Why Kerry Thinks He Lost

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Flanker:

If you are going to jump in you had better pay more attention to what is posted my friend.

Never stated vroom should move back to Canada because he disagrees with me. Never even implied it! I challened vroom to move back to Canada and try (politically) to actually make a difference there. make it a “live free or die” Country. Go back and take a look.

Secondly, it is the homosexual community (or part of it anyway) which is attempting to “foist” it’s values into the heterosexual world. Marriage is a heterosexual institution. Yes? Hence, any attempted change in that institution by Homosexuals is them “foisting” their values onto us. Are Heterosexuals attempting to change any sort of Gay ritual or practice? No. If we were we would be called all sorts of nasty names: “Leave them alone.” The left would cry out. And…they would be correct! Works both ways.

Thridly, I agree that partial birth abortions original intent was to save a mothers life. Then again, abortion was supposed to be a rarity. In reality however it has become just another manner of birth control. Not the best thing for any civilized country.

I do agree that when it comes to the life of the mother abortion is and should remain a viable choice.

One more thing: I have no problem with any sort of liberal group petitioning their congressmen and lobbying for whatever agenda they think is good for their organization. What I do have a problem with is the harsh attacks and name calling that the left is known for when there is the slightest opposition to a liberal groups agenda. If one group has the right to go forward with their agenda, another group certainly has a right to want to protect the status quo.

The freedom to put forth an agenda, and the freedom to attempt to prohibit such an agenda are both granted in a free country.

One more thing: This attitude of “let everyone do whatever they want as it does not directly effect you” is quite wrong. In fact, there are current laws on the books which prevent people from doing whatever you want, even though it does not directly effect you.

Prostitution laws, gambling laws, drug laws etc. Why would the state be so harsh? Because just because something does not “directly” effect you, does not mean that it would not eventually negatively impact your life.

Freedom is a great gift, which comes with even greater responsibility!

42

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Secondly, it is the homosexual community (or part of it anyway) which is attempting to “foist” it’s values into the heterosexual world. Marriage is a heterosexual institution. Yes? Hence, any attempted change in that institution by Homosexuals is them “foisting” their values onto us. Are Heterosexuals attempting to change any sort of Gay ritual or practice? No. If we were we would be called all sorts of nasty names: “Leave them alone.” The left would cry out. And…they would be correct! Works both ways.[/quote]

Very very very dangerous opinion to hold, ZEB. Tolerance of others is the goal of any humanitarian, tradition is expendable. Abolitionists versus Slave-holders comes to mind.

What a load of crap ZEB. The left and right both engage in attacking and name calling. To state that one side attacks more than another cannot possibly be proven.

Agreed!

43

[quote]oboffill wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Secondly, it is the homosexual community (or part of it anyway) which is attempting to “foist” it’s values into the heterosexual world. Marriage is a heterosexual institution. Yes? Hence, any attempted change in that institution by Homosexuals is them “foisting” their values onto us. Are Heterosexuals attempting to change any sort of Gay ritual or practice? No. If we were we would be called all sorts of nasty names: “Leave them alone.” The left would cry out. And…they would be correct! Works both ways.

Very very very dangerous opinion to hold, ZEB. Tolerance of others is the goal of any humanitarian, tradition is expendable. Abolitionists versus Slave-holders comes to mind.
[/quote]

Please define tolerance. I think you are using a PC definition.

I tolerate mosquitos - they are a fact of life. I tolerate the heat of an August summer - there is nothing one can do. I tolerate my wife’s week of hell every month, as I know it won’t last forever.

You are not wanting tolerance for the gay community. You want the whole country to open their arms and give them a collective hug and invite them to supper. We don’t have to do that. Most of america (68% - I think)doesn’t want to do that. Most of america wants to be left the hell alone.

Where is the tolerance from the gay community in this issue? They seem hell bent on ramming this down our throats - tolerance be damned.

You tell Zeb that his opinion is very very very dangerous. Why? Are people dying because of his opinions? I seriously doubt it.

Once again, the left steps up and assumes that they are the arbitors of open-mindedness, when, in reality, they are being told to shut up and color.

44

Flanker,

I’m glad your party is in shambles.

There are people out there who actually know what happens during the procedure you mention.

Please type the name of the procedure into your favorite search engine.

Learn about it.

I’m not sure you would feel the same way if you actually knew what was involved.

Good luck.

Thanks,

JeffR

45

WTH are you talking about?

A cornered dog will often bite back.

[quote]
You tell Zeb that his opinion is very very very dangerous. Why? Are people dying because of his opinions? I seriously doubt it. [/quote]

Dangerous was the wrong word. Concerning should substitute.

You sound like a certain drug-abusing talk show host. You should do yourself a favor and stop trying to equate whatever opionion someone has as a representation of a whole political party. That’s ignorant.

