Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

He won’t make many serious economic reforms. In areas other than the environment, he is in support of the status quo, or possibly returning to what the status quo was before Bush (making him a reactionary).

I disagree. Kerry will do two things that are serious economic reforms.     He will provide for a permanent payroll tax relief so that consumerists like us will buy more.     He will rollback tax cuts on those 1% of the people that make over $200,000 and make most of the Gross National Product earnings. Corporations will no longer be shielded from paying no taxes at all.     This is just what Clinton did to reverse the damage done by Bush Sr. History will repeat itself.

Response:

But then flip-flopping is nothing new.   George Bush the father set the standard years before Bush Jr. and Clinton.   Bush Sr. flip flopped on just about every issue throughout his career.   The son is just following in dads footsteps.     —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

I’m tired of hearing what a great candidate this jackass is. He’s a fucking conservative claiming to be a democrat.

Kerry is not a coservative.   The republicans charge him as being more liberal than Ted Kennedy.  There is no way you can call Kerry conservative.   —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

I’m tired of hearing what a great candidate this jackass is. He’s a fucking conservative claiming to be a democrat. Kerry is not a coservative.   The republicans charge him as being more liberal than Ted Kennedy.  There is no way you can call Kerry conservative.  

The Republicans charge EVERY Democrat presidential candidate with being more liberal than Ted Kennedy. It is STANDARD for presidential campaigns, and was said about Gore, about Clinton, about Dukakis, and so on. It’s one of their favorite tactics. Doesn’t in any way make it true. He is a conservative. He won’t make many serious economic reforms. In areas other than the environment, he is in support of the status quo, or possibly returning to what the status quo was before Bush (making him a reactionary). – theoneflasehaddock

Response:

I LOVE this article.  I read it a few days ago.  Thanks for posting it, Fang.  =) MB, SW — "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" ~ Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Urban VIII,  "Sparrow’s Wench" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Errr…Flase…you know Newsmax is a hardcore conservative site?  There’s alot of talk right now about Kerry being a "flip flopper".  That’s EXACTLY what the Bush campaign is trying to do.  And, sadly, too many people are believing it.  Buzz words work.  The Bushites know that. Regarding "flip flopping". Here’s an interesting article from Slate.com, addressing certain flip-floppers in goverment: http://slate.msn.com/id/2098177 All the President’s Suckers Flip-flopping is the last stage of trusting Bush. By William Saletan Posted Friday, April 2, 2004, at 12:41 PM PT "The [Democratic] candidates are an interesting group, with diverse

opinions: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA, and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In

favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that’s just one senator from Massachusetts." I laughed the first time I heard President Bush tell that joke. Then, as

he told it again and again, I began to think I’d heard it before. Not from Bush, but from somebody else. Finally I

remembered: It’s the litany Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich kept repeating in the Democratic presidential primaries. Here’s

the version Dean delivered on Feb. 17: A year ago, the Democrats were falling all over each other to vote for the

war in Iraq. They sure don’t talk like that now. A year ago, the Democrats were accepting reckless budget deficits and

huge tax cuts that mortgage our children’s futures. They don’t talk like that any more. A year ago, they were

adopting the president’s education policies, which leave every child behind. They all voted for it, but they don’t support it

anymore. Some of them even adopted the phony Medicare bill, which gives more money to HMOs and insurance companies and

drug companies than it does to seniors. But they don’t talk like that anymore. Kucinich made the same points, throwing in NAFTA and the Patriot Act.

What’s interesting about this critique, in retrospect, is that it didn’t apply just to John Kerry. Dean was talking

about John Edwards, Dick Gephardt, and lots of other congressional Democrats. They were all flip-floppers. What’s with all the weak backbones? Is it a Democratic establishment

disease? No, that can’t be it. John DiIulio has the same problem. He’s the guy the White House recruited to run the

"faith-based and community initiatives" Bush promised in 2000. DiIulio quit in August 2001. A year later, he faulted the

administration for caring more about politics than policy. "In eight months, I heard many, many staff discussions, but not

three meaningful, substantive policy discussions," he recalled. The result was "a virtual absence as yet of any

policy accomplishments that might, to a fair-minded nonpartisan, count as the flesh on the bones of so-called

compassionate conservatism." In short, DiIulio felt conned. How did the White House respond? According to Newsweek,

"Officials cast aspersions on . DiIulio’s truthfulness." DiIulio had a credibility problem: He had helped the

administration but now criticized it. He was a flip-flopper. Then came Paul O’Neill. He was fired as Bush’s Treasury secretary in 2002

after opposing the administration’s third package of budget-busting tax cuts. In Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty,

