Kerry: Federal government should recognize state-sanctioned same-sex 'marriage'greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Kerry: Federal government should recognize state-sanctioned same-sex 'marriage'BOSTON (BP)--Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has told homosexual activists that the federal government should recognize same-sex “marriages” and civil unions that are legalized on the state level, The Washington Post reported March 4.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 05, 2004
bump
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 05, 2004.
This is why I am pro Bush this election. Not that I am a fan of Bush, but he seems the most rreasonable.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 05, 2004.
From today's Corner on the Nation:RE: REDUCED TO TEARS [Rod Dreher]
That incident Andrew Sullivan mentions reminds me of one of the worst meals of my life. About 10 years ago, I was eating at a restaurant in Adams Morgan with four female friends, all Democrats. We'd been hanging out having a great time all morning. Then one of them asked me if I was Catholic. Yes, I said. "Are you pro-life?" she asked. Yes, I said, but let's not talk about that now. That was the last word I got in. Three of the women began to harangue me, and it quickly got so loud people started to stare. One of the young women, a mousy sort who had been quiet, started to quiver and cry. "What's wrong?" one of the women asked her, and she looked at me and said, in complete seriousness, "I'm afraid of him." Mind you, I'd hardly got a word in at all! I stomped out of the restaurant, and that was the end of those friendships, save one, from a housemate I really liked, and who apologized for things getting out of hand -- but in so doing, blamed me for provoking them to anger by my obnoxious beliefs.
Posted at 02:42 PMABORTION HYSTERICS [John Derbyshire]
Rod: I know exactly what you mean. Probably every conservative does. Around the time of the 2000 election, I was chatting with a colleague, a thirty-something lady of high intelligence and excellent education, holding down a very good job at a Wall Street firm. She told me she could never, never vote for a Republican. Why not? I asked. "Because they want to force me to have babies." That's what she said. No kidding.
Posted at 03:18 PM
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 05, 2004.
Bill, Kerry doesn't promote homosexuality.Also, understand that a President is supposed to defend and obey the Constitution, not God.
-Bush may have been the right man for 9/11/01, Afghanistan,... -Bush may be 100% against homosexuality, and 99% against abortion
But he fails misably on deficits. He has destroyed Clinton's balanced budget with a surplus with one that has 500 billion a year short!!!
This means, more money is taken out of social security. I guarrantee you that if seniors knew their money is being used to finance the tax refunds and the War in Iraq, they would be by now on the streets.
Under Bush seniors get less in social security.
Also, bush fails on the other type of moralities -Protects his homie who helped almost bankrupt my state of California: Lay, the former CEO of ENRON, a texas company. This man has not tasted the justice system.
-He favors the Pakistany military(Led by Musharraf) who not only armed and sent to Afghanistan the Taliban in the 1990s to overthrow a more legitimate government (who by the way overthrew the Soviet regime which had ruled since 1979). Many of these Taliban were "Pakistani soldiers" undercover. This same government has sold "nuclear" stuff to Lybia, North Korea,..
-He protects places like Saudi arabia which descriminate against Christians.
-He still has no sanctions against Sudan which sells Christians as slaves..
-He overthrows or helps overthrow constitutional governments in Haiti (Aristide) , Venezuela (Chavez)...
-Continues to consolidate the media, thus not only making our bills higher for cable, electricity, gas, gasoline,...
-Unemployment hasn't rebounded to the Clinton levels.(The man had faults as a human being, but I believe he was one of our best presidents, ahead of Reagan(big budget deficits, consulting astrologers, divorced, arming contras, ..),George Bush Senior (created contras with money from Iran sales, financed Saddam, who later turned on him, supported Noriega , who later turned on him,..) -Powell(son) and Education secetary, a disaster. -Cheney- a cr... shold be dismissed as Vice-president. Halliburton scandal.
The christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 12, 2004.
Bill, here is my list for competence.From the 1860s till now here is my list on Good Presidents based on performance:-Lincoln (Republican)(preserved the Union), most honest.
-Roosevelt , Franklin (Democrat)(social security, world War II savior, brought country out of Depression)
-Roosevelt, Theodore (Repubican)(Park system). Known better for Cuba invasion.
-Clinton- (Democrat)balanced budget defict, lowest unemployment. Best remebered by Monica Lewinsky.
-Johnson , Lyndon (Democrat)(from 1960s- equality for all-civil rights act, war on poverty). This man is remembered for Vietnam!!!
Eisenhower- led country in war and into a better future.Best remembered as a general.
-Grant- led country into reconstruction
-Wilson- in and out of world war I. Known by founding of League of nations.
-Kennedy -faced soviet expansion,job corps. Known by Berlin speech. Actuall his German was badly pronounced that instead of Berliner he said something else!!!
-Bush (2000 election)- 9/11 response, resume of markets, Afganistan
Most moral? -Carter -Lincoln -Eisenhower
Could Kerry be our next President?-I think so.
Could he make a better President than Bush? Yes.
Will I vote for him? Yes
The Christian Yahwist
PS: This coming from the man who has prayed for George Bush's life and work as president since even before he became President.
I believe that allowing to get 4 more years could jeopardized our budget, our social security system, our education,...
