{Note this draft was started in October 2004, but its contents are still relevent}
(Take position on top of soap box)
I really hate to do this, but to all of the Christian followers out there when John Kerry was quoting the bible didn't that just ring wrong. He could quote carefully rehersed material, but when the matter of homosexual marriage came up he seemed to abandon "his faith". Perhaps he wouldn't be able to name the exact book (1st Corinthians) or the chapter (chapter 6) or the verse (verse 9), but the bible does mention in no uncertain terms its stand on homosexuallity.
-"(9) Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (10) nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (11) And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God"
He said we have to understand how God made each of us different and we need to be understanding of each other. NO. The Christian God would not MAKE people homosexual. That is like saying God makes people commit sin. If people aren't religious then the don't care about the religious stand on this topic which is fine. But when it is "good" for someone to use religion as a talking point in their campaign they had better know on what side their God stands, because trust me God won't flip-flop. Are there homosexuals -Yes, did God make them that way - No, why - because God allows us to face temptation. Everyone starts in basically the same position as two cells come together to begin forming what will be at our future state. Along the way we are faced with decisions that will ultimately determine our fate. Our we religious or not? Are we straight or not? We make the decisions that shape our lives with or without God's help. Be very clear though I do not think that God "hates" homosexuals, but it is up to them to reconcile with God and make nice.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Sunday, October 17, 2004
Presidential Race 2004
A little incite into the battle that has become the presidential race of 2004. I have watched all three presidential debates and the VP debate and the score is pretty much 2 to 2 or maybe 2 to 1 and 1 draw. I give Kerry the advantage in the 2 regular debates (except for maybe the 3rd see below), but the town hall and VP debate to Bush and Cheney. The third debate was probably the most telling of any of the debates and anyone who thinks that John Kerry is an upstanding presidential figure must not have watched. The comment that drug one of the children of the opponent's into the debate was completely uncalled for and anyone that thinks different is entitled to their own wrong opinion. It was Dukakis-esque. The single moment that alienated a decent group of voters because of the sheer emotion attached to the statement. If you are not familiar, in the 1988 debates between Dukakis and VP Bush, Dukakis was asked if he would seek the death penalty for someone who raped and murder his wife Kitty. The short of it is he said 'no' because he has held a certain view of capital punishment and blah blah blah. The problem is, people can identify with their loved ones and when you can put a face on a certain situation it makes talking about it completely different regardless of the substance of the answer. Back to the 2004 race, Kerry put a name (well not specifically Mary Cheney, but 'VP Cheney's daughter') strongly linked to the Republicans in a answer that was completely out of line. If he wanted to put a real person in the situation who has struggled with homosexuality, then use a specific person, BUT NOT SOMEONE YOU DON'T KNOW. Especially not someone who is in the other camp. I know he was just trying to draw attention to hard core republicans or some independents that there was a homosexual in one of the high ranking republican families. "OH NO", the republicans are supposed to say, but then what. Not vote for the "homo" family. I think this ill-conceived plan to bring up Dick Cheney's daughter in this format is going to backfire and actually generate some amount of sympathy for the Republicans. Or at least damage the character or lack of character on John Kerry's part to an irreconcilable amount.
The other thing that will damage Kerry's "Character" is when the host Bob Schieffer asked the candidates to say basically something nice about how their wives and daughter's have helped in this campaign. Bush's response was to say how he and Laura met and how lucky he was to have her out campaigning for her and also how he appreciated his daughter work. Kerry's response was to compliment the president and first lady, then mention how he had married up (which I take as a statement of "thanks to my wife I have a lot of money to run for president"), then started talking about his mother. That's right his mother. Didn't mention his wife for the rest of the 90 seconds he could have talked. Nothing about the fact that the African-born woman was on his side as a show of world interest or how the "shove-it" comment to a reporter in her "home" US city of Pittsburgh really showed her support for the free speech part of the bill of rights. No people, if you want one good reason to not vote for John Kerry let it be his wife who John Kerry himself can not even speak positively of, for one minute. I know the first lady doesn't represent any real issues for the candidates, but is this really the person you would want as an ambassador for the USA.