O’Neill described his dismay as an administration he had expected to practice sound economics indulged

instead in political protectionism and runaway deficits. He felt conned. How did the White House respond? Bush noted that

O’Neill had "worked together" with him for two years on economic policy. Meanwhile, Bush’s spokesman shrugged that

the disgruntled ex-secretary was retroactively "trying to justify personal views." O’Neill had a credibility problem: He

had helped the administration but now criticized it. He was a flip-flopper. Now comes Richard Clarke. He decided to leave his post as U.S.

counterterrorism coordinator three months before 9/11 because the White House, despite assurances to the contrary, wasn’t

treating al-Qaida as an urgent threat. In a book and in public testimony last week, he said so. He felt conned. How did the

White House respond? It outed Clarke for having defended Bush’s counterterrorism policies, as instructed, in a 2002

briefing that the White House had declared off the record at the time. Bush’s national security adviser asked reporters

"which of [Clarke's] stories is he going to stand by," since "he’s got a record of having said something very different."

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., noting that Clarke had praised Bush in congressional testimony when he

still worked for the administration, charged that Clarke had "told two entirely different stories under oath." In the words

of Bush’s spokesman, Clarke had a "credibility problem." He had helped the administration but now criticized it. He was a flip-flopper. What do all these flip-floppers have in common? Not subject matter:

DiIulio worked on social policy, O’Neill on economics, Clarke on national security. Not party: Kerry, Edwards, and

Gephardt are Democrats; O’Neill is a Republican; Clarke worked for President Reagan and both Bushes as well as for

President Clinton. The only thing they have in common is that they all cooperated with this administration before deciding

they’d been conned. Flip-flopping, it turns out, is the final stage of trusting George W. Bush. That’s how Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt got whiplash. They supported tax

cuts in 2001 when Bush challenged them to give back some of the surplus. Then the surplus vanished, Bush demanded more

tax cuts, and they decided they’d been conned. They supported Bush’s "No Child Left Behind" education bill in 2001. Then

the administration withheld money for it, and they decided they’d been conned. They supported the Patriot Act after 9/11

when Bush urged them to trust law enforcement. Then the Justice Department took liberties with its new

powers, and they decided they’d been conned. They voted for a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq after the

administration promised to use the resolution as leverage toward U.N. action, reserving unilateral war as a last resort.

Then Bush ditched the United Nations and went to war, and they decided they’d been conned. When the administration offered them a supposedly $400 billion Medicare

bill stuffed with goodies for health insurers and drug companies, they said no. But lots of fiscally conservative House

Republicans said yes. Now, thanks to yet another flip-flopping Bush administration whistleblower, those Republicans

have discovered that the real bill, concealed by the White House, will be $150 billion higher than advertised. You don’t

have to be a Democrat to feel conned. Once you vote with Bush, serve in his cabinet, or spin for him in a

classified briefing, you’re trapped. If you change your mind, he’ll dredge up your friendly vote or testimony and use it to

discredit you. That’s what he’s doing now to all the politicians at home and abroad who fell for his exaggerations

about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "In Iraq, my administration looked at the intelligence information, and we saw a

threat," he tells audiences. "Members of Congress looked at the intelligence information, and they saw a threat. The United

Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence information, and it saw a threat." It’s too late to admit

that Bush is wrong and that you were fooled. You’re on record agreeing with him. He doesn’t even look dishonest when he

rebukes you, because, unlike the people who run his administration’s scams, he can’t tell the difference between what

he promised and what he delivered. Maybe the White House will get away with this chicanery. Maybe people will

believe its spin that flip-flopping is Kerry’s idiosyncrasy, not the Bush administration’s design. Or maybe some

of the folks who voted for Bush last time around will decide they were conned and throw him out. Flip-floppers, every one of them. William Saletan is Slate’s chief political correspondent and author of

Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – War.      War is Peace       Freedom is Slavery        Ignorance is Strength         Bush is President

Response:

Errr…Flase…you know Newsmax is a hardcore conservative site? The one thing conservative sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the democrats.    And the thing the liberal sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the republicans. But when it comes to defending themselves, both groups fail and lie.

