[quote]rainjack wrote:
You want to demonize the christian right’s constitutional right to vote. This is elitism at it’s sickest.
[/quote]
I have never written anything like that. I am not demonizing anyone’s right to vote. How about, instead of making claims just so you can moan, why not QUOTE exactly what I wrote and address it specifically?
[quote]Superman wrote:
Hate, hate, crap, bs, more crap…
Then some crazy conspiracy theory about pre knowledge of 911, and whores.
[/quote]
And they’re coming to take me away ha-haaa
They’re coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I’ll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats
And they’re coming to take me away ha haaa
You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I said
That losing you would make me flip my lid
Right? You know you laughed
I heard you laugh. You laughed
You laughed and laughed and then you left
But now you know I’m utterly mad
And they’re coming to take me away ha haaa
They’re coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they’re coming to take me away ha haaa
Im tired of arguing, fuck bush.
BTW, let’s remember this is a DISCUSSION. When this is all over, we are still the same people here for the same reasons, to better ourselves and the others around us, so let’s not forget that.
ZEB,
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
rainjack wrote:
11-0 in gay marraige referendums. a titghening of the teenage abortion rules.
Those are not good things for homosexuals or teen-agers. And I don’t agree with or support laws, amendments or rules banning same-sex marriages or tightening control of teen-agers or any woman who decides to have an abortion.
So yeah, I have a problem with people who use religion or their morals to prevent others from making a choice or decision.
If you look at it the other way around you could say the same thing: “I have a problem with homosexuals who want to use marriage to justify their relationships.” As this has never been done you are in fact attempting to change the norm.
By the way a strong majority of the US population disagrees with you!
[/quote]
Homosexuals do not have to justify their relationships, neither do heterosexuals.
Makkun
ZEB,
I understand the sentiment and I appreciate your sincerity, but I can’t let go. He is NOT my president. He is not honest, and he is not fooling me. George Bush is the most dangerous man in the world. He will lead us into the next world war, mark my words. The deaths we are witnessing now are just the start. Wait till one of those stray nukes from Iran or N Korea hits one of our military bases, or one of our fleets. I hope I’m wrong, but the first four years don’t give me much hope.
As you may have guessed, I am a bit passionate about politics. Maybe what is needed is a viable third party. One that is TRULY fiscally conservative that allows full public view of its actions and allows dissent/scrutiny (fiscally conservative), and one that respects people for their individuality and respects their privacy (socially liberal). Seems like a novel concept, but neither party really accomplishes this.
For now my rant is over… I may have to take a little break from this forum for a while. Its as hard on my blood pressure as watching Hannity and Colmes!
Hi Everyone,
I am dismayed that Bush won, but not really surprised. I had hoped he wouldn’t, but he did, with a thin but clear majority. I think it was the wrong decision, but hey, that’s what democracy is all about. So - congratulations to the Bush supporters. I just hope he does not fuck it up more than he did before. That would be great.
Makkun
Wow, I thought this was Testosterone Nation.
I must be mistaken because there sure are a lot of CRY BABIES here.
Just like I predicted.
Bush won the popular vote.
Bush won the electoral vote.
Bush won the most states.
All of this, despite the MASSIVE efforts of the music industry, and the movie industry.
Kerry proved it, and Edwards drove it home. There is no room in the White House for a far left liberal.
So piss on all you whiners!
FOUR MORE YEARS!!!
You’re right Professor X - I jumped the gun and lumped you into a rant that I shouldn’t have.
My apologies.
[quote]neilbudge wrote:
Are you saying the right to kill is more important than the right to life?[/quote]
Okay, I’ll agree with you about when life begins (as this is always the Republican/Pro-Life argument). If the mother of the baby decides to have an abortion, then yes, she has the right to terminate the life of the child. It’s called Pro-Choice for a reason. The woman decides. She can keep the child, give it up for adoption or have an abortion.