46

oboffill: Try not to take the “shut up and color” comment to heart, it’s a “rainjackism”.

rainjack: You have to admit, that in the case of gay marriage, the conservative viewpoint is not open-minded. “Leave us the hell alone”, as I paraphrased you, is not open-mindedness. Are you wrong to be this way? No one can say, as that’s a matter of personal preference. But you can’t claim that the left is not more open-minded than the right this time.

47

lothario:

“open minded” is not always good.

I’m closed minded to taking LSD. I’m closed minded to cheating on my wife. I’m closed minded to driving over 30mph in school zones. And…I am absolutlely closed minded to changing a 5000 year old institution for about 1% of the population.

48

The problems with the Dems goes back longer then people think. My father is a lifelong Democrat but hasn’t voted for a Democrat for President since Kennedy. All of the local candidates usually get his vote but not the presidential candidate.

The Dems are predestined to run Hillary in 2008. You couldn’t ask for a better candidate to run against. She will come out of a bloody primary run and then face a McCain/Rudi G ticket. The death of the democratic party will be complete and real reform will occur with them after 2008.

I’ll give you an example of what is wrong with the Democrats. I usually go shopping at the Union Sq. market on Weds. It’s an open air farm market in the city. During the elections both Republicans and Democrats had young people handing out literature. The Republicans were dressed in shirts and ties and looked well…normal. The Democratic workers looked like skaters. Baggy, old clothes. Wool caps, logo shirts for bands etc. They would ask you…“Will you help Defeat Bush in Nov?” When I said no they got indignant. I mean angry with you. Most people avoided them. In a nutshell that is what’s wrong with the Democrats ,they are way out of step with the reality of the American public and don’t even realize it. From top to bottom.

49

[quote]oboffill wrote:
You are not wanting tolerance for the gay community. You want the whole country to open their arms and give them a collective hug and invite them to supper. We don’t have to do that. Most of america (68% - I think)doesn’t want to do that. Most of america wants to be left the hell alone.

WTH are you talking about? [/quote]

I’m talking about the fact that people, by a 2-1 margin do not want gay marraige legalized. We’re not homo-phobes. as the left likes to accuse, nor do we by tickets and watch the gay pride parades on TV. Yet we are accused of being intolerant and closed-minded by those who want us to embrace homosexuality as if it is a sign of enlightenment. The reality is, at least for me, do whatever the hell it is you want to do but don’t invite me to the party. Just leave me alone about it.

[quote]Where is the tolerance from the gay community in this issue? They seem hell bent on ramming this down our throats - tolerance be damned.

A cornered dog will often bite back.[/quote]

A cornered dog will bite back? I tried that line on my dad when I was 14, and he beat the living shit out of me just to show me how ‘cornered’ he could make me.
That has nothing to do with the discussion - just had a flashback.

The gay community is cornered? How? Bite back at who? are they under attack? What is the death toll?
Sounds more like a bunch of spoiled brats than cornered dogs.

[quote]You tell Zeb that his opinion is very very very dangerous. Why? Are people dying because of his opinions? I seriously doubt it.

Dangerous was the wrong word. Concerning should substitute. [/quote]

Because Zeb chooses to disagree with what the left wants to force on us - not by letting the people vote on it, but by finding sympathetic judges to legislate from the bench - he’s a dangerous person? Wait. His opinions are concerning?

You just changed the words and offered not one reason as to what constitutes ‘concerning opinions’.

Are they concerning because they differ from yours? Where is this tolerance you speak of for those whose ideas take a different path than yours?

[quote]Once again, the left steps up and assumes that they are the arbitors of open-mindedness, when, in reality, they are being told to shut up and color.

You sound like a certain drug-abusing talk show host. You should do yourself a favor and stop trying to equate whatever opionion someone has as a representation of a whole political party. That’s ignorant. [/quote]

It is the left that tells the right that they are uneducated trash with a silly belief in God, living in fly-over country. It is the left that brings up the idea that the right is intolerant, or closeminded.

Wha are they to judge? They appoint themselves as the judge. That’s ignorant.

I have an ‘-ism’ - what a great country we live in.

50

another perspective:
if al gore had won the election in 2000 (hahaha) and al-quaeda had crashed planes into buildings, the republican party would have been on every media outlet possible condemning gore’s inability to protect the country. there would have been calls for impeachment, accusations of treason, etc. however, the democrats made the mistake of building up a myth that the president who was asleep at the wheel (yes, i’m fully aware that good ole bill clinton shares more than a little bit of the blame) during the terrorist attacks will somehow keep us safe from further terrorist attacks. additionally, the democratic party cannot ever hope to “out-conservative” the republican party.
now my personal wish is to be left alone, not pay anymore taxes, let whoever wants to marry do so, own the firearms i want to own, deadlift at any gym, grow my own food, and drink my own beer. all of which are completely unreasonable dreams in this country.

