MichFan

No offense taken. Hard to be offended when someone obviously doesn't have a clue what they are talking about.

Bush has been consistent on this issue. He supports the Defense of Marriage Act which allows states the right to decide while ensuring one state's decision doesn't impact anothers'. The Constitutional Amendment he has asked for allows for civil unions while denying marriage. He has only asked for a Constitutional Amendment because state judiciaries have usurped the people in several states and there is grwoing concern that DOMA may eventually be overturned.

Agreed. So how many times have you heard about a priest, minister, or rabbi endorsing Bush or allowing Bush to make a stump speech from the pulpit? Compare that to the number of times that a Baptist church has openly campaigned from the pulpit for Kerry and even invited Kerry, Jackson, and/or Sharpton to promote the Democrat ticket.

Tom - I think VABills was referring to Kerry's "plans". The more appropriate term for PPP mods would be: Oligarchy - A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in the hands of a few persons. BTW - I really liked my response to Exiled's animal sex post yesterday. Thanks for deleting it you freaking oligarch.

In both debates where the abortion issue was discussed, Kerry was emphatic that he was a Catholic and believed as the Catholic church does on the issue. In both debates he also stated that he can't transfer his "article of faith" to others. The Catholic church is pretty clear about this. They expect leaders who wave the Catholic flag to support Catholic policies. Kerry can't have it both ways on this issue. He can't tout Catholicism among his credentials and at the same time promise a pro-choice litmus test for the Supreme Court. Extreme hyocrisy from the man criticizng Bush for words without deeds.

VABills - the liberals I know do little or nothing to make the world a better place besides the complaining you mentioned. It seems they don't understand the idea of individuals deciding how they want to make the world a better place in their own mold using their own money. They sure can tell you how to make it a better place using your money, though. Case in point -- Kerry has stated that he wants to improve relations with the world and bring more allies to the table. Looking at the school tragedy in Chechnya -- what better way for the people of America and the people of Russia to unite in the war on terror than to have an outpouring of charitable donations to the families affected? So how many libs donated to this cause? I got an e-mail last week from the organization overseeing this effort and they are grateful to have raised millions. During the WTC tragedy, we raised billions. And I will add that I feel much more confident my money is being used for the victims in Russia than I was about my contribution to the 9/11 fund. Looks like the libs must have pocketed their unwanted tax returns and are waiting instead for Kerry to win, raise taxes, and send government money on behalf of them.

Bush is not Catholic. The Catholic church does not excommunicate everyone who disagrees with them. Kerry is using his Catholicism the way he used Vietnam. If the Catholic church decides that they don't like a public figure using the religion as a foundation to pursue policies that they don't agree with, then I think they have every right to differentiate the religion from the candidate.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/News/story?id=174461&page=1 Really no surprise when you look at the people on this board. The libs are so busy hating Bush and worrying about another 4 years how could they find the time? I think ABC was a little too PC on explaining the results, though. They left out the gay male demographic in the Democrat party, and who could be satisfied on the receiving end of that relationship?

It appears you are taking the word of a Democrat Presidential candidate over a conservative parapalegic editorialist on the issue of handicap research. Just as you libs downplay the role of our coalition allies in Iraq, now you are downplaying the role of mainstream medical research on spinal cord injuries. You are so closed minded to the realities of medical science and research that you're putting all your eggs into research that has offered no results to date and completely ignoring the very promising research that is being done without embryonic stem cells. Anything for political gain...

Would the real Mickey please stand up? First you say you might have voted for the guy if he would only admit to some mistakes, but then you say he has done nothing and is useless.

Since the decision to invade Iraq was made years ago, I guess that's not an important issue to you either. As far as the future goes, Kerry has a lot of "plans" but no substance. If such indecision by a candidate is what compels you to vote for him, I guess you must live in John Edwards' other America.

Rush Limbaugh (instant credibility with the libs ) mentioned on the show today that Bush is pulling ahead in the Zogby poll and that Zogby credits his momentum to the 18-29 demographic. In response, Kerry came out today and claimed that if Bush is re-elected he will reinstitute the draft.

Just think if all states took this approach. Could you imagine what campaigns would look like? Instead of a dozen swing states, you'd have a hundred swing electoral votes. Election 2000 would look painless compared to the fallout from such an electoral system.

To think it is a shock to us but accepted practice across Canada and Western Europe. And this is where John Kerry wants to lead us.

Isn't it the nature of bitter partisanship that those in power are happy and those out of power are bitter? My point about McAuliffe and your point about Clinton are very consistent in that light.

Agreed. This issue came up in response to UConn saying AQ caused the split. Looks like we both agree that Bush was right in saying the split goes back long before AQ. I think people also exaggerate the split. For some reason they think 55-45 is a clear majority but 51-49 is evenly split.

Or was it when the Republicans won the House in '94 followed by the Senate in '00 (for a few days) and '02 that the libs melted down? Based on the conduct of Ed Gillespie and Terry McAuliffe, I think most objective adults would see it is the Democrats who are the most bitterly partisan.

I'm sure they did imagine it because they saw how liberals in this country act when you challenge them in a way that requires military involvement. Notice it's only the libs complaining about how split the country is. Bush did a darn good job reminding people that this doesn't go back to 9/11, rather it has been that way since the early '90s.

In the Veep debate, the moderator asked a question to Cheney that invoked his experience with his daughter relative to Bush's policy. It was a direct question that gave Cheney the opportunity to show a personal side. Edwards' follow-up to the response naturally involved the daughter because she was part of the question. It was done very respectfully and was a high note for that debate. Kerry invoked Cheney's daughter for political points. Big difference. Many believe it was the low point of the night.

Okay libs, obviously any thought of rational conversation around PPP is dead. To equate the nature of the conversation in the VP debate with the way Kerry introduced it tonight just proves it.

I thought it was particularly compassionate of Kerry to throw out Dick Cheney's daughter for political advantage.

At least this time he quoted someone that couldn't come back and contradict his telling of the story...

Internet polls = useless. Look at Mickey's presence on this board as an example. BTW -- did blzrul hijack Mickey's account?

First, a nod to the Dems. I have an extreme disagreement with Kerry over the career and policies he has pursued as a Senator, his stand on national defense/Iraq, and the untolerable ambiguity behind his "plans". That said, Kerry is every bit as good a debater as advertised. If he wins, clearly these three debates will be the reason why. He has been able to shake the labels that have been assigned to him by making a strong appearance when it counted. Congratulations and I look forward to a well fought last few weeks. I saw this debate as a draw. It was in the hands of Bush at times to win, but for some reason his handlers had him throwing labels around on a couple of issues instead of keeping it to the substance that has served him so well. Overall, the man who showed up tonight was the Bush who connects with the American people, and he got a couple of opportunities to reveal his humor and softer side again. Kerry spoke too fast, was all over the place with many of his answers, and was a tad bit robotic tonight. But he pulled off enough Clintonesque to make it a draw.

I'll take EB's 20 posts over most of RCow's 2400 posts any day. At least EB shows some sense of objectivity and can make his points in less than one screen.