Very true. I have seen almost no defending of ones beliefs in this election. Instead, nobody foccusses on Kerry. Either you’re for Bush, or you’re against him, seems the only consideration, and neither candidate has discussed what they support. – theoneflasehaddock

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – By all means, please, thoroughly examine potential Presidential candidates. They are, after all, going to be leading us for the next 4 years.  But please look at ALL the information.  Not just what the opposition to a candidate WANTS you to think.  Saying something nasty about someone is easy. Undoing the damage by telling the truth isn’t as exciting or scandalous as the 1/2 truth was.  It is in all our interests that we question everything in front of us though.  Especially right now.  Dig into it, examine it, research it.  Only then will the truth come shining through.  Not as exciting as the lies.  But the truth rarely is.  Thanks. Seriously, Kerry has done nothing of use. I’m sorry I chose a conservative site as a source. He’s been pretty quiet about what he’s done.  Np on the site.  Just didn’t know if you knew is all.  ;) I would love to see people post links to articles highlighting things he has done. Done.  ;) My criticism is how similar he is to Bush. He voted for many Bush initiatives… how stupid is he, saying after each one that he didn’t have the facts? They only get what information is presented to them.  Unfortunately.  And I’m thinking that after the stunts Bush has pulled, they’re not gonna be taking just his word for things in the future. He’s for the war in Iraq. Maybe he wants the U.N. involved, but he still has been for it from the start. He criticizes Bush not for attacking Iraq, but for making a deadline to start handing over power. I’ve actually read he is against the war, now that no WMD have been found. That war is based on lies.  Even Kerry’s speech (below) shows he was misinformed on the basis of this war.  He speaks of nuclear weapons and WMD, which we all know now was a lie: http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html Here’s how Kerry feels about the war now: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37751 He’s not for the war now that the truth has come out.  Can only base our decisions on the information at hand sometimes.

He says he’s against the war, but then when he explains that, he is for keeping the troops there for probably at least another year, I don’t really see that as against the war. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, Bush has been the worst president in the history of the U.S. I am not debating that. In fact, I will be voting for Kerry to get Bush out of power. But I refuse to be happy about Kerry. Yes, it could be worse, and after Kerry fucks everything up, we’ll have yet another Republican, after the backlash of his failed CONSERVATIVE policies. I hear you.  We’ll have to wait and see how this all goes. Personally, I don’t hate Kerry for wafting back and forth. I think it’s good when politicians reconsider based on more information being available. That’s actually one of the few things I like about him. Agree completely.  =) He’s #1 in the senate for money from special interests, and by the end of a 4 year term, he will probably trail only Bush in money taken from special interests. He’s not any more interested in the public than Bush is. He’ll be a lousy president, and I don’t think he’ll seriously repeal much of the harm Bush has done. I’m not too surprised about the money.  He’s running for Prez, after all. That’s going to bring in larger contributors than, say, a Senate race will. I’m not seeing anything in his previous voting record to indicate he’s beholding to special interests though?

Before he ran for president, he had taken the most money from special interests in the senate over the last 15 years. That’s from BEFORE, not even including the presidential race. – theoneflasehaddock

Response:

Very true. I have seen almost no defending of ones beliefs in this election. Instead, nobody foccusses on Kerry. Either you’re for Bush, or you’re against him, seems the only consideration, and neither candidate has discussed what they support.

He talks about it all the time. It’s just that the Bush controlled media never shows his speeches. For a detailed outline of Kerry on the issues visit his website. http://www.johnkerry.com

Response:

Errr…Flase…you know Newsmax is a hardcore conservative site? The one thing conservative sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the democrats.    And the thing the liberal sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the republicans. But when it comes to defending themselves, both groups fail and lie.

Perhaps then you might want to check out this non-partisan website: http://www.factcheck.org They give both sides hell.      War is Peace       Freedom is Slavery        Ignorance is Strength         Bush is President

Response:

—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—– Hash: SHA1 Errr…Flase…you know Newsmax is a hardcore conservative site? The one thing conservative sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the democrats.    And the thing the liberal sites always seem to get right, are the faults of the republicans. But when it comes to defending themselves, both groups fail and lie.

That’s called "politics", and it occurs outside of the government arena as well.  That’s the great thing about the US, in my opinion — our media is biased as hell, but you can get a pretty accurate picture of what’s going on by balancing the biases. Blessings, Radiant – — Please help me pay for school: <http://radiantmatrix.org Rarely do people communicate; they just take turns talking. remove ‘.spam’ to send e-mail. —–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—– Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAiKVf2s0ajpab/PkRAjsYAJ4tn5PifE5p5iSkHT2KNSHcOHOOtgCfaATX G6RBgFDSsrnO+eLnHDoAuWo= =EFPZ —–END PGP SIGNATURE—–

Response:

I’m tired of hearing what a great candidate this jackass is. He’s a fucking conservative claiming to be a democrat. Some info and links on this hypocritical moron.

You ALMOST got it right.    There is no difference between the democrats and republicans, they are both members of the Government Party. Say Bush is Coke,  Kerry is Pepsi and Russo is Milk.       If you want to bake a cake, you can’t do it with either Bush or Kerry, you need someone from a completely different party. See how Kerry should run as Bush’s Vice President…..