I don’t know what kind of places you are dealing with, but there are numerous organizations and clinics that may offer abortion, but they do suggest and give other options. Maybe your area is lacking in sufficient programs. Planned Parenthood and many others give options and have people on staff to discuss such matters. Oh, well, under Bush, programs like that get their funding cut anyway, so there will be less options.
How is there no choice? The woman has various options to choose as I already mentioned.
You can’t say they are hypocrites, especially when most Republicans are Pro-war and Pro-death penalty. Wouldn’t that make you the hypocrite? Oh wait, I’m sure there are reasonable explainations for killing someone in those instances, but when the mother of a child decides to abort a child, that’s a different story. I forgot. Republicans way or no way.
When your wife is raped, and you encourage her to have the baby, I’m sure you’ll make a loving father to the child.
Or, maybe you’ll have your wife have the child but give it up for adoption. As I’m sure she would want to go through the nine months of pregnancy knowing that the child was a product of violence. Oh, but wait, the explaination to that one is, “But it’s not the child’s fault.” You’re right. It’s the guy who raped your wife. But your wife will have to suffer through the ordeal anyway.
Or, if your wife cheats on you and gets pregnant (whether you decide to stay together or not), I’m sure you would encourage her to have the baby then, right? Even if she decides not to?
And what if one of these situations happens and your wife decides that she wants to abort the baby? Will you tell her no?
When it happens to you, I think you’ll think more about having choices.
But this is an argument that can go on until we’re blue in the face. My stance is that there should be a choice no matter what, and you or the government shouldn’t take that away from someone.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Superman wrote:
Hate, hate, crap, bs, more crap…
Then some crazy conspiracy theory about pre knowledge of 911, and whores.
And they’re coming to take me away ha-haaa
They’re coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the funny farm
Where life is beautiful all the time
And I’ll be happy to see those nice young men
In their clean white coats
And they’re coming to take me away ha haaa
You thought it was a joke
And so you laughed
You laughed when I said
That losing you would make me flip my lid
Right? You know you laughed
I heard you laugh. You laughed
You laughed and laughed and then you left
But now you know I’m utterly mad
And they’re coming to take me away ha haaa
They’re coming to take me away ho ho hee hee ha haaa
To the happy home with trees and flowers and chirping birds
And basket weavers who sit and smile and twiddle their thumbs and toes
And they’re coming to take me away ha haaa
[/quote]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/16/attack/main509294.shtml
oh and
And i quote
“If the FBI can spend resources investigating whether there is prostitution in New Orleans, they ought to be able to find the resources to investigate what happened in this country prior to 9/11,” Sen. Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said in a news conference last week.
Now what the fuck your talking about before you try to insult me, at least do it properly…
[quote]makkun wrote:
ZEB,
ZEB wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
rainjack wrote:
11-0 in gay marraige referendums. a titghening of the teenage abortion rules.
Those are not good things for homosexuals or teen-agers. And I don’t agree with or support laws, amendments or rules banning same-sex marriages or tightening control of teen-agers or any woman who decides to have an abortion.
So yeah, I have a problem with people who use religion or their morals to prevent others from making a choice or decision.
If you look at it the other way around you could say the same thing: “I have a problem with homosexuals who want to use marriage to justify their relationships.” As this has never been done you are in fact attempting to change the norm.
By the way a strong majority of the US population disagrees with you!
Homosexuals do not have to justify their relationships, neither do heterosexuals.
Makkun[/quote]
Then Homosexuals should stop trying to get Heterosexuals to “justify” their (gay) relations by changing marriage laws. Simple huh?
[quote]Roy Batty wrote:
ZEB,
I understand the sentiment and I appreciate your sincerity, but I can’t let go. He is NOT my president. He is not honest, and he is not fooling me. George Bush is the most dangerous man in the world. He will lead us into the next world war, mark my words. The deaths we are witnessing now are just the start. Wait till one of those stray nukes from Iran or N Korea hits one of our military bases, or one of our fleets. I hope I’m wrong, but the first four years don’t give me much hope.