-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), March 12, 2004.
Kerry advocates the continued murder of innocent children. On that issue alone no Catholic can vote for him. Some things always are wrong, and no one may vote in favor of them, directly or indirectly. Citizens vote in favor of these evils if they vote in favor of candidates who propose to advance them. Thus, Catholics should not vote for anyone who intends to push programs or laws that are intrinsically evil. It doesn't matter what your pocketbook says. Don't yield to your own 30 pieces of silver. Again, I would refer you to the Voter's Guide for Serious CatholicsIn Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 12, 2004.
Bill, do you see or have you seen Kerry openly pushing for legislation or having introduced legislation which promotes abortion, homosexual marriage,..?Arnold Swarzenegar , A Catholic,our California Governor, doesn't oppose abortion. He even doesn't oppose homosexual unions. He opposes homosexual marriage.
In my opinion, Kerry is closer to Arnold Swarzenegarr.
You never mentioned him, Bill. He just got elected on March.
You have published about 40+ articles here (threads),that's about 1 out of three threads since February 11 (a month)
yet, none said anything about Swarzenegar.
Is it because he is a republican? There is no article from the Catholic Church which says we should vote for a republican just because the party opposes abortion on its platform.
After all, republicans like democrats divorce, have abortions,.. Remember Reagan? Divorced, believed and contacted psychics, horoscopes,...even President Bush is a recovered alcoholic.
Party affiliation or voting does nothing to the character of a man/woman if one has already morals.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 12, 2004.
Bill, do you see or have you seen Kerry openly pushing for legislation or having introduced legislation which promotes abortion, homosexual marriage,..?Yes, he is very much a pro-abortion senator.
Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions.
Vote on a motion to table [kill] an amendment that would repeal the ban on privately funded abortions at overseas military facilities. Bill S 2549 ; vote number 2000-134 on Jun 20, 2000Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions.
This legislation, if enacted, would ban the abortion procedure in which the physician partially delivers the fetus before completing the abortion. [A NO vote supports abortion rights].
Status: Bill Passed Y)63; N)34; NV)3
Reference: Partial Birth Abortion Ban; Bill S. 1692 ; vote number 1999-340 on Oct 21, 1999Voted NO on disallowing overseas military abortions.
The Murray amdt would have repealed current laws prohibiting overseas U.S. military hospitals and medical facilities from performing privately funded abortions for U.S. service members and their dependents.
Status: Motion to Table Agreed to Y)51; N)49
Reference: Motion to table Murray Amdt #397; Bill S. 1059 ; vote number 1999-148 on May 26, 1999Q: Do you support the ban on partial-birth abortions recently signed into law?
A: I don't support the President's law because it doesn't allow the exception for situations where the health of the woman is at risk. I believe this is a dangerous effort to undermine a woman's right to choose, which is a constitutional amendment I will always fight to protect. (source: Concord Monitor / WashingtonPost.com on-line Q&A Nov 7, 2003)Kerry, campaigning for votes in New Hampshire's leadoff primary Tuesday, repeated his pledge to appoint to the Supreme Court only those who would support abortion rights. -Monday, January 26, 2004, Fox News
“I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman’s right to choose or the constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties. ... The test is basic – any person who thinks it’s his or her job to push an extreme political agenda rather than to interpret the law should not be a Supreme Court justice.” -John Kerry, Jan 2004
Kerry vigorously supported President Clinton’s veto of the Republican measure to ban late-term procedures.
Kerry backs the now ubiquitous so-called “Murray Amendment,” which would finally end the overseas prohibition against abortions at U.S. military hospitals and facilities.
Kerry has a 0 percent rating from the National Right to Life Committee. Meanwhile, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League consistently rates him at 100 percent.
Mr Kerry's web site also has a section on "Communities" with a sub- section on "Women". In this section he has a box with a tab labeled "100 days". Click this and you get a list of what Mr Kerry will do for women in his first 100 days in office. There are just three items on this list, and item #1 is "End the era of Ashcroft: Immediately name a new Attorney General to end Ashcroft's assault on choice. Women have the right to control their own bodies."
Click another tab on this same page, "Record", for seven bullet points of things he has done for women in the past. #3 on this list is "NARAL Gives John Kerry 100% Voting Record since 1995". NARAL is the National Abortion Rights Action League (actually it's been renamed twice since then, but that's another story), so Mr Kerry is boasting that he has voted pro-abortion 100% of the time. #4 is "John Kerry Has Vowed to Filibuster Any 'Anti-Choice' Supreme Court Nominee". And #5 is "Opposed Republican Attempts to Criminalize Late Term Procedures". I presume that's referring to late-term abortion procedures.
So three of the seven reasons why Mr Kerry believes women should vote for him are abortion, abortion, and abortion.
No, it is quite clear, he is an abortionist.
homosexual marriage,..?
Kerry has declared opposition to same-sex marriage, but two years ago he signed a letter issued by homosexual Rep. Barney Frank urging Massachusetts state lawmakers to drop an amendment limiting nuptials to a man and a woman.
The Associated Press reported Kerry also opposed similar federal legislation in 1996, comparing it to 1960s efforts in the South to criminalize interracial marriage.