51

One small aside. Being “open-minded” does not entail agreeing with whatever new argument is presented. It means listening to new information and being willing to incorporate it. When you are open-minded you listen, and then you evaluate. Whether you end up rejecting or embracing the new argument does not make you any more or less “open-minded”. In other words, someone who is open-minded gives you a chance to make your case, but then applies his logic/values/decision-making processes to your argument and makes a decision to reject or accept.

Also, rejecting flatly the same argument the fifth time you’ve heard it, after you’ve already evaluated it, doesn’t make you close-minded. You listen for new information or new rationales, but simply being bludgeoned with the same arguments over and over, and rejecting them over and over, does not speak to one’s open or closed mind – it speaks to the lack of creativity or deeper understanding by the one attempting to persuade.

52

Re what BostonBarrister wrote:

Very good point. We all have our beliefs for one reason or another. Open-mindedness is the willingness of the person to rationally enhance, reject, or alter their opinion based on given information.

53

Bravo, battlelust, you have the T-man spirit.

54

On what hedo wrote:

Nobody should wish the Democratic party to just die off. It is ESSENTIAL that we have a two party system to maintian a balance of power.

This election was unique in the sense that the current administration is so shady that it is neither Republican nor conservative. These guys in Washington are thugs. Unfortunately, the Dem party has not been able to convince the 50+1% of America, which is discouraging considering that most of the world is anti-Bush.

55

[quote]oboffill wrote:
On what hedo wrote:

Nobody should wish the Democratic party to just die off. It is ESSENTIAL that we have a two party system to maintian a balance of power.
[/quote]

This is very true, especially if one is more allied to principles, be they liberal or conservative, than to parties.

Parties tend to be about self-perpetuation rather than principles, and politicians need the threat of actually having voters go to the other side in order to convince them that 1) they can’t get away with anything they want; and 2) they need to represent the wishes of their constituents. Both points also illustrate the problems gerrymandering brings to our representative democracy – politicians should have to fight for their seats each election.

56

[quote]ZEB wrote:
lothario:

“open minded” is not always good.

I’m closed minded to taking LSD. I’m closed minded to cheating on my wife. I’m closed minded to driving over 30mph in school zones. And…I am absolutlely closed minded to changing a 5000 year old institution for about 1% of the population.[/quote]

Like I said, the fact that you may be right or wrong (read: openmindedness bad or good) is a matter of personal preference. There is nothing wrong with exercising your opinion, as many folks did in the last election. And I like the argument that BB makes about openmindedness, but I would take a guess that perhaps y’all might have never been open to the idea of changing your idea of marriage or accepting queers in the first place, so that would in fact make y’all close-minded. I see you guys and your argument of “we’re not anti-fag, we’re anti-marriage changing”, and really, it doesn’t matter one way or another. I’ve never bothered to mention this before in the forums when we get into this whole gay marriage thing because I didn’t think it would do any good, but since we’re also talking about open-mindedness… what the heck.

I would like to mention that y’all are pretty dang starry-eyed about this “institution of marriage”. Now I’m not saying that this is bad… a certain amount of innocence is good for you, in my opinion. But realize something: marriage didn’t used to be about love. It was about family money. Dowries, real-estate, livestock, etc. You name it. They were arranged as financial agreements, often between the parents of the bride and groom while they were still children. This is why, to this very day, folks in India will sometimes kill female babies. They don’t want to pay the dowry, guys!

Now, in our modern American society, I would gently suggest the “institution” as we all call it – what a large and powerful, permanent-sounding word – has been changed in the last hundred years or so. Drastically. Now it’s more than a legal contract to people. Now it’s got some substance and emotion which is based on intangible things like love and mutual desire and happiness. And that “institution” is not some incredibly permanent place somewhere, it exists in the hearts, minds, and souls of TWO people, and oftentimes their belief in a God. The fact that divorce rates are so high nowadays speaks to the fragility and rarity of this type of union. How many people do you know are going to make it or have made it to their 50th reunion? Not so many, these days… and we’re living longer than ever.

Now I would like to take the opportunity to ask you to take inventory of yourself and ask yourself something: “would it really hurt if we change this idea of marriage again?” I mean, we’ve done away with the dowry, we’ve accepted interracial couples, we’ve slowly come to accept divorce, we’ve seen a rise in children out of wedlock – something extremely unacceptable even less than a hundred years ago. Now we pick our own marital partners, now we pick when and where and how we marry… do you see what I’m getting at here? The “institution of marriage” has not been the same thing that we experience today. It HAS changed, many times, many ways.

Are you REALLY being open-minded about this issue, conservatives?

