NationStates Jolt Archive

NEWS FLASH - LNN - Labrador New Network -
Dateline, Arima, Labrador -

The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.

Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism,
discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans' unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited.

"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican."

The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know."

Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when
they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.

The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.

A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.

Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.

If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the
military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs.

For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.

But should they be allowed to marry?

Discovery of a cause is great.

But, can the unfortunates suffering from this dreadful afflication be cured?

Discovery of a cause is great.

But, can the unfortunates suffering from this dreadful afflication be cured?

Dunno. Might be an interesting study. I wonder how public opinion would be on the curability of this awful affliction of Republicanism, if I were to poll that.

Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie
[X] Loser
[ ] Spammer
[X] 12 year old
[ ] Pervert
[ ] Nerd
[ ] l337 d00d/"vet"
[X] Other: Hippie Scum

You Are Being Flamed Because
[ ] You posted a Nudity thread (anime or normal).
[X] You whine like a bitch.
[ ] You bumped a thread from the last page.
[ ] You started an off-topic thread.
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message .
[ ] You don't know which forum to post in.
[X] You posted false information (or lack thereof).
[X] You posted something totally uninteresting.
[ ] You doubleposted.
[ ] You posted a message all written in CAPS (oR aLtErNaTe CaPs).
[X] You posted a X > Y thread. LAME.
[X] I don't like your tone of voice.

To Repent, You Must:
[ ] Give up your AOL Internet account
[X] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Be my love slave
[X] Apologize to everybody on this forum
[X] Go stand in the middle of an intersection

In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[ ] Get a life
[ ] Never post again
[ ] I pity your dog
[ ] I think your IQ must be 6
[ ] Take your crap somewhere else
[ ] Do us all a favor and jump into some industrial equipment
[ ] Go play Dress-Up Barbie Online™
[X] All of the above

(SIRP)
Wow... that was meaningful. Very creative, too!

(SIRP)
Wow... that was meaningful. Very creative, too!

Have seen the same post, word for sorry word, in other threads.

Must be difficult to cut and paste it every time.

Still, much easier than coming up with sensible and articulate comments.

I just wonder who the hell wrote it for MD.

(SIRP)
Wow... that was meaningful. Very creative, too!

Have seen the same post, word for sorry word, in other threads.

Must be difficult to cut and paste it every time.

Still, much easier than coming up with sensible and articulate comments.

I just wonder who the hell wrote it for MD.
Yeah, so've I. Was my sarcasm apparent? It can be hard to tell, with just text...

When a topic is so asinine as to not deserve an intelligent reply, the Flame Form™ provides a simple way of responding in an equally asinine fashion without all the effort of lowering ones thinking to the level of the person who posted the original filth.

NEWS FLASH - LNN - Labrador New Network -
Dateline, Arima, Labrador -

The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.

Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism,
discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans' unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited.

"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican."

The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know."

Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when
they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.

The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.

A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.

Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.

If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the
military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs.

For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.

But should they be allowed to marry?

OLD


Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie
[X] Loser
[ ] Spammer
[X] 12 year old
[ ] Pervert
[ ] Nerd
[ ] l337 d00d/"vet"
[X] Other: Hippie Scum

You Are Being Flamed Because
[ ] You posted a Nudity thread (anime or normal).
[X] You whine like a bitch.
[ ] You bumped a thread from the last page.
[ ] You started an off-topic thread.
[ ] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message .
[ ] You don't know which forum to post in.
[X] You posted false information (or lack thereof).
[X] You posted something totally uninteresting.
[ ] You doubleposted.
[ ] You posted a message all written in CAPS (oR aLtErNaTe CaPs).
[X] You posted a X > Y thread. LAME.
[X] I don't like your tone of voice.

To Repent, You Must:
[ ] Give up your AOL Internet account
[X] Bust up your modem with a hammer and eat it
[X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[ ] Be my love slave
[X] Apologize to everybody on this forum
[X] Go stand in the middle of an intersection

In Closing, I'd Like to Say:
[ ] Get a life
[ ] Never post again
[ ] I pity your dog
[ ] I think your IQ must be 6
[ ] Take your crap somewhere else
[ ] Do us all a favor and jump into some industrial equipment
[ ] Go play Dress-Up Barbie Online?
[X] All of the above


VERY OLD and not funny anymore.

VERY OLD and not funny anymore.
Not meant to be funny, it's meant to be as asinine as the topic.

VERY OLD and not funny anymore.
Not meant to be funny, it's meant to be as asinine as the topic.
You could not post anything... (gasp of shock)

VERY OLD and not funny anymore.
Not meant to be funny, it's meant to be as asinine as the topic.

Well it was funny the first time someone used it, but now due to excessive overuse on the internet it should be left to die somewhere, preferably in a pit of bears.

VERY OLD and not funny anymore.
Not meant to be funny, it's meant to be as asinine as the topic.
You could not post anything... (gasp of shock)

That's far too logical.

VERY OLD and not funny anymore.
Not meant to be funny, it's meant to be as asinine as the topic.

And it provides a handy tool for those with a room temperature I.Q.

VERY OLD and not funny anymore.
Not meant to be funny, it's meant to be as asinine as the topic.
You could not post anything... (gasp of shock)

That's far too logical.
Ah... of course.
I should have realized.
Speaking of which, what's the problem with the following question?
P implies Q.
Q is correct.
Therefore, P is correct.
True or False?

VERY OLD and not funny anymore.
Not meant to be funny, it's meant to be as asinine as the topic.

And it provides a handy tool for those with a room temperature I.Q.
Considering it was positively baking today, i'll take that as a compliment.

Enough of your flaming, get a job.

VERY OLD and not funny anymore.
Not meant to be funny, it's meant to be as asinine as the topic.

And it provides a handy tool for those with a room temperature I.Q.
Considering it was positively baking today, i'll take that as a compliment.

Enough of your flaming, get a job.

As usual, don't you dare speak against the word "republican," without expecting someone to be as upset as a Christian if you'd slandered Christ.

Really, get an independent political opinion. Then stop stereotyping.

Other (explain below) - *37%*
Why haven't people been explaining?? :x

unaffiliated, but a feminist.

Why people assume that I must be some rich white guy?

I'm a middle class Indian who believes in my right to bear arms (the one right that protects all the others), that a mother/father family unit is the basis for society and should be protected (hence the concept of making sure I get more of my money back to me and less of it taxed for special programs), I believe in a strong military but not wasteful spending on weapons programs that would be at the expense of taking care of our active duty families or decent pay for our active duty members or for upgrading of veteran's hospitals for men who like me have given our fair share to society.

I'm a Republican because I believe that less government is important, not some overpowering bureucracy that believes that they should take care of me from cradle to grave...I can do that all on my own thank you very much.

I'm a Republican because I believe that my money is my money, and not the State....I'm a Republican because I believe that anyone with enough hard work and perservence can make their dreams come true (I've done pretty well considering I started as a farmboy on a reservation).

I'm a Republican because I believe that the market should dictate what I am paid....and that if left alone free enterprise can get us where we wish to go..but that doesn't imply that I think corporations should get away with illegal activiities.

there are a host of other reasons...but these are the essentials I think.

NEWS FLASH - LNN - Labrador New Network -
Dateline, Arima, Labrador -

The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.

Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism,
discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans' unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited.

"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican."

The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know."

Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when
they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.

The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.

A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.

Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.

If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the
military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs.

For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.

But should they be allowed to marry?

Ahh, yes. More proof that extreme intelligence can be inherited from ones parents.

Actually, most people are born Republican, but those that get dropped on their heads become Democrats! :P

Why people assume that I must be some rich white guy?

I'm a middle class Indian who believes in my right to bear arms (the one right that protects all the others), that a mother/father family unit is the basis for society and should be protected (hence the concept of making sure I get more of my money back to me and less of it taxed for special programs), I believe in a strong military but not wasteful spending on weapons programs that would be at the expense of taking care of our active duty families or decent pay for our active duty members or for upgrading of veteran's hospitals for men who like me have given our fair share to society.

I'm a Republican because I believe that less government is important, not some overpowering bureucracy that believes that they should take care of me from cradle to grave...I can do that all on my own thank you very much.

I'm a Republican because I believe that my money is my money, and not the State....I'm a Republican because I believe that anyone with enough hard work and perservence can make their dreams come true (I've done pretty well considering I started as a farmboy on a reservation).

I'm a Republican because I believe that the market should dictate what I am paid....and that if left alone free enterprise can get us where we wish to go..but that doesn't imply that I think corporations should get away with illegal activiities.

there are a host of other reasons...but these are the essentials I think.

Problem with "the free market" dictating what we get paid is collusion. All the corporations then have to do is all get together, and collectively offer lower and lower wages. And too many people will roll over and accept it, because they have to have a job to survive. They will not take a stand for themselves.

Prime example is my own company. Everyone bitches about our salary structure, amongst ourselves, but no one seems willing (except me) to stand up to the bosses and demand a fairer salary structure.

Seems the only people in my company who are believers in our current salary structure (for peons like me only, of course) are people whose salary doesn't depend on that structure!

You corner them, and ask them if they would be okay with THEIR salary being determined the way OURS is...and I bet every one of them would say HELL NO!

Corporations, in my experience, do not play ethically or fairly...and if it weren't for the laws that DO exist, things would be a lot worse for working Americans than they already are!

Corporations cannot see the forest for the trees. They see labor expenses as expendable. And it's the first place they always cut. They see only the black number on the bottom line of the ledger.

They fail to realize that, the more they squeeze the American worker, the less likely he then is to become a consumer of the very goods/services that company is producing...and sooner or later, that black number at the bottom will turn red, due to the cheapskatedness and avarice of the head honchos, who honestly DON'T give a shit about the welfare of employees! After all, THEY don't feel it when the employees go hungry!

My opinion is that corporations are to be watched like hawks, and regulated like hell, to MAKE them do the decent thing by the American worker, since the days of "Take care of your people and they will take care of you" seem to be long gone.

Nowadays, the corporations, just want their people to take care of THEM...and fuck the employees! Viva Revolucion! Evil corporations must be brought down!

*stands here waiting for someone to come in and say "Gee, go thru that article and replace 'Republican' with 'Gay' and you will see the injustice against/the evils of homosexuality"... depending on their standpoint on the issue.*

:lol:

*stands here waiting for someone to come in and say "Gee, go thru that article and replace 'Republican' with 'Gay' and you will see the injustice against/the evils of homosexuality"... depending on their standpoint on the issue.*

:lol:

AHA!! Somone FINALLY understands what my REAL purpose in posting that article was!!

VERY OLD and not funny anymore.
Not meant to be funny, it's meant to be as asinine as the topic.

And it provides a handy tool for those with a room temperature I.Q.
Considering it was positively baking today, i'll take that as a compliment.

Enough of your flaming, get a job.

Come on MD, you're getting borderline here. Knock it off. If you don't like the topic you don't have to read it and or reply to it.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

NEWS FLASH - LNN - Labrador New Network -
Dateline, Arima, Labrador -

The discovery that affiliation with the Republican Party is genetically determined was announced by scientists in the current issue of the journal NURTURE, causing uproar among traditionalists who believe it is a chosen lifestyle.

Reports of the gene coding for political conservatism,
discovered after a decades-long study of quintuplets in Orange County, CA, has sent shock waves through the medical, political, and golfing communities.

Psychologists and psychoanalysts have long believed that Republicans' unnatural disregard for the poor and frequently unconstitutional tendencies resulted from dysfunctional family dynamics -- a remarkably high percentage of Republicans do have authoritarian domineering fathers and emotionally distant mothers who didn't teach them how to be kind and gentle. Biologists have long suspected that conservatism is inherited.

"After all," said one author of the NURTURE article, "It's quite common for a Republican to have a brother or sister who is a Republican."

The finding has been greeted with relief by Parents and Friends of Republicans (PFREP), who sometimes blame themselves for the political views of otherwise lovable children, family, and unindicted co-conspirators.

One mother, a longtime Democrat, wept and clapped her hands in ecstasy on hearing of the findings. "I just knew it was genetic," she said, seated with her two sons, both avowed Republicans. "My boys would never freely choose that lifestyle!" When asked what the Republican lifestyle was, she said, "You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know."

Both sons had suspected their Republicanism from an early age but did not confirm it until they were in college, when
they became convinced it wasn't just a phase they were going through.

The NURTURE article offered no response to the suggestion that the high incidence of Republicanism among siblings could result from their sharing not only genes but also psychological and emotional attitude as products of the same parents and family dynamics.

A remaining mystery is why many Democrats admit to having voted Republican at least once -- or often dream or fantasize about doing so. Polls show that three out of five adult Democrats have had a Republican experience, although most outgrow teenage experimentation with Republicanism.

Some Republicans hail the findings as a step toward eliminating conservophobia. They argue that since Republicans didn't "choose" their lifestyle any more than someone "chooses" to have a ski-jump nose, they shouldn't be denied civil rights which other minorities enjoy.

If conservatism is not the result of stinginess or orneriness (typical stereotypes attributed to Republicans) but is something Republicans can't help, there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the
military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs.

For many Americans, the discovery opens a window on a different future. In a few years, gene therapy might eradicate Republicanism altogether.

But should they be allowed to marry?
Disregard for the poor? The poor should be supported if they are poor for a reason other than laziness.

Frequent unconstitutional tendencies? Which party is allowing homosexual marraiges in San Francisco, in violation of state law? It seems that anything that shows some restraint is instantly unconstitutional, at least according to you liberals. Keep note that the constitution also lets us have gun rights and freedom of worship, despite what your ACLU friends might say. :roll:

Dysfunctional family dynamics? The majority of Republicans are religious, and their lifestyles reflect it. They believe it is a good thing to show some restraint and respect for the law, instead of pushing it to see if the government will cave in (see San Francisco.) :roll:

Unindicted conspirators? There has been corruption and scandal on BOTH sides. Watergate for Nixon, Lewinski for Clinton. Then there was the last presidential election. Cigarettes for votes, recount after recount after recount, a Florida judge changing laws to benefit Gore, hanging chads, pregnant chads... of course, you've had nearly four years to convince yourself that none of this ever happened. :roll:

"You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know."
When that Democratic senator died in the plane crash, a "service" was held that was less of a period of mourning and more of a liberal pep-rally.

By the way, take a look at the poll. Republicans are not a minority. Of course, I won't be surprised if ten minutes from now you have added votes from some of your other nations to tip the scales. Just like Florida, remember? :roll:

"Kind and gentle?" Let me be the first to tell you, liberals aren't exactly a beacon of light either. They tend to come across as fanatic whiners in this forum. :roll:

"there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the
military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs."
Which party does this more? I think it's pretty obvious that the liberal loudmouths do. Go to any topic involving religion (remember religious people tend to be conservative and 2/3 of the Democratic party are athiests) and you will see the athiests spewing hatred and disrespect while those in support of religion try to calmly support their side of the issue. :roll:

Keep this crap off the internet. You have every right to say it, but we have every right to tune it out.

By the way, homosexuality isn't genetic. There is no proof it's genetic. That's just an excuse. Myself and many others believe it's learned.

Registered GREEN, but I usually vote Democratic.
Hoeffel and Kerry in November :D

Independent, with Libertarian beliefs. As for this stuff above,

Keep this crap off the internet. You have every right to say it, but we have every right to tune it out.

Then do so, no one's got you by the back of the head making you read this thread. If you don't like it, don't read it. But since you did contribute...

By the way, homosexuality isn't genetic. There is no proof it's genetic. That's just an excuse. Myself and many others believe it's learned.

By the way, yes, studies have found that there are biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Thus, there is a genetic predisposition. Perhaps you don't want to read such things, since they tend to conflict with your beliefs, but that doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there.

Independent, with Libertarian beliefs. As for this stuff above,

Keep this crap off the internet. You have every right to say it, but we have every right to tune it out.

Then do so, no one's got you by the back of the head making you read this thread. If you don't like it, don't read it. But since you did contribute...

By the way, homosexuality isn't genetic. There is no proof it's genetic. That's just an excuse. Myself and many others believe it's learned.

By the way, yes, studies have found that there are biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Thus, there is a genetic predisposition. Perhaps you don't want to read such things, since they tend to conflict with your beliefs, but that doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there.First off, do you have any sources on that?
Secondly, what says that these "biological differences" are there from birth? Every action we take causes, or should I say is caused by, a voluntary (thought, speech, change the channel, etc.) or involuntary (heatbeat, metabolism) chemical reaction in the brain. Over time, these chemical reactions form our personality, and can only be changed by a contradictory repetitive act over a period of roughly thirty days. These biological differences may not be the cause of homosexuality. They may be the result of it.

WANNA RIDE BIKES?

unaffiliated, but a feminist.

You feminists are a danger to our society.

You demand that women have unlimited rights, and you do not consider the consequences.

Damn server.

Independent, with Libertarian beliefs. As for this stuff above,

Keep this crap off the internet. You have every right to say it, but we have every right to tune it out.

Then do so, no one's got you by the back of the head making you read this thread. If you don't like it, don't read it. But since you did contribute...

By the way, homosexuality isn't genetic. There is no proof it's genetic. That's just an excuse. Myself and many others believe it's learned.

By the way, yes, studies have found that there are biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Thus, there is a genetic predisposition. Perhaps you don't want to read such things, since they tend to conflict with your beliefs, but that doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there.First off, do you have any sources on that?
Secondly, what says that these "biological differences" are there from birth? Every action we take causes, or should I say is caused by, a voluntary (thought, speech, change the channel, etc.) or involuntary (heatbeat, metabolism) chemical reaction in the brain. Over time, these chemical reactions form our personality, and can only be changed by a contradictory repetitive act over a period of roughly thirty days. These biological differences may not be the cause of homosexuality. They may be the result of it.

So, what I hear you saying is that Dick Cheney taught his daughter to be gay.. okay.. I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

Labrador mentioned that the actual reason for this thread was support for homosexuals, and I agree in that case. But as this has become a Republican vs. Democrat thread, I might as well join in.
I am a conservative, though I don't actually afiliate with a political party. I have lived all over America, and the most dysfunctional families and unstable children I have known have been liberals. The most loving, stable families I have seen are decidedly conservative, my own included. I cannot say for certain why that is, but that is what I have seen.

Then again, perhaps the real problem is that political parties have served to polarize people with views that might otherwise have been compatible. Just something to think about before you all start arguing again.

Independent, with Libertarian beliefs. As for this stuff above,

Keep this crap off the internet. You have every right to say it, but we have every right to tune it out.

Then do so, no one's got you by the back of the head making you read this thread. If you don't like it, don't read it. But since you did contribute...

By the way, homosexuality isn't genetic. There is no proof it's genetic. That's just an excuse. Myself and many others believe it's learned.

By the way, yes, studies have found that there are biological differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals. Thus, there is a genetic predisposition. Perhaps you don't want to read such things, since they tend to conflict with your beliefs, but that doesn't mean that the evidence isn't there.First off, do you have any sources on that?
Secondly, what says that these "biological differences" are there from birth? Every action we take causes, or should I say is caused by, a voluntary (thought, speech, change the channel, etc.) or involuntary (heatbeat, metabolism) chemical reaction in the brain. Over time, these chemical reactions form our personality, and can only be changed by a contradictory repetitive act over a period of roughly thirty days. These biological differences may not be the cause of homosexuality. They may be the result of it.

This is from a quick Googling and short Pubmed search, since the sourcs I have bookmarked are now defunct. None of this was in any way hard to locate, and my websearch went no further than page 2 of the returned results.

Sources:
http://www.xq28.net/article/answer.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1887219
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=8332896
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7581447
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nih-nyt.html
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nature-nurture/levay.html
http://existentialmoo.com/moo/archives/culture/2002/homosexuality_is_biological_suggests_gay_sheep_study.php
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V116/N27/levay.27n.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Rana.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jun/burr2.htm

The Levay brain research on the matter is there, as well as twin studies by Bailey and Pillard, which finds:

"...a gay-gay concordance rate of 11 percent for the adoptive brothers, 22 percent for the dizygotic twins, and 52 percent for the monozygotic twins. The findings suggest that homosexuality is highly attributable to genetics -- by some measures up to 70 percent attributable, according to Pillard."

Then there's also the Hamer DNA research. Now, are you going to write this all off as coincidence? Your suggestion that these changes come about during one's life is only applicable in any way to the LeVay work...

Deja Vu.

That find is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen! This is just one of all those quickie finds made by first year statisticians because they can't think of anything better to prove!

Practically everything nowadays is considered to be caused by genetics just because it is the best exuse people have to explain their obnoxious behaviour.

Genetics only determine our physical characteristics and primal instincts. Not complex political leanings or anything as such. The fact is, we were meant to still be living in the woods, hunting and gathering, that is what our genetic makeup was meant to handle.

Besides, the genetic theory is clearly faulty. I highly recommend listening to Dr. Bruce Lipton and his findings on genetic determination.

In the poll, I selected other, though I do not wish to release such information.

I'm Canadian, NDP all the way (New Democratic Party). If I was American, I would vote Democrat until they won an election (and managed to get their president into the White House) and then vote for the Greens or something.

Fvcking American politics...

Like I said, there will be plenty of people who will do all they can to avoid reading and considering anything which challenges their ill-conceived opinions.

Sachka, there is no way that you had enough time to read one, let alone all, of those studies. Apparently, though, that's no reason not to comment. First you insult the researchers involved, ignoring that these were studies performed at length by prominent psychologists and neurologists, not "first-year statisticians." Then, you whine about the amount of things which are genetically pre-determined, which is quite ridiculous because that fact by itself in no way invalidates the findings. Next, you choose to voice some opinions of yours about genetics, which are substantiated by absolutely nothing. Finally, genetic theory as a whole must be tossed out the window, though this is a debate on genetic predisposition to homosexuality.

Feeling better now? Beliefs all intact and tucked in safely? :roll:

Hey Labrador you sound like a whiny little bitch. You probably are some rich middle class hippie who sponges off their parents. It also seems you have no life. You probably have sex with the girls on the cover of playboy and maximum but unfortunately you are the only one in the room at this process. I don?t care if you insult me on the Forum. However I have a tip for you to make the world a better place and that is to EAT SHIT AND KILL YOURSELF. By the way I do not appreciate comparing being a republican to being gay.

Labrador mentioned that the actual reason for this thread was support for homosexuals, and I agree in that case. But as this has become a Republican vs. Democrat thread, I might as well join in.
I am a conservative, though I don't actually afiliate with a political party. I have lived all over America, and the most dysfunctional families and unstable children I have known have been liberals. The most loving, stable families I have seen are decidedly conservative, my own included. I cannot say for certain why that is, but that is what I have seen.

Then again, perhaps the real problem is that political parties have served to polarize people with views that might otherwise have been compatible. Just something to think about before you all start arguing again.

One of the most stable and loving families I know of is my own; my grandfather was an almost fanatical anti-Republican, my parents and sister are all Democrats, and I am registered independent, leaning toward Democrat. Perhaps we are the exception, rather than the rule, but I have not, myself, seen any evidence of that.

I agree very strongly with your last point, however... which I consider evidence that it is true. After all, we agree on that issue... I'm sure there are others, as well.

Sachka, it clearly wasn't intended to be taken seriously... and if you don't want to express your political preferences, something I can certainly understand, you don't have to take the poll at all.

I'm glad we have these discussions. I think they help.

Hey Labrador you sound like a whiny little bitch. You probably are some rich middle class hippie who sponges off their parents. It also seems you have no life. You probably have sex with the girls on the cover of playboy and maximum but unfortunately you are the only one in the room at this process. I don?t care if you insult me on the Forum. However I have a tip for you to make the world a better place and that is to EAT SHIT AND KILL YOURSELF. By the way I do not appreciate comparing being a republican to being gay.

Ooh, looks like somebody was threatened by something they read. Thank you for contributing intellectually to the conversation.

In all honesty, thank you for providing further proof of what I'd said previously in this thread.

Labrador mentioned that the actual reason for this thread was support for homosexuals, and I agree in that case. But as this has become a Republican vs. Democrat thread, I might as well join in.
I am a conservative, though I don't actually afiliate with a political party. I have lived all over America, and the most dysfunctional families and unstable children I have known have been liberals. The most loving, stable families I have seen are decidedly conservative, my own included. I cannot say for certain why that is, but that is what I have seen.

Then again, perhaps the real problem is that political parties have served to polarize people with views that might otherwise have been compatible. Just something to think about before you all start arguing again.