A good second reason would be John Edwards. Besides being extremely inexperienced in anything political or really anything not having to do with being a trial lawyer, he would be second in command. I have to assume that he was chosen strictly on looks and what he could bring to the ticket in the form of women voters looking for someone to represent the US in some type of modeling competition for world leaders. That currently doesn't exist, so that wouldn't be a good reason to vote for him. Also he hasn't done much in the senate, like show up even. The funny thing is in the VP debate Dick Cheney said he had not met Edwards before that night, and the media stations are like, 'both of you were at a prayer breakfast once, and the when Mrs. Dole was being sworn in once', but no mention of them running into each other AT THE SENATE, WHERE HE "WORKS", FOR THE PEOPLE. The other sad point is that he couldn't even defend Cheney's comment at the time it was issued, not until his wife informed him of one of their meetings could Edwards respond at a rally after the debate. Boy, looks like those two meetings left a real impression on both men.
Bush is not with out fault either. But people seem to want to forget about the impact of 9/11 and what it did to the country. Everyone wants to focus on the war in Iraq and how it wasn't it self-defense or about going after terrorist because Afghanistan was the only country that has terrorist and they were the only ones we can hold responsibility some how for 9/11. But I can explain the war in Iraq in one word that no one in congress or the white house will admit to and that is "paranoia". Now that maybe a little too simple for most and rightly so, but the underlying idea that we went to war in Iraq was to "Prevent" another attack, which could be biological or nuclear and do much more damage than the original 9/11. If everyone in the world has the same intelligence and they all point to Iraq as having WMD then how can the president sit by and wait. If we had been struck on 9/11/03 by nuclear weapons out of Iraq, everyone would have said why didn't we act on this intelligence before we were hit, "It's like we didn't know it would happen again?" Right. By going to Iraq we ended 12 years of UN resolutions that Iraq had not complied with by not demonstrating that it destroyed it's weapons after the first Gulf War. We are setting here after 9/11 going where are the weapons and Saddam is like we don't have 'em, but there is no evidence they were destroyed either. I have to agree that I don't believe it was worth the chance to sit back on our hands and wait and 'hope' that Saddam was telling the truth. And I think that is why there hasn't been a greater backlash from the World Community because they understand this conflict in the same manner. That and some of the countries were on the take in the old "oil-for-food" program.
The economic effect of 9/11 was also huge. Not only did we lose 3,000+ contributing members of the society on 9/11, but we lost 200 floors of world changing businesses. That type loss is not replaced in one day or one year, but closer to 2 years. An economic revival has occurred in the last year or so, but it is still very fragile. One reason is the world market, which makes it difficult to increase good paying manufacturing jobs in the states, because items can be produced much more cheaply in other areas of the world. If we could have transferred the loss of the high end business on 9/11 to the lower manufacturing sector the effect would not have been as great, but due to the change in world trade capabilities that was not possible. Second a lot of the business that have been used to right the economic ship have been service sector businesses. Service businesses are nice, but not when one service serves another service which serves another service.... Eventually it all leads back to servicing the manufacturing sector when raw materials are changed into marketable goods and revenue is generated to pay the service sector. In order to keep the growth going we have to reinvest in the manufacturing sector in order to support the service sector. It is like the manufacturing sector is the legs of the table and the service sector is the food placed on the table. We can't keep placing food on the table and keep yanking the legs off and expect the whole situation to be stable. Right now we need to put legs on the table.
Well that is enough time on the soap box for tonight.
