Attn. US voters. Here's a great site to help with your decision!

[Stratos]

Not only that, but Bush also have the ability to create new words anytime he wants. He takes the lead in the progress of the English language.

[ 10-22-2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by MagiK: Trying to get another thread closed Chewie? Not even going to try to enlighten ya. Edit: used educate instead of enlighten..freudian slip.

Huh? The mods close threads, not I. I understand it is bad manners to comment publicly on moderation decisions, so nothing more to discuss in reply to this comment.

Do you have an on-topic comment or just the usual tricks?

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: TL you might try looking at the info yourself and quit doing the exact same thing you are accusing me of. Even Sir K. had to admit there is a definate difference in how the left and right candidates are being portreyed. My comment is legitimate.

So? Who cares if your comment is legitimate? 99.9% of my knowledge comes from biased sources, but I am able to pull the facts out and interpret them for myself.

But, to do something I *loathe* doing, I'll discuss the political slant of that site, which as I noted may or may not add or subtract to its validity. My first quick-check regarding a site's political slant is what books and trinkets it's peddling. That is one of the rare sites (other than Amazon) that sells both the Republican and Democrat publications. Now, after clicking on different pages several times, it is obvious that it peddles way more Democrat publications, swo I'll give you that. However, when reading the lists of positions on the various issues, I didn't see that it was overly kind to Kerry or overly-ill toward Bush. It seems to be one of the more reasonable attempts at fairly summarizing the candidates positions, in their own words.

But again, what does it matter anyway? The site has a LOT of information, and if you want to poo-poo it because it leans this way or that way, go ahead. You're just starting to sound like a broken record, that's all. You could save time by putting that argument into your sig quote. [/QUOTE]The site's content and technical manager, Jesse Gordon, is a Democratic activist from looking at his personal website. Also, I didn't look at them myself, but it seems the staff of the site made thier test results in the political quiz public.

http://www.issues2000.org/join.htm

[Sir Kenyth]

Nothing's perfect, but IMHO this site is better than most

[Cerek]

Bush allows the destruction of life up to a certain amount.

This is the 6th item under "Kerry on Abortion". I find that statement to be rather ironic from someone that supports abortion.

Perhaps it should read "Bush allows the destruction of life up to a certain amount...I'll allow it without any restrictons."

[Cerek]

On a side note, I did notice that some of the comments under Bush seemed to have a slightly more negative connotation, but it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be.

I don't know if there ARE any truly objective websites with this type of info available (although there certainly should be one somewhere), but this site is much more "even-handed" than many of the sites I've seen.

[Cloudbringer]

Chewie and Magik, back to your corners please. How about neither of you makes any comments about how the other one does this or that in threads, which is personal, and could be seen as baiting for an argument, and nobody will have to even consider closing anything. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Now Cerek, supporting a woman's legal choice to have an abortion is not the same as supporting abortion. There is a big difference between "I think you should have a choice to do this" and "I think you should do this."

It is also erroneous to state that Kerry favors the destrustion of life withoutany restrictions. Thats just unfair and inaacurate.

full quote from the debate:

Bush allows the destruction of life up to a certain amount BUSH: Embryonic stem cell research requires the destruction of life. I'm the first president ever to allow federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. I did so because I, too, hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells. But we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science. And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. KERRY: Bush says he's allowed it, which means he's going to allow the destruction of life up to a certain amount, and then he isn't going to allow it. But let me tell you point blank, the lines of stem cells that he's made available, every scientist in the country will tell you, not adequate, because they're contaminated by mouse cells, and because there aren't 60 or 70; there are only about 11 to 20 now, and there aren't enough to be able to do the research because they're contaminated. Source: [Xref Bush] Second Bush-Kerry Debate, in St. Louis MO Oct 8, 2004

[Cerek]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Now Cerek, supporting a woman's legal choice to have an abortion is not the same as supporting abortion. There is a big difference between "I think you should have a choice to do this" and "I think you should do this." It is also erroneous to state that Kerry favors the destrustion of life withoutany restrictions. Thats just unfair and inaacurate.

Now Chewbacca, I did not say that Kerry favors the destruction of life. What I said was that Kerry's position would be more accurately described as saying "I will allow it without restrictions" which is an accurate representation of his stance. Abortion DOES destroy fetuses - there is no denying that. And Kerry will allow women to make the choice of whether they are going to destroy their fetus or not and won't put any new restrictions on it.

So I stand by previous comments. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 10-25-2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Cerek ]

[Djinn Raffo]

The reasons Bush's comments could be interpreted as having a more negative slant than Kerry's is because Bush IS negative.