One of the most stable and loving families I know of is my own; my grandfather was an almost fanatical anti-Republican, my parents and sister are all Democrats, and I am registered independent, leaning toward Democrat. Perhaps we are the exception, rather than the rule, but I have not, myself, seen any evidence of that.

Indeed, my family has always been quite liberal and we have always been quite stable and loving. Observational claims that "members of X political party are usually Y" are pretty much always false in cases like this, and I think it's pretty obvious that they are the result of perception bias.

Hey Labrador you sound like a whiny little bitch. You probably are some rich middle class hippie who sponges off their parents. It also seems you have no life. You probably have sex with the girls on the cover of playboy and maximum but unfortunately you are the only one in the room at this process. I don?t care if you insult me on the Forum. However I have a tip for you to make the world a better place and that is to EAT SHIT AND KILL YOURSELF. By the way I do not appreciate comparing being a republican to being gay.

Labrador is actually a very smart woman and you could do good for yourself by learning from her.

I would ask you to please follow the advice you gave to Labrador.

George Washington was right. Everybody knows that in his farewell address he warned against partisan politics. parties have become an end unto themselves, and the vast majority of Americans, when at the polls, don't think about voting for the candidate who could best serve the public, they're voting for the conservative candidate, or the liberal candidate, often without having any clue what the policies are of the person they're voting for. and the blasted ballots just make it easier for them because the candidates are labeled by party.

but since there's really not much i can do about that, i'll bow to partisan politics for the moment. i agree with Republicans on most issues. i'm voting for Bush because although he's screwed up in some aspects of government, every president does, and overall he's made America a lot safer. i don't see Kerry as having his own opinions on anything at all--he agreed with Bush on most issues during his previous government employments.

one thing i don't agree on is the anti-gay marriage idea. i think they should be able to marry and do whatever the hell else they want. a problem is that lots of gay people are going to get divorces, and then there'll be a huge question about property entailments, etc. but i guess that'll just keep money circulating and make a lot of lawyers rich, and the gay people who run off with their...questionable same-sex companions' money. the gay people can worry about that.

i agree that, for the most part, the government should cut special interest group subsidies way down so we can pay off our now tremendous budget deficit (major one of Bush's mistakes) and still have money left to cut taxes so people can go buy stuff and boost the economy. if you disagree, you can send your own money to special interest groups, i've got better things to do.

So, what I hear you saying is that Dick Cheney taught his daughter to be gay.. okay.. I just wanted to make sure I understood you correctly.

Good one, Steph. :lol:

Be careful how you say things when Steph is around! It can and will be used against you.

Labrador is just a flamer and a flame baiter. She hangs around the forum, heating things up, until the selective moderators decide to finally tag her with a warning. Then, she disappears for weeks at a time until the flaming is nearly forgotten, only to start up again.

I get warned by Stephistan after telling someone who insults me in every post to get a job.

Proud independent who thinks the whole political party thing is one of the major things wrong with this country because anyone who needs a political party to tell them how to vote probably shouldn't be voting in the first place.

However, at least the Dems seem to have a sense of humor, which is more than I can say for any Republican who has replied to this thread. I know it's hard, but lighten up people!

As for the homosexuality issue, a good source for info on animal sexuality (and I doubt anyone on this forum would argue that animals *choose* to be anything) is Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl. I know your typical conservative wouldn't want to have a book like that lying around the house, but if you really do want to examine the evidence, it's pretty much the most comprehensive collection of evidence for animal homosexuality. As many others have pointed out, pubmed is a good search too. There is a particular study done in sheep where chemicals provided to the fetus were changed, resulting in a higher level of homosexual animals (or something like that). It doesn't necessarily show a "gay gene" but it does argue for predertermination of sexuality well before birth (and thus well before a behavior can be chosen or learned).

So, in conclusion, please pull the stick out of the place where the sun don't shiine and laugh every now and then - it's good for you!

Other (explain below) - 37%
Why haven't people been explaining?? :x
I'm a robot. Hey! Now I'm a truck!

Hey Labrador you sound like a whiny little bitch [snip]
Do not flame. Further flaming may result in Game Moderator action.

http://www.bigwig.net/~bbw10606/pwned.gif
Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

Labrador is just a flamer and a flame baiter. She hangs around the forum, heating things up, until the selective moderators decide to finally tag her with a warning. Then, she disappears for weeks at a time until the flaming is nearly forgotten, only to start up again.

I get warned by Stephistan after telling someone who insults me in every post to get a job.

oh you are soooo full of 'it'!

I have never seen labrador act like that... although i can't say the same for you. You seem to be so full of anger and hatred and insults that I'm suprised you are not an ex-nation yet.

I get warned by Stephistan after telling someone who insults me in every post to get a job.

No MD, you do nothing but bait people in every thread that you disagree with and then you cry "poor me I'm innocent" when they insult you. You're on very thin ice right now with me. Stop baiting every one. Just knock it off. You're not fooling any one!

I get warned by Stephistan after telling someone who insults me in every post to get a job.

No MD, you do nothing but bait people in every thread that you disagree with and then you cry "poor me I'm innocent" when they insult you. You're on very thin ice right now with me. Stop baiting every one. Just knock it off. You're not fooling any one!
Delete another person you disagree with, go ahead. Just shows your unlimited and everpresent bias.

I also wasn't aware the common phrase, "Clean out your house before worrying about your neighbor's." was flamebait. Better ban quoting the Bible next, that Jesus fella was good with satire.

I get warned by Stephistan after telling someone who insults me in every post to get a job.

No MD, you do nothing but bait people in every thread that you disagree with and then you cry "poor me I'm innocent" when they insult you. You're on very thin ice right now with me. Stop baiting every one. Just knock it off. You're not fooling any one!
Delete another person you disagree with, go ahead. Just shows your unlimited and everpresent bias.

I also wasn't aware the common phrase, "Clean out your house before worrying about your neighbor's." was flamebait. Better ban quoting the Bible next, that Jesus fella was good with satire.

No More Dissidence wrong again. The old "delete me because I disagree with you, you're biased" argument is getting old and any of the other conservatives who disagree with me daily can attest to that. No one is buying it any more. I have been a mod for too long now for that trumped up argument to work for you. If you recall how well it didn't work for you last time. Playing the victim has gotten old. Bottom line, stop baiting every one or I will delete you. End of Story!

I get warned by Stephistan after telling someone who insults me in every post to get a job.

No MD, you do nothing but bait people in every thread that you disagree with and then you cry "poor me I'm innocent" when they insult you. You're on very thin ice right now with me. Stop baiting every one. Just knock it off. You're not fooling any one!
Delete another person you disagree with, go ahead. Just shows your unlimited and everpresent bias.

I also wasn't aware the common phrase, "Clean out your house before worrying about your neighbor's." was flamebait. Better ban quoting the Bible next, that Jesus fella was good with satire.

Listen there are rules to playing in the playground..if you don't like the playground, expect the teacher to send you into the room with no recess. simple as that.

That find is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen! This is just one of all those quickie finds made by first year statisticians because they can't think of anything better to prove!

Practically everything nowadays is considered to be caused by genetics just because it is the best exuse people have to explain their obnoxious behaviour.

Genetics only determine our physical characteristics and primal instincts. Not complex political leanings or anything as such. The fact is, we were meant to still be living in the woods, hunting and gathering, that is what our genetic makeup was meant to handle.

Besides, the genetic theory is clearly faulty. I highly recommend listening to Dr. Bruce Lipton and his findings on genetic determination.

In the poll, I selected other, though I do not wish to release such information.

You know... I really can't think of ANYTHING more primal than sex.

To my mind, anyone who thinks they "learn" what it is that turns them on is deluded. Do some hetro men "learn" to be breast men as opposed to leg men? And how did you "learn" to get your first erection?

We can't help what turns our crank. That is genetics.

-Z-

I have been a mod for too long now...
You're right, we agree this once.

My family tree refutes this study... unless I'm a Republican without knowing it... that's frightening.

Is it a genetic defect? :lol:

just walked in- boo, hiss is right... :D

I have been a mod for too long now...
You're right, we agree this once. And once again, you take someone's quote out of context and attack them with it. How typical of you, MD.
Stephistan is a far better mod than you could ever hope to be.

I don't believe in genetoc determinism and I don't belong to any political party.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

unaffiliated, but a feminist.

You feminists are a danger to our society.

You demand that women have unlimited rights, and you do not consider the consequences.

Not unlimited rights, equal rights. And if we are a danger to society, all the better.

Women already do have equal rights in most Western countries.

Your "liberation" efforts would be better aimed at middle eastern countries.

I am a Nationalist, thats why I picked "Other"

Ah... of course.
I should have realized.
Speaking of which, what's the problem with the following question?
P implies Q.
Q is correct.
Therefore, P is correct.
True or False?

What is: the falacy of affirming the consequent, Alex? :D

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

WOW! NEW STUDY FINDS THAT PEOPLE INSULTING OTHER PEOPLE IS NATURAL!!!!!

This is what this is all about.

I have been a mod for too long now...
You're right, we agree this once. And once again, you take someone's quote out of context and attack them with it. How typical of you, MD.
Stephistan is a far better mod than you could ever hope to be.
Show me another post where i've done this and i'll mail you a dollar.

Thought so.

Get a job.

Hey Labrador you sound like a whiny little bitch. You probably are some rich middle class hippie who sponges off their parents. It also seems you have no life. You probably have sex with the girls on the cover of playboy and maximum but unfortunately you are the only one in the room at this process. I don?t care if you insult me on the Forum. However I have a tip for you to make the world a better place and that is to EAT SHIT AND KILL YOURSELF. By the way I do not appreciate comparing being a republican to being gay.

Well, Yugolsavia....first, let me say that, coming from you, I'll take the "whiny little bitch" comment as a compliment, because I think you're even worse.

And no, I'm not a rich, middle class hippie. I am poor-white-trash South Austin Bubba. I do not sponge off my parents. I'm 32 years old, my father is dead, and my mom lives 2,000 miles away. I last borrowed money from my mother 4 years ago, and long since repaid her, with interest!

i don't have sex with anyone, and have no interest in having sex with anyone...though, if I were, it would be with a GUY...not a girl. The idea of sexual relations with another woman makes me want to hurl.

Now, since you have told me to "EAT SHIT AND KILL MYSELF" I intend to report you to the Mods.

by the way, I don't appreciate conservatives trying to squash my chances for joy, happiness and love, just because what gives that to me makes THEM feel icky. You know what?? Too freaking bad, buck-o...if what I enjoy makes YOU feel icky...then don't look!

Now, off to the Moderation section to file a formal complaint against you.

I have been a mod for too long now...
You're right, we agree this once. And once again, you take someone's quote out of context and attack them with it. How typical of you, MD.
Stephistan is a far better mod than you could ever hope to be.
Show me another post where i've done this and i'll mail you a dollar.

Thought so.

Get a job.

Do try to think of another line.

Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you in any form must by definition be unemployed is both ludicrous and boringly repetitive.

Get a new script writer.

Must be the same one who wrote "No Blood for Oil!" if hes that boring.

Labrador is just a flamer and a flame baiter. She hangs around the forum, heating things up, until the selective moderators decide to finally tag her with a warning. Then, she disappears for weeks at a time until the flaming is nearly forgotten, only to start up again.

I get warned by Stephistan after telling someone who insults me in every post to get a job.

No. You merely think I am a flamebaiter, and a flamer, bccause I post things YOU disagree with. I got tagged with one very severe warning...which I deserved, when I went WAY over the top on someone. This was due to extreme stresses in my personal life at the time,and I was aching to rip someone's head off! Since I couldn't lash out at the people (my bosses) who were the REAL burr up my saddle at the time, Some guy in this Forum who had the temerity to cross me with an absolutely idiotic opinion got two months worth of anger hurled at him in one post.

I therefore disappeared for a few weeks, until things got somewhat back to normal in my personal life, so that I would not do it again...and get my nation deleted.

Ask any moderator...since that time you refer to, about a month and a half ago, I have gotten a lot better. And I also have gotten far less tolerant of flamebaiting...I now will report anyone and everyone who flamebaits me, because if I rise to it, it may get me deleted.

So, if you don't like me or my opinions, best not to reply...or be careful how you pick your words.

Fact is, I'm STILL gonna jump on any conservative who posts an ounce of spin with ten pounds of fact. And you guys just don't like it that I'm always so right.

Why is it that when a man asserts himself, this is a good thing...a man who fails to assert himself is a "pussy" and a WOMAN who asserts HERSELF is always a "bitch?" Could it be that this "bitch" is always so right, and you can't stand it?

I didn't refer to you as a bitch, I referred to you as a flamer, which is a gender-neutral negative comment.

You're not guilty of tossing as much spin as possible into your threads? Hello Pot, my name is Kettle, you're looking quite lovely and dark today.

I didn't refer to you as a bitch, I referred to you as a flamer, which is a gender-neutral negative comment.

You're not guilty of tossing as much spin as possible into your threads? Hello Pot, my name is Kettle, you're looking quite lovely and dark today.

No...the "bitch" comment came from Yugolsavia, and that part of the post was directed at them.

And while in the past, I was guilty of some very famous flames, and I'll be the first to admit to that...you haven't seen flame like that come outta me since I got warned. and, as I said, when I did get warned, I really did deserve it, because I went WAY over the top on the guy. It was on the Bill O'Reilly thread, as I remember it.

I went away for a few weeks, because I needed things to calm down in my own life, so that I would not tear someone's head off that badly again.

As to "spin" in my posts? No...just the facts. I will continue to jump on any conservative posting an ounce of spin with ten pounds of facts.

You just don't like it that I won't let you trap me in a corner with your spin. I see thru the smoke and mirrors conservatives use to make their arguments. They are all based on the flimsiest of evidence, gather thru questionable methodolgy, and spun to the point where they seem to sound good...unless you picjk them apart, as I do.

Example is the posting that started this whole thread. I did not, as Yugo asserted, compare Republicans with gay people. what I did was to take a sample article of what might be printed should gayness prove to be genetic...and merely replaced every occurance of "homosexuality" with Republican...just so that I could show you guys that the shoe ain't so comfortable when you put it on the other foot.

I hoped maybe you guys would read it, and realize exactly how mean-spirited you conservatives really are. You guys are all about limiting everyone else...but never yourselves. This is why you cherry-pick which parts of Old Testament Scripture you will enforce, and which parts you will disregard. If it limits someone else, you enforce it. If it limits YOU, you want to toss it out.

My intent with this thread was to illustrate this. And the conservative response I got served only to prove it even better than I could have hoped.

You've explained yourself well, Labrador.

I didn't refer to you as a bitch, I referred to you as a flamer, which is a gender-neutral negative comment.

You're not guilty of tossing as much spin as possible into your threads? Hello Pot, my name is Kettle, you're looking quite lovely and dark today.

No...the "bitch" comment came from Yugolsavia, and that part of the post was directed at them.

And while in the past, I was guilty of some very famous flames, and I'll be the first to admit to that...you haven't seen flame like that come outta me since I got warned. and, as I said, when I did get warned, I really did deserve it, because I went WAY over the top on the guy. It was on the Bill O'Reilly thread, as I remember it.

I went away for a few weeks, because I needed things to calm down in my own life, so that I would not tear someone's head off that badly again.

As to "spin" in my posts? No...just the facts. I will continue to jump on any conservative posting an ounce of spin with ten pounds of facts.

You just don't like it that I won't let you trap me in a corner with your spin. I see thru the smoke and mirrors conservatives use to make their arguments. They are all based on the flimsiest of evidence, gather thru questionable methodolgy, and spun to the point where they seem to sound good...unless you picjk them apart, as I do.

Example is the posting that started this whole thread. I did not, as Yugo asserted, compare Republicans with gay people. what I did was to take a sample article of what might be printed should gayness prove to be genetic...and merely replaced every occurance of "homosexuality" with Republican...just so that I could show you guys that the shoe ain't so comfortable when you put it on the other foot.

I hoped maybe you guys would read it, and realize exactly how mean-spirited you conservatives really are. You guys are all about limiting everyone else...but never yourselves. This is why you cherry-pick which parts of Old Testament Scripture you will enforce, and which parts you will disregard. If it limits someone else, you enforce it. If it limits YOU, you want to toss it out.

My intent with this thread was to illustrate this. And the conservative response I got served only to prove it even better than I could have hoped.

Instead we wish the best for everyone, we want the government out of your lives and enjoy the ability to do with your money as you see fit, not the government...if one goes by according our Constitution, there are a lot of things paid for that are unConstitutional. Mean-spirited?...by no means...I am compassionate...compassionate enough to want a man to stand up on his own two feet without a crutch from the government. I expect a man to work for his livelihood, and not expect the government to hand him/her over a check just for living.

I'm compassionate...I want our schools to TEACH,not indoctrinate my children and grandchildren...I wanted them to do the three R's, not socialogy, accounting, typing, study hall, senior dismissal...I expected my sons to be able to read above the 8th grade level by the time they graduated from high school..I'm compassionate enough to want to bring back standards..and not feel-good curriculum's...their job isn't there to teach self-esteem.....if my sons get a bad grade..they SHOULD feel like crap..and Unequa-forbid they would come to me with anything less then a B-..it only means they get less time hanging out at the mall doing girl-watching.

In short...we are not bout limiting anyone...we stand for the ability to do with your life what you make of it...if it doesn't turn out to make you a millionaire..it's your fault..not someone else's.

I didn't refer to you as a bitch, I referred to you as a flamer, which is a gender-neutral negative comment.

You're not guilty of tossing as much spin as possible into your threads? Hello Pot, my name is Kettle, you're looking quite lovely and dark today.

No...the "bitch" comment came from Yugolsavia, and that part of the post was directed at them.

And while in the past, I was guilty of some very famous flames, and I'll be the first to admit to that...you haven't seen flame like that come outta me since I got warned. and, as I said, when I did get warned, I really did deserve it, because I went WAY over the top on the guy. It was on the Bill O'Reilly thread, as I remember it.

I went away for a few weeks, because I needed things to calm down in my own life, so that I would not tear someone's head off that badly again.

As to "spin" in my posts? No...just the facts. I will continue to jump on any conservative posting an ounce of spin with ten pounds of facts.

You just don't like it that I won't let you trap me in a corner with your spin. I see thru the smoke and mirrors conservatives use to make their arguments. They are all based on the flimsiest of evidence, gather thru questionable methodolgy, and spun to the point where they seem to sound good...unless you picjk them apart, as I do.

Example is the posting that started this whole thread. I did not, as Yugo asserted, compare Republicans with gay people. what I did was to take a sample article of what might be printed should gayness prove to be genetic...and merely replaced every occurance of "homosexuality" with Republican...just so that I could show you guys that the shoe ain't so comfortable when you put it on the other foot.

I hoped maybe you guys would read it, and realize exactly how mean-spirited you conservatives really are. You guys are all about limiting everyone else...but never yourselves. This is why you cherry-pick which parts of Old Testament Scripture you will enforce, and which parts you will disregard. If it limits someone else, you enforce it. If it limits YOU, you want to toss it out.

My intent with this thread was to illustrate this. And the conservative response I got served only to prove it even better than I could have hoped.

Instead we wish the best for everyone, we want the government out of your lives and enjoy the ability to do with your money as you see fit, not the government...if one goes by according our Constitution, there are a lot of things paid for that are unConstitutional. Mean-spirited?...by no means...I am compassionate...compassionate enough to want a man to stand up on his own two feet without a crutch from the government. I expect a man to work for his livelihood, and not expect the government to hand him/her over a check just for living.

I'm compassionate...I want our schools to TEACH,not indoctrinate my children and grandchildren...I wanted them to do the three R's, not socialogy, accounting, typing, study hall, senior dismissal...I expected my sons to be able to read above the 8th grade level by the time they graduated from high school..I'm compassionate enough to want to bring back standards..and not feel-good curriculum's...their job isn't there to teach self-esteem.....if my sons get a bad grade..they SHOULD feel like crap..and Unequa-forbid they would come to me with anything less then a B-..it only means they get less time hanging out at the mall doing girl-watching.

In short...we are not bout limiting anyone...we stand for the ability to do with your life what you make of it...if it doesn't turn out to make you a millionaire..it's your fault..not someone else's.

Maybe YOU aren't about limiting other people, but you are, I'm afraid, a very small minority within the ranks of modern-day Republicans.

Most are the frothing-at-the-mouth Religious Reich morons that want to limit everyone but themselves...and they somehow think they can return us to the days of Ozzie and Harriet Nelson...a time which, in fact, never even REALLY existed...and sure as hell wouldn't work in today's society...it's far too limiting!

Most Republicans are reactionaries. They prefer the past (an idealized past) over any future. They are fearful of change, of the future...and they will do anything they can to squash it...even if it means sucking all the joy out of someone else's life. Most Republicans think that the only aswer to the problems of today is a return to an idealized past that in fact never even existed. This is from my own experience and observation of Republicans.

and it's exactly why I find them...and their political ideology, distateful at best, downright mean-spritied, cruel, heartless, greedy, and wretched at it's worst. and the Bushites are damn close to the "worst" end on that scale, in my not-so-humble opinion.

P.S. as an aside, I think Richard Nixon was a perfect symbol for the Republican Party...the guy looked like he hadn't taken a shit in a month!

Democrat.

But should they be allowed to marry?

Republicans should only be allowed to marry other Republicans and then only if they are willing to extend that right to gays....

Allowing Republicans to marry outside their party has been proven to have disasterous consequences. (James Carville and Mary Matelin)

Disregard for the poor? The poor should be supported if they are poor for a reason other than laziness.

WARNING, WARNING CONTRADICTION ALERT!!!!!!!
There are two problems:
1) Republicans have no proof that all poor are lazy and yet they slash welfare in general.
2) Jesus said "give everything you own and follow me". If you claim to be a christian then why do you have a computer and how can you vote republican? Quite clearly you should be for a theologically driven communist state, this would follow the plan set out by Acts to the letter...
and this flies in the face of Republican ideology. Please remember that whatever you do for the poor you do for Jesus. He doesn't specify hardworking or lazy.
No christian can be a Republican and claim to live by a contradiction-free philosophy.


Frequent unconstitutional tendencies? Which party is allowing homosexual marraiges in San Francisco, in violation of state law? It seems that anything that shows some restraint is instantly unconstitutional, at least according to you liberals. Keep note that the constitution also lets us have gun rights and freedom of worship, despite what your ACLU friends might say. :roll:


Come now we get to some of the ideological differences. Where as Republicans believe in the letter of the law, Democrats believe in the meaning behind it. I think that the underlying foundation is more important than the letter. Your claim concerning gay marriage isn't really clever, the only way that a law can be overturned is via the US Supreme Court so the obvious goal is to break the law, get caught, take the case to the US Supreme Court, win the case, and then the law is out for every state, are you so blind to miss the strategy???? The ACLU has no problem with you praying or doing anything else as long as you don't bother others and as long as it isn't state sponsored, or have you already forgotten a few letters? Please don't forget that others have rights as well.
On your right to guns I would strongly suggest you watch bowling for columbine, sure it is liberal, but if you can provide a rebuttal to the right to bear arms argument I would be quite interested...


Dysfunctional family dynamics? The majority of Republicans are religious, and their lifestyles reflect it. They believe it is a good thing to show some restraint and respect for the law, instead of pushing it to see if the government will cave in (see San Francisco.) :roll:

You have yet to provide evidence that the nuclear family is the best situation, as well I am slightly worried about the family structure of highly religious families. Do you stone your children like the bible says to? Do you force your children to go to church?


Unindicted conspirators? There has been corruption and scandal on BOTH sides. Watergate for Nixon, Lewinski for Clinton.

You are right, Breaking in to a political compound and trying to steal secrets, then lying about it is completely equivalent to having sex and lying about it, and lets not forget about that nice Dan Burton who did the same thing, but was on the opposite end of the party line.

"You can just tell watching their conventions in Houston and San Diego on TV: the flaming xenophobia, flamboyant demagogy, disdain for anyone not rich, you know."
When that Democratic senator died in the plane crash, a "service" was held that was less of a period of mourning and more of a liberal pep-rally.

This is a rebuttal....????????

By the way, take a look at the poll. Republicans are not a minority. Of course, I won't be surprised if ten minutes from now you have added votes from some of your other nations to tip the scales. Just like Florida, remember? :roll:
I see so basically you accuse others of wrong doing when there is no proof that they do it... I ask you are on any medication for paranoia? Have you seen someone about your massive paranoia? You keep claiming something despite the fact that you have no proof.... What a pity.... Besides this isn't exactly a prime place for a political survey, but fine Republicans aren't a minority, in a two party system this dazes and confuses me....


