Is George Bush the right leader for America?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by barfle:
Selma, you're starting to sound like a libertarian!

Wash your mouth out with soap! I sound like a normal middle-aged woman with the usual scraps of common sense.

[Shapley]

Saxy,

RE: Seperation of Church and State.

Actually, we have seperation of Church and the fed, if you read the Constitution. It only prohibits Congress from interfering with or establishing religion. Congress does not pass State laws. by my reading, if Utah wanted to declare itself a Mormon state, it has the authority to do so, although I'm sure the Supreme Court would disagree, since they don't seem to read the same Constitution as I do.

In any case, marriage, and it's definition, would be a state issue, even though it is actually a church issue. Tax and Probate laws made it necessary for the state to define marriage. The gay issue only becomes an issue because of the Constitutional requirement that each state give "full faith and credit" to the laws of other states. In other words, a marriage in one state is valid in all others, unless the laws of one or more of the other states specifically prohibit it. Missouri, and other states as well, have acted to prohibit gay marriage, which is within their authority. In my view, it is out of the jurisdiction of the Federal government.

Not that that doesn't keep them from talking about it. Clinton talked about curfews, and Al Gore talked about traffic congestion, both issues that should be below the radar of the Federal government. No wonder government keeps getting bigger.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Saxy,

-I'm very pro-life
-I'm not particularly pro-homosexual marriage
-I'm pro-capital punishment, for the most part
-I'm VERY for a strong military
-I'm pro-the right to carry weapons
-I'm for prayer in schools

IMHO, that's a logic disconnect.

To say that you align yourself with a policital party because of your moral values and then proceed to say that you don't want those values legislated...

Bush would like to see an amendment to the constitution of the US to distinguish marriage as being between a man and woman. Kerry believes it is not the governments business and is against amending the constitution.

Bush is very much an advocate of the death penalty. Kerry opposes the death penalty with few exceptions.

Bush was FOR the assault weapons ban that lapsed today, just like John Kerry. John Kerry does NOT support a ban on the peoples rights to own weapons.

That leaves two items that you have listed:
Strong military, and prayer in school.
Kerry supports a clear separation of church and state, Bush promotes prayer in public schools.
One of Kerry's complaints about the war in Iraq is that we didn't send enough troops and weren't prepared.

You don't sound like you're in the right party to me at all!

[mmichaelson]

RC:

I am an advocate of the death penalty, for the most part, I just worry about the system that gets them there. . .

I think Kerry and Bush are pretty equal on gun laws.

I do believe in prayer in schools, just an equal prayer where we can all pray as we choose.

I am a republican. . .just not an extreme republican.
I sit the fence on a couple of issues due to inconsistencies in the system, but my positions are clear. Well, clear to me. . .which I guess is all that matters. . .

I try to value the opinions of everyone else as well as my own. . .and I like that the bbb.com doesn't usually consist if chatters who take pot-shots at each other. (I'm not saying that you did. . .just commenting that I like this fact)

[mmichaelson]

Originally posted by Shapley:
It only prohibits Congress from interfering with or establishing religion. Congress does not pass State laws. by my reading, if Utah wanted to declare itself a Mormon state, it has the authority to do so, although I'm sure the Supreme Court would disagree, since they don't seem to read the same Constitution as I do.

In any case, marriage, and it's definition, would be a state issue, even though it is actually a church issue. Tax and Probate laws made it necessary for the state to define marriage. The gay issue only becomes an issue because of the Constitutional requirement that each state give "full faith and credit" to the laws of other states. In other words, a marriage in one state is valid in all others, unless the laws of one or more of the other states specifically prohibit it. Missouri, and other states as well, have acted to prohibit gay marriage, which is within their authority. In my view, it is out of the jurisdiction of the Federal government.

Not that that doesn't keep them from talking about it. Clinton talked about curfews, and Al Gore talked about traffic congestion, both issues that should be below the radar of the Federal government. No wonder government keeps getting bigger.

V/R
Shapley

You know, this reminds me of an interesting class I took on the History of the Old South. . .where our professor kept assuring us that the Civil War was truly about states' rights. She was adamant that the issue of slavery should have been taken up on a state-to-state level and that was the reason for most Southern state's beef with the federal government.
If you watch the movie Gods and Generals, Stonewall Jackson is portrayed as joining the south and the Confederacy due to states' rights. .

A very interesting topic and point Shap, thanks for reminding me!

[RC]

I try to value the opinions of everyone else as well as my own. . .and I like that the bbb.com doesn't usually consist if chatters who take pot-shots at each other. (I'm not saying that you did. . .just commenting that I like this fact)

goodness, I hope not. Not the way it was intended at all whatsoever.

I was quite serious when I said I thought you were in the wrong party. Not a pot shot.

The only reason I'm not republican is because the party isn't what it originally claimed to be...nor is the democratic.
You'll probably never fit into one party or the other 100% but Bush is an entirely new creature.

[mmichaelson]

Yep, that is how I feel. . .I'm a fence-sitter as to which party I belong to most of the time. . .I try to find a candidate that SEEMS to be what I most align myself with, but that can be very hard. . .

(I didn't think you were taking pot-shots at all, BTW, I was just commenting on the sharing of ideas in general around here.)

[Shapley]

RC:

RE:Bush was FOR the assault weapons ban that lapsed today, just like John Kerry. John Kerry does NOT support a ban on the peoples rights to own weapons.

You've got those two backward. President Bush opposed the ban, and was in favor of Congress' allowing the ban to expire, which it did.

