suzyrice.com Rotating Header Image

DNC CONVENTION PRESIDENTIAL BOX, MONDAY P.M.

500wde_MooreCarterDNC.jpg

Micheal Moore, pictured right, lost all composure for a moment, caught here on camera, just before he returned to his “JabbaTheMoore” configuration. There is no word as of this date as to whether or not Former President Jimmy Carter has been found inorder to replace the one-dimensional popup, seated left in his absence at the time of this photograph.

Share

17 C O M M E N T S

  1. Anonymous says:

    “…during this Presidential campaign, and even throughout recent times, Vietnam has been discussed and written about without an adequate statement of its full meaning.” (…) “We do not need to divide America over who served and how. I have personally always believed that many served in many different ways. Someone who was deeply against the war in 1969 or 1970 may well have served their country with equal passion and patriotism by opposing the war as by fighting in it.”

    — John F. Kerry, January 30th, 1992

    “Today, our Democratic party is led by another former naval officer — one who volunteered for military service. He showed up when assigned to duty, and he served with honor and distinction.

    — Jimmy Carter, July 26, 2004 (Democratic National Convention)

    “During the Vietnam War, many young men, including the current president, the vice president and me, could have gone to Vietnam and didn’t. John Kerry came from a privileged background. He could have avoided going too, but instead, he said: Send me.”

    — Bill Clinton, July 26, 2004 (Democratic National Convention)

    “Bush is a draft dodger”

    — Max Cleland

  2. -S- says:

    About the Cleland “quote,” there’s nothing to substantiate those allegations. I realize that to believe such reaffirms a certain reality by a certain personality. Delusions are interesting that way: say them enough, rewrite them enough, repeat them and they take on greater appearance of “reality” — ~it’s in print, it’s being repeated, it must be “true”~.

    I was ashamed of Jimmy Carter’s and Bill Clinton’s comments from the DNC convention in Boston, truly ashamed of both of them, mostly because they are so ashamed of this country. Another thing: they both defy the “new DNC” theme underway, reinforcing the perspective of fear, embarrassment about their fellows, reliance on an expectation of “popularity” among nations instead of on their own character for strength. Very much a shame to hear these two people encourage such an unproductive point of view. Unless, of course, that IS the “new DNC” perspective. In which case, I’m even more embarrassed for them.

    The whole socialist push by the DNC relies on denigrating service, allowance of benefits and participations in the government by all citizens, instead insisting on access for only some. I’m listening to Obama speaking now (replay, FOX) and although, like Dean, he’s a talented motivational speaker, he’s exemplifies the very socialist concepts that the country was founded inorder to circumvent and alter.

  3. nomen says:

    An interesting debate I had today

    Ill-informed Catholic writes:

    As a person who thinks every abortion is a great tragedy (though I think it resembles suicide more than it does murder – I am refering to the motivations of women who seek abortions) I still believe I will likely vote for Kerry and I would ask those who consider abortion to be the most important issue in the presidential election to consider the following:

    1) Bush has been president for several years and abortion is still legal.

    2) In the many Latin American countries where abortions are not legal, there is a higher rate of abortions than there are in this country.

    3) The rate of abortions has declined in this country steadily for at least the last 12 years – including every year that Clinton was president.

    Making abortions illegal will not stop abortions. Laws restricting abortions, promoting education about when life begins, requiring parent notification of minors, etc. are part of the answer but the biggest part is helping people maintain hope in their lives.

    I don’t think either candidate has a monopoly on hope so I make the choice that would seem to promise more hope – knowing that even the president has limited power to make our lives truly better.
    Far more depends on how we live our lives within our community.

    I may not vote for Kerry, but voting either way solely on the issue of abortion just doesn’t make sense. The end of abortions requires far more than a president who thinks they should be illegal.

    -X
    ———————————————-

    My response:

    Many of your points are fallacious.

    1. Bush is being supported by NRL…Kerry is being supported by NARAL. Abortion can only be banned through an Amendment. Rome was not built in a day.

    The highlights of his Presidency include:

    January 22, 2001 — President Bush Reinstates Mexico City Policy (bans use of U.S. money for organizations that promote abortion overseas)

    May 17, 2001 — Bush Administration Begins Effort to Put Pro-Life Advocates on International Panels

    May 26, 2001 — Bush Overrules Powell on Nominee Appoints Pro-lifer to Important State Department Post

    June 21, 2001 Bush Supports Strongest Pro-Life Ban on Human Cloning

    August 28, 2001 Bush Won’t Back Down to the United Nations on Abortion

    December 5, 2001 Bush Selects Pro-Life Ex-Gov to Head Republican Party

    January 31, 2002 Bush Administration Classifies Developing Fetus as Unborn Child

    Signed the “The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act”

    February 6, 2003 — Bush Will Veto Spending Bill That Doesn’t Ban Abortion Funding

    April 10, 2003 — President Bush Nominates Another Pro-Lifer for Judicial Spot – Alabama’s Pro-Life Attorney General Bill Pryor

    3) “Laws restricting abortions, promoting education about when life begins, requiring parent notification of minors, etc. are part of the answer but…”

    John Kerry…

    Supports allowing minors to be transported across state lines for an abortion in order to avoid having to notify their parents they were getting an abortion.