"This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean- spirited bill," Kerry declared at the time.
He accused supporters of engaging in the "politics of division," but the federal bill was backed by 85 senators and Democratic President Bill Clinton.
In 1996, when he was one of just 14 senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, Kerry said in a Senate floor speech the legislation is a "power grab into states' rights of monumental proportions" and "a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans."
-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 12, 2004.
I am not in California and can't vote for Arnold Swarzenegarr, so I don't know much about him. If he is pro-abortion, I would not vote for him...unless he was less pro-abortion, than the alternative. For example if he was against late term abortions but his leading opponent was not. Anyway, I don't know about him and he isn't running for office this year.In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 12, 2004.
Woman Tells John Kerry She Regrets Her Abortion, Staffer Destroys Her Sign
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 13, 2004.
I voted for Schwarzenegger for one reason only--to keep Cruz Bustamante from winning. That is it. If you have a choice between two evils, you choose the lesser evil. And believe me, Bustamante is scary (on abortion and everything else). I did not take this vote lightly. By the way why is it that almost all catholic politicians are pro-abortion: Schwarzenegger, Bustamante, Gray Davis, Kerry, Dean, Kennedy...and on and on?
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 13, 2004.
Because they are politicians and this is an experiancy. They hide behind " we must obey the laww, not God."Too bad no one stops tot hink, Goid may be mor eimportant. Really though they are just afraid of loosing votes.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 13, 2004.
Exactly right Zarove. For the past forty years, Catholic politicians like Kerry and politicians of other faiths like Clinton have fancied themselves as the next John F. Kennedy. Kerry even started including his middle initial in his press releases, and Senate records so that he too would be "JFK." The real JFK stated that he would put the national interest above all else and that he would not yield to pressure from the Vatican, from bishops or any other religious organization. He did, however, say that should his personal conscience conflict with the national interest that he would resign. Unfortunately, Kennedy's personal foibles raised doubts as to his personal conscience and to how deeply held his catholic beliefs were.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 13, 2004.
Most catholic politicians are pro-choice because we catholics vote for them. We should hang our collective heads in shame for doing so and on judgement day we will have to answer for it.These guys are not stupid. You can see Kerry dodging the gay marriage issue. Of course he is for it but he will never admit it. He is pro-choice as well. There is no doubt about that. If the political price for that stance was high he would change to pro- life. If all catholics refused to vote for a pro-choice or pro gay marriage politicians they would go the way of the dodo.
Im not sure what Bush has done wrong on social security or education. He asks teachers to do their job and show results or else. Thats how my job works I am not sure why teachers feel they can not do their jobs and demand higher pay every year. The Kerry answer is to pour more money into an unacountable system thats what the NEA loves to hear.
When SS was founded the life expectancy was 62 and the benefits kicked in at 65. Life expectancy is now 77 and benefits start at 62. 60 million baby boomers are hitting retirement in the next few years and our society of contraception and abortion is not creating new taxpayers. We are headed for disaster and Greenspan has said so. How dare the President begin examining the options!!! The math doesnt look good if your option is to put your head in the sand.
I think Bush has failed in his budget however. I fear he is trying to be to much of a friend of the Democrats. I think however the deficit will be rained in during his next four years.
-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.org), March 13, 2004.
Historically, Catholics were Democrats. Democrats who are not pro- choice do not get support from the Democratic party. Therefore, you see pro-choice Catholics running for office.-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 13, 2004.
If we want to influence the Republican party on social issues, we need to get involved with that party in a heavier way then we have in the past. See:http://www.gop.com/OutReach/Read.aspx?ID=4
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 13, 2004.
Dear Elpidio:
We will elect Bush again without much trouble. Forget your witch's cauldron of socialist menudo. As a Mexican you ought to know what a farce it is to fawn on those who feed you a ball of schid and tell you it's bread. Socialism destroyed Mexico during all of seventy years; a state exactly like the one you are here advocating.All leaders have faults. Not only this party, some of the others too. But not all parties have a capacity for leadership; and less for securing freedom. Without Reagan the Soviet Union would be intimidating all of Europe today. Without Geo W. Bush, Saddam would be having a cigar with Osama in Bagdad right now; with that big painting of the planes exploding into the twin Towers of NYC on the wall, on exhibit for him. His thuggish sons would be raping Iraqi women and killing children while husbands watched helplessly. They would all be living high, and the French & Germans would be sending them money for embargoed oil shipments.
The rest of the world would be waiting to see where Al Quaeda would choose to strike next. And guys like yourself would be demonizing Bush and Cheney every day as you chugged your beer on the couch before your TV sets. You of yourself would not know how to lead a 3 year old to the toilet. You don't know the meaning of leadership.
We do-- and that's why we'll re-elect the President and his VP. Our future depends on action by honest LEADERS. Not inaction by another Neville Chamberlain, which is what Kerry wants to be. He wants to be Salinas de Gortari here in the United States. --An American Chupacabra. A PRIista, --and you're too slow to realise it.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 13, 2004.
Eugene,That was beautiful!
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 13, 2004.
There are people who don't learn their history lessons , too well, Eugene.Social security has been one of those "socialist" , though I call it social, issues that has kept this nation together.