Kerry has been portraying Bush as week on Terror by allowing the ban to lapse, claiming it will put assault weapons in the hands of terrorists. He claims he would have kept the ban in force. At least, that was his position last week. I'm not sure which way the wind is blowing today.

V/R
Shapley

[Shapley]

RC:

RE:One of Kerry's complaints about the war in Iraq is that we didn't send enough troops and weren't prepared.

Another of his complaints is that it's the "wrong war at the wrong time", and he wants to bring the troops home.

You can pretty much find Kerry agreeing with Bush' position on any issue, and you can find him disagreeing with Bush (and himself) on the same issue. Kerry is inconsistant in what he says, but his record in the Senate (which he does not tout on the campaign trail) leans heavily toward the liberal view. Did I say leans toward the liberal view? He has to walk to the right to see the middle! Bush' stays on message, and you know where he stands on the issues, like it or not.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Shapley

You've got those two backward. President Bush opposed the ban, and was in favor of Congress' allowing the ban to expire, which it did.

On Thursday, Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., announced that Senate Republicans would not send a bill to President Bush renewing the assault ban. The Republicans control the Senate, and Frist is the majority leader.

Bush has said he would sign the assault weapons bill if the Senate sent it to him, but he has declined to lobby for its passage. He promised to re-sign the law while running for president in 2000.

"The president supports the reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, but "the president doesn't set the Congressional timetable. Congress sets the timetable."

[RC]

National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban. President Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

[RC]

There are only a few days until the assault weapons ban expires on September 13, and our nation will face a new era of criminal and terrorist attacks with assault weapons unless President Bush keeps his campaign promise and gets the law renewed. During his campaign in 2000, President Bush pledged to renew this law.

[RC]

sorry, one last:

The New York Times
Irking N.R.A., Bush Supports the Ban on Assault Weapons
By Eric Lichtblau
May 8, 2003


President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

[RC]

Shapley,

I think you are making incorrect assumptions about my position.

I won't argue the strong military vs. not strong military point with you since we've pretty well covered that topic in this and other threads.

You have to admit you were unequivically wrong about the assault weapons and other issues though.

[barfle]

Saxy, there are (well, at least there were) periods of time set aside during the school day for such things as lunch, "nutrition" break, and going from class to class, not to mention study halls and time to visit the library.

If a student wanted to use some of that time for praying (as I did before eating my lunch), nobody would stop them unless they were being disruptive. To the best of my knowledge, that hasn't changed from when I was in high school during the early 1960s.

[RC]

Shapley,

Also, as long as I've got you on the hook,

RC,

RE: I'm very pro-life ...
-I'm pro-capital punishment, for the most part

I take it that means you're pro-innocent-life?

V/R
Shapley

Not sure why you directed that at me since it was not my post or opinion. FYI, I believe that was Saxy.

[Shapley]

RC,

I'm certain that I read in The Weekly Standard or National Review that President Bush opposed the ban, but since I cannot find any reference, and you have references to indicate otherwise, I will concede defeat.

However, regarding Kerry, I offer this link:
http://www.nrapvf.org/kerry/Read.aspx?ID=4086
which indicates that his voting record flies in the face of any statements that indicate support for second amendment rights he or his supporters have made.

I meant to reply to Saxy, but had read the earlier post from you, which I also intended to respond to, and got the two confused, which often happens as I attempt to reply too hastily on this forum.

V/R
Shapley

[RC]

Shapley,

Regarding Bush's stand on assault rifles AND replying to wrong poster; No sweat, happens all the time.

Regarding Kerry's stand on gun control: I'm a staunch defender of the right to bear arms and am strongly opposed to the NRA on many issues.

This cracks me up because, I believe that a right to bear arms goes beyond hunting. Remember that when the Bill of Rights was established, the citizens had just used the right to bear arms to overthrow the government:

John Kerry is a gun owner and hunter, and he believes that law-abiding American adults have the right to own guns. But like all of our rights, gun rights come with responsibilities, and those rights allow for reasonable restrictions to keep guns out of the wrong hands. John Kerry strongly supports all of the federal gun laws on the books, and he would take steps to ensure that they are vigorously enforced, cracking down hard on the gun runners, corrupt dealers, straw buyers, and thieves that are putting guns into the hands of criminals in the first place. He will also close the gun show loophole, which is allowing criminals to get access to guns at gun shows without background checks, fix the background check system, which is in a serious state of disrepair, and require that all handguns be sold with a child safety lock.
Source: Campaign website, JohnKerry.com, "Issues" Mar 21, 2004

This particular vote ticked me off:

Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S.1805/H.R.1036 ; vote number 2004-30 on Mar 2, 2004

I'm not necessarily a Kerry advocate. I think you've assumed that I am.

<small>[ 09-13-2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: RC ]</small>

[mmichaelson]

RC:
Wow, I can understand how that would tick you off. It would tick me off too. How can you advocate gun safety and vote against a law that would make it more difficult to create gun crimes?

[RC]

Saxy,
I think you got it backward. It's hard to interpret the double negative. Kerry voted NO to ban the lawsuits which means he supports lawsuits against gun makers for crimes committed by their manufactured product. That makes it EASIER to make gun crimes.

What ticks me off is not that Kerry is being contradictory, (he voted exactly as he said he would), but that he is allowing a manufacturer to be sued over the USE of their product. Like suing a drug company for making oxycontin because someone OD'ed on a legal drug. Can you imagine?!!