    Kerry believes Catholic charities and hospitals should be forced to provide contraceptives and abortions. California and New York both require Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive insurance coverage. Now the people behind these bills want to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortions. Kerry states that he supports requiring insurance plans to cover contraception and he cosponsored a bill requiring all Catholic employers to provide all forms of birth control, including the abortifacient morning after pill. This bill allowed no religious exemption, not even the hyper narrow exemption provided in the California law.

    Senator Kerry has voted in favor of all forms of abortion, marches in parades with pro-abortion forces, spends time visiting Planned Parenthood clinics, and speaks before militant pro-abortion groups like NARAL.

    “As President, I will only appoint Supreme Court Justices who will uphold a woman’s right to choose.” John Kerry, September 2003.

    “2) In the many Latin American countries where abortions are not legal, there is a higher rate of abortions than there are in this country.”

    This is a fallacious argument put forth by you. First, we’re voting on a President who will run America.

    Second,

    May 16, 2001 — U.S. House Backs President Bush in Denying Funds to Overseas Groups That Promote Abortion Legalization

    August 28, 2001 — Bush Won’t Back Down to the United Nations on Abortion

    May 2, 2002 — Bush Administration Opposing Abortion at UN Child Conference

    July 22, 2002 — Bush Administration Withholds UNFPA Money

    December 15, 2002 — UN Population Summit Begins, Bush Administration Battles Abortion Advocates

    December 17, 2002 — Bush Admin. Called ‘Heroic’ For Opposing Abortion At Population Summit

    December 27, 2002 — US Attacked for Pro-life Stance at UN Conference in Bangkok

    January 22, 2003 — Bush Admin Diverts UNFPA Funds to Maternal Health Programs

    January 30, 2003 — Pro-Abortion Democrats Block Aid to Women in Afghanistan

    Education is key….but laws are a must. One must understand that laws never eliminate a problem. Laws only curtail and minimize the problem. The riddance of a law will only propagate an ongoing problem (Since 1973 — 40 million abortions). The unfortunate reality is that for many individuals, our laws are what constitutes the moral fiber of many individuals. After all, anything that is legal must be beneficial to our health and moral well being? Right?

    As far as education…

    Bush has done the following…

    July 6, 2001 — Bush Administration Awards Abstinence Grants to CPCs, Pro-Life Groups

    January 20, 2002 — President Bush Seeks Increased Abstinence Funding

    February 26, 2002 — The President’s Welfare Reform focuses on families, abstinence and work

    March 24, 2003 — Bush Administration Provides Record Funding for Abstinence Education

    May 5, 2003 — Bush Administration Deserves Credit for Abstinence Victory

    January 21, 2004 — President Bush Wants Abstinence Program Funding Tripled by 2005

    March 13, 2004 — Religious, Anti-Abortion Groups Among the Winners as Abstinence-Only Funding Increases

    April 5, 2004 — President Bush Criticized for Abstinence Funding Commitment

    -justaguy

  4. justaguy says:

    Another ill-informed Catholic:

    When we talk, “pro-life”, we cannot limit our consideration merely to the right of women to choose. Capital punishment and yes, even war, is a life issue.

    ————————————————

    My response:

    Recent statements from the Church of Rome in regards to “pro-choice” politicians:

    Cardinal Francis Arinze
    [Prefect of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments]
    (April 23, 2004):
    (In regards to denying Communion to pro-choice politicians.)

    “Yes. Objectively, the answer is clear. The person is not fit. If he shouldn’t receive it, then it shouldn’t be given.”

    Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
    [Prefect of Doctrine of the Faith]
    (July 3, 2004):
    (First, pull the politician aside and explain to him/her on the Church’s stance. But…)

    “When these precautionary measures have not had their effect…and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it.”

    Pope John Paul II
    [Bishop of Rome / Cathedra Petri]
    (June 4, 2004):

    “Rights are at times reduced to self-centered demands: the growth of prostitution and pornography in the name of adult choice, the acceptance of abortion in the name of women’s rights, the approval of same sex unions in the name of homosexual rights…”

    “In the face of such erroneous yet pervasive thinking, U.S. Bishops should stress to congregations their special responsibility for evangelizing culture and promoting Christian values in society and *public* life.”

    ————————————

    Let’s examine the Catholic Catechism…very briefly….