Because of it, we haven't been into a depression the size of it we had in 1929-1933.
Are you advocating we destroy social security?
What else ? Let's get rid of unemployment benefits!! Let people sink or swim!!!
What else? What about help for pregnant women who don't enough to pay for services to deliver their babies...
What else?...
I was going to say get a life, Eugene, but I forgot you are retired already.
Poor Jesus might be saying: Hey Eugene, I was hungry,...I was (Mathhew 24)
The Christian Yahwist PS: Now that you mentioned Jesus' brother Santiago in your other thread for Alberto, about the spanish bombings...
Acts says Santiago tells Paul not to forget the poor. Paul says the same in Galatians.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 15, 2004.
Elpidio,Bush is going to destroy Social Security? Wow I hadn't heard that.
Social Security has kept us from having a depression like the Great Depression? I didn't know that either.
I thought that the period where one can collect unemployment benefits has increased a great deal under Bush. I guess I heard wrong.
Hospitals will refuse to deliver babies if the mother doesn't have enough money to pay for the deliverty? Lots of things I didn't know.
What else? Tell us more.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 15, 2004.
It's Elpidio who has forgotten all his history lessons.Social Security was, in fact, a socialist work. It wasn't created as an entitlement, but to give relief. An economy which depends on doles from the federal gov't gains no ''protection from depressions''. Jobs are created by capitalist enterprise; not by the Feds. Look at all socialist societies today: the very best ones are just communism without a totalitarian dictatorship. If they were all models, that would still not promote vast productivity like seen in capitalist countries.
Then look at the less-than-successful socialist states: they produce shrunken productivity, dependence on the dole and dictatorships. Either that, or popular unrest and revolution as we saw in Poland, Hungary, the Soviet Union. Mexico is a glaring example; poverty for the lower classes and total control of government by the ''party''. Mexicans call it a dictablanda, soft dictatorship. Communists run a dictadura, hard, oppressive dictatorship. We see that in China now. They'll help pregnant women who don't have enough to pay for services to deliver their babies. Except that they enforce birth control, sterilizations, and murder of infants. They rule by brute force. Socialism isn't that far away on the spectrum; it gives most powers to the state, little or none to the people.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 15, 2004.
Maybe I got my bible verses right, Eugene: congratulations, you poor, to you belong the kingdom of Heaven, congratualtions to those persecuted because of practicing righteousness,...to whoever asks you for your coat,..., I was hungry, and you didn't feed me, I was in jail, and you din't come and visit me,...with the same measure you measure you will be measured,...I am the bread of life,...is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for...Eugene, Jesus advocated helping those in need.
Was he a socialist? Yes
A soocialist, Eugene is one who advocates helping those less fortunate.
A capitalist could care less.
A communist will force you to leave religion, and then to submit to the state.
A mixed economy(USA, Canada, Europe..) is a combination of capitalist and socialist ideas.
Kerry is for a mixed economy. Just like he endangered his life, like Jesus, to save a person, who later became a republican.
The good thing that republican saw the light. He has become Kerry's biggest supporter in this election.
The minute you can show me verses where Jesus is a capitalist, then point them to me.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 16, 2004.
As Catholic Theologian Michael Novak put it: “This point needs elaboration since, in Marxist analysis, the only beneficiaries of capitalism are said to be the rich. In actual fact, it is the poor who gain most from capitalism. That is why the poor have always gravitated toward capitalist countries… the Statue of Liberty beckoned to the world; and nearly 100 percent of Americans did come to America poor. Today barely over 12 percent of Americans are poor (which is defined as having an income below $18,000 per year for a family of four). That means that 88 percent are not poor, and we still have about 12 percent to help. In 1990, 38 percent of the American poor owned their own homes; 95 percent of the poor had their own television sets; and a poor American was more likely to own an automobile than the average Western European. Today, the percentage of the American poor who own their own homes has climbed from 38 to 46 percent; more than half own two or more color televisions; almost two-thirds have cable or "dish" TV; three- quarters have a VCR or DVD player. Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more. Beyond the poor, half of all families have incomes above $50,000 per year. About 20 percent have incomes above $91,000 per year…. The moral case for capitalism is, therefore, the most important case. In addition to being political animals seeking liberty and economic animals seeking prosperity, human beings are also moral animals, thirsting for fairness, justice, truth, kindness, and love. What has capitalism to do with these?... It was precisely through a moral argument that capitalism first commended itself to human consciousness in America, Britain, and France. This is the case that Marx and Lenin overlooked. Indeed, even many in Western lands have also overlooked it, or accepted it only inarticulately and in fragments. Practical people often skip past moral arguments. They thereby run the risk of undermining their own accomplishments. For no historical movement can long outlive the conviction of its protagonists that what they are doing is morally admirable. Moral conviction is one of the greatest forces in history, not even armies can hold it back.. ”He goes on to make his Moral Case for Capitalism.
