"Marriage is and is NOT a states right. When one state makes it legal for same sex marriage and another makes it illegal then it becomes a “federal” issue. Here is a test question for you to prove my point. If your state allowed same sex marriage and my state makes it illegal then when that same sex couple come to my state is it ok for my state to tell them they are NO longer legally married and will NOT be recognized as a marred couple in my state?

If you say that is not right then it is NO longer a state issue but a federal issue that would have to be addressed by an amendment to the Constitution so that ALL states are treated equally under the law."

You and I have been through the other stuff before, no need to go there again. As far as the marriage question (and I don't agree with my state), I would say it is not right based on one thing. Different states allow different officiants to legally declare a marraige. Let's say my state allows ship's captains and your's doesn't. A couple moving would be considered married, but it was never a federal isse before. My own opinion is your state would have a right to say they were not married. Also, you can't say all of Kerry's flops were not based on honest changes of mind based on experience.

Odin, I can get you quotes if you want, but he did it often prior to the war.

 

Joseph Perkins
THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE

March 12, 2004


John Kerry has an Al Gore problem. Gore was exposed during the 2000 presidential election as a congenital fibber. Among other whoppers, he falsely claimed that his poor old arthritic mother-in-law had to pay three times as much for her prescription medicine, Lodine, as Gore himself paid for the very same prescription medicine for his poor old arthritic family dog.

Kerry is a congenital flip-flopper. There hardly is any statement the Massachusetts senator has made, any principle for which the Democratic Party standard-bearer supposedly has stood, that he hasn't repudiated or abandoned to suit his vainglorious political ends.

There are many examples of Kerry's duplicity. But here are a noteworthy few:

l In the days following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., Kerry went on the CBS Sunday morning news program, "Face the Nation," and pronounced that "the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence."

Yet, in 1995, Kerry introduced a bill to slash the overall intelligence budget by $1.5 billion over five years.

Not even the Bay State senator's fellow Democrats were willing to co-sponsor his proposed intelligence cuts, especially in the wake of the 1993 terror attack on the World Trade Center Kerry chose to ignore.

l In a major foreign policy speech at Georgetown University back in January, Kerry declared, "I believe the Bush administration's blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country."

Yet, in 1997, Kerry wasn't nearly so critical of the Clinton administration as it prepared for unilateral military action against Iraq – despite objections from France and Russia, among others.

Appearing on CNN's "Crossfire," Kerry asked, "Where's the backbone of Russia? Where's the backbone of France? Where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity (Saddam Hussein's material breach of United Nations resolutions)?"

Kerry didn't think it wrong or dangerous back then for the United States to go it alone if need be. "I think the United States has always reserved the right, and will reserve the right, to act in its best interests," Kerry declared.

l During recent campaign appearances, Kerry has denounced the Bush administration "for rewarding Benedict Arnold CEOs who move profits and jobs overseas."

Yet, as The Washington Post revealed last month, the Democrats' standard-bearer has accepted money and fund-raising assistance from top executives at companies that Kerry considers the moral equivalent of the Revolutionary War traitor.

Like David Roux, who raised more than $250,000 for Kerry. He's co-founder of a California company that helped purchase Seagate Technology four years ago and incorporated in the Cayman Islands, a well-known offshore tax haven.

Same goes for Thomas Steyer, who raised roughly $200,000 for Kerry. He is a partner at the California investment firm Hellman & Friedman that helped set up an insurance company in Bermuda, another offshore tax haven.

The Post notes that the insurance company, Arch Capital Group Ltd., stated in a 2000 Securities and Exchange Commission filing that it had set up in Bermuda to reduce its U.S. tax liability.

As to corporations that move jobs overseas, Kerry need look no further than H.J. Heinz & Co., whose majority shareholder happens to be Teresa Heinz Kerry, the senator's wife. The ketchup maker boasts some 79 factories, 57 of which are overseas.

l CBS News notes that on Kerry's Web site, he excoriates "right-wing ideologues" for promoting conservatives for federal judgeships, slams the "right-wing assault on the rights of women," and claims the president has "appeased his party's right wing" by skewing scientific decisions for political purposes.

Yet, Kerry took umbrage when National Journal, the respected, middle-of-the-road political weekly, recently reported that he had the Senate's "most liberal" voting record last year, based on votes he cast on matters relating to economic, social and foreign policy.

When Kerry was asked about his National Journal rating, the not-so-stand-up liberal responded, "Labels are so silly."

During his campaign for his party's presidential nomination, Kerry's rivals never really forced him to defend his inconsistent statements and votes.

But Kerry's free ride is over. Between now and November, the American people will learn just how duplicitous the Massachusetts senator truly is.

 

If you can get them "in context," I would be more than happy to see them. Out of context quotes are usually useless and intentionally misleading.

 

momalle1:

Not to take this thread to far off topic but in reference to the same sex marriage issue as possibly being a federal issue rather then a state issue this is what I am referring to.

Mind you it does not imply specifically to “marriage” however some could construe it to include “marriage” because one could conclude that “marriage” is a privilege in all states.


From the United States Constitution:

Article IV.

Section 2.

[i]”The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States…..”


Amendment XIV.

Section 1.

”….. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States….”

 

I'm not sure how they can be out of context, all I said is that he used Al-Queda and Saddam in the same sentences, but, here are some, all from government web site, about as unbiased as I can find. There are more, but if these don't demonstrate to you how GW used 9/11 to gain support for invading Iraq, even though he says Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, then nothing will.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the 'beginning of the end of America.' By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more."

Source: President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended, White House (5/1/2003).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The regime . . . has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

Source: President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours, White House (3/17/2003).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraq intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in aquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."