As you may have guessed, I am a bit passionate about politics. Maybe what is needed is a viable third party. One that is TRULY fiscally conservative that allows full public view of its actions and allows dissent/scrutiny (fiscally conservative), and one that respects people for their individuality and respects their privacy (socially liberal). Seems like a novel concept, but neither party really accomplishes this.
For now my rant is over… I may have to take a little break from this forum for a while. Its as hard on my blood pressure as watching Hannity and Colmes![/quote]
Roy:
You are a good man and I appreciate your posts. However, I think you get a little over the edge when it comes to the topic of President Bush.
We just finished four years with him, no world war, no rights removed (don’t go to the Patriot Act, it’s temporary and not that intrusive during a time of war). I think you need to step back and look again after you cool off.
Better you take time off of the political threads and relax. Take care my friend!
Zeb
[quote]Nate Dogg wrote:
neilbudge wrote:
Are you saying the right to kill is more important than the right to life?
Okay, I’ll agree with you about when life begins (as this is always the Republican/Pro-Life argument). If the mother of the baby decides to have an abortion, then yes, she has the right to terminate the life of the child. It’s called Pro-Choice for a reason. The woman decides. She can keep the child, give it up for adoption or have an abortion.
Let me add that when these so-called Pro-Choice groups, are not about Choice. None of them that I am aware of encourage women, or give them pros and cons about abortion. They just tell the girls to get an abortion (I have a friend who went thru this). Pro-Choice = Pro-Death.
I don’t know what kind of places you are dealing with, but there are numerous organizations and clinics that may offer abortion, but they do suggest and give other options. Maybe your area is lacking in sufficient programs. Planned Parenthood and many others give options and have people on staff to discuss such matters. Oh, well, under Bush, programs like that get their funding cut anyway, so there will be less options.
Why don’t they just come clean about it. At least with Pro-Life, you know where they stand. Pro-Choice is just trying to disguise themselves with politically correct jargon. They don’t offer any choice, so they are hypocrities.
How is there no choice? The woman has various options to choose as I already mentioned.
You can’t say they are hypocrites, especially when most Republicans are Pro-war and Pro-death penalty. Wouldn’t that make you the hypocrite? Oh wait, I’m sure there are reasonable explainations for killing someone in those instances, but when the mother of a child decides to abort a child, that’s a different story. I forgot. Republicans way or no way.
When your wife is raped, and you encourage her to have the baby, I’m sure you’ll make a loving father to the child.
Or, maybe you’ll have your wife have the child but give it up for adoption. As I’m sure she would want to go through the nine months of pregnancy knowing that the child was a product of violence. Oh, but wait, the explaination to that one is, “But it’s not the child’s fault.” You’re right. It’s the guy who raped your wife. But your wife will have to suffer through the ordeal anyway.
Or, if your wife cheats on you and gets pregnant (whether you decide to stay together or not), I’m sure you would encourage her to have the baby then, right? Even if she decides not to?
And what if one of these situations happens and your wife decides that she wants to abort the baby? Will you tell her no?
When it happens to you, I think you’ll think more about having choices.
But this is an argument that can go on until we’re blue in the face. My stance is that there should be a choice no matter what, and you or the government shouldn’t take that away from someone.[/quote]
Nate Dogg,
I agree the arguement for abortion can go on and on. Let me just share this thought with you, and maybe expand your mind.
First, I agree that in the case where a mother’s life is at risk, abortion should be allowed. Whether or not this should extend to the case of rape, I’m not certain. However, the vast majority of abortions do not fall under these situations. Many girls use this as an easy way out of a bad decision. Taking away another life because of a bad decision is no excuse to take a life. That is what we are dealing with in the vast majority of the cases.