The Church does not favor socialism over capitalism. What the Church opposes is "unbridled" or "primitive" capitalism. According to Pope John Paul II, "what is being proposed as an alternative [to primitive capitalism] is not the socialist system, which in fact turns out to be State capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of enterprise and of participation. Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied." The Holy Father has affirmed this "new capitalism" as "an economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the economic sector.... It would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a 'business economy', 'market economy' or simply 'free economy' (Centesimus annus, 1991)." Capitalism rightly understood is not only compatible with Catholic social doctrine, it is also the strongest force for liberation. Democratic, pluralistic, capitalist societies may very well be the best hope for ending world poverty and ethnic violence (Michael Novak, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, 1993).
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.
corrected link:He goes on to make his Mora l Case for Capitalism.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.
corrected corrected link: it is here: http://www.nationalreview.com/novak/novak200402180913.asp
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.
You said it, Bill: the church says...Not Jesus. That is why there is something called the Bible.
I am a social conservative, Bill. Even I would be to the right of Jesus.
Jesus had some comunal living ideas. That is why the first disciples after he was crucified decided to follow on his footsteps. They shared things in common. Those that had something sold it and gave it to the church. People had common meals.See Acts 3-7 and I Corinthians 11,Also Galatians 2-3. Don't forget James.
I favored balanced budgets, social programs for disadvantaged people, unemployment benefits, social security,...
That is why I liked Clinton.
Kerry reminds me of Clinton.
And, I will vote for Kerry.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 16, 2004.
Clinton is a capitalist. Remember the land deals he got into trouble about in Arkansas?-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.
In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million (in 1970 dollars). Kerry left her and married into the Heinz family. His present wife is worth more than $700 million. I don't know if you would call him a capitalist or what?-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 16, 2004.
Answer to Elpidio: ''Eugene, Jesus advocated helping those in need.'' --Is that so? The Catholic Church teaches me that as well.Was he (Jesus) a socialist? Yes--? NO. He was a Galilean carpenter. Those weren't Marxist times.
Would Jesus have ever been a socialist, in our day? Not really. Socialists redistribute other mens' wealth; and basically are just publicans and land-grabbers. They act under pretense of helping the needy, for the state. Not for the needy. And always with money taken away from the nation's producers. The poor don't really need socialists to help them. They need wealthy men to offer them good jobs and security. You see this in the gospel narratives. Jesus was poor and never took money from the state. (Saint Joseph went to his birthplace to pay taxes; remember? The state never gave joseph or Mary or Jesus anything but grief. So much for helping the needy.
''That Republican saw the light. He has become Kerry's biggest supporter in this election.'' (It's a free country. Where he ever saw he light, who knows? Not around Kerry's face.)
''The minute you can show me verses where Jesus is a capitalist, then point them to me.''
I told you. Jesus was a Galilean carpenter, and never had any money. He's a real KING, though. He's the Son of God. You don't get richer than that; and He wants us all to become heirs through Him. That means He shares the wealth, doesn't it? Capitalists can follow Christ, too. Or do you object?
The Christian Yahwist-- ? ? ? Sorry, but No. Christian means you believe the Son of God came down from heaven and became Man. You aren't close to being a Christian. I wonder if you're even a true Yahwist. There's much reason to question that.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 17, 2004.
I will always be a true Yahwist and a true Christian.Just make sure you return you social security check to the government , Eugene.( Remember the young man to whom Jesus said you only need one thing, sell what you have, give it to the poor, and come and follow me)
The Christian Yahwist
The Man of Yahweh
-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 17, 2004.
Dear Elpidius,El Gino may never get back what he had taken away from every paycheck feeding the Social Security Black Hole. And Saint Joseph got nothing back for his tax after Caesar Augustus made him go back to Bethlehem either. My argument is about Socialist-Marxist philosophy which you feel compelled to exonerate. But why was there a Wall around Berlin? To keep capitalists out? No-- to keep folks IN. Thanks to Pope John Paul II and Reagan, Solidarity beat the totalitarians and down came the Berlin Wall. Have you read any history books lately? Socialist states are for LOSERS. Jesus was no socialist; He's a Winner.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 17, 2004.
in regards to socialism:"there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals"
-- Felix Frankfurter, US Supreme Court, 1949
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), March 17, 2004.
Elpidio,In the early part of this thread you asked the question, "Bill, do you see or have you seen Kerry openly pushing for legislation or having introduced legislation which promotes abortion, homosexual marriage,..?"
He answered you very effectively that Kerry has indeed done these things, and yet you seem to have ignored his answer.
What say you? Are you just going to ignore it and pretend that Kerry is not pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, etc?
-- I (wouldlike@to.know), March 17, 2004.
Spring Break: Kerry retreats to his Sun Vally Mansion for 5-day luxury unwind.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), March 17, 2004.
Well, I would like to know(John G by the way?)
until I verify Billy Nelson's places and facts, I cannot say anything on the subject. Whether Bill is right or wrong, I cannot tell.
Bill creates many links, but I have to make sure they are legit. Also, that the congressional record shows that Kerry was the one introducing the legislation.
So Paul H, are you voting for Bush?
Somehow I feel you think I am a marxist of some sort because I use the word socialist. Actually, in Italy during the postwar years there were parties carrying the words Christian Socialists. Christian Socialism is an alternative to Socialism and Marxism, Leninism, Stalism.