"Kind and gentle?" Let me be the first to tell you, liberals aren't exactly a beacon of light either. They tend to come across as fanatic whiners in this forum. :roll:

*Puts up a mirror (assuming you can see your own reflection)*

"there's no reason why society shouldn't tolerate Republicans in the
military or even high elected office -- provided they don't flaunt their political beliefs."
Which party does this more? I think it's pretty obvious that the liberal loudmouths do. Go to any topic involving religion (remember religious people tend to be conservative and 2/3 of the Democratic party are athiests) and you will see the athiests spewing hatred and disrespect while those in support of religion try to calmly support their side of the issue. :roll:
Go to christian forums, or any of the other magical forums that populate the web always, Atheists are going to Hell. Atheists are evil...
Keep this crap off the internet. You have every right to say it, but we have every right to tune it out.
Then why didn't you????

By the way, homosexuality isn't genetic. There is no proof it's genetic. That's just an excuse. Myself and many others believe it's learned.
Nature doesn't follow what you believe. Leave biology to the experts, and maybe when you're older you can play too...

In case anyone is interested, I have four puppets in this game plus my main nation. Only my main nation is in the UN...I DO play by the rules.

That said...none of my puppets has...or will...come here to vote in this poll, because I don't want to screw up the results of the poll. However...how do I know that some conservocreeps haven't done EXACTLY what you just accused me of, Reynes? How do I know YOU didn't get some puppets here to tip the poll your way?

I don't. But I give you the benefit of the doubt of being a decent, honest human being...though why I should give that to ANY Republican, I don't know...but you don't see ME going off paranoid, accusing my political enemies of playing dirty with a poll, to get the results they want to see.

You'll notice the Democrats have been slowly moving in on the Repukes. And, by the way, if you add up the Independents (who normally do not vote Republican...even Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh says so) plus those who voted "Other" most of whom are probably Greens, who are even more liberal than Democrats are...and compare that with the number of those who voted Republican and Libertarian (which is really Republican Lite) you will find that there are more Liberals than conservocreeps around here.

And, as I said, I've done NOTHING from MY end to skew the poll. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt you haven't either...but YOU are the one who first advanced the idea...and that makes one wonder...

And, again...God knows WHY I give any conservocreep the benefit of the doubt of being a decent, honest, moral, and ethical person! In my experience, NONE of them are!

Oh, they sure try to ACT that way, and project the outer APPERANCE of it...but there is a passage in the Bible, I'll find it later, about how the Pharisees cleaned only the outside of their glasss, and Jesus berated them to clean the INSIDE. He rightly pointed out that those holier-than-thou Pharisees only kept up an outward appearance of righteuosness and virtue...inside, their hearst were black, and they were as guilty of sin as those they liked to point the finger at!

And today's Republicans are, for the most part...no different than the Pharisees of Jesus' age. Jesus would turn in disgust from most republicans, in my not-so-humble opinion.

But don't ake my word for it...Read what an ex-Catholic Priest has to say about it...
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org

Unindicted conspirators? There has been corruption and scandal on BOTH sides. Watergate for Nixon, Lewinski for Clinton.

You are right, Breaking in to a political compound and trying to steal secrets, then lying about it is completely equivalent to having sex and lying about it, and lets not forget about that nice Dan Burton who did the same thing, but was on the opposite end of the party line.

I guess then that you have never heard of Vince Foster. He was working under the Clinton administration and word has it he was going to release files on some things they had done. He mysteriously committed suicide. Forensics evidence has proven that his body was moved afterwards. Afterwards, Hillary Clinton went to his office before the feds could legally search it. Once they got a warrant, several files in the office were missing. They have never been found. Hmm...

In case anyone is interested, I have four puppets in this game plus my main nation. Only my main nation is in the UN...I DO play by the rules.

That said...none of my puppets has...or will...come here to vote in this poll, because I don't want to screw up the results of the poll. However...how do I know that some conservocreeps haven't done EXACTLY what you just accused me of, Reynes? How do I know YOU didn't get some puppets here to tip the poll your way?

I don't. But I give you the benefit of the doubt of being a decent, honest human being...though why I should give that to ANY Republican, I don't know...but you don't see ME going off paranoid, accusing my political enemies of playing dirty with a poll, to get the results they want to see.

You'll notice the Democrats have been slowly moving in on the Repukes. And, by the way, if you add up the Independents (who normally do not vote Republican...even Rush "Oxycontin" Limbaugh says so) plus those who voted "Other" most of whom are probably Greens, who are even more liberal than Democrats are...and compare that with the number of those who voted Republican and Libertarian (which is really Republican Lite) you will find that there are more Liberals than conservocreeps around here.

And, as I said, I've done NOTHING from MY end to skew the poll. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt you haven't either...but YOU are the one who first advanced the idea...and that makes one wonder...

And, again...God knows WHY I give any conservocreep the benefit of the doubt of being a decent, honest, moral, and ethical person! In my experience, NONE of them are!

Oh, they sure try to ACT that way, and project the outer APPERANCE of it...but there is a passage in the Bible, I'll find it later, about how the Pharisees cleaned only the outside of their glasss, and Jesus berated them to clean the INSIDE. He rightly pointed out that those holier-than-thou Pharisees only kept up an outward appearance of righteuosness and virtue...inside, their hearst were black, and they were as guilty of sin as those they liked to point the finger at!

And today's Republicans are, for the most part...no different than the Pharisees of Jesus' age. Jesus would turn in disgust from most republicans, in my not-so-humble opinion.

But don't ake my word for it...Read what an ex-Catholic Priest has to say about it...
http://www.liberalslikechrist.org
I haven't voted more than once, and you have no way of knowing if I am telling the truth. Likewise, you say you haven't voted more than once, and I have no way of knowing if you have told the truth. We can't prove that the other has or hasn't voted multiple times.

However, you can't deny that liberals bend polls, also. In the topic "Debunking Evolution 101," the poll said over 60% are athiests. I somehow doubt that, as only 15% of the world's population are athiests (keep in mind that 2/3 of the Democratic party are athiests), that so many would say there is no God. That's why I believe that polls are inaccurate. I think that this topic naturally attracts people who are conservative, because it is a direct attack on us.

And, again...God knows WHY I give any conservocreep the benefit of the doubt of being a decent, honest, moral, and ethical person! In my experience, NONE of them are!
I don't know what people are like in your part of the country, but I don't see where that could have come from. As for the last part of your thread, I don't pretend to be perfect. Conservatives are by no means perfect. Who denies that watergate happened? I certainly don't.

You don't know what people in my part of the country are like, Reynes? Two words: Tom DeLay.

'Nuff said!

Did you know that, apart from engineering the illegal mid-decade Congressional redistricting for Texas (with an eye towards denying white Democrats in Travis County, Central Texas, a voice in Congress - by pitting them against Hispanic Democrats in South Texas) Tom Delay has also called for getting rid of the Constitution, and replacing it with a government based on literalist Biblical theocracy?

Of course, they wouldn't enforce those parts of the Bible that inconvenienced THEM...or called upon THEM to change their behavior and attitudes..they only want to enforce the parts limiting on OHER PEOPLE!

You wanna live in a freaking theocracy? Well, I don't! And the day America becomes a theocracy s the day I renounce my American citizenship, and seek political asylum in another country! Hey, Canada...got room for one more up there?

Oh...and this thread is NOT an attack on Republicans...unless you call exposing the TRUTH about what you people REALLY stand for...and who you REALLY are an attack!

You don't know what people in my part of the country are like, Reynes? Two words: Tom DeLay.

'Nuff said!

Did you know that, apart from engineering the illegal mid-decade Congressional redistricting for Texas (with an eye towards denying white Democrats in Travis County, Central Texas, a voice in Congress - by pitting them against Hispanic Democrats in South Texas) Tom Delay has also called for getting rid of the Constitution, and replacing it with a government based on literalist Biblical theocracy?

Of course, they wouldn't enforce those parts of the Bible that inconvenienced THEM...or called upon THEM to change their behavior and attitudes..they only want to enforce the parts limiting on OHER PEOPLE!

You wanna live in a freaking theocracy? Well, I don't! And the day America becomes a theocracy s the day I renounce my American citizenship, and seek political asylum in another country! Hey, Canada...got room for one more up there?

Oh...and this thread is NOT an attack on Republicans...unless you call exposing the TRUTH about what you people REALLY stand for...and who you REALLY are an attack!Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! Sheesh!

First off, I'll admit that I never heard of Tom Delay. From what you said, though, I don't think I would like him. Those kinds of actions are indefensable. However, let's be fair about this: that's just one man. I don't base my perspective of the Democrats on only one person, so why should you? That's like picking a person on death row to represent the United States. Also, it's pretty obvious that there are extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. During the period where Clinton was impeached, there was a man who called for the Senate minority leader and his family to be stoned to death.

Secondly, you don't want to live in a theocracy any more than I want to live in anarchy.

Finally, try reading this topic from our perspective. It is an attack. It can't be described as anything else. A lot of the "truths" you presented were just stereotypes that were blown way out of proportion. You complain about extremist republicans, and you may view me as one. However, you come across the exact same way, only on the left wing.

You don't know what people in my part of the country are like, Reynes? Two words: Tom DeLay.

'Nuff said!

Did you know that, apart from engineering the illegal mid-decade Congressional redistricting for Texas (with an eye towards denying white Democrats in Travis County, Central Texas, a voice in Congress - by pitting them against Hispanic Democrats in South Texas) Tom Delay has also called for getting rid of the Constitution, and replacing it with a government based on literalist Biblical theocracy?Wow. One nut said it, so of course ALL of the Republican Party must agree with him!

Of course, they wouldn't enforce those parts of the Bible that inconvenienced THEM...or called upon THEM to change their behavior and attitudes..they only want to enforce the parts limiting on OHER PEOPLE!An assumption, as usual. However, this country probably would benefit from more Biblical influence.

You wanna live in a freaking theocracy? Well, I don't! And the day America becomes a theocracy s the day I renounce my American citizenship, and seek political asylum in another country! Hey, Canada...got room for one more up there?You can move up there today! I'll help you pack! :D

Oh...and this thread is NOT an attack on Republicans...unless you call exposing the TRUTH about what you people REALLY stand for...and who you REALLY are an attack!Wow. Really? Let me check.
*clicks "Page 1"* :shock: *clicks "Page 5"*
I'd say it's an attack. Most of your "facts" are opinions.

Frequent unconstitutional tendencies? Which party is allowing homosexual marraiges in San Francisco, in violation of state law? It seems that anything that shows some restraint is instantly unconstitutional, at least according to you liberals. Keep note that the constitution also lets us have gun rights and freedom of worship, despite what your ACLU friends might say. :roll:


Come now we get to some of the ideological differences. Where as Republicans believe in the letter of the law, Democrats believe in the meaning behind it. I think that the underlying foundation is more important than the letter. Your claim concerning gay marriage isn't really clever, the only way that a law can be overturned is via the US Supreme Court so the obvious goal is to break the law, get caught, take the case to the US Supreme Court, win the case, and then the law is out for every state, are you so blind to miss the strategy???? The ACLU has no problem with you praying or doing anything else as long as you don't bother others and as long as it isn't state sponsored, or have you already forgotten a few letters? Please don't forget that others have rights as well.
On your right to guns I would strongly suggest you watch bowling for columbine, sure it is liberal, but if you can provide a rebuttal to the right to bear arms argument I would be quite interested... In other words, Democrats look for any misplaced comma that might allow for a loophole in the law. Maybe the bill of rights isn't specific enough...
The gay marraiges are against state law. These people (the judges/mayors/whatever) are breaking this law, but nothing has happened to them (stripped of position). Finally, I have a rebuttal on gun control: it's called the 2nd amendment!

God bless America!

Holbrookia, are you following me or something?

You don't know what people in my part of the country are like, Reynes? Two words: Tom DeLay.

'Nuff said!

Did you know that, apart from engineering the illegal mid-decade Congressional redistricting for Texas (with an eye towards denying white Democrats in Travis County, Central Texas, a voice in Congress - by pitting them against Hispanic Democrats in South Texas) Tom Delay has also called for getting rid of the Constitution, and replacing it with a government based on literalist Biblical theocracy?Wow. One nut said it, so of course ALL of the Republican Party must agree with him!


This isn't just one nut...Tom DeLay is the freaking Republican Party Whip!!

You don't know what people in my part of the country are like, Reynes? Two words: Tom DeLay.

'Nuff said!

Did you know that, apart from engineering the illegal mid-decade Congressional redistricting for Texas (with an eye towards denying white Democrats in Travis County, Central Texas, a voice in Congress - by pitting them against Hispanic Democrats in South Texas) Tom Delay has also called for getting rid of the Constitution, and replacing it with a government based on literalist Biblical theocracy?

Of course, they wouldn't enforce those parts of the Bible that inconvenienced THEM...or called upon THEM to change their behavior and attitudes..they only want to enforce the parts limiting on OHER PEOPLE!

You wanna live in a freaking theocracy? Well, I don't! And the day America becomes a theocracy s the day I renounce my American citizenship, and seek political asylum in another country! Hey, Canada...got room for one more up there?

Oh...and this thread is NOT an attack on Republicans...unless you call exposing the TRUTH about what you people REALLY stand for...and who you REALLY are an attack!Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! Sheesh!

First off, I'll admit that I never heard of Tom Delay. From what you said, though, I don't think I would like him. Those kinds of actions are indefensable. However, let's be fair about this: that's just one man. I don't base my perspective of the Democrats on only one person, so why should you? That's like picking a person on death row to represent the United States.

No, that's like taking the Republican Party Whip...whose job it is to make sure all the other Republicans toe the Party line...and using HIM as a representative of all Republicans. So it is an accurate representation of Republicans to use Tom DeLay as a representative of what that Party stands for and believes in.



Also, it's pretty obvious that there are extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. During the period where Clinton was impeached, there was a man who called for the Senate minority leader and his family to be stoned to death.

Secondly, you don't want to live in a theocracy any more than I want to live in anarchy.

Finally, try reading this topic from our perspective. It is an attack. It can't be described as anything else. A lot of the "truths" you presented were just stereotypes that were blown way out of proportion. You complain about extremist republicans, and you may view me as one. However, you come across the exact same way, only on the left wing.

Well, try takinig the Republican Party stance on GLBT people...from OUR perspective, THAT is an attack! And THAT is the point the original post was trying to make. It was an attempt to put the shoe on the other foot, so you could see what it felt like. Don't fit so comfortably, does it? Or maybe it's too close to the truth for your comfort level?

Fact is...in my experience, Republicans are evil incarnate. They are horrible, brutal, evil mosnsters who care only about the rich, the white, the heterosexual, the "Christian." (I use the term Christian loosely here, because most Republicans are anything BUT Christians. They ignore most of Jesus' most basic teachings.) I say THAT because it seems that the milk of human compassion has long ago dried up in the Republican Party.

The Republicans more follow the "teachings" of Paul of Tarsus, and thus, really should call themselves Paulites. I use the word "teachings" loosely here, too, because if you ask ME...the "teachings" of Paul of Tarsus would be better described as "mysogynistic, xenophobic, lunatic ravings!" Paul was a serious bigot.

Quite frankly, I truly believe that, if Republicans thought they could get away with it...they would have absolutely no compunction, whatsoever, against opening up the concentration camps and crematories, and consigning ME to one of the crematories, burning me up, alive, in the white-hot flames, just because of the fact that I gross them out, being a transsexual (which is a condition brought on by a birth dfect over which I had no control!) And they would laugh as they heard my agonized screams from within the crematory before I mercifully died.

I really believe they are THAT horrible, evil, and brutal. Left completely unchecked, if the Republican Party had no check and balnce, no longer had to answer to the public..this is the type of behavior I'd fully expect them to engage in. And if it ever gets even close to that bad, I'm going to Canada or Mexico and requesting political asylum! Now THAT is saying something, when one would actually have to request political asylum against the United States! Never thought it would become a possibility, but it is looking more and more, every day, that this may yet come to pass.

Republicans quite literally scare the freaking Hell out of me! They are intolerant, evil, brutal monsters, in my experience!

You don't know what people in my part of the country are like, Reynes? Two words: Tom DeLay.

'Nuff said!

Did you know that, apart from engineering the illegal mid-decade Congressional redistricting for Texas (with an eye towards denying white Democrats in Travis County, Central Texas, a voice in Congress - by pitting them against Hispanic Democrats in South Texas) Tom Delay has also called for getting rid of the Constitution, and replacing it with a government based on literalist Biblical theocracy?

Of course, they wouldn't enforce those parts of the Bible that inconvenienced THEM...or called upon THEM to change their behavior and attitudes..they only want to enforce the parts limiting on OHER PEOPLE!

You wanna live in a freaking theocracy? Well, I don't! And the day America becomes a theocracy s the day I renounce my American citizenship, and seek political asylum in another country! Hey, Canada...got room for one more up there?

Oh...and this thread is NOT an attack on Republicans...unless you call exposing the TRUTH about what you people REALLY stand for...and who you REALLY are an attack!Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! Sheesh!

First off, I'll admit that I never heard of Tom Delay. From what you said, though, I don't think I would like him. Those kinds of actions are indefensable. However, let's be fair about this: that's just one man. I don't base my perspective of the Democrats on only one person, so why should you? That's like picking a person on death row to represent the United States.

No, that's like taking the Republican Party Whip...whose job it is to make sure all the other Republicans toe the Party line...and using HIM as a representative of all Republicans. So it is an accurate representation of Republicans to use Tom DeLay as a representative of what that Party stands for and believes in.



Also, it's pretty obvious that there are extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. During the period where Clinton was impeached, there was a man who called for the Senate minority leader and his family to be stoned to death.

Secondly, you don't want to live in a theocracy any more than I want to live in anarchy.

Finally, try reading this topic from our perspective. It is an attack. It can't be described as anything else. A lot of the "truths" you presented were just stereotypes that were blown way out of proportion. You complain about extremist republicans, and you may view me as one. However, you come across the exact same way, only on the left wing.

Well, try takinig the Republican Party stance on GLBT people...from OUR perspective, THAT is an attack! And THAT is the point the original post was trying to make. It was an attempt to put the shoe on the other foot, so you could see what it felt like. Don't fit so comfortably, does it? Or maybe it's too close to the truth for your comfort level?

Fact is...in my experience, Republicans are evil incarnate. They are horrible, brutal, evil mosnsters who care only about the rich, the white, the heterosexual, the "Christian." (I use the term Christian loosely here, because most Republicans are anything BUT Christians. They ignore most of Jesus' most basic teachings.) I say THAT because it seems that the milk of human compassion has long ago dried up in the Republican Party.

The Republicans more follow the "teachings" of Paul of Tarsus, and thus, really should call themselves Paulites. I use the word "teachings" loosely here, too, because if you ask ME...the "teachings" of Paul of Tarsus would be better described as "mysogynistic, xenophobic, lunatic ravings!" Paul was a serious bigot.

Quite frankly, I truly believe that, if Republicans thought they could get away with it...they would have absolutely no compunction, whatsoever, against opening up the concentration camps and crematories, and consigning ME to one of the crematories, burning me up, alive, in the white-hot flames, just because of the fact that I gross them out, being a transsexual (which is a condition brought on by a birth dfect over which I had no control!) And they would laugh as they heard my agonized screams from within the crematory before I mercifully died.

I really believe they are THAT horrible, evil, and brutal. Left completely unchecked, if the Republican Party had no check and balnce, no longer had to answer to the public..this is the type of behavior I'd fully expect them to engage in. And if it ever gets even close to that bad, I'm going to Canada or Mexico and requesting political asylum! Now THAT is saying something, when one would actually have to request political asylum against the United States! Never thought it would become a possibility, but it is looking more and more, every day, that this may yet come to pass.

Republicans quite literally scare the freaking Hell out of me! They are intolerant, evil, brutal monsters, in my experience!
There are three reasons why you would say this. I have no way to know which is true, so I will address them all.

My first guess is that something has happened in your personal life, as you mentioned before. If so, I'm sorry about that. I hope things get better.

My second guess is that this is supposed to be some kind of joke, because you can't honestly believe this. If this is a joke of some kind, then stop. It isn't funny and I'm trying to have a serious discussion.

The third guess is genuinely frightening, and that is that you believe this. If so, then you undeniably have some very deep-rooted and very dangerous misconceptions about the republican party. I never heard of that Delay guy. If that whacko is the "Republican party whip," then by your logic, the most extreme faction of the ACLU must be the "Democrat party whip." You act like there is no such thing as a moderate republican. I'd say you've been watching CNN too long. Though the nazi party was in some respects conservative, only a very small percent of people in the republican party share those ideals, as in less than 0.001%. These people in no way represent the majority, though you may wish to see it this way. You may want to reread my last post. I don't think you got the idea.

Though you may not want to believe it, most republicans are Christian. I myself am a Christian, and I believe in Christian ideals. I see the point you are trying to make, but I oppose homosexual marraige for two reasons. The first is Leviticus 18:22. The second is because legalizing it is a slippery slope. If gay marraige (currently illegal) is legalized, then the homosexuals aren't being "discriminated" against. The polygamists are. So poligamy (also illegal) is legalized. Now you're discriminating against the homosexuals again. Why can't there be three- or four-way gay marraiges? You see where this is headed. Pretty soon you have marraiges between three men and two women. By then, the worth of marraige will mean little more than a few tax benefits. Marraige means more than a few tax benefits. This isn't about discrimination. This is about the impending breakdown of a vital part of civilization. I honestly don't care if you are a transsexual.

Did you ever stop to consider why republicans give tax breaks to the rich? No, it isn't for the same reason that democrats give cigarettes to the poor. It's called trickle-down economics. If you give them a tax break (the vast majority of high-income earners benefiting from the breaks are small business owners), then they may be able to afford to buy a yaught. Well, somebody has to build it, so that somebody is employed. That somebody now has money with which he/she can afford new goods and services they couldn't afford before. Someone provides these goods and services, right? The benefits aren't immediate, but they are very beneficial in the long run. Simply giving money to the poor doesn't help the poor as much as giving a poor person a job.

I know that unemployment has been bad, but the blame isn't squarely on Bush; that is, unless you feel like disregarding the outsourcing of jobs caused by NAFTA, the dot com crash, 9-11, and the CEO scandals (which, incidentally, began long before the Bush administration.) The recession has been hiped by the media. Brief research will prove that the economy was already going down the tubes before the election.

I'm trying to have an open mind over the liberal perspective, and I agree with some (though not many) of their viewpoints. However, I am definitely conservative. I at least try to respect your views. Please return the favor.

Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2004
Gallup: Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats

We've noted, especially in the past year, that in addition to displaying their famous anger, Democrats tend to be dour and glum, in contrast to the Reaganesque optimism of Republicans. Now a new poll backs up the observation.


A Gallup Poll conducted Dec. 11-14 shows that a slight majority (55 percent) of Americans are "very happy" and almost everyone at least "fairly happy," and a bare 4 percent admit to being unhappy, according to Gallup News Service.

When it comes to political affiliation, however, the spread between those who say they are very happy widens between Republican and Democrats. According to the poll, released yesterday, 62 percent of Republicans say they are "very happy," but only 50 percent of Democrats report being blissful.

Moreover, whereas a bare 3 percent of Republicans admit to being unhappy, more than twice that number of Democrats, 7 percent, classify themselves as downcast. Smack in the middle are "independents," with 4 percent admitting to being down in the dumps.

"Why Republicans are happier is not clear, but the result has been the same in nearly every asking of this measure since 1996, including one reading under former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, and three under Republican President George W. Bush," Gallup reported. "Only in 1996 did Republicans and Democrats express about equal levels of happiness."

According to Gallup's sampling, marriage is clearly associated with happiness. Only 45 percent of unmarried adults, compared with 62 percent of married ones, say they are very happy.

"Americans' subjective sense of well being is as high today as at any time in the history of these Gallup trends," the pollsters noted. "The 55% saying they are very happy today is slightly improved over the 49% recorded a year ago, and is the highest level seen across the 13 readings taken since 1956 (though the 1956-1957 readings are statistically similar to the current reading). The lowest point on this measure was seen in November 2001, just two months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, when only 37% said they were very happy."

Boring, boring... Who cares. We already know Republican parents breed Republican brats... :roll:

Hey, Canada...got room for one more up there?

Don't let the door hit you in the ass!

Oh...and this thread is NOT an attack on Republicans...unless you call exposing the TRUTH about what you people REALLY stand for...and who you REALLY are an attack!