Second, Planned Parenthood definitely promotes the abortion choice, and do not encourage their clients to keep their children. Is that choice? No. That would also make sense, since them and the doctors they recommend don’t make any money if the girl does not have the abortion. Sad, but true. Don’t underestimate this point.
Third, based on very good female friend of mine and her experience, one thing that guys fail to realize, and something that Planned Parenthood and other organizations fail to explain to the females having abortions, is the longer term consequences, not only potentially physical, but emotional trauma, quite often for years and years. Girls often wish they would have had the baby. As you pointed out, they can always put it up for adoption. However if they abort their baby, they have to live with that for the rest of their lives. Try talking to some women who have gone thru this.
People don’t have a legal right to steal or commit murder. Does that take away from our liberties? Every country has to have rules. Our freedom of choice can not be endless. The justice system has been put in place to protect the innocent, don’t you think that a human life should be included in that? (exceptions excluded)
Vegita,
they Push the issue to be treated the same way anyone else would be. If two straight people can marry just so someone can get a green card thats an extreme insult to marriage, spousal abuse, infidelity, I find adultery repugnunt(sp?) but I dont think someone who commited adultery in a former marriage should not be allowed to get married again. whatever the definition of marriage its basically two people showing their love for each other. I don’t think its all about the money, it is somewhat I am sure. The way a “Marriage” is viewed is different from a “civil union” does the definition matter, Yeah. sometimes the definition matters. Common law marriage in most states still entiteles both parties to the same rights as marriage but there is still a difference. I guess sometimes people fight for the definition. If all it is is a definition but all states and the Fed will accept “Civil Union” as the same rights, which I am sure is not what will happen, then why not allow the word to change. Wasn’t one this countries founding ideas to keep us free from the Tyranny of the Majority. sorry might have the term wrong been awhile since US political history.
Biggieben
I agree that in 50 years gay marriage will probably be acceptable to a majority of people and become allowable under atate laws. I don’t think it is now.
To tell you the truth, I think marriage all together can be a bad thing. I Hope I don’t catch a ton of crap about the role of the family. You can have a strong family without marriage. Till death do us part is just to damn final for the good of most people. The thing is back when marriage was “invented” the avearage human life expectancy was probably mid forties or possibly fifties. Our lives are considerably longer than this. We have much more time to evolve as humans and therefore have more chance for two people to grow apart. Why hadcuff eachothers potential over a draconian ritual. Spend as much of your lives together as is good for the two of you then if one or both people change, part ways and remain friends, find another person to share your life with or don’t. I am single right now, and could probably live the rest of my life single with no big problems. I could also find somone who I fall in love with and they me and start a nice bonding relationship.
The whole point with Gay marriage for me is that I actually look at them as wanting to take a step backwards. I don’t even think most of them know it.
Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
First off let me say what a wonderful concillatory speech that John Kerry made. He was very compassionate. But this is not the Kerry you saw on the campaign trails. He had people pulling his strings as to what he should and should not do. I seen this even in his speeches. He would make at the Democratic rallies. He was like a robot. He would go on and on, over the same points. ANd all he did was bash Bush, every chance he got. He changed his views so many times. You had no idea what he stood for. Becuase of all of this it showed he had no convicitons. He had no plan. He also promised everything but the kitchen sink to everyone. Like the one rally I was at of his, he promised, the fireman, the doctors, the teachers, the union workers, the aged, middle class, and I will be the one to give you this too.
Next the Democratic Convention… That Convention had no image. It had no message. No real vision. You had bits of pieces of this and that but nothing of substance. What was the thing John Kerry brought into that election? His Vietnam record, which opened up a can of worms. And at each rally you went to he brought out about his service. And the wounds opened more. Especially when he refused to answer any questions on his reasons why he did. Or have all his military records opened for all to see.
