Kerry: Saddam deserves special place in Hell

[elcorazon]

first, Kerry is a politician running for president.  
second, it proves Saddam was a "bad man" and will get his comeuppance.
Christ came to earth because his mom had sex with his dad.
No, see above.
He must, otherwise he wouldn't say it.

[elcorazon]

first, Kerry is a politician running for president.

Your point is....?
 
---
 

my point is that you asked "who is kerry?"  I answered who kerry is.

[elcorazon]

I certainly hope you don't intend to vote for Bush if you oppose candidates who "preach hatred".

[elcorazon]

One cannot argue with someone who believes the bible to be the literal word of God.  As someone who does not believe in the bible, it is fruitless to try and argue my point.  

Bush, may or may not have used similar language about Hussein or Bin Laden, but I don't doubt he has similar feelings.  Kerry, frankly, was just making the point that he's as strongly vigilant against despots like Saddam as anyone, even if his methods would differ drastically from Bush's.

[elcorazon]

1.  I shouldn't have chimed in.  I did so because I thought your points were meaningless unless one took the bible literally which most of us don't, but you're right, I should have ignored the post.

2. I'm sick of the anti-Kerry folks making these same tired arguments.  Bush is president, not Kerry.  Kerry will take the action he deems appropriate when he is president.  Not all action entails all out war.  Nor is war necessarily the most effective action.   As far as voting to allow war, again there is a vast difference between that up or down vote and actually making the final decision to start a war.  I disagree with Kerry's decision to vote yes, but giving the president the ability to wage war against Saddam can be defended, even if you, in the end, believe war was unnecessary as the scenario unfolded.

[elcorazon]

But the question was KNOWING ALL WE KNOW NOW.

If he knew there WMDs, and still voted for the authorization knowing Bush was going to go in, that means he must support war even without the WMDs.

what question?  are you in the wrong thread? I have no idea what you're talking about.

[elcorazon]

I still have no idea how this relates to this thread.

[elcorazon]

2. I'm sick of the anti-Kerry folks making these same tired arguments.

Oh, that's a rich statement!

yeah, I like it myself.

[elcorazon]

That's still a different point.  Kerry supported giving the president the ability to decide whether to go to war in Iraq.  (I disagreed with him, by the way)  Nevertheless, had Kerry been president, he may very well have allowed the process of inspections and coalition building to go on long enough that we either would have known the truth about WMD, etc. and avoided war or we would have had wide support across the globe.  Either result being preferable to what we now have.


By the way, I think Kerry's comment on what he would have done was a monumental gaffe.  Too bad he's not allowed to have them like our buddy Dubya.  We all just assume he doesn't mean it when he says something stupid.

[elcorazon]

Like I said, I believe it was a GAFFE.  I think he meant that he felt he voted properly, despite what eventually transpired.  Nevertheless, you can't put the cat back into the bag.

[elcorazon]

I maintain that if you TRULY believe voting for the resolution = pro-Bush on Iraq in all respects, then you don't think the role of the President is noteworthy.  The truth is the Congress can only vote yes or no and sometimes one votes yes on a resolution that one doesn't fully endorse, because they support it for the most part.  Giving Bush the ability to wage war does not equal agreeing with his methods.

[elcorazon]

I'm not saying he WOULDN'T have gone to war, but that he would have proceeded more cautiously, allowed more inspections and either ended up not at war or with a more unified stronger coalition.

[elcorazon]

but god forbid we abolish the death penalty.

[elcorazon]

but god forbid we abolish the death penalty.

Please tell us what the death penality has to do with eternally judging someone.

If you kill someone, you cut off their opportunity to repent.  But what do I know, I'm Jewish.  I'll be atoning tonight.

[elcorazon]

but god forbid we abolish the death penalty.

Please tell us what the death penality has to do with eternally judging someone.

If you kill someone, you cut off their opportunity to repent.  But what do I know, I'm Jewish.  I'll be atoning tonight.

Using that logic, a murderer who kills an unrepented sinner cuts off that person's opportunity to repent. Therefore would it not be fair to cut off the murderer's chance to repent?

It might be "fair", but that's not the point.  Life isn't fair, now is it?

[elcorazon]

my head is spinning, but I still oppose the death penalty.  I don't think it is the role of our government to kill people, regardless of the circumstances.  It's inhumane to the people who have to actually do the deed.  Not to mention it's a permanent sentence in a flawed system, doesn't provide deterrence, and isn't cost effective.  It also isn't fair, given that those with the best access to legal help are least likely to be sentenced to death, so that's my story and I'm sticking to it.