The USA has a mixed economy. Only coins say IN GOD WE TRUST , and the Pledge A NATION UNDER GOD , prayers may be said in the military, and both houses, but there is no particular religion ,the nation is secular.
As you can see, I made Eugene fall into a contradiction. First he is against social security. Then when I asked him to send his money back he replies by implying the money is his.
Maybe he doesn't know by now that the US government send some of that money as "refunds" by Bush last year to keep the economy going.
Also, he doesn't know how much money has been taken from new people to pay him. Those that are collecting now did not put as much as those like me who will never get something back in return.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 17, 2004.
Elps,
I never said I was against Social Security, even though it is socialism in the simplest form. I said it was not meant to become an entitlement by its originator, FDR. It was stop-gap relief. Yes, it has done a lot of good. There's no contradiction; just see the Soviet Union's social work, and tell me what was Christian about it? Now you want to say Kerry ''may or may not be'' for abortion, gay marriage, etc., --When you know it for sure. Just admit it; you don't care. You are for tax and spend socialism. Confiscate the goods of the productive to pander to the never-have-been productive; just for expedience. The manner of remaining in power. It's buying votes, that's all. But know something? Good Latinos aren't so gullible. They'll see through Kerry and remember the Chupacabra. They know his kind.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), March 17, 2004.
The only onme I saw buying votes, Eugene was Bush Jr.He made that promise in 2000. He also sent money last year.
As far as I know Kerry hasn't given me any money.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 18, 2004.
Elpidio,Kerry's history is widely documented, so you should have no problem verifying Bill's statements regarding him in this matter. The reason I asked is because you asked Bill, he answered you, and you seemed to just ignore it and go off in a different direction in support of Kerry. I have friends who think similarly as you do. I pose the same question to you as I would to them: if you verify these facts and find them to be true (which you will -I'm not being presumptious, it's just that I myself have found them to be true), will you still support Kerry, and how will you justify it as a good Catholic? Please understand, this is nothing personal, it's just that I continue to run into people who think as you, and I am interested in knowing your response.
All this is of course assuming that you WILL take the time to verify the facts. I know people who when confronted with these questions will say, "I have to verify that for myself" and then don't because ...well for reasons I assume to be that if the facts are proven to be true, they will have to deal with it! I hope that you would not be one of those people.
Thanks for your response, I look forward to the answer to my question posed above.
***Not John G. by the way...far from it***
-- I (would@liketo.know), March 18, 2004.
A correction:I see in another thread that you have labeled yourself an "ex- Catholic" I was unaware of this in posing my question to you. I would still appreciate a response though, but now I understand better the position you are coming from (I think)
-- I (would@liketo.know), March 18, 2004.
Elpidio, This stuff isn't hidden. See: Kerry's voting record on abortionABORTION
2003 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2003, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2001-2002 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
2001 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important from 1995 to 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2001 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2001, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
2000 On the votes that the National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action League considered to be the most important in 2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1999-2002 On the votes that the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association considered to be the most important in 1999-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1999-2000 On the votes that the National Right to Life Committee considered to be the most important in 1999-2000, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 0 percent of the time.
1999 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood considered to be the most important in 1999, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
1996-2003 On the votes that the Planned Parenthood (Senate) considered to be the most important, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time.
HOMOSEXUALITY
2001-2002 Based on the votes, and co-sponsorships the Human Rights Campaign considered to be the most important in 2001-2002, Senator Kerry voted their preferred position 100 percent of the time. [the Human Rights Campaign is the largest homosexual lobbying group in Washington, D.C.
-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 18, 2004.
8 City of Dayton peoel voted no to it todAY,I know not really rleevant, btu I liek this, its in my hometown.
-- ZAROVE, DAYTON TENNESSEE RESEDENT. (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 18, 2004.
Thanks for the links, Bill.I check them out. I read some already.
Do you know if his wife had abortions?
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 18, 2004.
You don't understand my position, JR.I don't believe in abortion. I have a harder stance on abortion , divorce and contraception than most Average Catholics have. Average Catholics are no different than Protestants when it comes to abortion, contraception, and divorce.
I have 4 kids, 0 abortions,0 divorces,...and whatever else you can think of.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 18, 2004.
Do you know if his wife had abortions?His current wife is not running for president, he is, and he wants to continue the millions of deaths. We must keep our eye on the right goal here, to save the millions of innocents who are being killed by their mothers with the help of murderous doctors and wiley politicians.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 18, 2004.
The reason I mentioned this, Bill, because Kerry considers himself a Catholic.The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 19, 2004.
Elpidio,You said to JR "I don't believe in abortion. I have a harder stance on abortion , divorce and contraception than most Average Catholics have. Average Catholics are no different than Protestants when it comes to abortion, contraception, and divorce."
If this is the case, and Kerry holds the position on abortion that he does, then how can you support him?
I realize that you did not address the above statement to me, but in all honesty, I really would like to know.
-- I (wouldlike@to.know), March 19, 2004.
I Would Like to Know your name, too. Even a short form.We have to make distictions on what a person does on a personal level, guided by circumstances, and agendas, either personal or from party.
Reagan believed in horoscopes, divorce,...yet staunch conservative Christians of all religious denominations voted for him.
Carter was aa more moral person, yet they rejected him.