Michael Moore,Al Franken, George Soros, the regular media, actors actresses, musicians, and the 527.s and their msessage of hate. Absbolsute hate for Bush. And John Kerry did nothing to stop it. The Democratic party, even embraced Michael Moore, and what he was doing. These 527 groups were vicious.
I have seen it personally… while working for the reelction of Bush. Nasty, nasty, nasty. You take Kerry thanking Eminien for writing that hate Bush song he did. Or all those rock concerts and stars for Kerry concenrts were they turned into the We hate Bush concerts. And Kerry never said stop it. Please stop your vandalizing the Republican HQ’s. Please stop sending virusues in Rep HQ’s. Smashing windows, slashing tires, ripping down signs. Please stop it. A message of hate. And you couple of all of this with the far left of the Democratic party. And if this is the message of the Democratic party, and they keep embracing Michael Moore and these far leftists, the Democratic party, will loose even more elections. For those old Deocratic values of Past Democratic Presidents are long gone. THis is the message that Zell Miller was presenting, or even Joe Liberman. To try to bring these values, morals, and convictions back to the Democratic party it once was. And what happened? The far left made sure these people were made personna non grada.
The bottom line is this… The Democratic party of today, has truly lost touch with America. And the American people sent a very strong message to the Democratic party. This message is perfectly clear, go to the
US Today map, of how the American people voted. 85% solid red. That you have lost touch with America. We do not like the direction this Democratic Party is going. You have no convictions, esp on the War on Terror.
Look at your morals, values, which are so missing in America. You have very little. You are no longer a party of trying to unite this country. You are dividing, this country so much.You are a voice of anger, and pure solid hate.
And you have totally abandoned the core values of the Democratic party.
Kerry said it best, it is a time of healing a time to put away our differences. and reach out, to each other. And work together for a common goal. Let us put aside all the hate, the anger. For America is so torn so divided. You heard the same tone of speech, in President Bushes victory speech. So it is time for the Democratic party, to do some serious rethinking, as well as the Republicans, and reach out that hand to one another. And Democrats begin to distance themselves from Michael Moore, George Soros, Al Franken,
and those other far letists. And when the Deomcrats and Republicans begin to work more together, just think of all that ill be accomplished. You heard the same talk from Tony Blair to the European Allies. we must Unite more on this War on Terror, if we are ever going to defeat it. The Olde World European Allies, put away your dfferences, and work with President Bush. Let’s all come to some agreements. And put a end to this War on Terror, and work to win it. If this could all come a reality in the next 4 yrs of President Bushes’ second term?
Just think what a UNited States adn world we would be?
CHucksmanJoe
Good post, Veg.
Oh, and good post, Chuck. Easier said than done, though. I wish us all luck in the next 4.
ZEB,
[quote]ZEB wrote:
makkun wrote:
ZEB,
ZEB wrote:
Nate Dogg wrote:
rainjack wrote:
11-0 in gay marraige referendums. a titghening of the teenage abortion rules.
Those are not good things for homosexuals or teen-agers. And I don’t agree with or support laws, amendments or rules banning same-sex marriages or tightening control of teen-agers or any woman who decides to have an abortion.
So yeah, I have a problem with people who use religion or their morals to prevent others from making a choice or decision.
If you look at it the other way around you could say the same thing: “I have a problem with homosexuals who want to use marriage to justify their relationships.” As this has never been done you are in fact attempting to change the norm.
By the way a strong majority of the US population disagrees with you!
Homosexuals do not have to justify their relationships, neither do heterosexuals.
Makkun
Then Homosexuals should stop trying to get Heterosexuals to “justify” their (gay) relations by changing marriage laws. Simple huh?
[/quote]
Two “justifys” here. There is no need to morally justify their relations. But as citizens of a free and plural society they have every right to lobby their interests. You may say no to their pleas, but they have every right to ask for this.
Sorry for confusing this - English is still not my native language.
Makkun
No, makkun, you made perfect sense. A lot more than some of the posters on this forum do, sometimes! 