Tell me...are the democrap congressmen poor or rich?Is John Kerry poor or rich?Gore?Gephart?Dean?Everything you accuse Republicans of being I could say about Democraps.I am not rich,I do not hate gays,I do not hate misguided Liberal Democraps like yourself.You take comfort in blaming the Worlds problems on people that think differently from you.I don't blame others for my problems,I do not think the left is evil...just misguided.Perhaps you are just trying to get people pissed off(troll anyone).Nothing you have said is a fact,it is a misguided opinion :wink:

Hey, Canada...got room for one more up there?

Don't let the door hit you in the ass!

Oh...and this thread is NOT an attack on Republicans...unless you call exposing the TRUTH about what you people REALLY stand for...and who you REALLY are an attack!

Tell me...are the democrap congressmen poor or rich?Is John Kerry poor or rich?Gore?Gephart?Dean?Everything you accuse Republicans of being I could say about Democraps.I am not rich,I do not hate gays,I do not hate misguided Liberal Democraps like yourself.You take comfort in blaming the Worlds problems on people that think differently from you.I don't blame others for my problems,I do not think the left is evil...just misguided.Perhaps you are just trying to get people pissed off(troll anyone).Nothing you have said is a fact,it is a misguided opinion :wink:

Boring, boring... Who cares. We already know Republican parents breed Republican brats... :roll:

Considering that I'm the ONLY Republican in my ENTIRE family :roll:
Most of whom are uppermiddle class :wink:

According to Gallup's sampling, marriage is clearly associated with happiness. Only 45 percent of unmarried adults, compared with 62 percent of married ones, say they are very happy.


Alright, this is good. So, if we let gay people marry, they'll be happier and more productive members of society. Sounds like a compelling state interest to me....

According to Gallup's sampling, marriage is clearly associated with happiness. Only 45 percent of unmarried adults, compared with 62 percent of married ones, say they are very happy.


Alright, this is good. So, if we let gay people marry, they'll be happier and more productive members of society. Sounds like a compelling state interest to me....

But that would make God angry :roll:

Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie
...
[X] Loser
...
[X] Apologize to everybody on this forum
[X] Go stand in the middle of an intersection
...

YAY! :D

Not genetic, but good, smart, parents tend to care about their kids and raise them well so that they turn out as good, smart people, too.

Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2004
Gallup: Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats

We've noted, especially in the past year, that in addition to displaying their famous anger, Democrats tend to be dour and glum, in contrast to the Reaganesque optimism of Republicans. Now a new poll backs up the observation.


So what far right-wing site did you dredge this from? A better question - do you have a point in this? It seems pretty trivial...

Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2004
Gallup: Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats

We've noted, especially in the past year, that in addition to displaying their famous anger, Democrats tend to be dour and glum, in contrast to the Reaganesque optimism of Republicans. Now a new poll backs up the observation.


So what far right-wing site did you dredge this from? A better question - do you have a point in this? It seems pretty trivial...

Newsmax.com but the poll was done by Gallup :wink:

According to Gallup's sampling, marriage is clearly associated with happiness. Only 45 percent of unmarried adults, compared with 62 percent of married ones, say they are very happy.


Alright, this is good. So, if we let gay people marry, they'll be happier and more productive members of society. Sounds like a compelling state interest to me....

If it does'nt affect me or my family then I could care less if gays married.

Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2004
Gallup: Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats

We've noted, especially in the past year, that in addition to displaying their famous anger, Democrats tend to be dour and glum, in contrast to the Reaganesque optimism of Republicans. Now a new poll backs up the observation.


So what far right-wing site did you dredge this from? A better question - do you have a point in this? It seems pretty trivial...

Newsmax.com but the poll was done by Gallup :wink:

Save your emoticons, I asked about the news source. The poll itself is not biased. It is being used in typical party rhetoric, but I fail to see how being "happy" amounts to a damn thing. "Oh no, Democrats are less happy! I guess I'd better switch parties!" I ask again, do you have a point?

I could also mutter that ignorance is bliss, however I prefer not to degrade my arguments with petty, contentless generalizations. :wink:

Save your emoticons, I asked about the news source. The poll itself is not biased. It is being used in typical party rhetoric, but I fail to see how being "happy" amounts to a damn thing. "Oh no, Democrats are less happy! I guess I'd better switch parties!" I ask again, do you have a point?

Of course I have a reason for posting,seems like most of the Democraps on this site do nothing but complain :wink: :wink: :wink:

I could also mutter that ignorance is bliss, however I prefer not to degrade my arguments with petty, contentless generalizations. :wink:

Like this one?

So what far right-wing site did you dredge this from?

"Party Whip," as a matter of fact, is an official position rather than a descriptor for "extremist." The whip is the person within a legislative body charged with enforcing the party line - rallying votes from party members, making sure party members know what the party line is, "whipping" them back into line, etc etc.

In practice, the whip tends to be considered second to the majority or minority leader within that legislative body, although they wield more unofficial as opposed to official power.

uhhh thats total bs that the party you choose is genetic.

your lifestyle/upbringing... that i could believe... but not genetic. gimme a break and go outside and do something useful

Save your emoticons, I asked about the news source. The poll itself is not biased. It is being used in typical party rhetoric, but I fail to see how being "happy" amounts to a damn thing. "Oh no, Democrats are less happy! I guess I'd better switch parties!" I ask again, do you have a point?

Of course I have a reason for posting,seems like most of the Democraps on this site do nothing but complain :wink: :wink: :wink:

I could also mutter that ignorance is bliss, however I prefer not to degrade my arguments with petty, contentless generalizations. :wink:

Like this one?

So what far right-wing site did you dredge this from?

Let's see, I based that statement on logic. The opening statement is obviously very partisan. Hence, I had a reason for pointing out that it was. Also, thank you for making it very clear that you have no other point than to spew partisan bile all over the forums. You have no intellectual point here, merely juvenile mudslinging.

Gee, look how he can use those emoticons. Sure showed me. :roll:

uhhh thats total bs that the party you choose is genetic.

your lifestyle/upbringing... that i could believe... but not genetic. gimme a break and go outside and do something useful

Actually, many studies have produced statistically significant data which support this. Keep in mind, this a genetic predisposition, not a guarantee. It does not dictate the party you choose, but it may influence the decision.

Also, thank you for making it very clear that you have no other point than to spew partisan bile all over the forums. You have no intellectual point here, merely juvenile mudslinging.

Is'nt that the way it is done on this forum?Thats all I've seen,I post an article about a poll done by gallup and get accused of playing partisan,yet the one that started this stupid thread Is'nt?I stated above how I feel about Gay marriage,is that partisan bile?

Also, thank you for making it very clear that you have no other point than to spew partisan bile all over the forums. You have no intellectual point here, merely juvenile mudslinging.

Is'nt that the way it is done on this forum?Thats all I've seen,I post an article about a poll done by gallup and get accused of playing partisan,yet the one that started this stupid thread Is'nt?I stated above how I feel about Gay marriage,is that partisan bile?

Had you posted an article from a non-partisan source, you would not have been accused of anything. Yet this was not what was done - that article's intro was very clearly the kind of flaming partisan hatred that is exactly the problem in this nation. Labrador's post made a point, yours was just spiteful. How did leaving that first paragraph in enhance your point?

As for the person who started this thread, yes, Labrador is quite partisan. I don't condone partisan bickering, from either side, and I usaully ignore such threads. The topic of this thread, however, was posted to make a point. You were insulted by it? Fine, now you have a bit more perspective on how certain viewpoints, advocated by high-profile members of the Republican party (and this is how it is party-relevant), sound when they are targeting you. Labrador posted nothing more that moral-conservatives' common arguments rephrased. Perhaps you ought to be upset with those who actually use and recycle such arguments, since you seem to have no problem with gay marriage itself.

Discovery of a cause is great.

But, can the unfortunates suffering from this dreadful afflication be cured? Who said it was a dreadful afflication? It just the next step in evolution.

You don't know what people in my part of the country are like, Reynes? Two words: Tom DeLay.

'Nuff said!

Did you know that, apart from engineering the illegal mid-decade Congressional redistricting for Texas (with an eye towards denying white Democrats in Travis County, Central Texas, a voice in Congress - by pitting them against Hispanic Democrats in South Texas) Tom Delay has also called for getting rid of the Constitution, and replacing it with a government based on literalist Biblical theocracy?

Of course, they wouldn't enforce those parts of the Bible that inconvenienced THEM...or called upon THEM to change their behavior and attitudes..they only want to enforce the parts limiting on OHER PEOPLE!

You wanna live in a freaking theocracy? Well, I don't! And the day America becomes a theocracy s the day I renounce my American citizenship, and seek political asylum in another country! Hey, Canada...got room for one more up there?

Oh...and this thread is NOT an attack on Republicans...unless you call exposing the TRUTH about what you people REALLY stand for...and who you REALLY are an attack!Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! Sheesh!

First off, I'll admit that I never heard of Tom Delay. From what you said, though, I don't think I would like him. Those kinds of actions are indefensable. However, let's be fair about this: that's just one man. I don't base my perspective of the Democrats on only one person, so why should you? That's like picking a person on death row to represent the United States.

No, that's like taking the Republican Party Whip...whose job it is to make sure all the other Republicans toe the Party line...and using HIM as a representative of all Republicans. So it is an accurate representation of Republicans to use Tom DeLay as a representative of what that Party stands for and believes in.



Also, it's pretty obvious that there are extremists at both ends of the political spectrum. During the period where Clinton was impeached, there was a man who called for the Senate minority leader and his family to be stoned to death.

Secondly, you don't want to live in a theocracy any more than I want to live in anarchy.

Finally, try reading this topic from our perspective. It is an attack. It can't be described as anything else. A lot of the "truths" you presented were just stereotypes that were blown way out of proportion. You complain about extremist republicans, and you may view me as one. However, you come across the exact same way, only on the left wing.

Well, try takinig the Republican Party stance on GLBT people...from OUR perspective, THAT is an attack! And THAT is the point the original post was trying to make. It was an attempt to put the shoe on the other foot, so you could see what it felt like. Don't fit so comfortably, does it? Or maybe it's too close to the truth for your comfort level?

Fact is...in my experience, Republicans are evil incarnate. They are horrible, brutal, evil mosnsters who care only about the rich, the white, the heterosexual, the "Christian." (I use the term Christian loosely here, because most Republicans are anything BUT Christians. They ignore most of Jesus' most basic teachings.) I say THAT because it seems that the milk of human compassion has long ago dried up in the Republican Party.

The Republicans more follow the "teachings" of Paul of Tarsus, and thus, really should call themselves Paulites. I use the word "teachings" loosely here, too, because if you ask ME...the "teachings" of Paul of Tarsus would be better described as "mysogynistic, xenophobic, lunatic ravings!" Paul was a serious bigot.

Quite frankly, I truly believe that, if Republicans thought they could get away with it...they would have absolutely no compunction, whatsoever, against opening up the concentration camps and crematories, and consigning ME to one of the crematories, burning me up, alive, in the white-hot flames, just because of the fact that I gross them out, being a transsexual (which is a condition brought on by a birth dfect over which I had no control!) And they would laugh as they heard my agonized screams from within the crematory before I mercifully died.

I really believe they are THAT horrible, evil, and brutal. Left completely unchecked, if the Republican Party had no check and balnce, no longer had to answer to the public..this is the type of behavior I'd fully expect them to engage in. And if it ever gets even close to that bad, I'm going to Canada or Mexico and requesting political asylum! Now THAT is saying something, when one would actually have to request political asylum against the United States! Never thought it would become a possibility, but it is looking more and more, every day, that this may yet come to pass.

Republicans quite literally scare the freaking Hell out of me! They are intolerant, evil, brutal monsters, in my experience!
There are three reasons why you would say this. I have no way to know which is true, so I will address them all.

My first guess is that something has happened in your personal life, as you mentioned before. If so, I'm sorry about that. I hope things get better.

My second guess is that this is supposed to be some kind of joke, because you can't honestly believe this. If this is a joke of some kind, then stop. It isn't funny and I'm trying to have a serious discussion.

The third guess is genuinely frightening, and that is that you believe this. If so, then you undeniably have some very deep-rooted and very dangerous misconceptions about the republican party. I never heard of that Delay guy. If that whacko is the "Republican party whip," then by your logic, the most extreme faction of the ACLU must be the "Democrat party whip." You act like there is no such thing as a moderate republican. I'd say you've been watching CNN too long. Though the nazi party was in some respects conservative, only a very small percent of people in the republican party share those ideals, as in less than 0.001%. These people in no way represent the majority, though you may wish to see it this way. You may want to reread my last post. I don't think you got the idea.

Though you may not want to believe it, most republicans are Christian. I myself am a Christian, and I believe in Christian ideals. I see the point you are trying to make, but I oppose homosexual marraige for two reasons. The first is Leviticus 18:22. The second is because legalizing it is a slippery slope. If gay marraige (currently illegal) is legalized, then the homosexuals aren't being "discriminated" against. The polygamists are. So poligamy (also illegal) is legalized. Now you're discriminating against the homosexuals again. Why can't there be three- or four-way gay marraiges? You see where this is headed. Pretty soon you have marraiges between three men and two women. By then, the worth of marraige will mean little more than a few tax benefits. Marraige means more than a few tax benefits. This isn't about discrimination. This is about the impending breakdown of a vital part of civilization. I honestly don't care if you are a transsexual.

Did you ever stop to consider why republicans give tax breaks to the rich? No, it isn't for the same reason that democrats give cigarettes to the poor. It's called trickle-down economics. If you give them a tax break (the vast majority of high-income earners benefiting from the breaks are small business owners), then they may be able to afford to buy a yaught. Well, somebody has to build it, so that somebody is employed. That somebody now has money with which he/she can afford new goods and services they couldn't afford before. Someone provides these goods and services, right? The benefits aren't immediate, but they are very beneficial in the long run. Simply giving money to the poor doesn't help the poor as much as giving a poor person a job.

I know that unemployment has been bad, but the blame isn't squarely on Bush; that is, unless you feel like disregarding the outsourcing of jobs caused by NAFTA, the dot com crash, 9-11, and the CEO scandals (which, incidentally, began long before the Bush administration.) The recession has been hiped by the media. Brief research will prove that the economy was already going down the tubes before the election.

I'm trying to have an open mind over the liberal perspective, and I agree with some (though not many) of their viewpoints. However, I am definitely conservative. I at least try to respect your views. Please return the favor.

I'll address your comments point by point.

A - Yes, there have been some very bad experiences in my life, and I place the balme for those experiences squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans...the Republicans who refused to protect me from the evil done to me, just because I was born with an extra chromosome. I was born with Kleinfelter Syndrome (look it up on Google) as a result, I have both the male, and the female sex chromosome...and developed secondary sex charateristics of both sexes. I had facial hair AND breasts, is what I mean! As you can imagine, this made high school a living hell...and had made it very, very difficult for me to locate decent employment. I ended up having surgeries to "normalize" my body as best I could, along just one line, and, since my psyche was largely female, I chose the route of femaleness...and had corrective surgeries...thus it is that I am a transsexual...but I WAS BORN WITH THIS CONDITION...I DID NOT ASK FOR IT!!
Yet, I am part of the only group in America that it is still largely okay to make jokes about, and to discriminate against in employment. I have several times lost jobs for no better reason...and been denied jobs that I was otherwise perfectly capable of doing...and I had no legal recourse against the companies that practiced discrimination against me...and this is because the Republicans with their "moral" "holier-than-thou" bullshit REFUSE to protect me against this sort of mean-ness, and thus make it difficult for me to earn a livlihood. This is why I so bitterly hate Republicans. They refuse to protect me against unfair discrimination...and in the process, they, in effect, are denying my right to live, by causing it to be difficult for me to EARN a livelihood. Fortunately for me, I work for a rather progressive company that does not discriminate now...and, as of May 1, I'll be working out of my home office, where I won't have to deal with anyone I don't want to deal with, and the only factor that will matter in my keeping my job is the only one that OUGHT to matter: my ability to do the job, and my performace of my duties.
Also, I truly DO believe what I said about Republicans. they seem to hang onto Pat Robertson's every word...and Pat is the guy who suggested, in his 1988 book, that all gay people should be rounded up and summarily EXECUTED! No, I'm not making this up! I assume that, by extension, Robertson would also favor the same treatment accorded to lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people. And the Republicans all seem to agree with Robertson's views on everything...so why not this, too? I truly believe Republicans see me as less than human...otherwise, how could they justify allowing me to face the kind of hatred and discrimination that I have? And since they see me as less than human, it stands to reason that they wold have no compunction against consigning me to the crematorium, if they thought they could get away with it. Yes, I truly DO believe this.

B - I have no real dog in the gay marriage fight, except that many of my best friends are gay, and I don't like to see them denied their ability to be happy. Personally, me...I am as asexual as it gets...I could honestly care less if I never had sex again as long as I live...the last time I did, clinton was beginning his first term in office...and I can tell you I don't miss it. As far as companionship and company goes, I have my dog...and there's nothing I need that I can't get from my dog (get your sick mind out of the gutter, anyone reading this...what I need is only love and companionship!!) OTOH, I sorta hope the FMA does pass, because I will enjoy the circus that my contemporaries will make out of it...causng it to backfire in it's supporters faces. If transsexuals are defined by their birth sex (chromosomes) for marraige purposes, can you imagine the spectacle of a beautiful transsexual woman, like supermodel Tula, who was in a James Bond movie, I forget wich one...but can you imagine the spectacle of a gorgeous transsexual chick like that being forced to marry a woman...especially another looker? For all appearances, this creates a same-sex marriage between two "women," and I can tell you a large portion of the transsexual community is prepared to make exactly such a mockery of the Amendment, should you guys actually ever get enough support to pass it (which I highly doubt.) This would be great for my own personal amusement, but it would be at the expencse of my gay friends, so I remain opposed to it's passage. And, if it does pass, what does one do with someone like me, since I possess both chromosomes? Can I marry either? Neither? What gives? And this is a condition I was born with, not something I chose...yet it could affect me, and others like me, in a very negative way. Plus, if chromosome testing to determine sex becomes a part of obtaining a marriage license, I can't WAIT to see the "shock and awe" on the faces of prospective hetero newlywed couples, when they discover their marriage license just went up from 35 bucks to over FOUR THOUSAND!! 'Bout damn time discrimination came back and bit the ass of the people who perpetrate it on others, if you ask me!!

C- "Trickle-down economics" or "supply-side economics" do not work. Reagan already proved that. Yet here we go again with another round of what I like to call "TINKLE-DOWN economics" as in..."PISS ON YOU, POOR PEOPLE!!" The greedy rich do not create jobs with their money, they pocket it, or they go buy themselves another extravagance they do not need, instead of seeing the money fund programs for the desperate, the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick who cannot afford basic health care...the poor whose children freeze during the winter in the Northeast, beause Bush cuts funding to LIHEAP! all to give his rich cronies a tax break, so that they can use that money to fund his re-election campaign!

Yeah, maybe jobs ARE being created...BUT IN WHAT COUNTRIES??? These jobs are being created by multi-national corporations...and being created overseas, for foreigners, who will work in sweatshops for pennies a day...and funded with AMERICAN tax cuts! That's BULLSHIT!! The jobs ought to be created in the country that gave the tax cuts...for the citizens of that country to fill. no more tax cuts for the rich! We don't trust you anymore. FIRST, you create good, solid, decent-paying jobs IN THIS COUNTRY, AND FOR AMERICANS...THEN you get your tax credit for creating the jobs....you don't get the tax cuts on empty promises to create jobs. 2.3 million jobs have vaporized since Bush took office. Including, most recently, my own mother, who worked for the same company for 15 effing years...and THAT is how they say "thanks??" and you wonder why I'm a socialist? Because corporations, and the rich have not an ounce of the milk of human compassion among them!! Not an ounce!! All they care about is that it might cause their stock price to creep up a quarter-point, and their white-collar asshole board of directors can continue to drive their Beemers and Lexuses, and have filet mignon seven nights a week, while their poor workers go home to effing Ramen Soup! My mom is a widow! My dad left her with a huge mortgage, and no life insurance, and now this heartless corporation is going to take away my mom's ability to earn a livelihood!! That's heartless and cruel! She's near 60 years old! What do you think her chances are now, of getting in with another company, at that age? But do they give a shit? No!!
THAT's Republicans for you!

And, no...my whole beef with Republicans is this: They want the government out of areas I believe the government OUGHT to be involved in: regulation of corporations, so that the powerful do not exploit the weak...and they want the government IN areas I believe they ought to stay out of: There is no need for Big Brother to snoop on what I do on the Internet, what books I check out at the library or buy in bookstores...there is no need for Big Brother to check into my bank account, or wiretap my phone without knowledge, or even a warrant...there is no need for Big Brother to care what I do, with whom, in my own freaking bedroom! I'm a big girl, I'm over 30, and I am quite capable of deciding for my own self what is best for me...I don't need government to do that for me.

Basically, in a nutshell...everything I'm against, the Republicans are FOR....and everything I am for, they are AGAINST!! How can I NOT hate them with every fiber of my being, since they impact my life in such a negative, and deleterious fashion?

Hey, Canada...got room for one more up there?

Don't let the door hit you in the ass!

Oh...and this thread is NOT an attack on Republicans...unless you call exposing the TRUTH about what you people REALLY stand for...and who you REALLY are an attack!

Tell me...are the democrap congressmen poor or rich?Is John Kerry poor or rich?Gore?Gephart?Dean?Everything you accuse Republicans of being I could say about Democraps.I am not rich,I do not hate gays,I do not hate misguided Liberal Democraps like yourself.You take comfort in blaming the Worlds problems on people that think differently from you.I don't blame others for my problems,I do not think the left is evil...just misguided.Perhaps you are just trying to get people pissed off(troll anyone).Nothing you have said is a fact,it is a misguided opinion :wink:

Considering the fact that I think YOUR opinions are misguided...I'll take the notion that YOU think mine are misguided as a compliment...since it means I must be RIGHT ON TARGET!!

Dear:
[ ] Clueless Newbie
...
[X] Loser
...
[X] Apologize to everybody on this forum
[X] Go stand in the middle of an intersection
...

YAY! :D

Not genetic, but good, smart, parents tend to care about their kids and raise them well so that they turn out as good, smart people, too.

Are you phucking implying that my parents were not good, smart people, and that they didn't care about me...that they didn't raise me well...and are you phucking implying that I am not a good or smart person, just because I happen to have a liberal political ideology? How phucking DARE you? I'll have you know that my parents cared more about me than most parents EVER have cared for a child. I know this to be true, because, when I was having trouble in school, and the schools tried to jerk me around, my parents FOUGHT for me...all they way to the level of appealinig a court decision to the phucking Illinois Supreme Court! When that happened, the superintendent of my school district broke down in tears, exclaiming he had NEVER seen parents fight that hard for a kid before! So you can just stick THAT in your phucking pipe and smoke it! How DARE you make such baseless accusations against my parents???

C- "Trickle-down economics" or "supply-side economics" do not work. Reagan already proved that. Yet here we go again with another round of what I like to call "TINKLE-DOWN economics" as in..."PISS ON YOU, POOR PEOPLE!!" The greedy rich do not create jobs with their money, they pocket it, or they go buy themselves another extravagance they do not need, instead of seeing the money fund programs for the desperate, the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick who cannot afford basic health care...the poor whose children freeze during the winter in the Northeast, beause Bush cuts funding to LIHEAP! all to give his rich cronies a tax break, so that they can use that money to fund his re-election campaign!

Yeah, maybe jobs ARE being created...BUT IN WHAT COUNTRIES??? These jobs are being created by multi-national corporations...and being created overseas, for foreigners, who will work in sweatshops for pennies a day...and funded with AMERICAN tax cuts! That's BULLSHIT!! The jobs ought to be created in the country that gave the tax cuts...for the citizens of that country to fill. no more tax cuts for the rich! We don't trust you anymore. FIRST, you create good, solid, decent-paying jobs IN THIS COUNTRY, AND FOR AMERICANS...THEN you get your tax credit for creating the jobs....you don't get the tax cuts on empty promises to create jobs. 2.3 million jobs have vaporized since Bush took office. Including, most recently, my own mother, who worked for the same company for 15 effing years...and THAT is how they say "thanks??" and you wonder why I'm a socialist? Because corporations, and the rich have not an ounce of the milk of human compassion among them!! Not an ounce!! All they care about is that it might cause their stock price to creep up a quarter-point, and their white-collar asshole board of directors can continue to drive their Beemers and Lexuses, and have filet mignon seven nights a week, while their poor workers go home to effing Ramen Soup! My mom is a widow! My dad left her with a huge mortgage, and no life insurance, and now this heartless corporation is going to take away my mom's ability to earn a livelihood!! That's heartless and cruel! She's near 60 years old! What do you think her chances are now, of getting in with another company, at that age? But do they give a shit? No!!
THAT's Republicans for you!