Bush Jr. may be for family, against abortion,...
yet, he has been sytematically passing new acts to curtail civil liberties. See Patriot Act.
I am afraid that if re-elected he might try to privatize social security.
I already know what happened now that he allowed cable , tv stations and other media to consolidate. Less voices for those in opposition.
In addition, I already felt the effects off his friend Lay from ENRON. The Republicans deregulated electricity in California. We have been paying very high prices because of Lay, Bush, and deregulation.
Lokk at gasoline prices, cable prices,.... they keep going up.
The only reason the economy hasn't sunk is because of the huge refinancing done by homeowners. This thanks to Alan Greenspun, chairman of the reserve., not Bush.
Kerry is a Catholic.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 19, 2004.
Elpidio,I don't have much time, but here are some quick thoughts:
REAGAN VS CARTER: Good president vs. Bad president. Reagan advanced pro-life agenda more than Carter.
PATRIOT ACT: fears way overblown, Bill Nelson had a good link explaining this in a recent thread. If I was a terrorist I would be concerned, but I'm not
SOCIAL SECURITY: I don't know if Bush will privatize it or not. But you said yourself earlier in this thread that it was in bad shape. Something needs to be done. What's Kerry's plan.
MEDIA CONSOLIDATION: I wouldn't worry if I were you. You've still got NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NPR, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today (and just about every other major urban newspaper), Time, Newsweek, Hollywood, Al Franken's new radio show...
ELECTRICITY: Real deregulation works. What happened in California was deregulation of one side only, the supply side, ie there was no limit on what suppliers could charge power companies for power, but there was strict regulation on what power companies could charge consumers. Well the result of trying to "protect" consumers was that consumers have to pay more anyway after blackouts, bankruptcies, and bad contracts signed by a panicked Gray Davis. Bush and Cheney denounced this bizarre "deregulation" scheme at the time.
GAS AND CABLE PRICES: If only we could drill for oil on our own shores and property. Cable Prices? Don't have cable myself, so don't know what to tell you.
REFINANCING: Agreed, Greenspan has done a good job. So you don't credit Bush with keeping the economy from sinking. Did you blame him for the recession immediately after he took office, before he could have any impact whatsoever. Be honest now.
KERRY IS A CATHOLIC: Kerry is a pro-choice, pro-homosexual marriage Catholic.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 19, 2004.
The choices are simple.Vote Bush: wuth him you get better military ptrotection, and possibely probelms with a poor economic plan.But we may regain the rleigious freedom Americ was once famous for.
Vote Kerry: Get less military protection, and lots of dead babies, as well asa scuandered economy and devistated free enterprise. This will ehlp lead America into a Socialist direction and render us al wage slaves tot he state handout machine Not to mention our children will be indoctornated into the secular worldveiw.
Of course, the democrates may bandon th sinking Ship Kerry and appitn a new party leader at the last minuet, they are talkign abitu it...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 19, 2004.
>Reagan believed in horoscopes, divorce,...yet staunch conservative Christians of all religious denominations voted for him.The story is that Nancy Reagan believed in horoscopes, not Ronald.
>Carter was aa more moral person, yet they rejected him.
Carter is indeed a moral person, but he made a terrible president. That’s OK, not all moral people make good leaders. Carter is a terrible judge of character.
>Bush Jr. may be for family, against abortion,... yet, he has been sytematically passing new acts to curtail civil liberties. See Patriot Act.
You need to be specific here and show something that Bush did that would be morally just as bad as the murder of millions of innocent children. You also need to show that it is a new law, not one that we already had under a different guise. You need to show both.
>I am afraid that if re-elected he might try to privatize social security.
Instead of just letting it go bankrupt, which is where it is heading now. This is no where near the moral equivalence of the murdering of millions of innocent children.
>I already know what happened now that he allowed cable , tv stations and other media to consolidate. Less voices for those in opposition. ….
I though Carter did this???
>Look at gasoline prices, cable prices,.... they keep going up.
Inflation is down compared to the Carter years (not that the president has much control over it).
>The only reason the economy hasn't sunk is because of the huge refinancing done by homeowners. This thanks to Alan Greenspun, chairman of the reserve., not Bush.
No president has much control over the economy, about the only thing they can do is raise taxes (which slows down the economy) or lower taxes (which speeds up the economy). Bush has chosen to speed up the economy.
>Kerry is a Catholic.
He is? You wouldn’t know it by his actions and his beliefs. Where does he follow what Rome teaches?
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 19, 2004.
Kerry cusses out Secret Service agent today who is there to protect his life because the Secret Service agent ruins a 'photo op'. WARNING foul language.While, the president presents maybe the most important speach of the week.
-- Bill Nelson
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), March 19, 2004.
I don't know how much are you familiar with United States of America history, Zarove.The Republicans of Abraham Lincoln were against slavery and pro- business. Federal republic vesrus states rights(The South), the income tax,federal parks.
The Democrats used to be for slavery, segregation,states rights, keeping only people who paid a poll tax voting, the Bible,..
Then they began to switch some items little by little.
First, Wilson alighed the democrats towards the center. Then, after the "Good Republican years of 1920-1932" which ended in the worst recession in history, the Democrats came to the rescue.
