world is governed by God, or you don't. If you do believe so, why would you ever try to conduct something as mind-boggling as the government of a nation without His help? Why would you make laws affecting millions of people without mulling over what you think He would want? To decide laws and form policies without considering God's wishes already assumes an atheistic mindset. If the majority of our population ever becomes atheist, then I imagine our government will take on an atheistic character. But in the meantime, we can base our decisions on our faith in God without allying the state with a religion, and so we can thus have a "nation under God" while still maintaining "separation of church and state."<{POST_SNAPBACK}>I love this post, and your a very wise person H Town Man...But I think "Seperation of Church and state" also means, that, if the goverment should take an action (even if it oposses god, or disrupts a sin) its for the "best". Because, if the goverment was religious, do you think we would be what we are today? We wouldn't have an army, only to prectect us, and it just wouldn't be what it is today. I think if your a leader, should be because you can make decisions based on the best possible outcome, even if it means breaking a sin, law, or moral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbanLandscape Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Because, if the goverment was religious, do you think we would be what we are today? We wouldn't have an army, only to prectect us, and it just wouldn't be what it is today.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Oh, we'd have an army. It'd be very similar to Islamic terrorists, only in the "name" of Christ, bastardizing everything I believe in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepsouthtexas Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Just because the people at the air port didn't catch it, mean it was bush's fault. Why don't we blame every bad thing on the president of the time. Gosh darn Aberham licoln and his Civil war, its all his fault, because hes the one who let the union fall apart.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Hey, that's fine as long as Bush doesn't take credit for every suspected terrorist that is caught. Oh but then he'd have nothing to campaign on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbanLandscape Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Oh but then he'd have nothing to campaign on.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>What are you talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deepsouthtexas Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 What are you talking about?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>It should be obvious. His whole campaign revolves around the war on terror. So he'll gladly take credit for all those terrorists that have been caught. But when it comes to blaming somebody for the lapse in security, he'll point the finger at anybody but himself. I really don't think security is any better than it was before Sept. 11. Bush himself even admitted that the war on terror couldn't be won. It's no wonder that ex-CIA boss and scapegoat George Tenet believes that the mainland will be hit again. People wonder if the White House forced Tenet to resign, but I think he got out while the getting was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Montrose, Simply because it was the 70's doesn't offer a free ride to use drugs. Especially if they're going damn the other person for even TRYING Them. You have to be consistent in your beliefs for yourself as well as others. Again, Bush did some serious drinking AND drugs during the 70's, after he was out of college. What makes it so hard to understand? Truly, montrose, I thought you were more intelligent than that. Am I mis-stating myself on this matter?Ricco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Onto the next subject:I love it how we don't give Clinton any credit for his 8 years of economic growth, they give it to Bush Sr.When the economy Tanks, they Blame Clinton.When the economy improves, they Give credit to GW. I can understand how it takes YEARS for an economic plan to come together and take root (if things go well) so can an economic plan come together in under 4 years or not?Ricco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Cinco, Was your smiley-face is an indiction that THAT was your response to my argument, or are you simply stalling for a counter argument?Ricco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbaNerd Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Maybe he shared a drink with W once! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UrbanLandscape Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Onto the next subject:I love it how we don't give Clinton any credit for his 8 years of economic growth, they give it to Bush Sr.When the economy Tanks, they Blame Clinton.When the economy improves, they Give credit to GW. I can understand how it takes YEARS for an economic plan to come together and take root (if things go well) so can an economic plan come together in under 4 years or not?Ricco<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Others credit Clinton with the "booming" (and very unstable) 90s economy and blame Bush for the recession.Why are we crediting or blaming the Presidents for the economy's state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmancuso Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 Others credit Clinton with the "booming" (and very unstable) 90s economy and blame Bush for the recession.Why are we crediting or blaming the Presidents for the economy's state?we shouln't. but the masses are asses and will pin the economic situation on the president. good or bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted September 5, 2004 Share Posted September 5, 2004 I'm not arguing about it, per se, but rather just pointing out how quickly we are to distribute credit and blame on various causes when it suits them. Ricco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.