How Reagan's Tax Cuts Saved Clinton and Gore

8/01 -- US Presidents are commonly thought to influence the economy only during, or shortly after, their actual terms in office. Not true. Entitlement programs instituted by FDR and LBJ still profoundly affect our economy today. More importantly, Ronald Reagan's historic tax cuts of 1981 are still largely in effect and are still pumping huge amounts of additional money into the economy. However, Bill Clinton and Al Gore got most of the credit during their administration for the continuing economic boom unleashed by the Reagan tax cuts. That undeserved credit may have gotten Clinton re-elected and saved him from being removed from office. It almost got Gore elected too.

When Reagan took office in 1981, the US economy was in shambles. We have difficulty remembering how bad the economy was under Carter, but it was described in terms of the "misery index," and the word "stagflation" was coined to refer to the double-whammy of economic stagnation combined with runaway inflation. The automotive industry was on the verge of collapse under the pressure from Japanese competition and an oil crisis. The American way of life itself seemed to be in serious jeapordy. It wasn't the Great Depression, but it was as close as we've come to it since.

The top tax rate was 70% when Reagan took office. He got it cut in half to 35%. At the same time, he eliminated many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Shortly after the tax cuts were enacted, the economy took off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. The misery index plummeted as unemployment fell, inflation slowed, and interest rates dropped, leading to a seven-year boom that the liberal media cynically dubbed "the decade of greed."

Eight years later George Bush swept into office on Reagan's coattails and a pledge of "no new taxes." Although he tried to keep his pledge, Bush ultimately succumbed to unrelenting pressure by the Democratically controlled Congress to increase taxes. Not surprisingly, the economy went into a mild recession, though nothing like the recession of a decade earlier. Unemployment was well below what it had been under Carter, and inflation was completely under control. Nevertheless, the liberal media shamelessly dubbed it the "worst economic period of the last fifty years."

The media hype succeeded at getting their man, Bill Clinton, elected. Although barely reported, the Bush recession had actually ended before Clinton even took office, with a vibrant 3.9% annual growth rate in the last quarter of Bush's administration. In other words, the second phase of the great Reagan economic boom had already begun before Clinton even moved to Washington. But of course that didn't stop the liberal media from giving Clinton credit for it and dubbing it the "decade of prosperity."

How can we be sure the economic boom presided over by Clinton was actually due to Reagan? It's simple. Even though Clinton increased tax rates, the top rate after his tax hikes was still less than 40%, down a full 30% from the 70% rate before Reagan's tax cuts. In terms of the money left after taxes, that's a huge jump from (100-70=) 30% to (100-40=) 60% -- a doubling of the amount of money that continues, year after year, to go into the private economy rather than the federal budget. It hardly takes an economist to understand the huge effect on economic growth of doubling after-tax income.

Clinton also got credit for eliminating the federal deficit, of course. It is no coincidence, however, that the deficit didn't start coming down until the Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. As for the touted "Reagan deficits," the indisputable fact is that revenues grew tremendously during Reagan's two terms -- but spending by the Democratically controlled Congress grew even faster, at an astronomical rate. And contrary to the liberal media spin, the lion's share of the growth of the federal budget under Reagan was not on defense, but rather on social entitlement programs such as social security and Medicare.

Contrary to Democratic demogoguery about "tax cuts for the rich," incidentally, the rich actually paid higher taxes after Reagan's tax cuts. How could that be? Simple. Along with cutting tax rates, Reagan also eliminated many tax shelters and loopholes. Before Reagan, the rich avoided paying taxes by investing in windmills and other boondoggles blessed by the federal government (the "targeted" tax cuts that Al Gore wanted to reinstate). After Reagan, the rich shifted their investments to the free market, greatly stimulating the private economy and causing the information technology boom.

There's more to the story, of course, but everything else is really secondary. In fairness, Clinton actually did a few things himself to help the economy, such as opening up free trade and keeping the Federal Reserve Board under competent leadership. On the other hand, if Clinton had not been restrained by the Republicans, who took control of Congress in the middle of his first term, he would have raised taxes even more than he did, and his wife would have nationalized the health care industry.

When Clinton was impeached, his party argued that he should be given a pass because he was doing a good job managing the economy. Without the huge economic boost from Reagan's tax cuts, Clinton might well have been removed from office, or might have failed to win re-election. Gore would have suffered a humiliating defeat in the election to succeed him, or might have failed to even win the nomination. But don't hold your breath waiting for the liberal media to start reporting the truth. If America wants the Reagan economic boom to continue, they need to figure out for themselves what caused it in the first place.


http://russp.org/taxcuts.html

A convienient pattern of assuming that economic impacts occur at the most convienient time delay. Reagan's tax cut and Bush's tax hike had "immediate effects"... but Bill Clinton's tax hike had "delayed effects," as did the current Bush's tax cut.

I could use a more consistent delay theory to explain how the growth of the early Reagan years (particularly 81-83, the highest growth years) was due to Carter's policies, and that Bush's mild recession was in fact due to the cumulative impact of tax cuts slowly rolling down the tubes... and that the truly booming period of 97-99 was due to the impact of the brief era of Democratic control of Congress and the White House and execution, therefore, of Clinton economic policy, and in turn that the downturn of the artificial tech stock bubble - with its repercussions - was just compounded by the immediate impact of Bush Jr.'s economic policy and - before that - the falling confidence resulting from people realizing that the Clinton years were over.

I've seen plenty of theories like these before, and they usually assume inconsistent economic impact factors of policy over the course of time.

They also tend to overlook details in their search to justify economic policies... like the continuing and constantly widening gap between rich and poor from between 1980 and today.

Labrador is just a flamer and a flame baiter. She hangs around the forum, heating things up, until the selective moderators decide to finally tag her with a warning. Then, she disappears for weeks at a time until the flaming is nearly forgotten, only to start up again.

I get warned by Stephistan after telling someone who insults me in every post to get a job.

No. You merely think I am a flamebaiter, and a flamer, bccause I post things YOU disagree with. I got tagged with one very severe warning...which I deserved, when I went WAY over the top on someone. This was due to extreme stresses in my personal life at the time,and I was aching to rip someone's head off! Since I couldn't lash out at the people (my bosses) who were the REAL burr up my saddle at the time, Some guy in this Forum who had the temerity to cross me with an absolutely idiotic opinion got two months worth of anger hurled at him in one post.

I therefore disappeared for a few weeks, until things got somewhat back to normal in my personal life, so that I would not do it again...and get my nation deleted.

Ask any moderator...since that time you refer to, about a month and a half ago, I have gotten a lot better. And I also have gotten far less tolerant of flamebaiting...I now will report anyone and everyone who flamebaits me, because if I rise to it, it may get me deleted.

So, if you don't like me or my opinions, best not to reply...or be careful how you pick your words.

Fact is, I'm STILL gonna jump on any conservative who posts an ounce of spin with ten pounds of fact. And you guys just don't like it that I'm always so right.

Why is it that when a man asserts himself, this is a good thing...a man who fails to assert himself is a "pussy" and a WOMAN who asserts HERSELF is always a "bitch?" Could it be that this "bitch" is always so right, and you can't stand it?

LOL! Another hilarious example of a rather arrogant poster, who is "always right," trying to evade personal responsibility for their typical behavior. Like the poster's homosexual friends, this "Labrador" attributes personal characteristics to factors no one can control, e.g., genetics, stress, and other people's behavior. I would humbly suggest that the moral, responsible, intelligent readers of this forum take this poster as a small example of how not to behave on the Internet. What "Labrador" needs to learn is that just because you have an excuse for something, doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.

What's "morally unacceptable" about my condition, seeing as I was born with it? Seeing as I did what I could to "normalize" myself along just ONE gender line, rether than the BOTH my body was doing naturally, causing me, in effect, to look like the bearded lady?
Seeing as this is a legitimate condition which one is born with, I cannot believe you could say such things about me.

Why don't you pull your head out of your sandbox, and try educating yourself for once? How about you look up "Kleinfelter Syndrome" on Google? Becuase that is the name of my condition. You will see it causes precisely what I have described.

You know...if you don't want to educate yourself...and only want to attack me because my views differ from yours...then attack my beliefs...not my person. Because you're making yourself look like a real big ass. Or is it that you CAN'T attack my beliefs with any rational argument, and are therefore forced to resort to personal attacks and cheap shots?

My chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. This is the condition of Kleinfelter Syndrome. A normal genetic male is 46XY, a normal genetic female 46XX. Mine is 47XXY. Thus, I have BOTH the male and the female chromosome...plus an extra chromosome. This causes one to develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders. And YOU explain to me how it is "morally unacceptable" to be born with a condition over which I had no control...and what is "morally unacceptable" in my actions of doing the best I could to "normalize" myself along one line, in the hopes that it would at least make me marginally more acceptable in society, and thus make it easier for me to EARN a living. Or would you rather I sponged a living off the government teat...as in YOUR tax dollars?

No, you'd probably rather see me dead.

Oh, and by the way...a lot of morals are pretty subjective, and not agreed upon collectively by the people, and thus should not be codified into law.

There ARE certian morals with which most of us can agree...we say it is morally wrong to steal, to kill, to rape....but these are all actions that have a clearly defined VICTIM.

Where's the victim in homosexuality? It is an action that usually occurs between two consenting adults. If it occurs in any other circumstance, it is rape...and that IS morally unacceptable, in pretty much everyone's eyes...which is why rape is a crime. And in rape, there is a VICTIM.

There's no victim in consensual homosexual relations. And, sorry, before you say it...you are NOT a "victim" of homosexuals, just because what they do makes you feel "icky." You do not have a right to never feel "icky." And, besides...I bet that what you do in bed with your opposite sex partner probably makes THEM feel "icky."

I can tell you it makes ME feel "icky" to see ANY couple...hetero or homo...going at it, playing freaking tonsil hockey in the back of the damn city bus! Well, you know what?? I don't have a right to never feel "icky." My choice is to not look at the gross tonsil-hockey-playing couple.

Your choices, concerning homosexuality, should probably include, one, not looking at homosexuals when the display affection for each other...or simply ignoring it...and two, not getting into a homosexual relationship yourself.

You do NOT have the right to limit the choices of others, when there is no victim in the choices they make.

What may be "morally reprehensible" to you...may be morally necessary for someone else. And, so long as there is no clearly defined victim, I think the law needs to stay out of the morals business. People should decide their own morals.

It is not up to YOU to decide other people's morals...nor is it up to you to "save" everyone from the hell, fire, damnation, and brimstone of YOUR angry, wrathful, vengeful God. I dunno about your God...but MY God is loving, peaceful, tolearant, and forgiving.

Besides, God does not propose to judge anyone until they are dead. Why shouldn't YOU also wait until they are dead, to judge them...since you so obviously seem to think God died and left YOU in charge.

Democratic (woohoo!!)
24% [ 33 ]
Republican (boo, hiss)
29% [ 40 ]
Independent
10% [ 14 ]
Libertarian
11% [ 15 ]
Other (explain below)
24% [ 33 ]

That's why I love being a Republican. Not only do we comprise a majority, but on the rare occaisons when hippies do vote, they vote "other". Communist Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Pacifist Party, Legalize Marijuana Party, Utopian Anarchist Party, Green Party, Socialist Workers Party, Appeasement Party, We Love Saddam Party, whatever.

When's the last time one of these "Other" Parties won a Senate seat, or a House Seat, or a Governorship, or the Presidency? Ummm..... not since 1860-something, I believe, and that was the Whig party.

So, in other words, the hippies that don't sit in their studio apartments and get high on election day go out and vote for something incredibly rediculous. In doing so, they take votes away from the Democrats, and help my party, the Republicans, win more elections. It would be sad, if it wasn't so hilarious and ironic.

-Emperor Jim.

Democratic (woohoo!!)
24% [ 33 ]
Republican (boo, hiss)
29% [ 40 ]
Independent
10% [ 14 ]
Libertarian
11% [ 15 ]
Other (explain below)
24% [ 33 ]

That's why I love being a Republican. Not only do we comprise a majority, but on the rare occaisons when hippies do vote, they vote "other". Communist Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Pacifist Party, Legalize Marijuana Party, Utopian Anarchist Party, Green Party, Socialist Workers Party, Appeasement Party, We Love Saddam Party, whatever.

When's the last time one of these "Other" Parties won a Senate seat, or a House Seat, or a Governorship, or the Presidency? Ummm..... not since 1860-something, I believe, and that was the Whig party.

So, in other words, the hippies that don't sit in their studio apartments and get high on election day go out and vote for something incredibly rediculous. In doing so, they take votes away from the Democrats, and help my party, the Republicans, win more elections. It would be sad, if it wasn't so hilarious and ironic.

-Emperor Jim.

29% is not a majority.

50% + is a majority.

Your degree of spin is so amazing you should work as a windmill.

It only goes to prove how backward the US two-party system really is if it cannot reflect the wishes of its citizens.

Then again, the courts seem to decide US elections anyway. Let's just hope that there are some independent observers (UN ? France ?) to oversee your next election, and attempt to ensure it is free and fair.

i can't remember if i already posted here, but oh well.

Socialist.

actually i know many people whos grandparents were dems, their parents republicans, and they are independant... i dont think its genetic

29% is not a majority.

50% + is a majority.

Your degree of spin is so amazing you should work as a windmill.

It only goes to prove how backward the US two-party system really is if it cannot reflect the wishes of its citizens.

Then again, the courts seem to decide US elections anyway. Let's just hope that there are some independent observers (UN ? France ?) to oversee your next election, and attempt to ensure it is free and fair.

Damn, could you stop using the spin/windmill analogy? I've seen you use in in two threads in a three minute period. :roll:

Yes, many things seem backward if you don't participate in them. I suppose we could have a European system, where there are 50 major parties, and the ruling party got 11% of the vote to sieze power. Talk about a majority...

Democratic (woohoo!!)
24% [ 33 ]
Republican (boo, hiss)
29% [ 40 ]
Independent
10% [ 14 ]
Libertarian
11% [ 15 ]
Other (explain below)
24% [ 33 ]

That's why I love being a Republican. Not only do we comprise a majority, but on the rare occaisons when hippies do vote, they vote "other". Communist Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Pacifist Party, Legalize Marijuana Party, Utopian Anarchist Party, Green Party, Socialist Workers Party, Appeasement Party, We Love Saddam Party, whatever.

When's the last time one of these "Other" Parties won a Senate seat, or a House Seat, or a Governorship, or the Presidency? Ummm..... not since 1860-something, I believe, and that was the Whig party.

So, in other words, the hippies that don't sit in their studio apartments and get high on election day go out and vote for something incredibly rediculous. In doing so, they take votes away from the Democrats, and help my party, the Republicans, win more elections. It would be sad, if it wasn't so hilarious and ironic.

-Emperor Jim.

Folks, here's what's wrong with America today - ignorant little drones such as this who think that politics are supposed to be a team sport, in which you vote for your team no matter what happens. God forbid that you vote for a party which actually matches your views. Nope, this guy's actually trying to say that conforming your vote to a party is smarter actually voting your opinions. This simple metality is why political campaigns have come down to voting for the lesser of two evils and pandering to the lowest common denominator in recent decades. Yup, pulling the straight-ticket lever - that's real mental work there, Jim, and it's certainly what our founding fathers had in mind in creating this country.

I'd be laughing my -ss off at your foolishness if this problem wasn't so widespread in America today. Disgusting.


Yes, many things seem backward if you don't participate in them. I suppose we could have a European system, where there are 50 major parties, and the ruling party got 11% of the vote to sieze power. Talk about a majority...

Let's weigh the options:

A system in which parties are voted for by what people actually think (note this word, quite important in the voting process), versus a system in which you vote for whoever you see as least likely to screw up the country (much less, if any, of that important word above involved here) . Gee, I think I'd rather have a system with many diverse views represented by parties which actually reflect the views of their constituents somewhat accurately. Then again, that might mean that I'd have to think to cast my vote, which we all know a decent portion of Americans dislike. Better to vote straight ticket, eh Jim?

Democratic (woohoo!!)
24% [ 33 ]
Republican (boo, hiss)
29% [ 40 ]
Independent
10% [ 14 ]
Libertarian
11% [ 15 ]
Other (explain below)
24% [ 33 ]

That's why I love being a Republican. Not only do we comprise a majority, but on the rare occaisons when hippies do vote, they vote "other". Communist Party, Peace and Freedom Party, Pacifist Party, Legalize Marijuana Party, Utopian Anarchist Party, Green Party, Socialist Workers Party, Appeasement Party, We Love Saddam Party, whatever.

When's the last time one of these "Other" Parties won a Senate seat, or a House Seat, or a Governorship, or the Presidency? Ummm..... not since 1860-something, I believe, and that was the Whig party.

So, in other words, the hippies that don't sit in their studio apartments and get high on election day go out and vote for something incredibly rediculous. In doing so, they take votes away from the Democrats, and help my party, the Republicans, win more elections. It would be sad, if it wasn't so hilarious and ironic.

-Emperor Jim.

I wish we had a republican party here in Iceland

http://www.fortliberty.org/patriotic-humor/dating-pussy.jpg

I think National Socialism is the only way to go in this world, since it combines the best of bot the democratic en republican world! :!:

actually i know many people whos grandparents were dems, their parents republicans, and they are independant... i dont think its genetic

It's a predisposition, not a binary switch, but that's beside the point. The genetic predisposition does not go to the lengths to which Lab refers. Labrador's first post is an example to make a point, and does not involve any actual science or data. I, for one, thought that pretty obvious.

Oh look, now the topic's degraded to people posting other people's partisan pictures. How insightful and thought-provoking. :roll:

Yeah it is, when you come to think about it National Socialism one must see is the best way to govern a country. National Socialism without the racism that is...

actually i know many people whos grandparents were dems, their parents republicans, and they are independant... i dont think its genetic

Do't you get it? That was not intended as a SERIOUS statement. It was intended to be satire! I merely took an article about homosexuality and doctored it, to show the folks on the other side what it felt like to be treated the way they treat us!

An exercise in futility, I'm sure, since Republicans do not posess human feelings, most notably, they are severely lacking in the milk of human compassion.

Tumaniaa: Your picture says a thousand words about your character. you are obviously mysogynistic if you think "pussy" is an insult. you are obviously narrow-minded, and unable to think for yourself if you cannot even grasp why so many people were opposed to the Iraq War. Obviously, you are another of the poor, brainwashed sheeple who can only be shills for the Bushies, and cannot engage in critical thought. Pity.

Since you are unable to see any other reason why one would protest this illegal and stupid war, I'll try to enlighten you. Another exercise in futility, I'm sure, because the Bushites seem to revel in thier anti-intellectualism (maybe you guys ought to substitute Bart Simpson for the elephant, as your party's symbol...you seem proud of underachievement by your leader.) I say YOUR leader, because I will NEVER acknowledge him as my leader.

Bush lied about the reasons for the war...there were no WMD's...and no "imminent threat" to the U.S. from Iraq. None. Once THAT was discovered, the history revisionists on your side claimed it was about "liberating the Iraqi people." If you are so intent on "liberating" them...then why will you not permit them to have the government THEY want? You will only permit them a government which THIS COUNTRY APPROVES OF. That isn't liberation, that's conquest!

In so doing, we have squandered the goodwill the rest of the world had for us after the tragedy of 9/11...we pulled valuable resources away from the hunt for bin Laden and al-Queda (an actual, legitimate threat to the U.S.) and put them to work in Iraq, for purely selfish commercial reasons (oil.) As a result, we've aliented our friends and infuriated our enemies. And this makes us safer HOW?

And, just by the way...why is it that a man who protests a war is a "pussy" and why is it that Bush, who ducked service in Vietnam, thanks to his well-connected daddy...why is he NOT a "pussy?" and why is it that any man who shows something less than gung-ho willingness to give up his life for the Bushies and their corporate cronies a "pussy?" Why is it that any man who does something you consider to be not brave a "pussy" and yet, your own leader did just that in Vietnam...and isn't a "pussy." In fact, so much not a pussy he had to strut around on the deck of an aircraft carrier, in a flight suit...complete with a codpiece??

You obviously are a brainwashed shill for the Bushies. You know, I almost wish this country would split in half. You huys can have Bush as your permanent leader, since you seem to love him so much...and I hope in the end, you get exactly the country you deserve. But don't drag ME and MY country down in the process!

We are now the laughingstock of the world...feared, hated, and reviled almost universally. Yeah, that'll make us safer....

Ah, what's the use, you probably ain't reading this anyway. Probably can't.

BUT, in case I'm wrong, and you actually ARE reading this...

Bush is an underachiever on the economy...2/3 million obs have been lost under his watch...the first President since Hoover to have a net job loss on his watch. Jobless recovery my ass! I'm one of the lucky ones...I have a job. My mom just got a pink slip after 15 years in with the same company! And it's thanks to the rotten Bush economy.

Bush is undoubtedly the worst thing that ever happened to our country...and, God willing, we will finally be rid of him in seven months. Let him go back to his ranch in Crawford for good...and let him play cowboy all he wants. He so obviously prefers Crawford to Washington, anyway...so why don't we do him a favor this November, and give him a one-way ticket back there?

What's "morally unacceptable" about my condition, seeing as I was born with it? Seeing as I did what I could to "normalize" myself along just ONE gender line, rether than the BOTH my body was doing naturally, causing me, in effect, to look like the bearded lady?
Seeing as this is a legitimate condition which one is born with, I cannot believe you could say such things about me.

Why don't you pull your head out of your sandbox, and try educating yourself for once? How about you look up "Kleinfelter Syndrome" on Google? Becuase that is the name of my condition. You will see it causes precisely what I have described.

You know...if you don't want to educate yourself...and only want to attack me because my views differ from yours...then attack my beliefs...not my person. Because you're making yourself look like a real big ass. Or is it that you CAN'T attack my beliefs with any rational argument, and are therefore forced to resort to personal attacks and cheap shots?

My chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. This is the condition of Kleinfelter Syndrome. A normal genetic male is 46XY, a normal genetic female 46XX. Mine is 47XXY. Thus, I have BOTH the male and the female chromosome...plus an extra chromosome. This causes one to develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders. And YOU explain to me how it is "morally unacceptable" to be born with a condition over which I had no control...and what is "morally unacceptable" in my actions of doing the best I could to "normalize" myself along one line, in the hopes that it would at least make me marginally more acceptable in society, and thus make it easier for me to EARN a living. Or would you rather I sponged a living off the government teat...as in YOUR tax dollars?

No, you'd probably rather see me dead.

I was unaware that "Kleinfelter," or rather, Klinefelter Syndrome, caused people to want to "rip someone's head off." As can be seen, either "Labrador" is too quick in flaming to read the posts she responds to, or she is a troll, as supported by the fact that she cannot even spell the name of her own disorder.

Tumaniaa: Your picture says a thousand words about your character. you are obviously mysogynistic if you think "pussy" is an insult. you are obviously narrow-minded, and unable to think for yourself if you cannot even grasp why so many people were opposed to the Iraq War. Obviously, you are another of the poor, brainwashed sheeple who can only be shills for the Bushies, and cannot engage in critical thought. Pity.

Since you are unable to see any other reason why one would protest this illegal and stupid war, I'll try to enlighten you. Another exercise in futility, I'm sure, because the Bushites seem to revel in thier anti-intellectualism (maybe you guys ought to substitute Bart Simpson for the elephant, as your party's symbol...you seem proud of underachievement by your leader.) I say YOUR leader, because I will NEVER acknowledge him as my leader.

Bush lied about the reasons for the war...there were no WMD's...and no "imminent threat" to the U.S. from Iraq. None. Once THAT was discovered, the history revisionists on your side claimed it was about "liberating the Iraqi people." If you are so intent on "liberating" them...then why will you not permit them to have the government THEY want? You will only permit them a government which THIS COUNTRY APPROVES OF. That isn't liberation, that's conquest!

In so doing, we have squandered the goodwill the rest of the world had for us after the tragedy of 9/11...we pulled valuable resources away from the hunt for bin Laden and al-Queda (an actual, legitimate threat to the U.S.) and put them to work in Iraq, for purely selfish commercial reasons (oil.) As a result, we've aliented our friends and infuriated our enemies. And this makes us safer HOW?