57

lothario:

Your argument that the institution of marriage has evolved is a good one. I suppose plenty of things have evolved through the centuries. Many (perhaps all) of those evolutions were for the better.

I already told you tha,t about certain damaging things, (see above post) I am closed minded. And that is not a bad thing When it comes to changing a 5000 year old institution for about 1% of the population.

What happens, in a few years, when a group of people want to get married? Are you as open minded to “group marriage” as you are to “gay marriage?” How about minors marrying adults?

If we are going to be open minded we can take this even further…Is open mindedness is good at all costs? Or, could there be some things that are simply not acceptable? You may draw the line at point “C.” I draw the line at point “B.”

Many people would not even draw a line, at anything. They are the really open minded people!

58

C’mon Zeb, you know better than to whip out the straw man arguments like that. Yeah, letting two homos marry each other is like marrying a camel, or whatever. Honestly. See what I believe marriage to be:

[quote]I wrote:
And that “institution” is not some incredibly permanent place somewhere, it exists in the hearts, minds, and souls of TWO people, and oftentimes their belief in a God. [/quote]

And I had even put “TWO” in uppercase letters to emphasize that.

I stand by my initial assumption that this really is a “gay” issue for most of y’all. And I’m not saying that you are wrong, or whatever. It would just be nice if you would just come out (hehe) and admit it. I mean, I wouldn’t want children marrying adults like they were forced to back in the 1500’s again, and it’s kinda funny when groups of people marry, like they do in rare instances in mormon or islamic faithfuls. Who would want a handful of wives? It’s hard enough to have just one sometimes!! :slight_smile:

Seriously now, I am nobody to point fingers at anyone else and say: “What you believe is wrong!” Please don’t think that. But when y’all say “we’re not close-minded, we’re not anti-gay,” well, it just seems like you are. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

59

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
lothario:

“open minded” is not always good.

I’m closed minded to taking LSD. I’m closed minded to cheating on my wife. I’m closed minded to driving over 30mph in school zones. And…I am absolutlely closed minded to changing a 5000 year old institution for about 1% of the population.

Like I said, the fact that you may be right or wrong (read: openmindedness bad or good) is a matter of personal preference. There is nothing wrong with exercising your opinion, as many folks did in the last election. And I like the argument that BB makes about openmindedness, but I would take a guess that perhaps y’all might have never been open to the idea of changing your idea of marriage or accepting queers in the first place, so that would in fact make y’all close-minded. I see you guys and your argument of “we’re not anti-fag, we’re anti-marriage changing”, and really, it doesn’t matter one way or another. I’ve never bothered to mention this before in the forums when we get into this whole gay marriage thing because I didn’t think it would do any good, but since we’re also talking about open-mindedness… what the heck.

I would like to mention that y’all are pretty dang starry-eyed about this “institution of marriage”. Now I’m not saying that this is bad… a certain amount of innocence is good for you, in my opinion. But realize something: marriage didn’t used to be about love. It was about family money. Dowries, real-estate, livestock, etc. You name it. They were arranged as financial agreements, often between the parents of the bride and groom while they were still children. This is why, to this very day, folks in India will sometimes kill female babies. They don’t want to pay the dowry, guys!

Now, in our modern American society, I would gently suggest the “institution” as we all call it – what a large and powerful, permanent-sounding word – has been changed in the last hundred years or so. Drastically. Now it’s more than a legal contract to people. Now it’s got some substance and emotion which is based on intangible things like love and mutual desire and happiness. And that “institution” is not some incredibly permanent place somewhere, it exists in the hearts, minds, and souls of TWO people, and oftentimes their belief in a God. The fact that divorce rates are so high nowadays speaks to the fragility and rarity of this type of union. How many people do you know are going to make it or have made it to their 50th reunion? Not so many, these days… and we’re living longer than ever.

Now I would like to take the opportunity to ask you to take inventory of yourself and ask yourself something: “would it really hurt if we change this idea of marriage again?” I mean, we’ve done away with the dowry, we’ve accepted interracial couples, we’ve slowly come to accept divorce, we’ve seen a rise in children out of wedlock – something extremely unacceptable even less than a hundred years ago. Now we pick our own marital partners, now we pick when and where and how we marry… do you see what I’m getting at here? The “institution of marriage” has not been the same thing that we experience today. It HAS changed, many times, many ways.

Are you REALLY being open-minded about this issue, conservatives?[/quote]

That’s knowledge right there. Good post lothario.

60

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Are you REALLY being open-minded about this issue, conservatives?[/quote]

You really need to look at the definition of ‘open-minded’.

Open-minded does not mean to agree with you because your ideas are more progressive.

Those of you who get on your gay marraige soapbox, why not let the people decide?

If this change is coming like you say, why does it have to be forced on us by the stroke of a judge’s pen? Where’s the open-mindeness in that?