They created social programs to get people working, fix the soil by oreventing erosion, created social security, ... for the first time workers were allowed to really enjoy the benefits of a union. After the war (II), where democrats helped other nations, the soldiers were given housing through the GI Bill.
On the foreign front, the Phillipines, Cuba, and other nations under USA occupation were allowed to restablish their governments.
Eisenhower, a Republican, was a centrist. Then came Kennedy, a Catholic Democrat who faced the Soviets into a stalemate.Yes, Kennedy was like Kerry a War Veteran.
Johnson a Democrat signed the Civil Rights law, this entitled all people to vote, and not face descrimination by color.
Then came , Nixon, a Republican. Under the shadows he negotiated ddeals with the Vietcong to get elected. Once elected, he bombed Cambodia, a neutral country. Then he is better known by Watergate. Under him inflation went sky high.
Then Came Carter who made friends with many nations. Beter known for allowing the Soviets to take Afganistan and the double digit inflation.
Reagan created the biggest deficits in history. Suported dictators everywhere: Noriega, Stroessner, Pinochet, Suharto, Marcos,....under the doctrine that they were better than marxist governments.
Then came Bush sr. He had to change course many times. First he had supported Noriega. Then he had to get rid of him. He supported Saddam against Iran. Later in 1991 invaded his country of Iraq.He works for many oil rich nations.
Then came Clinton. The press, the Republicans hounded him every day. They used to make fun of him when he said he was going to balance the budget. He did. We had thhe best time of employment,standards of living thatn at any other time in history.
The recession was in part the fault of Bush Jr. and the other part Clinton.Clinton did not create a team to oversee these companies because he was trying hard to get out of the Lewinsky scandal.Bush Jr. had supported Lay's effrots to sell electricity to California while he was governor. Lay was part of Bush Jr's. team.
California represents 10% of national output. We enetred a recession because excessive electricity prices. On the other hand, Lay got caught in his schemes. ENRON his company and others involved in fraud schemes like World com went bankrupt.
Then Bush came into the picture. He already had some baggage from Texas. He is a man that has no mercy for people on death row. 50/50 he signed to be executed, that included a woman whho had turned into a Christian. He had problems before with alcohol(so do his daughters).
I asked God Yahweh about him. I was told he was going to be the next President (Nov. 2000). He actually never was elected by the people, but by the electors, including the one's his brohter "stole" for him.
But God can work with people like Bush. God doesn't see your past if he thinks there is room for improvement. So my mother and me had a chance to see in advance 9//11 and Osama Bin Laden (my mom) and the Afganistan invasion (me).
I e-mailed him to use the Northern Alliance as back ups and aim for Kabul. I told hom it was going to be over in 3 weeks. It happened.
I also was told to bless the man to do well. I personally don't like him, yet, I blessed him in a dream.That was in November 2001. He was in the White House, sleeping that morning. There were 2 bodyguards in the room. I blssed him in th name of my God Yahweh. I e-mailed him later that he wasn't going to find Bin Laden in December, 2001.
In February 2002 I told him he was going to fight in Iraq before June 2003.
In February 2003 I told him the war he to start before april 15. He had to attack Bagdad directly. I told him in 3 weeks he was going to be in control. He did.
In May I e-mailed Rod my dream about saddam and his son Udday.I sent same e-mail to Bush in July about Saddam Hussein looking like a crazy man and his son dead. Udday was killed along his other brother. I had told Bush he wasn't going to find saddam because he was dead and buried. He wasn't dead when they found him in December 2003, but he was in a tomb underground like a dead man!!!
So people who think I am anti-Bush have not read my other posts in this forum.
About Iraq: I had emailed him in March of last year, 2003, to let an Iraqi run the country within 2 months of the invasion. I told him the people would begin to turn against him if he didn't. I had told him in February 2003, before the invasion of 5000 USA casualties and 50,000 Iraqis. At first, it looked like I was wrong. But a year later, we have over 4000 USA casualties. Very close to 5000. 11,000 iraqi casualties are listed, but it could be more. By disboying me, Bush has made my predictions true.
If to most people I sound crazy, then you can ask Bush. He has received quite a few e-mails from me.
Why am I against him now? Because he is pursuing a different agenda than what he should.
He is making or trying to make his friends rich with contracts in Iraq.
Lately, he was many media outlets consolidated, like radio, televison,... this could mean the end of independent outlets.
The US media is becoming less independant.
The Christian Yahwist.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 19, 2004.
Elipio, I was referign to THIS election with THESE candidated, not the whole Party hisotries of each party.Thus, vote Bush and get storng mlitsry and an average at best economy plan, or vote Kery and get warmed over communism and aborton on demand.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 19, 2004.
Kerry is not a communit, Zarove.This are Republican lies.
The Christian Yahwist
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), March 19, 2004.
No, its a fac that he backs scialist ideals for govnerment controled buisness. What do you think the basis of Communism is?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), March 19, 2004.
Elpidio,Are you for real? Without visions, I could have predicted most of the events you described about as accurately as you did. Bush's brother stole electors for him? Bush has disobeyed you? You need some sleep my friend.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), March 20, 2004.