And, just by the way...why is it that a man who protests a war is a "pussy" and why is it that Bush, who ducked service in Vietnam, thanks to his well-connected daddy...why is he NOT a "pussy?" and why is it that any man who shows something less than gung-ho willingness to give up his life for the Bushies and their corporate cronies a "pussy?" Why is it that any man who does something you consider to be not brave a "pussy" and yet, your own leader did just that in Vietnam...and isn't a "pussy." In fact, so much not a pussy he had to strut around on the deck of an aircraft carrier, in a flight suit...complete with a codpiece??

You obviously are a brainwashed shill for the Bushies. You know, I almost wish this country would split in half. You huys can have Bush as your permanent leader, since you seem to love him so much...and I hope in the end, you get exactly the country you deserve. But don't drag ME and MY country down in the process!

We are now the laughingstock of the world...feared, hated, and reviled almost universally. Yeah, that'll make us safer....

Ah, what's the use, you probably ain't reading this anyway. Probably can't.

BUT, in case I'm wrong, and you actually ARE reading this...

Bush is an underachiever on the economy...2/3 million obs have been lost under his watch...the first President since Hoover to have a net job loss on his watch. Jobless recovery my ass! I'm one of the lucky ones...I have a job. My mom just got a pink slip after 15 years in with the same company! And it's thanks to the rotten Bush economy.

Bush is undoubtedly the worst thing that ever happened to our country...and, God willing, we will finally be rid of him in seven months. Let him go back to his ranch in Crawford for good...and let him play cowboy all he wants. He so obviously prefers Crawford to Washington, anyway...so why don't we do him a favor this November, and give him a one-way ticket back there?

How interesting that this poster thinks "the government THEY [the Iraqis] want" is tyranny under a brutal dictator. It's too bad we're not giving them the freedom to continue to submit to a brutal dictator. What a shame.

I'll address your comments point by point.

A - Yes, there have been some very bad experiences in my life, and I place the balme for those experiences squarely on the shoulders of the Republicans...the Republicans who refused to protect me from the evil done to me, just because I was born with an extra chromosome. I was born with Kleinfelter Syndrome (look it up on Google) as a result, I have both the male, and the female sex chromosome...and developed secondary sex charateristics of both sexes. I had facial hair AND breasts, is what I mean! As you can imagine, this made high school a living hell...and had made it very, very difficult for me to locate decent employment. I ended up having surgeries to "normalize" my body as best I could, along just one line, and, since my psyche was largely female, I chose the route of femaleness...and had corrective surgeries...thus it is that I am a transsexual...but I WAS BORN WITH THIS CONDITION...I DID NOT ASK FOR IT!!
Yet, I am part of the only group in America that it is still largely okay to make jokes about, and to discriminate against in employment. I have several times lost jobs for no better reason...and been denied jobs that I was otherwise perfectly capable of doing...and I had no legal recourse against the companies that practiced discrimination against me...and this is because the Republicans with their "moral" "holier-than-thou" bullshit REFUSE to protect me against this sort of mean-ness, and thus make it difficult for me to earn a livlihood. This is why I so bitterly hate Republicans. They refuse to protect me against unfair discrimination...and in the process, they, in effect, are denying my right to live, by causing it to be difficult for me to EARN a livelihood. Fortunately for me, I work for a rather progressive company that does not discriminate now...and, as of May 1, I'll be working out of my home office, where I won't have to deal with anyone I don't want to deal with, and the only factor that will matter in my keeping my job is the only one that OUGHT to matter: my ability to do the job, and my performace of my duties.
Also, I truly DO believe what I said about Republicans. they seem to hang onto Pat Robertson's every word...and Pat is the guy who suggested, in his 1988 book, that all gay people should be rounded up and summarily EXECUTED! No, I'm not making this up! I assume that, by extension, Robertson would also favor the same treatment accorded to lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people. And the Republicans all seem to agree with Robertson's views on everything...so why not this, too? I truly believe Republicans see me as less than human...otherwise, how could they justify allowing me to face the kind of hatred and discrimination that I have? And since they see me as less than human, it stands to reason that they wold have no compunction against consigning me to the crematorium, if they thought they could get away with it. Yes, I truly DO believe this.

B - I have no real dog in the gay marriage fight, except that many of my best friends are gay, and I don't like to see them denied their ability to be happy. Personally, me...I am as asexual as it gets...I could honestly care less if I never had sex again as long as I live...the last time I did, clinton was beginning his first term in office...and I can tell you I don't miss it. As far as companionship and company goes, I have my dog...and there's nothing I need that I can't get from my dog (get your sick mind out of the gutter, anyone reading this...what I need is only love and companionship!!) OTOH, I sorta hope the FMA does pass, because I will enjoy the circus that my contemporaries will make out of it...causng it to backfire in it's supporters faces. If transsexuals are defined by their birth sex (chromosomes) for marraige purposes, can you imagine the spectacle of a beautiful transsexual woman, like supermodel Tula, who was in a James Bond movie, I forget wich one...but can you imagine the spectacle of a gorgeous transsexual chick like that being forced to marry a woman...especially another looker? For all appearances, this creates a same-sex marriage between two "women," and I can tell you a large portion of the transsexual community is prepared to make exactly such a mockery of the Amendment, should you guys actually ever get enough support to pass it (which I highly doubt.) This would be great for my own personal amusement, but it would be at the expencse of my gay friends, so I remain opposed to it's passage. And, if it does pass, what does one do with someone like me, since I possess both chromosomes? Can I marry either? Neither? What gives? And this is a condition I was born with, not something I chose...yet it could affect me, and others like me, in a very negative way. Plus, if chromosome testing to determine sex becomes a part of obtaining a marriage license, I can't WAIT to see the "shock and awe" on the faces of prospective hetero newlywed couples, when they discover their marriage license just went up from 35 bucks to over FOUR THOUSAND!! 'Bout damn time discrimination came back and bit the ass of the people who perpetrate it on others, if you ask me!!

C- "Trickle-down economics" or "supply-side economics" do not work. Reagan already proved that. Yet here we go again with another round of what I like to call "TINKLE-DOWN economics" as in..."PISS ON YOU, POOR PEOPLE!!" The greedy rich do not create jobs with their money, they pocket it, or they go buy themselves another extravagance they do not need, instead of seeing the money fund programs for the desperate, the poor, the homeless, the hungry, the sick who cannot afford basic health care...the poor whose children freeze during the winter in the Northeast, beause Bush cuts funding to LIHEAP! all to give his rich cronies a tax break, so that they can use that money to fund his re-election campaign!

Yeah, maybe jobs ARE being created...BUT IN WHAT COUNTRIES??? These jobs are being created by multi-national corporations...and being created overseas, for foreigners, who will work in sweatshops for pennies a day...and funded with AMERICAN tax cuts! That's BULLSHIT!! The jobs ought to be created in the country that gave the tax cuts...for the citizens of that country to fill. no more tax cuts for the rich! We don't trust you anymore. FIRST, you create good, solid, decent-paying jobs IN THIS COUNTRY, AND FOR AMERICANS...THEN you get your tax credit for creating the jobs....you don't get the tax cuts on empty promises to create jobs. 2.3 million jobs have vaporized since Bush took office. Including, most recently, my own mother, who worked for the same company for 15 effing years...and THAT is how they say "thanks??" and you wonder why I'm a socialist? Because corporations, and the rich have not an ounce of the milk of human compassion among them!! Not an ounce!! All they care about is that it might cause their stock price to creep up a quarter-point, and their white-collar asshole board of directors can continue to drive their Beemers and Lexuses, and have filet mignon seven nights a week, while their poor workers go home to effing Ramen Soup! My mom is a widow! My dad left her with a huge mortgage, and no life insurance, and now this heartless corporation is going to take away my mom's ability to earn a livelihood!! That's heartless and cruel! She's near 60 years old! What do you think her chances are now, of getting in with another company, at that age? But do they give a shit? No!!
THAT's Republicans for you!

And, no...my whole beef with Republicans is this: They want the government out of areas I believe the government OUGHT to be involved in: regulation of corporations, so that the powerful do not exploit the weak...and they want the government IN areas I believe they ought to stay out of: There is no need for Big Brother to snoop on what I do on the Internet, what books I check out at the library or buy in bookstores...there is no need for Big Brother to check into my bank account, or wiretap my phone without knowledge, or even a warrant...there is no need for Big Brother to care what I do, with whom, in my own freaking bedroom! I'm a big girl, I'm over 30, and I am quite capable of deciding for my own self what is best for me...I don't need government to do that for me.

Basically, in a nutshell...everything I'm against, the Republicans are FOR....and everything I am for, they are AGAINST!! How can I NOT hate them with every fiber of my being, since they impact my life in such a negative, and deleterious fashion?I'm a republican, and I have no problem with you being a transsexual. As for high school (my current residence), I've learned to accept that people are *ssholes.

I've realized that this is a very diverse country: people are very different everywhere. I know little about the south, being as I live in the midwest. However, I have found that there has been a historical hatred for republicans in the south since... well, since the Civil War. At that time, there were three main political parties: the republicans, the northern democrats, and the southern democrats. Perhaps after the war, the republican party split in a similar way. I don't live there and, honestly, high school history books dodge the subject. Maybe I'm wrong. However, you have to learn that there is corruption and deceit, merit and accomplishment on both ends of the political spectrum. In my part of the country, republicans are nothing like the handful of extremists you pointed out. Who is Pat Robinson? I never heard of him. There are extremists on both sides. They don't accurately represent the majority. Let's drop this issue or we will be naming names and pointing fingers until the end of time, and what does that accomplish?

By the way, congratulations on your new job! I hope things work out.

As for trickle-down economics, Reagan proved that they worked. The result was a strong economy that lasted until 1999 and the dot com crash. You may have heard the old saying "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." Welfare gives a man a fish. Giving a job to that person teaches them to fish (figuratively). I'll say this again: most of the "rich" that benefit from these tax cuts are SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. That means that these small businesses expand and hire new workers.

Of course, there was a deficit under Reagan. In any case, our economy was strong. There was no terrorism, either, after he beat the crap out of those Libyans who took over a cruise ship. None of this, by the way, was in my history book. All it talked about was Iran-Contra (which the participants admitted Reagan had nothing to do with it) and the deficit. Unfortunately, since it peaked during the Clinton administration, he got credit for it. My history book didn't talk about Vince Foster, either.

As for your "Big Brother" speech at the end there, I honestly see no problem with it. I think people have just watched "Enemy of the State" too many times. So what if the government hears what you say? If you do nothing illegal, nothing happens to you, right? And, as an extra benefit, we don't have to see "9-11: The Sequel."

By the way, Labrador, what was the name of that corporation?

My father was the victim of a layoff, too, at the Avaya corporation. However, that was because of the UNION, not just the company. The union told him they were not there to protect his job, but the jobs of those with seniority.

To add insult to injury, after he was layed off, the union continued to take dues out of his severance pay! Thanks for nothing, assholes!

We got nothing out of the union. During the 2000 election, they were actually sending the mandatory union dues off to support a candidate (Al Gore) that we didn't want elected. My father didn't even have a say in it!

Anyway, I hope things improve for your family.

Eh. I chose independent. But I really fall under the true meaning of Republican (state power), even though I'm a moderate liberal. Ha. Not something you hear much of, "moderate liberal Republicans"....
Oh, and Ustasha...Shut up. You're only hurting the party.

What's "morally unacceptable" about my condition, seeing as I was born with it? Seeing as I did what I could to "normalize" myself along just ONE gender line, rether than the BOTH my body was doing naturally, causing me, in effect, to look like the bearded lady?
Seeing as this is a legitimate condition which one is born with, I cannot believe you could say such things about me.

Why don't you pull your head out of your sandbox, and try educating yourself for once? How about you look up "Kleinfelter Syndrome" on Google? Becuase that is the name of my condition. You will see it causes precisely what I have described.

You know...if you don't want to educate yourself...and only want to attack me because my views differ from yours...then attack my beliefs...not my person. Because you're making yourself look like a real big ass. Or is it that you CAN'T attack my beliefs with any rational argument, and are therefore forced to resort to personal attacks and cheap shots?

My chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. This is the condition of Kleinfelter Syndrome. A normal genetic male is 46XY, a normal genetic female 46XX. Mine is 47XXY. Thus, I have BOTH the male and the female chromosome...plus an extra chromosome. This causes one to develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders. And YOU explain to me how it is "morally unacceptable" to be born with a condition over which I had no control...and what is "morally unacceptable" in my actions of doing the best I could to "normalize" myself along one line, in the hopes that it would at least make me marginally more acceptable in society, and thus make it easier for me to EARN a living. Or would you rather I sponged a living off the government teat...as in YOUR tax dollars?

No, you'd probably rather see me dead.

I was unaware that "Kleinfelter," or rather, Klinefelter Syndrome, caused people to want to "rip someone's head off." As can be seen, either "Labrador" is too quick in flaming to read the posts she responds to, or she is a troll, as supported by the fact that she cannot even spell the name of her own disorder.

Actually, you are correct in the spelling of KLINEfelter Syndrome. Mea culpa. I was typing fast, and not really thinking about it. And the common spelling of "Klein" is nore commonly used than "Kline" so I wasn't thinking about it.
And no, the condition does not make you want to rip someone's head off. What makes you want to rip someone's head off is when some idiot points a finger at you, and calls you "morally reprehensible" a sinner, and soiled beyond all hope of redemption or reconciliation, just because you were born with a genetic condition of=ver which you had no control...and the people who want to take civil rights away from you based on THEIR inability to be comfortable with YOUR genetic conidtion, which you could not help.

THAT is what makes me want to rip someone's head off! When they advocate laws to my disadvantage, just because THEY aren't comfortable with me, because of my immutable birth condition that I did not choose, and could not control.

As for your "Big Brother" speech at the end there, I honestly see no problem with it. I think people have just watched "Enemy of the State" too many times. So what if the government hears what you say?
I don't think you REALLY mean that, do you? What if the other party were in power? Bet you'd feel differently about it in that case, wouldn't you?

If you do nothing illegal, nothing happens to you, right? And, as an extra benefit, we don't have to see "9-11: The Sequel."

Ah, but therein lies the problem! The people listening in are the ones who get to decide what is "illegal" and what is "subversive." What's to stop them from abusing that pwer to kill all dissent?

And no, we don't have to worry about 9/11 the sequel...because now our own government is a bigger threat to most of us than the terrorists!

you are now far more likely to get a midnight knock on the door, and be "disappered" as an "enemy combatnt" than you are likely to die as a result of a terrorist attack! In fighting terrorists, our government has become exactly like the very enemy we are fighting!

Except that our government has legal authority, and the power of the legal gun to accomplish what it wants to do.

As for your "Big Brother" speech at the end there, I honestly see no problem with it. I think people have just watched "Enemy of the State" too many times. So what if the government hears what you say?
I don't think you REALLY mean that, do you? What if the other party were in power? Bet you'd feel differently about it in that case, wouldn't you?

If you do nothing illegal, nothing happens to you, right? And, as an extra benefit, we don't have to see "9-11: The Sequel."

Ah, but therein lies the problem! The people listening in are the ones who get to decide what is "illegal" and what is "subversive." What's to stop them from abusing that pwer to kill all dissent?

And no, we don't have to worry about 9/11 the sequel...because now our own government is a bigger threat to most of us than the terrorists!

you are now far more likely to get a midnight knock on the door, and be "disappered" as an "enemy combatnt" than you are likely to die as a result of a terrorist attack! In fighting terrorists, our government has become exactly like the very enemy we are fighting!

Except that our government has legal authority, and the power of the legal gun to accomplish what it wants to do.

What's "morally unacceptable" about my condition, seeing as I was born with it? Seeing as I did what I could to "normalize" myself along just ONE gender line, rether than the BOTH my body was doing naturally, causing me, in effect, to look like the bearded lady?
Seeing as this is a legitimate condition which one is born with, I cannot believe you could say such things about me.

Why don't you pull your head out of your sandbox, and try educating yourself for once? How about you look up "Kleinfelter Syndrome" on Google? Becuase that is the name of my condition. You will see it causes precisely what I have described.

You know...if you don't want to educate yourself...and only want to attack me because my views differ from yours...then attack my beliefs...not my person. Because you're making yourself look like a real big ass. Or is it that you CAN'T attack my beliefs with any rational argument, and are therefore forced to resort to personal attacks and cheap shots?

My chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. This is the condition of Kleinfelter Syndrome. A normal genetic male is 46XY, a normal genetic female 46XX. Mine is 47XXY. Thus, I have BOTH the male and the female chromosome...plus an extra chromosome. This causes one to develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders. And YOU explain to me how it is "morally unacceptable" to be born with a condition over which I had no control...and what is "morally unacceptable" in my actions of doing the best I could to "normalize" myself along one line, in the hopes that it would at least make me marginally more acceptable in society, and thus make it easier for me to EARN a living. Or would you rather I sponged a living off the government teat...as in YOUR tax dollars?

No, you'd probably rather see me dead.

I was unaware that "Kleinfelter," or rather, Klinefelter Syndrome, caused people to want to "rip someone's head off." As can be seen, either "Labrador" is too quick in flaming to read the posts she responds to, or she is a troll, as supported by the fact that she cannot even spell the name of her own disorder.

Actually, you are correct in the spelling of KLINEfelter Syndrome. Mea culpa. I was typing fast, and not really thinking about it. And the common spelling of "Klein" is nore commonly used than "Kline" so I wasn't thinking about it.
And no, the condition does not make you want to rip someone's head off. What makes you want to rip someone's head off is when some idiot points a finger at you, and calls you "morally reprehensible" a sinner, and soiled beyond all hope of redemption or reconciliation, just because you were born with a genetic condition of=ver which you had no control...and the people who want to take civil rights away from you based on THEIR inability to be comfortable with YOUR genetic conidtion, which you could not help.

THAT is what makes me want to rip someone's head off! When they advocate laws to my disadvantage, just because THEY aren't comfortable with me, because of my immutable birth condition that I did not choose, and could not control.

Note that the poster continues her standard, boilerplate, dishonest tactics of lying about what other people said. Rational, moral, intelligent people can look back at the posts, so she is not fooling anyone. Note also that the "Labrador" troll continues to blame her flaming habit on others, even to the point of fabricating insults that no one ever wrote. Thus, I would suggest that there is no reason for anyone to believe her story about the insults she received elsewhere, over a condition she cannot even spell, which she uses as an excuse to post her petty partisan mudslinging.

What's "morally unacceptable" about my condition, seeing as I was born with it? Seeing as I did what I could to "normalize" myself along just ONE gender line, rether than the BOTH my body was doing naturally, causing me, in effect, to look like the bearded lady?
Seeing as this is a legitimate condition which one is born with, I cannot believe you could say such things about me.

Why don't you pull your head out of your sandbox, and try educating yourself for once? How about you look up "Kleinfelter Syndrome" on Google? Becuase that is the name of my condition. You will see it causes precisely what I have described.

You know...if you don't want to educate yourself...and only want to attack me because my views differ from yours...then attack my beliefs...not my person. Because you're making yourself look like a real big ass. Or is it that you CAN'T attack my beliefs with any rational argument, and are therefore forced to resort to personal attacks and cheap shots?

My chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. This is the condition of Kleinfelter Syndrome. A normal genetic male is 46XY, a normal genetic female 46XX. Mine is 47XXY. Thus, I have BOTH the male and the female chromosome...plus an extra chromosome. This causes one to develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders. And YOU explain to me how it is "morally unacceptable" to be born with a condition over which I had no control...and what is "morally unacceptable" in my actions of doing the best I could to "normalize" myself along one line, in the hopes that it would at least make me marginally more acceptable in society, and thus make it easier for me to EARN a living. Or would you rather I sponged a living off the government teat...as in YOUR tax dollars?

No, you'd probably rather see me dead.

I was unaware that "Kleinfelter," or rather, Klinefelter Syndrome, caused people to want to "rip someone's head off." As can be seen, either "Labrador" is too quick in flaming to read the posts she responds to, or she is a troll, as supported by the fact that she cannot even spell the name of her own disorder.

Actually, you are correct in the spelling of KLINEfelter Syndrome. Mea culpa. I was typing fast, and not really thinking about it. And the common spelling of "Klein" is nore commonly used than "Kline" so I wasn't thinking about it.
And no, the condition does not make you want to rip someone's head off. What makes you want to rip someone's head off is when some idiot points a finger at you, and calls you "morally reprehensible" a sinner, and soiled beyond all hope of redemption or reconciliation, just because you were born with a genetic condition of=ver which you had no control...and the people who want to take civil rights away from you based on THEIR inability to be comfortable with YOUR genetic conidtion, which you could not help.

THAT is what makes me want to rip someone's head off! When they advocate laws to my disadvantage, just because THEY aren't comfortable with me, because of my immutable birth condition that I did not choose, and could not control.

Note that the poster continues her standard, boilerplate, dishonest tactics of lying about what other people said. Rational, moral, intelligent people can look back at the posts, so she is not fooling anyone. Note also that the "Labrador" troll continues to blame her flaming habit on others, even to the point of fabricating insults that no one ever wrote. Thus, I would suggest that there is no reason for anyone to believe her story about the insults she received elsewhere, over a condition she cannot even spell, which she uses as an excuse to post her petty partisan mudslinging.

Just be honest and admit you really just done like her cause shes right. Besides if someone has a syndrome that causes them to spew obscenities in public its hardly their fault

What's "morally unacceptable" about my condition, seeing as I was born with it? Seeing as I did what I could to "normalize" myself along just ONE gender line, rether than the BOTH my body was doing naturally, causing me, in effect, to look like the bearded lady?
Seeing as this is a legitimate condition which one is born with, I cannot believe you could say such things about me.

Why don't you pull your head out of your sandbox, and try educating yourself for once? How about you look up "Kleinfelter Syndrome" on Google? Becuase that is the name of my condition. You will see it causes precisely what I have described.

You know...if you don't want to educate yourself...and only want to attack me because my views differ from yours...then attack my beliefs...not my person. Because you're making yourself look like a real big ass. Or is it that you CAN'T attack my beliefs with any rational argument, and are therefore forced to resort to personal attacks and cheap shots?

My chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. This is the condition of Kleinfelter Syndrome. A normal genetic male is 46XY, a normal genetic female 46XX. Mine is 47XXY. Thus, I have BOTH the male and the female chromosome...plus an extra chromosome. This causes one to develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders. And YOU explain to me how it is "morally unacceptable" to be born with a condition over which I had no control...and what is "morally unacceptable" in my actions of doing the best I could to "normalize" myself along one line, in the hopes that it would at least make me marginally more acceptable in society, and thus make it easier for me to EARN a living. Or would you rather I sponged a living off the government teat...as in YOUR tax dollars?

No, you'd probably rather see me dead.

I was unaware that "Kleinfelter," or rather, Klinefelter Syndrome, caused people to want to "rip someone's head off." As can be seen, either "Labrador" is too quick in flaming to read the posts she responds to, or she is a troll, as supported by the fact that she cannot even spell the name of her own disorder.

Actually, you are correct in the spelling of KLINEfelter Syndrome. Mea culpa. I was typing fast, and not really thinking about it. And the common spelling of "Klein" is nore commonly used than "Kline" so I wasn't thinking about it.
And no, the condition does not make you want to rip someone's head off. What makes you want to rip someone's head off is when some idiot points a finger at you, and calls you "morally reprehensible" a sinner, and soiled beyond all hope of redemption or reconciliation, just because you were born with a genetic condition of=ver which you had no control...and the people who want to take civil rights away from you based on THEIR inability to be comfortable with YOUR genetic conidtion, which you could not help.

THAT is what makes me want to rip someone's head off! When they advocate laws to my disadvantage, just because THEY aren't comfortable with me, because of my immutable birth condition that I did not choose, and could not control.

Note that the poster continues her standard, boilerplate, dishonest tactics of lying about what other people said. Rational, moral, intelligent people can look back at the posts, so she is not fooling anyone. Note also that the "Labrador" troll continues to blame her flaming habit on others, even to the point of fabricating insults that no one ever wrote. Thus, I would suggest that there is no reason for anyone to believe her story about the insults she received elsewhere, over a condition she cannot even spell, which she uses as an excuse to post her petty partisan mudslinging.

Just be honest and admit you really just done like her cause shes right. Besides if someone has a syndrome that causes them to spew obscenities in public its hardly their fault
LOL!

What's "morally unacceptable" about my condition, seeing as I was born with it? Seeing as I did what I could to "normalize" myself along just ONE gender line, rether than the BOTH my body was doing naturally, causing me, in effect, to look like the bearded lady?
Seeing as this is a legitimate condition which one is born with, I cannot believe you could say such things about me.