    In regards to abortion:

    2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral
    evil of *every* procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

    In regards to the death penalty:

    2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church *does not exclude* recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

    The Catholic Church identifies abortion as being “intrinsically evil”….whereas the recourse to the death penalty is not intrinsically evil. “Abortion” and “Capital Punishment” are not equal.

    ——————————————

    YOUR ROLE AS A CATHOLIC VOTER
    (Catholic Answers)

    Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. “Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community” (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.

    But voting cannot be arbitrary. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals” (CPL 4).

    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.

    THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES

    1. Abortion

    The Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it” (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

    The child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child’s, who should not suffer death for others’ sins.

    (http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp)

  5. justaguy says:

    Third ill-informed Catholic:

    The thing is, there ARE other issues:

    The war in Iraq is immoral by the teachings of the Church.
    We should do something to stop or at least curtail the outsourcing of jobs to foreign lands that pay slave wages. This is an unpatriotic, and moreover, sinful practice.
    In the political sphere, things are not so black and white, and each individual voter has a lot to weigh.

    —————————————

    My response:

    The Church does not exclude recourse to Capital Punishment.

    The Church does not exclude recourse to War.

    The Church does state that abortion (every single one) is intrinsically evil. There is never a reason for this grave offense.

    Abortion is non-negotiable.

    1. Read the “Just War” theory. The Iraq War would be allowed under this.

    Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [*Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: “If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ‘Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay’ [*Lk. 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering.”

    “And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them.”

    “Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil.”

    Also…read this from Catholic Answers:

    http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

    Also, John Kerry voted for the Iraq War. Though he’s now flip-flopping on his voting record and is being downright dishonest.

    Kerry and his camp are now saying over and over that Bush misled the American people about Iraq. If this is the case, then President Clinton and John Kerry both misled the American people as well. Kerry supported President Clinton’s attacks on Iraq in 1998 because, “Americans need to really understand the gravity and legitimacy of what is happening with Saddam Hussein. He has been given every opportunity in the world to comply. The president does not control the schedule of UNSCOM. The president did not withdraw the UNSCOM inspectors. And the president did not, obviously, cut a deal with Saddam Hussein to do this at this moment. Saddam Hussein has not complied. Saddam Hussein is pursuing a program to build weapons of mass destruction

  6. -S- says:

    Yikes! You so fast! Can’t keep up…

    The first link:
    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38633about Stem Cell Research…I am trying to formulate some comments to write here about this issue, along with things regarding Ron Reagan’s speech from last night, so will keep developing, but have things to share about both and find that article really helpful, plus informative.

  7. -S- says:

    About this (following reprint of what you shared earlier in the comments here) — these are the reasons that I decided not to vote as a Democrat, that I could not vote as a Democrat, for a Democrat, based upon who and what the current DNC and all Democrats I interact with are (that might sound “exrtreme” to some, but, based upon my faith, I find that I cannot and could never support or lend support to any leader, any political party or process, that counters these principles, as follows, and that the DNC does in fact so support a violation of these principles — and why I insist that those Democrats who identify themselves as “Catholics” [Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Teresa H-K, etc.] and yet refute these principles, are not, in fact, Catholics nor sincere in their witness):

    –>>Catholics have a moral obligation to promote the common good through the exercise of their voting privileges (cf. CCC 2240). It is not just civil authorities who have responsibility for a country. “Service of the common good require[s] citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community” (CCC 2239). This means citizens should participate in the political process at the ballot box.

    But voting cannot be arbitrary. “A well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law that contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals” (CPL 4).

    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.

  8. -S- says:

    Active links as I find them here (still reading):

    Just War Doctrine

  9. -S- says:

    Me, either (as to that ‘can’t wait’ comment)!

    “GOP Produces Video of Kerry on Iraq”

  10. -S- says:

    Yeah, is he ever…have seen this before; it’s an effective bit, fershure.

    http://www.clubforgrowth.com/video/in-the-wind.mov?PHPSESSID=c77a3d5e604221cf1b07d51fa7a728b8

  11. -S- says:

    The thing about videos such as this, however…

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=696&e=2&u=/ap/20040728/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_loyal_opposition…is that the DISTRIBUTION becomes a problem, that even when there’s great footage, without a very aggressive distribution process ready and able, the works aren’t widely seen by the largest possible numbers of persons.

    Which is the ONLY reason that Moore’s OpEd, by the way, has been so widely available to so many people: Miramax’s smarts about distribution and promotion of what they distribute.

    I don’t know that there is a more Republican/conservative support base distribution process at the ready, is what I’m saying, but there should be, no doubt about it. Disney is assumed to be more conservative, but, dunno, in my experience, because, fortunately but unfortunately, the more conservative film distributors DO abide by a more refined concept of taste and content, when compared with those like Miramax, especially, or others…to be consesrvative is to be not as aggressive in the film industry, which is the dilemma of the business process, generally speaking here.