Source: President's Radio Address, White House (2/8/2003).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And the United States, along with a growing coalition of nations, is resolved to take whatever action is necessary to defend ourselves and disarm the Iraqi regime. September the 11th, 2001, the American people saw what terrorists could do by turning four airplanes into weapons. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons."

Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network, headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner."

Source: President Bush: "World Can Rise to This Moment", White House (2/6/2003).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help develop their own."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses, and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other planes -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known."

Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He's a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaida. In my Cincinnati speech I reminded the American people, a true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and leave not one fingerprint."

Source: President Outlines Priorities, White House (11/7/2002).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He's had contacts with Al Qaida. Imagine the scenario where an Al Qaida-type organization uses Iraq as an arsenal, a place to get weapons, a place to be trained to use the weapons. Saddam Hussein could use surrogates to come and attack people he hates."

Source: Remarks by the President at Arkansas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"This is a man who has had Al Qaida connections. I want you to think about a scenario in which he becomes the arsenal and the training grounds for shadowy terrorists so that he can attack somebody who (sic) hates and not leave any fingerprints behind. He is a threat."

Source: Remarks by the President at Missouri Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a man who has got connections with Al Qaida. Imagine a terrorist network with Iraq as an arsenal and as a training ground, so that a Saddam Hussein could use this shadowy group of people to attack his enemy and leave no fingerprint behind. He's a threat."

Source: Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Saddam Hussein is a man who told the world he wouldn't have weapons of mass destruction, but he's got them . . . . And not only that, [he would] like nothing more than to hook up with one of these shadowy terrorist networks like Al Qaeda, provide some weapons and training to them, let them come do his dirty work, and we wouldn't be able to see his fingerprints on his action."

Source: Iraq Must Disarm Says President in South Dakota Speech, White House (11/3/2002).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And I also mentioned the fact that there is a connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein."

Source: President Condems Attack in Bali, White House (10/14/2002).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases."

Source: President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"With every step the Iraqi regime takes toward gaining and deploying the most terrible weapons, our own options to confront that regime will narrow. And if an emboldened regime were to supply these weapons to terrorist allies, then the attacks of September the 11th would be a prelude to far greater horrors."

Source: Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).

 

Since when does a thread not go off subject?

That more or less goes with what I said. The Constitution also gives the federal government specific rights so that each state in the union is sovereign. I'm not totally against it, just cautious about amending the constitution. I'm not sure each state needs sovereignty either. Maybe we would be better of totally federalized. In reality, the fed calls a lot of shots in every state via funding, like the seatbelt law BS in the 80's. Again, if Bush said "I'm really not for telling states what to do, but in this case, we need to consider the consequences" it might change how I feel about what he said. The same arguments could be made for a lot of the flips posted about Kerry.

 

I'm sorry momalle. I don't see what what you see in these quotes. None of them suggest to me that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11. No implication of it is implied either. You seem to be hung up on retaliation for 9/11. That was the beginning. That was the wake up call. The war on terror is not wholely about retribution. It's more about prevention and the destruction of terrorist networks and support groups. Since there was an unfinished war in Iraq, and a brutal dictator who has pledged the destruction of the United States, that makes a perfect place to start cleaning up the region. This is where the enemy hides. In the Middle-East. The home of their ideology and greatest support.

 

What I said was that Bush used 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentences. Why, if they had nothing to do with each other? Bush knows this puts an image in people's minds. Retaliation? No, I'm just a bit hung up on justice. Get the guy that actually attacked us. I'm pretty sure if your child was molested, you wouldn't care about a war on molesters, you'd want the guy that attacked your kid. Iraq was hardly the heart of terrorism, in fact, out of seven states that were listed as harboring terrorists, Iraq was rated fifth. Bush and PNAC wanted to invade Iraq prior to Bush' presidency. I don't even care about that right now, but using 9/11 to gain support is unforgivable.

 

 

Okay, I guess we're done here.

 

Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
"You know something? You are absolutely correct. There are people that dislike him for reasons entirely nonpolitical. They dislike him because he comes across as too "good-ole boy" or "everyman." They dislike him because he is not a polished communicator with a golden tongued way of speaking over the heads of the rabble. They dislike him because he isn't like them, or what they are used to seeing. They dislike him because they are just a bunch of pseudo-intellectual snobs."

I guess. If you think those are the only reasons people dislike Bush. You're quote, obviously is accurate, but out of context. It doesn't say I'll never stop hating Bush, just that insane argueing won't change my mind. I thought we were having a civil discussion about it, I guess I was wrong. Only GW can change my opinion about him. Burt has been extremely civil lately and helps also. Burt is calm and debates with facts. This actually makes a difference over posts like jpdadeo's.

 

Even though you've been far less than civil and reasonable, which part do you think is BS? Obviously you must know every thing that has happened, so please, enlighten those of us with our heads in the sand. Try to do it without cartoons if you can.

 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by momalle1
I hate Bush; and, nothing you say is going to change that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you enlightened yet?

I don’t hate Kerry. There’s no discussion possible when you start throwing out “hate” now is there.

 

In fairness, momalle didn't actually say that he hated Bush. I paraphrased his arguments and voiced his implied statements as a fake quote.

 

I haven't made an insane argument. An insane argument would have me here going back and forth with you for 20 pages, with nothing resolved. I think I have pointed out that you are wrong; and, that you are standing on weak, or completely false, support of your position. You feel that I have not pointed out any such thing. I chose to terminate the discussion by stating what I see as the resulting conclusion of our discussion.

You hate Bush. The reason is not obvious, since your arguments are very weak. Even with what you see as damning quotes from the President. I think it is based on something other than his job as President; but, I do not know you well enough to say what it is. I have made statements in the past as to why some people hate Bush; and, while they are good observations, they are not all encompassing. Discussing this further is a waste of time; because, the facts have no bearing on the issue. The problem is in the intangibles. It is personal.