Why don't you pull your head out of your sandbox, and try educating yourself for once? How about you look up "Kleinfelter Syndrome" on Google? Becuase that is the name of my condition. You will see it causes precisely what I have described.

You know...if you don't want to educate yourself...and only want to attack me because my views differ from yours...then attack my beliefs...not my person. Because you're making yourself look like a real big ass. Or is it that you CAN'T attack my beliefs with any rational argument, and are therefore forced to resort to personal attacks and cheap shots?

My chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. This is the condition of Kleinfelter Syndrome. A normal genetic male is 46XY, a normal genetic female 46XX. Mine is 47XXY. Thus, I have BOTH the male and the female chromosome...plus an extra chromosome. This causes one to develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders. And YOU explain to me how it is "morally unacceptable" to be born with a condition over which I had no control...and what is "morally unacceptable" in my actions of doing the best I could to "normalize" myself along one line, in the hopes that it would at least make me marginally more acceptable in society, and thus make it easier for me to EARN a living. Or would you rather I sponged a living off the government teat...as in YOUR tax dollars?

No, you'd probably rather see me dead.

I was unaware that "Kleinfelter," or rather, Klinefelter Syndrome, caused people to want to "rip someone's head off." As can be seen, either "Labrador" is too quick in flaming to read the posts she responds to, or she is a troll, as supported by the fact that she cannot even spell the name of her own disorder.

Actually, you are correct in the spelling of KLINEfelter Syndrome. Mea culpa. I was typing fast, and not really thinking about it. And the common spelling of "Klein" is nore commonly used than "Kline" so I wasn't thinking about it.
And no, the condition does not make you want to rip someone's head off. What makes you want to rip someone's head off is when some idiot points a finger at you, and calls you "morally reprehensible" a sinner, and soiled beyond all hope of redemption or reconciliation, just because you were born with a genetic condition of=ver which you had no control...and the people who want to take civil rights away from you based on THEIR inability to be comfortable with YOUR genetic conidtion, which you could not help.

THAT is what makes me want to rip someone's head off! When they advocate laws to my disadvantage, just because THEY aren't comfortable with me, because of my immutable birth condition that I did not choose, and could not control.

Note that the poster continues her standard, boilerplate, dishonest tactics of lying about what other people said. Rational, moral, intelligent people can look back at the posts, so she is not fooling anyone. Note also that the "Labrador" troll continues to blame her flaming habit on others, even to the point of fabricating insults that no one ever wrote. Thus, I would suggest that there is no reason for anyone to believe her story about the insults she received elsewhere, over a condition she cannot even spell, which she uses as an excuse to post her petty partisan mudslinging.

Quit changing the topic once I prove you wrong. You know DAMN WELL yo were referring to my transsexual status when you first said I was morally unacceptable. and now here you are trying to spin it and spew shit and make a childish attack over spelling. The person who does that is one who usually can't bring themselves to admit they have lost the debate.

Not to mention...it isn't just this thread on which I have been unjustly attacked and treated badly by posters because of my condition. In one thread, I was even called "an un-natural freak" and told that I ought to just die for being the way I am. So I HAVE been attacked by people on this Forum for no better reason than the fact of my condition.

And, as I have said...it is idiots like t=THAT...who attack me because THEY aren't comfortable with my genetic condition, that causes me to want to rip their heads off. I do not have Tourette's Syndrome.

What's "morally unacceptable" about my condition, seeing as I was born with it? Seeing as I did what I could to "normalize" myself along just ONE gender line, rether than the BOTH my body was doing naturally, causing me, in effect, to look like the bearded lady?
Seeing as this is a legitimate condition which one is born with, I cannot believe you could say such things about me.

Why don't you pull your head out of your sandbox, and try educating yourself for once? How about you look up "Kleinfelter Syndrome" on Google? Becuase that is the name of my condition. You will see it causes precisely what I have described.

You know...if you don't want to educate yourself...and only want to attack me because my views differ from yours...then attack my beliefs...not my person. Because you're making yourself look like a real big ass. Or is it that you CAN'T attack my beliefs with any rational argument, and are therefore forced to resort to personal attacks and cheap shots?

My chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. This is the condition of Kleinfelter Syndrome. A normal genetic male is 46XY, a normal genetic female 46XX. Mine is 47XXY. Thus, I have BOTH the male and the female chromosome...plus an extra chromosome. This causes one to develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders. And YOU explain to me how it is "morally unacceptable" to be born with a condition over which I had no control...and what is "morally unacceptable" in my actions of doing the best I could to "normalize" myself along one line, in the hopes that it would at least make me marginally more acceptable in society, and thus make it easier for me to EARN a living. Or would you rather I sponged a living off the government teat...as in YOUR tax dollars?

No, you'd probably rather see me dead.

I was unaware that "Kleinfelter," or rather, Klinefelter Syndrome, caused people to want to "rip someone's head off." As can be seen, either "Labrador" is too quick in flaming to read the posts she responds to, or she is a troll, as supported by the fact that she cannot even spell the name of her own disorder.

Actually, you are correct in the spelling of KLINEfelter Syndrome. Mea culpa. I was typing fast, and not really thinking about it. And the common spelling of "Klein" is nore commonly used than "Kline" so I wasn't thinking about it.
And no, the condition does not make you want to rip someone's head off. What makes you want to rip someone's head off is when some idiot points a finger at you, and calls you "morally reprehensible" a sinner, and soiled beyond all hope of redemption or reconciliation, just because you were born with a genetic condition of=ver which you had no control...and the people who want to take civil rights away from you based on THEIR inability to be comfortable with YOUR genetic conidtion, which you could not help.

THAT is what makes me want to rip someone's head off! When they advocate laws to my disadvantage, just because THEY aren't comfortable with me, because of my immutable birth condition that I did not choose, and could not control.

Note that the poster continues her standard, boilerplate, dishonest tactics of lying about what other people said. Rational, moral, intelligent people can look back at the posts, so she is not fooling anyone. Note also that the "Labrador" troll continues to blame her flaming habit on others, even to the point of fabricating insults that no one ever wrote. Thus, I would suggest that there is no reason for anyone to believe her story about the insults she received elsewhere, over a condition she cannot even spell, which she uses as an excuse to post her petty partisan mudslinging.

Quit changing the topic once I prove you wrong. You know DAMN WELL yo were referring to my transsexual status when you first said I was morally unacceptable. and now here you are trying to spin it and spew shit and make a childish attack over spelling. The person who does that is one who usually can't bring themselves to admit they have lost the debate.

Not to mention...it isn't just this thread on which I have been unjustly attacked and treated badly by posters because of my condition. In one thread, I was even called "an un-natural freak" and told that I ought to just die for being the way I am. So I HAVE been attacked by people on this Forum for no better reason than the fact of my condition.

And, as I have said...it is idiots like t=THAT...who attack me because THEY aren't comfortable with my genetic condition, that causes me to want to rip their heads off. I do not have Tourette's Syndrome.

Oh sorry I got that confused--anyway I dont see anything wrong or unnatural at all about people being able to choose their gender--its just not good if other people chose it for them like in jail :(
I once saw on the Discovery channel that theres a transexual fish that lives in heterosexual couples with other fish but if one dies then the living fish has to find a new mate and can change its gender to accomodate its new mate (but that sounds kinda like jail all over again but im not trying to put a negative spin on it) I guess what Im trying to say is gender is relative eh?

As for your "Big Brother" speech at the end there, I honestly see no problem with it. I think people have just watched "Enemy of the State" too many times. So what if the government hears what you say?
I don't think you REALLY mean that, do you? What if the other party were in power? Bet you'd feel differently about it in that case, wouldn't you?

If you do nothing illegal, nothing happens to you, right? And, as an extra benefit, we don't have to see "9-11: The Sequel."

Ah, but therein lies the problem! The people listening in are the ones who get to decide what is "illegal" and what is "subversive." What's to stop them from abusing that pwer to kill all dissent?

And no, we don't have to worry about 9/11 the sequel...because now our own government is a bigger threat to most of us than the terrorists!

you are now far more likely to get a midnight knock on the door, and be "disappered" as an "enemy combatnt" than you are likely to die as a result of a terrorist attack! In fighting terrorists, our government has become exactly like the very enemy we are fighting!

Except that our government has legal authority, and the power of the legal gun to accomplish what it wants to do.The arguement is ludicrois. Everyone who opposes antiterrorism activities by saying the government will take out "dissidents" has forgotten to consider a simple fact: the masses have more power than the government. You can't make 140 million people disappear without an uprising. :roll:

Secondly, the government won't act without probable cause.

If you are going to complain about the solution, don't complain about the problem.

As for your "Big Brother" speech at the end there, I honestly see no problem with it. I think people have just watched "Enemy of the State" too many times. So what if the government hears what you say?
I don't think you REALLY mean that, do you? What if the other party were in power? Bet you'd feel differently about it in that case, wouldn't you?

If you do nothing illegal, nothing happens to you, right? And, as an extra benefit, we don't have to see "9-11: The Sequel."

Ah, but therein lies the problem! The people listening in are the ones who get to decide what is "illegal" and what is "subversive." What's to stop them from abusing that pwer to kill all dissent?

And no, we don't have to worry about 9/11 the sequel...because now our own government is a bigger threat to most of us than the terrorists!

you are now far more likely to get a midnight knock on the door, and be "disappered" as an "enemy combatnt" than you are likely to die as a result of a terrorist attack! In fighting terrorists, our government has become exactly like the very enemy we are fighting!

Except that our government has legal authority, and the power of the legal gun to accomplish what it wants to do.The arguement is ludicrois. Everyone who opposes antiterrorism activities by saying the government will take out "dissidents" has forgotten to consider a simple fact: the masses have more power than the government. You can't make 140 million people disappear without an uprising. :roll:

Secondly, the government won't act without probable cause.

If you are going to complain about the solution, don't complain about the problem.

again, I will address your arguments, point by point.

first, no, you're right...they can't make 140 million people disappear, but they can sure make SOME disappear, and I don't want even the possibility I might end up one of those "disappeared." And due to my genetic condition, I'm likely to be in the first target group! And I don't want anyone ELSE to disappear, either. Hitler disappeared 6 million people, so could Bush. And I bet he'd do it, too...the second he thinks he can get away with it!

And the Patriot Act has erased the Fourth Amendment, one of the most basic principles of democracy. Noe there is nothing to prevent police from invading your home and "disappearing" you. This horrible evil Bush regime is so power-mad, I'm afraid they will abuse these powers, and use them against any and all dissidents, and others with whom they do not agree. And fear that it will happen to THEM will keep others silent in the face of it happening. Those the Bushies REALLY want gone will be disappeared, false charges trumped up against them, and hyped to the bought and paid for media (FAUX NEWS in particular, though CBS isn't too far behind anymore) and the sheeple of this country won't utter a squawk about it, because either they will believe the charges, or they will fear a similar fate if they speak out. So the gpoverment, though their allies in the bought and paid for media, will supposedly bring the target to a secret trial in front of a kangaroo court called a military tribunal...in fact there will be no trial, but the American people, through the media, will be led to believe there was one. That person will then be fed to the crematory.

Wake up, Reynes, 1984 has arrived!

Secondly, the government already HAS acted without probable cause. The names Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi mean anything to you? If they had probable cause in those cases, why will they not formally charge these men, and allow them access to counsel, and grant them a speedy, public trial...all of which are rights guaranteed under the Constitution? Remember that Padialla and Hamdi, pieces of human trash they may be...they ARE still U.S. CITIZENS, and deserve their rights, and their day in court, and to be represented by counsel...and to have charges brought before them...and to confront their accusers. None of these rights are being accorded to them. Furthermore, it has been reported that, in Afghanistan, the Taliban were flown out on American planes, with gung-ho Pakistanis...while the American soldiers laid waste to innocent civilians. Later, a bunch of refugee camps were raided by the Pakistanis, and their residents rounded up...and THOSE are the people now at Gitmo. Innocent refugees!! Not "enemy combatants," not "terrorists." They are there only to give a veneer of legitimacy to Bush's actions. they are victims only of being at the wrong place, at the wrong time...and of being powerless in the face of the powerful. and I still believe 9/11 was an inside job, and the Bushies are doing a bad job of covering it up! Why else do they continue to stonewall investigation of it? why does Condi continue to refuse to testify under oath? Why do Bush and Cheney refuse to testify under oath...or even in public? Had Clinton refused to testify under oath, or publicly about the Lewinsky affair, you guys would be screaming! And all he did was get a hummer in the Oval Office! But you Bush shills are perfectly fine with Cheney Bush, and Condi all REFUSING to testify under oath about events that led to the death of 3,000 plus Americans! And you have the NERVE to call US LIBERALS "partisan?"

Third, I'm NOT complaining about the problem! Terrorists don't scare me! I'm more likely to get hit by lightning than die in a terrorist attack! You want the truth?? I'M MORE SCARED OF MY OWN FREAKING GOVERNMENT, THAN I AM OF THE TERRORISTS!! Because my government has BECOME the terrorists! They are an outlaw regime! They laugh at the lies that got us into Iraq...Bush makes jokes abut not finding WMD's in Iraq, in front of the press...in effect, laughing at all the dead American men and women in our military whom he sent to die in order to enrich his corporate cronies! Not to mention laughing at the deaths of some 10,000 Iraqi and Afghani civilians!

This is the most disgusting, horrible, evil, and brutal man ever to occupy the White House! Hell, he makes Joseph Stalin look like a nice guy! And he makes Hitler look at least tolerable! This man is, in my not-so-humble opinion...nothing short of the Anti-Christ!

I hate him with every fiber of my being, and it will be my pleasure to vote the scum-sucking son of a Bush out of office this November! Maybe once he's gone I can sleep nights!

It'll be nice to not have to sleep with my Mossberg beside my bed, for fear of that 4AM knock on the door. Because they will not take me alive! I'll be damned if I am going to the concentration camp...and eventually the crematorium...without a hell of a fight!

This may be a bit off topic, but didn't the NRA forsee a goverment that would act aginst the wishes of the people and tell everyone to arm themselves? Didn't they say all that time and time again? And didn't the left tell them time and time again that they were being paranoid? Well now, We have a goverment wich the only people who can stop them love, and masses of people who can't defenceless? "I told you so!" doesn't seem to cover it.

What's "morally unacceptable" about my condition, seeing as I was born with it? Seeing as I did what I could to "normalize" myself along just ONE gender line, rether than the BOTH my body was doing naturally, causing me, in effect, to look like the bearded lady?
Seeing as this is a legitimate condition which one is born with, I cannot believe you could say such things about me.

Why don't you pull your head out of your sandbox, and try educating yourself for once? How about you look up "Kleinfelter Syndrome" on Google? Becuase that is the name of my condition. You will see it causes precisely what I have described.

You know...if you don't want to educate yourself...and only want to attack me because my views differ from yours...then attack my beliefs...not my person. Because you're making yourself look like a real big ass. Or is it that you CAN'T attack my beliefs with any rational argument, and are therefore forced to resort to personal attacks and cheap shots?

My chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. This is the condition of Kleinfelter Syndrome. A normal genetic male is 46XY, a normal genetic female 46XX. Mine is 47XXY. Thus, I have BOTH the male and the female chromosome...plus an extra chromosome. This causes one to develop secondary sex characteristics of both genders. And YOU explain to me how it is "morally unacceptable" to be born with a condition over which I had no control...and what is "morally unacceptable" in my actions of doing the best I could to "normalize" myself along one line, in the hopes that it would at least make me marginally more acceptable in society, and thus make it easier for me to EARN a living. Or would you rather I sponged a living off the government teat...as in YOUR tax dollars?

No, you'd probably rather see me dead.

I was unaware that "Kleinfelter," or rather, Klinefelter Syndrome, caused people to want to "rip someone's head off." As can be seen, either "Labrador" is too quick in flaming to read the posts she responds to, or she is a troll, as supported by the fact that she cannot even spell the name of her own disorder.

Actually, you are correct in the spelling of KLINEfelter Syndrome. Mea culpa. I was typing fast, and not really thinking about it. And the common spelling of "Klein" is nore commonly used than "Kline" so I wasn't thinking about it.
And no, the condition does not make you want to rip someone's head off. What makes you want to rip someone's head off is when some idiot points a finger at you, and calls you "morally reprehensible" a sinner, and soiled beyond all hope of redemption or reconciliation, just because you were born with a genetic condition of=ver which you had no control...and the people who want to take civil rights away from you based on THEIR inability to be comfortable with YOUR genetic conidtion, which you could not help.

THAT is what makes me want to rip someone's head off! When they advocate laws to my disadvantage, just because THEY aren't comfortable with me, because of my immutable birth condition that I did not choose, and could not control.

Note that the poster continues her standard, boilerplate, dishonest tactics of lying about what other people said. Rational, moral, intelligent people can look back at the posts, so she is not fooling anyone. Note also that the "Labrador" troll continues to blame her flaming habit on others, even to the point of fabricating insults that no one ever wrote. Thus, I would suggest that there is no reason for anyone to believe her story about the insults she received elsewhere, over a condition she cannot even spell, which she uses as an excuse to post her petty partisan mudslinging.

Quit changing the topic once I prove you wrong. You know DAMN WELL yo were referring to my transsexual status when you first said I was morally unacceptable. and now here you are trying to spin it and spew shit and make a childish attack over spelling. The person who does that is one who usually can't bring themselves to admit they have lost the debate.

Not to mention...it isn't just this thread on which I have been unjustly attacked and treated badly by posters because of my condition. In one thread, I was even called "an un-natural freak" and told that I ought to just die for being the way I am. So I HAVE been attacked by people on this Forum for no better reason than the fact of my condition.

And, as I have said...it is idiots like t=THAT...who attack me because THEY aren't comfortable with my genetic condition, that causes me to want to rip their heads off. I do not have Tourette's Syndrome.

As can be seen, the poster continues to have no moral qualms about lying, and about projecting her tendency to "spin" other's posts onto others. Intelligent readers will find that this is the post of hers I referred to as "hilarious" and an attempt to "evade personal responsibility":

Labrador is just a flamer and a flame baiter. She hangs around the forum, heating things up, until the selective moderators decide to finally tag her with a warning. Then, she disappears for weeks at a time until the flaming is nearly forgotten, only to start up again.

I get warned by Stephistan after telling someone who insults me in every post to get a job.

No. You merely think I am a flamebaiter, and a flamer, bccause I post things YOU disagree with. I got tagged with one very severe warning...which I deserved, when I went WAY over the top on someone. This was due to extreme stresses in my personal life at the time,and I was aching to rip someone's head off! Since I couldn't lash out at the people (my bosses) who were the REAL burr up my saddle at the time, Some guy in this Forum who had the temerity to cross me with an absolutely idiotic opinion got two months worth of anger hurled at him in one post.

I therefore disappeared for a few weeks, until things got somewhat back to normal in my personal life, so that I would not do it again...and get my nation deleted.

Ask any moderator...since that time you refer to, about a month and a half ago, I have gotten a lot better. And I also have gotten far less tolerant of flamebaiting...I now will report anyone and everyone who flamebaits me, because if I rise to it, it may get me deleted.

So, if you don't like me or my opinions, best not to reply...or be careful how you pick your words.

Fact is, I'm STILL gonna jump on any conservative who posts an ounce of spin with ten pounds of fact. And you guys just don't like it that I'm always so right.

Why is it that when a man asserts himself, this is a good thing...a man who fails to assert himself is a "pussy" and a WOMAN who asserts HERSELF is always a "bitch?" Could it be that this "bitch" is always so right, and you can't stand it?

LOL! Another hilarious example of a rather arrogant poster, who is "always right," trying to evade personal responsibility for their typical behavior. Like the poster's homosexual friends, this "Labrador" attributes personal characteristics to factors no one can control, e.g., genetics, stress, and other people's behavior. I would humbly suggest that the moral, responsible, intelligent readers of this forum take this poster as a small example of how not to behave on the Internet. What "Labrador" needs to learn is that just because you have an excuse for something, doesn't mean it's morally acceptable.

Intelligent, rational, moral posters do not lie, put "spins" on other people's words so they can play the victim, or rationalize attacks on other posters, as it is a drain on their credibility.

That's right, Ipxupgmbnf...so why did you just do exactly that?

You aren't even worth a bucket of warm spit. consider yourself formally ignored from this point forward.

Labrador officially breaks any and all diplomatic ties with your repressive bass-ackward repugnant nation.

I am communist.

Okay, Labrador.

I've tried coaxing, I've tried reasoning. It comes down to one of two things.

The first is that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.

The second is that YOU ARE CRAZY. I pray to God that the latter isn't true.

YOU HAVE SOME VERY DEEP-ROOTED AND VERY SERIOUS MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
First, why do you think that Bush would "disappear" people? He isn't Saddam, and he isn't worse than Saddam, as I predict you would say.

first, no, you're right...they can't make 140 million people disappear, but they can sure make SOME disappear, and I don't want even the possibility I might end up one of those "disappeared." And due to my genetic condition, I'm likely to be in the first target group!
What says you would be disappeared? The kinds that would be disappeared (if any) would be the people who go to flight school and "don't want to learn how to take off or land, but just to fly" -Zecharias Moussoui, the suspected 20th 9-11 hijacker.

And even that! They would just arrest him.

You've got to stop feeling so persecuted. You have a genetic condition. END OF STORY. Not everything that goes wrong in your life can be blamed on that and the republican party. You said yourself that you had had the corrective surguries.

And the Patriot Act has erased the Fourth Amendment, one of the most basic principles of democracy. Noe there is nothing to prevent police from invading your home and "disappearing" you.
In case you haven't heard, the majority of the laws in the Patriot act have been on the books for years. This just means that they would be enforced enough to be effective.
This horrible evil Bush regime is so power-mad, I'm afraid they will abuse these powers, and use them against any and all dissidents, and others with whom they do not agree. And fear that it will happen to THEM will keep others silent in the face of it happening. Those the Bushies REALLY want gone will be disappeared, false charges trumped up against them, and hyped to the bought and paid for media (FAUX NEWS in particular, though CBS isn't too far behind anymore) and the sheeple of this country won't utter a squawk about it, because either they will believe the charges, or they will fear a similar fate if they speak out.Remember back when you said this?
first, no, you're right...they can't make 140 million people disappear.
Also, why do you ultrahyperliberal extremists think FNC is controlled by the government? FNC just agrees with the president. Is that a crime? FNC is conservative, but at least they are open about it, unlike other networks that use a bunch of subliminal sh*t. I read an article in the LA times recently. Blatently liberal. It discussed the economy, then ended by listing off Kerry's campaign "promises," which were completely unrelated to the article. No wonder the Democrats always win California.

On to the next part...

Furthermore, it has been reported that, in Afghanistan, the Taliban were flown out on American planes, with gung-ho Pakistanis...while the American soldiers laid waste to innocent civilians. Later, a bunch of refugee camps were raided by the Pakistanis, and their residents rounded up...and THOSE are the people now at Gitmo. Innocent refugees!! Not "enemy combatants," not "terrorists."
Prove it. Give me a nonpartisan, reliable source. "Laid waste to innocent civilians?" I'll admit that is the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard. As for that statistic, 10,000, where did you find it? Some Al-Jazeera site?

They are an outlaw regime! They laugh at the lies that got us into Iraq...Bush makes jokes abut not finding WMD's in Iraq, in front of the press...in effect, laughing at all the dead American men and women in our military whom he sent to die in order to enrich his corporate cronies!
The deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are very regrettable. However, it is less damaging in the long run than Clinton's strategy was. In Bosnia, we didn't have a single casualty. Looks good, right? However, these people view us as cowards if we are only willing to fight from 35,000 feet. In Mogadishu, Somalia, 18 US marines died on a UN peacekeeping mission. Clinton put his tail between his legs and ran. The message he sent is "America: We are strong. We are brave. We are united. But, if you kill a few of us, we'll run away." (In case you are wondering, this was said by a survivor of the incident on a History Channel documentary.) Clinton proceeded to cut the legs out from under the military and intelligence. So we have 9-11. Bush runs a retalitory war in Afghanistan. He then hears Iraq's track record. 17 UN violations. Daily violations of human rights (search "Mass Graves" and "Torture Chambers."). All evidence (the same evidence that the UN and Clinton had) said that Saddam had WMD. Bush steps up to the plate. He can't find them fast enough to satisfy the press. It's an election year. To top it off, Richard Clarke publishes a crock of lies to bad-mouth Bush. Here's my take on the book: Clarke picked this time so he would have increased sales. How?
1) It's an election year, and liberals are looking for any dirt they can find on Bush, regardless of if it is true.
2) CONTROVERSY SELLS!