The other thing that will damage Kerry's "Character" is when the host Bob Schieffer asked the candidates to say basically something nice about how their wives and daughter's have helped in this campaign. Bush's response was to say how he and Laura met and how lucky he was to have her out campaigning for her and also how he appreciated his daughter work. Kerry's response was to compliment the president and first lady, then mention how he had married up (which I take as a statement of "thanks to my wife I have a lot of money to run for president"), then started talking about his mother. That's right his mother. Didn't mention his wife for the rest of the 90 seconds he could have talked. Nothing about the fact that the African-born woman was on his side as a show of world interest or how the "shove-it" comment to a reporter in her "home" US city of Pittsburgh really showed her support for the free speech part of the bill of rights. No people, if you want one good reason to not vote for John Kerry let it be his wife who John Kerry himself can not even speak positively of, for one minute. I know the first lady doesn't represent any real issues for the candidates, but is this really the person you would want as an ambassador for the USA.
A good second reason would be John Edwards. Besides being extremely inexperienced in anything political or really anything not having to do with being a trial lawyer, he would be second in command. I have to assume that he was chosen strictly on looks and what he could bring to the ticket in the form of women voters looking for someone to represent the US in some type of modeling competition for world leaders. That currently doesn't exist, so that wouldn't be a good reason to vote for him. Also he hasn't done much in the senate, like show up even. The funny thing is in the VP debate Dick Cheney said he had not met Edwards before that night, and the media stations are like, 'both of you were at a prayer breakfast once, and the when Mrs. Dole was being sworn in once', but no mention of them running into each other AT THE SENATE, WHERE HE "WORKS", FOR THE PEOPLE. The other sad point is that he couldn't even defend Cheney's comment at the time it was issued, not until his wife informed him of one of their meetings could Edwards respond at a rally after the debate. Boy, looks like those two meetings left a real impression on both men.
Bush is not with out fault either. But people seem to want to forget about the impact of 9/11 and what it did to the country. Everyone wants to focus on the war in Iraq and how it wasn't it self-defense or about going after terrorist because Afghanistan was the only country that has terrorist and they were the only ones we can hold responsibility some how for 9/11. But I can explain the war in Iraq in one word that no one in congress or the white house will admit to and that is "paranoia". Now that maybe a little too simple for most and rightly so, but the underlying idea that we went to war in Iraq was to "Prevent" another attack, which could be biological or nuclear and do much more damage than the original 9/11. If everyone in the world has the same intelligence and they all point to Iraq as having WMD then how can the president sit by and wait. If we had been struck on 9/11/03 by nuclear weapons out of Iraq, everyone would have said why didn't we act on this intelligence before we were hit, "It's like we didn't know it would happen again?" Right. By going to Iraq we ended 12 years of UN resolutions that Iraq had not complied with by not demonstrating that it destroyed it's weapons after the first Gulf War. We are setting here after 9/11 going where are the weapons and Saddam is like we don't have 'em, but there is no evidence they were destroyed either. I have to agree that I don't believe it was worth the chance to sit back on our hands and wait and 'hope' that Saddam was telling the truth. And I think that is why there hasn't been a greater backlash from the World Community because they understand this conflict in the same manner. That and some of the countries were on the take in the old "oil-for-food" program.
The economic effect of 9/11 was also huge. Not only did we lose 3,000+ contributing members of the society on 9/11, but we lost 200 floors of world changing businesses. That type loss is not replaced in one day or one year, but closer to 2 years. An economic revival has occurred in the last year or so, but it is still very fragile. One reason is the world market, which makes it difficult to increase good paying manufacturing jobs in the states, because items can be produced much more cheaply in other areas of the world. If we could have transferred the loss of the high end business on 9/11 to the lower manufacturing sector the effect would not have been as great, but due to the change in world trade capabilities that was not possible. Second a lot of the business that have been used to right the economic ship have been service sector businesses. Service businesses are nice, but not when one service serves another service which serves another service.... Eventually it all leads back to servicing the manufacturing sector when raw materials are changed into marketable goods and revenue is generated to pay the service sector. In order to keep the growth going we have to reinvest in the manufacturing sector in order to support the service sector. It is like the manufacturing sector is the legs of the table and the service sector is the food placed on the table. We can't keep placing food on the table and keep yanking the legs off and expect the whole situation to be stable. Right now we need to put legs on the table.
Well that is enough time on the soap box for tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