As for Condoleeza Rice testifying in front of the Liberal Spin comm... er... 9/11 commission, she has already been on half a dozen interviews with CNN, NBC, FNC and others where she was talking directly to the public.
Okay, I may have gone over the line with the "liberal spin commission" thing. But seriously, these people are in a very powerful position. It Rice testifies, all it will take is one or two very opinionated people on the commission to go on "Good Morning America." Nobody would listen to how biased they were, they would only see "9/11 commission member" on the bottom of the screen and they would accept anything they say as fact. These people are in a perfect position to screw over President Bush. They just have to not like him.
Also, Clarke is full of it. He says Bush dawdled on the issue of terrorism before 9-11, when in fact Bush increased funding to counterterrorism and intelligence fourfold before 9-11 happened.
About Iraq, the amount of casualties we have had has been relatively low. On June 6, 1944, we lost 10,000 men. During Vietnam, it was considered a GOOD day if ONLY 40 soldiers were killed. That doesn't justify the deaths, I'm just saying that we have to put things in perspective.

Then there was this one:
Terrorists don't scare me! I'm more likely to get hit by lightning than die in a terrorist attack!
Why don't you tell that to the 3000 men, women, and children who lost their lives on 9-11? They didn't see it coming, either.

This is the most disgusting, horrible, evil, and brutal man ever to occupy the White House! Hell, he makes Joseph Stalin look like a nice guy! And he makes Hitler look at least tolerable! This man is, in my not-so-humble opinion...nothing short of the Anti-Christ!
You are officially an idiot. Hitler and Stalin were responsible for MILLIONS of deaths. How does Bush compare? (If you respond, use reliable (key word) sources and don't throw in any of your doomsday predictions. And I better not hear "crematorium" or "genetic condition.")

It'll be nice to not have to sleep with my Mossberg beside my bed, for fear of that 4AM knock on the door. Because they will not take me alive! I'll be damned if I am going to the concentration camp...and eventually the crematorium...without a hell of a fight!See above. What's with you and cremation? We republicans aren't nazis.
I'll be frank. YOU STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ME. You are full-blown CRAZY if you believe ANY of this.

After this back-and-forth, this is my impression of you: there was never a liberal viewpoint you didn't embrace. Your as-yet unjustified hatred for conservatives clouds your perception to the point that you refuse to even listen to them. You hide a wish to see every last one executed, because you carry the delusion that it's what we want to do to you, which couldn't be further from the truth. Your favorite line is that you "crush an ounce of spin with ten pounds of fact," but your "facts" are just paranoid delusions and bloated stereotypes. You are a flamebaiter in denial. I noticed you seemed genuinely happy to cart Yugosalvia off to the mods after writing that very insulting and undeniably baiting thread that began this whole arguement. Did it never occur to you that maybe he was having trouble in his personal life, too? In case you were wondering, THAT's why I can call you partisan.

Doc says: take 1000 CC's of morphine and call me in the morning.

Okay, Labrador.

I've tried coaxing, I've tried reasoning. It comes down to one of two things.

The first is that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.

The second is that YOU ARE CRAZY. I pray to God that the latter isn't true.

YOU HAVE SOME VERY DEEP-ROOTED AND VERY SERIOUS MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
First, why do you think that Bush would "disappear" people? He isn't Saddam, and he isn't worse than Saddam, as I predict you would say.

"Labrador" is a troll. She uses an unfortunate condition she does not have and cannot spell as an ostensible excuse for her paranoid ravings against anyone who disagrees with her. Why she feels the need to do this is not clear.

It'll be nice to not have to sleep with my Mossberg beside my bed, for fear of that 4AM knock on the door. Because they will not take me alive! I'll be damned if I am going to the concentration camp...and eventually the crematorium...without a hell of a fight!
Whoa! I didn't realize she was that bad. But she is not crazy, she is just a common troll who has constructed an imaginary scenario to use as an excuse whenever her flaming is questioned.

That's right, Ipxupgmbnf...so why did you just do exactly that?

You aren't even worth a bucket of warm spit. consider yourself formally ignored from this point forward.

Labrador officially breaks any and all diplomatic ties with your repressive bass-ackward repugnant nation.
Rational, intelligent, moral people can read the context I repeated above, and decide for themselves who is being dishonest. "Labrador" ignoring me would be fortunate, but in my experience, most people who make such declarations are usually bluffing. I would expect little more from a poster like her.

Bull-plop!

Labrador is, how shall I say it, not quite all there... Anyone who writes posts like hers has some deep-seated psychological problems. This intense hatred for all things conservative goes beyond rationality. Perhaps it has something to do with being, simultaneously, a unitarian, a lesbian, a virgin, a liberal, and in menopause. Perhaps there is something contradictory there she needs to work out. There and again, perhaps those conditions explain everything :wink:

Labrador is, how shall I say it, not quite all there... Anyone who writes posts like hers has some deep-seated psychological problems. This intense hatred for all things conservative goes beyond rationality. Perhaps it has something to do with being, simultaneously, a unitarian, a lesbian, a virgin, a liberal, and in menopause. Perhaps there is something contradictory there she needs to work out. There and again, perhaps those conditions explain everything :wink:

First of all, since you probably know nothing of Unitarianism, I'd advise you to cut the crap. Second, you post shows you obviously know nothing of me. Because, for starters, I am not a lesbian...the idea of sexual relations with another woman is not appealing to me. Actually, I am pretty much asexual, I care not for sexual relations with anyone or anything, in all honesty.
Third, though it has been a long time since I had sex, I am not a virgin.

Fourth, to the charge of being a liberal...I proudly proclaim "guilty as charged."

Fifth, I am not in menopause. I cannot be in menopause because I never had meses in the first place. One of the side effects of my genetic condition is that I am, and always have been completely sterile. I do not even possess the internal organs necessary to produce menses, and never did. Which you'd know if you bothered to look up Klinefelter Syndrome.

So, to all the charges levelled against me here, I plead guilty, proudly, to two of them....being a Unitarian, and being a liberal. But, then, those two thiings usually do go hand in hand...I have yet to meet a conservative Unitarian. That would be oxymoronic. Then, again, being conservative is moronic.

Labrador is, how shall I say it, not quite all there... Anyone who writes posts like hers has some deep-seated psychological problems. This intense hatred for all things conservative goes beyond rationality. Perhaps it has something to do with being, simultaneously, a unitarian, a lesbian, a virgin, a liberal, and in menopause. Perhaps there is something contradictory there she needs to work out. There and again, perhaps those conditions explain everything :wink:

First of all, since you probably know nothing of Unitarianism, I'd advise you to cut the crap. Second, you post shows you obviously know nothing of me. Because, for starters, I am not a lesbian...the idea of sexual relations with another woman is not appealing to me. Actually, I am pretty much asexual, I care not for sexual relations with anyone or anything, in all honesty.
Third, though it has been a long time since I had sex, I am not a virgin.

Fourth, to the charge of being a liberal...I proudly proclaim "guilty as charged."

Fifth, I am not in menopause. I cannot be in menopause because I never had meses in the first place. One of the side effects of my genetic condition is that I am, and always have been completely sterile. I do not even possess the internal organs necessary to produce menses, and never did. Which you'd know if you bothered to look up Klinefelter Syndrome.

So, to all the charges levelled against me here, I plead guilty, proudly, to two of them....being a Unitarian, and being a liberal. But, then, those two thiings usually do go hand in hand...I have yet to meet a conservative Unitarian. That would be oxymoronic. Then, again, being conservative is moronic.not to beat a dead horse or anything, but when did you become a christian and what changed your mind?

Time now to address Reynes' rather lengthy post. I would have done so this morning when I read it, but didn't have enough time to compose a response...I had to go and be exploited by my boss again.

Now that I'm free for the weekend, let's see what I can make of this post...

Neither coaxing nor reasoning, nor anything will EVER convince me that being conservative is anything other than being mean-spirited. The track record of conservatism speaks for itself in this regard.

Second, no, I am not crazy...I merely hold a different viewpoint than you do. Our reality is shaped by our perceptions, and I suspect our perceptions are very different from one another, Reynes. And no, I'm not deliberately trying to piss you off, eother. Since when did you think my world revolved around you? You are NOT "all that and a bag of chips."

Although I suspect a lot of the conservatives ARE here solely and exclusively to piss of Libs like me. I think conservatives would rather piss on other people's parades than start their own parade. They seem, in my experience, to get a certain joy out of making life even more intolerable for some groups of people...usually the already downtrodden.

I think Bush would "disappear people because he is absolutely power-crazy, and would do anything to gain and maintain power. He's truly evil. And the only reason he ISN'T worse than Saddam is because no one ever gave him the CHANCE to be that, yet. Given the chance, he would be worse than Saddam. He has a black heart, in my estimation. He has no compassion for anyone who does not agree with him 100 percent on absolutely everything.

The Republican Party, and conservatives, have long been my persecutors...the people out to make my life even harder than it already has been, by failing to protect me from discrimination, hatred and bigotry..and by themselves practicing it. They have eroded civil rights and civil liberties, and are doing everything they camn to make this country less tolerant and less loving, of those who are just a little different, either through choice, or genetics, or whatever else.

And I meant that. They can't make 140 million people disappear. But I bet they could make at least 20 million disappear before anyone really started to say something!

and I do not think the FNC is comntrolled by the government. never said it was. I think FNC is bought and paid for shills for the government...particularly the conservatives. Never said they were controlled by the government. But they do march to the current government's beat.

FNC is NOT open about being the conservative shills they are. they advertise themselves as "fair and balanced." Fair and balanced my left clavicle! They wouldn't know fair and balanced if it hit them between the eyes!

Granted my sources are generally liberal news sites, so I won't bother sourcing them, because you won't read them...and even if you did, you'd just call it partisan spin, so why waste the time to look them up? You won't believe any news source that tells any story you don't want to hear...that gives you news that is different from what you want to believe...which is what FNC spoon-feeds to the brainwashed sheeple of America.

Don't give me crap! Bush pressed intelligence to come up with a link between al-qudea, 9/11, and Iraq. When intelligence delivered an accurate report of there being no such link, the report went back saying "do it again." Bush WANTED a pretext, an excuse, to go after Iraq from the very moment the first plane hit the WTC. PNAC has long wanted to go to war with Iraq. They said so way back in 1997. And they needed the equivalent of another Pearl Harbor to do it. That one I can source from a site you might actually believe, but you'll have to dig through the site yourself. http://www.infowars.com This is Alex Jones's web site. You might actually find him to be credible, since he mostly agrees with YOUR side.

Clarke served three Republican administrations and one Democrat Administration, and is, himself, a Republican. But when you don't like the message, Dubya's response, and FNC's response, is to shoot the messenger. So you resort to character attacks on Clarke, because you can't refute his assertions. So you attempt to assassinate his character. Typical Republican ploy. Except, of course when you can't attack their character...and out their CIA operative wife instead!

And why does Condi still refuse to testify UNDER OATH?!?! That is as good as admitting she is going to lie! Has Clinton refused to testify UNDER OATH about the Lewinsky affair, you guys would have been howling and you know it. So go peddle that pile of shit somewhere else! There is only one good reason Condi refuses to testify UNDER OATH...and that is because she plans to lie!

As far as your snarky comment re: telling the victims of 9/11 that I was more likely to be a target of my own government than terrorists...well, you know what? Given the horror that my government has visited on me in my life already, what with refusing to protect me against the meanness and injustice of my fellow man...as opposed to 3,000 dying on 9/11 out of a coutry of 280 million...I like my chances with the terorists better. I think my own government is far more likely to hurt me than terrorists are. In fact, many in our governemnt have BECOME the terrorists!

And Bush, given the chance, would gladly be responsible for millions of deaths. He DID set a record for executions while Governor of Texas...and many of those he sent to death were later found to have been innocent...did he ever even say, "oops, sorry?? Nope. Did he show any remorse that he sent innocent men to their deaths? Nope. I'm suggesting that, given the opportunity, and if he could get rid of the pesky checks and balances he has to work with for now...that he would repeat this on a grand scale...targeting all those he considers his political enemies. Yes, I really believe he is capable of it, and secretly desires to do just that.

Then I'm full-blown crazy, because I believe every word I said! I believe we are looking at possibly the most evil, wretched, horrible person ever to occupy the White House in our entire history!

you're probably right, there likely ISN'T a liberal viewpoint I've not embraced. At least I'm willing to own up to that. Conversely, I suspect there isn't a conservative viewpoint YOU haven't embraced. I'm also betting you won't own up to that, either.

My hatred of conservatives is NOT unjustified. I hate them for promoting bigotry and hatred, racial strife, persecution of homosexuals, I hate them for having no compassion whatsoever for the unfortunate in our society...I hate them for raping Mother Earth by allowing polluters to pollute even more...I could go on, but what's the point? You already think I'm a full-blown Commie hippie, pinko! Well, truth be known, I am a Socialist. I'm also willing and proud to own up to that.

As long as conservatives continue to attack the poor, the homosexual...the unfortunate...as long as conservatives continue to attack personal liberty civil rights and the environment, you're right...I do refuse to listen to them, because they have nothing to offer me.

As to your calling me partisan...now there's another charge to which I proudly proclaim "guilty as charged." Again, st least I'm willing to own up to being partisan. Far as I am concerned, the Republicans got nthing to offer me, and I wouldn't vote a Republican dog-catcher...let alone President! (One exception...Arlen Specter holds the dubious distinction of being the only Republican EVER to win my vote. He is my former Senator from Pennsylvania. I voted for Specter in 1996. that man earned my respect. And he's the only Republican wo ever did. But then again, I keep expecting him to do the Jim Jeffords any day. He's not like the modern Republican, and maybe that is why he was able to earn my respect....and my vote.)

And no...you don't really want me to take morphine. Not if you knew what it does to me. You'd better make that Demerol. Morphine makes me irritable, only dulls the pain, and makes me feel drunk, grounchy, and out of sorts. I know, I've been on morphine before. It does not have very salutaory effects on me, take my word for it.

In closing let me say that, until the Republican Party disavows the radical fringe on the right that seems now to control them...they will never sway me...I will never listen toa word they say...and NOTHING will ever make me change my mind on that. As long as the Republcans are in bed with the Christian Taliban fundamentalist redneck yahoos, I have no use whatsoever for them. And they will not get my vote, or my ear. They will get nothing but contempt and hatred from me until they radically change their ways. Until they do, they are my enemy. They consort with my enemy...they pander to my enemy...and that makes THEM my enemy, too.

Labrador is, how shall I say it, not quite all there... Anyone who writes posts like hers has some deep-seated psychological problems. This intense hatred for all things conservative goes beyond rationality. Perhaps it has something to do with being, simultaneously, a unitarian, a lesbian, a virgin, a liberal, and in menopause. Perhaps there is something contradictory there she needs to work out. There and again, perhaps those conditions explain everything :wink:

First of all, since you probably know nothing of Unitarianism, I'd advise you to cut the crap. Second, you post shows you obviously know nothing of me. Because, for starters, I am not a lesbian...the idea of sexual relations with another woman is not appealing to me. Actually, I am pretty much asexual, I care not for sexual relations with anyone or anything, in all honesty.
Third, though it has been a long time since I had sex, I am not a virgin.

Fourth, to the charge of being a liberal...I proudly proclaim "guilty as charged."

Fifth, I am not in menopause. I cannot be in menopause because I never had meses in the first place. One of the side effects of my genetic condition is that I am, and always have been completely sterile. I do not even possess the internal organs necessary to produce menses, and never did. Which you'd know if you bothered to look up Klinefelter Syndrome.

So, to all the charges levelled against me here, I plead guilty, proudly, to two of them....being a Unitarian, and being a liberal. But, then, those two thiings usually do go hand in hand...I have yet to meet a conservative Unitarian. That would be oxymoronic. Then, again, being conservative is moronic.not to beat a dead horse or anything, but when did you become a christian and what changed your mind?

I posted about that about three months ago. Look it up for yourself. The thread was titled "What Made Me Believe."

Labrador is, how shall I say it, not quite all there... Anyone who writes posts like hers has some deep-seated psychological problems. This intense hatred for all things conservative goes beyond rationality. Perhaps it has something to do with being, simultaneously, a unitarian, a lesbian, a virgin, a liberal, and in menopause. Perhaps there is something contradictory there she needs to work out. There and again, perhaps those conditions explain everything :wink:

First of all, since you probably know nothing of Unitarianism, I'd advise you to cut the crap. Second, you post shows you obviously know nothing of me. Because, for starters, I am not a lesbian...the idea of sexual relations with another woman is not appealing to me. Actually, I am pretty much asexual, I care not for sexual relations with anyone or anything, in all honesty.
Third, though it has been a long time since I had sex, I am not a virgin.

Fourth, to the charge of being a liberal...I proudly proclaim "guilty as charged."

Fifth, I am not in menopause. I cannot be in menopause because I never had meses in the first place. One of the side effects of my genetic condition is that I am, and always have been completely sterile. I do not even possess the internal organs necessary to produce menses, and never did. Which you'd know if you bothered to look up Klinefelter Syndrome.

So, to all the charges levelled against me here, I plead guilty, proudly, to two of them....being a Unitarian, and being a liberal. But, then, those two thiings usually do go hand in hand...I have yet to meet a conservative Unitarian. That would be oxymoronic. Then, again, being conservative is moronic.not to beat a dead horse or anything, but when did you become a christian and what changed your mind?

I posted about that about three months ago. Look it up for yourself. The thread was titled "What Made Me Believe."ugh, my eyes hurt at the thought of slogging through a post history :(

Our reality is shaped by our perceptions, and I suspect our perceptions are very different from one another, Reynes. And no, I'm not deliberately trying to piss you off, eother. Since when did you think my world revolved around you? You are NOT "all that and a bag of chips."I've accepted that our positions are very different. I never said your world revolved around me. However, for several pages this topic has revolved mainly around our back-and-forth.

Although I suspect a lot of the conservatives ARE here solely and exclusively to piss of Libs like me.I hate ultraliberals, you hate ultraconservatives. Sounds like we're even. Kapish?

I think conservatives would rather piss on other people's parades than start their own parade. They seem, in my experience, to get a certain joy out of making life even more intolerable for some groups of people...usually the already downtrodden.I'm not deliberately trying to piss you off. I'm just trying to show that (I'm saying this for the last time) there has been corruption and deceit, merit and accomplishment on both sides.
CORRUPT (impeachment):
Richard Nixon (r): Watergate scandal
William Clinton (d): Vince Foster, lying under oath
LEGENDARY:
Franklin Roosevelt (d): pulled us out of the great depression and led us through WWII
Abraham Lincoln (r): Ended slavery and kept the Union from falling apart during the Civil War
INEFFECTIVE:
Herbert Hoover (r): failed to quell the Great Depression
James Carter (d): failed to get the 100 US embassy hostages out of Iran

You see how this list can go on and on.

I think Bush would "disappear people because he is absolutely power-crazy, and would do anything to gain and maintain power. He's truly evil. And the only reason he ISN'T worse than Saddam is because no one ever gave him the CHANCE to be that, yet. Given the chance, he would be worse than Saddam. He has a black heart, in my estimation. He has no compassion for anyone who does not agree with him 100 percent on absolutely everything.I'll ask this one more time. Why do you feel this way? Don't start with the crematorium speech, please.

And I meant that. They can't make 140 million people disappear. But I bet they could make at least 20 million disappear before anyone really started to say something!With our media? Please! You can't make ONE person disappear without the whole country finding out. Also, I think that the UN would notice if America's population dropped significantly without an explaination.

and I do not think the FNC is comntrolled by the government. never said it was. I think FNC is bought and paid for shills for the government...particularly the conservatives. Never said they were controlled by the government. But they do march to the current government's beat.Bought and paid for versus controlled. So, I take it that when the Mafia ruled the country, they didn't control the politicians they bought and paid for. :roll: Tell me, where is a report that says that FNC was "bought and paid for?" Shills of the government means that they are under government control, so that means you are saying that the government controls FNC. When did the government buy FNC?

FNC is NOT open about being the conservative shills they are. they advertise themselves as "fair and balanced." Fair and balanced my left clavicle! They wouldn't know fair and balanced if it hit them between the eyes!
If you watch, instead of learning about them what you can from news sources that will try to make them look as bad as possible my sources are generally liberal news sitesyou will find that they admit they are conservative (on shows such as the O'Reilly factor). I think they are "fair and balanced" in the sense that they balance out the rest of the networks, which have a subtly liberal stance on the issues.
Granted my sources are generally liberal news sites, so I won't bother sourcing them, because you won't read them...and even if you did, you'd just call it partisan spin, so why waste the time to look them up? You won't believe any news source that tells any story you don't want to hear...that gives you news that is different from what you want to believe...which is what FNC spoon-feeds to the brainwashed sheeple of America.Likewise, you won't believe any sources I can offer, because by our psychological nature, humans listen to what they want to hear. The way I watch the news is by watching stories reported on both FNC and CNN. I compare the way they are reported, and the most accurate information is likely to be the information that appears in both reports.

Bush pressed intelligence to come up with a link between al-qudea, 9/11, and Iraq. When intelligence delivered an accurate report of there being no such link, the report went back saying "do it again." Bush WANTED a pretext, an excuse, to go after Iraq from the very moment the first plane hit the WTC. PNAC has long wanted to go to war with Iraq. They said so way back in 1997. And they needed the equivalent of another Pearl Harbor to do it.However, all of this information is from one man. This man is contradicting what he said shortly after 9-11.

Clarke served three Republican administrations and one Democrat Administration, and is, himself, a Republican. But when you don't like the message, Dubya's response, and FNC's response, is to shoot the messenger. So you resort to character attacks on Clarke, because you can't refute his assertions. So you attempt to assassinate his character. Typical Republican ploy. Except, of course when you can't attack their character...and out their CIA operative wife instead!Does that make any difference? It's not like people can't change their political parties. He has offered no proof of anything he wrote down.

In case you haven't noticed, people on both sides try to assasinate each others character. John Kerry is doing it to Bush, so now Bush is doing it to Kerry. You of all people should remember the big stink about Bush's 30-year-old DWI charge, y'know, the one that mysteriously swept across the media five days before the election?

There is only one good reason Condi refuses to testify UNDER OATH...and that is because she plans to lie!Assumption. In any case, Clarke vs. Rice: a lie for a lie. Okay, bad joke.

As far as your snarky comment re: telling the victims of 9/11 that I was more likely to be a target of my own government than terrorists...well, you know what? Given the horror that my government has visited on me in my life already, what with refusing to protect me against the meanness and injustice of my fellow man...as opposed to 3,000 dying on 9/11 out of a coutry of 280 million...I like my chances with the terorists better. I think my own government is far more likely to hurt me than terrorists are. In fact, many in our governemnt have BECOME the terrorists!Reflect on your life. You have mentioned your employer many times, and how he is responsible for many of those problems. What has the government got to do with that? The 50's are dead and gone, Labrador. I think terrorism is a greater threat than you realize.

And Bush, given the chance, would gladly be responsible for millions of deaths. He DID set a record for executions while Governor of Texas...and many of those he sent to death were later found to have been innocent...did he ever even say, "oops, sorry?? Nope. Did he show any remorse that he sent innocent men to their deaths? Nope. I'm suggesting that, given the opportunity, and if he could get rid of the pesky checks and balances he has to work with for now...that he would repeat this on a grand scale...targeting all those he considers his political enemies. Yes, I really believe he is capable of it, and secretly desires to do just that.
First, no, you're right...they couldn't make 140 million people disappearGive me a list of those executed, with the names of those proven innocent checked. Keep in mind that the COURTS are the people who sentenced those men. This arguement holds as much water as the attacks on Reagan about Iran-Contra when he knew nothing about it.

Then I'm full-blown crazy, because I believe every word I said! I believe we are looking at possibly the most evil, wretched, horrible person ever to occupy the White House in our entire history!Without going into your doomsday prediction again, explain why you feel that way, based on what Bush has already done in office.

you're probably right, there likely ISN'T a liberal viewpoint I've not embraced. At least I'm willing to own up to that. Conversely, I suspect there isn't a conservative viewpoint YOU haven't embraced. I'm also betting you won't own up to that, either.As I have said before, there is one liberal agenda I agree with, and that is that we need to crack down on big business. However, I think that the problem is on both sides. To stop outsourcing, we need to cap the wages of CEOs (who talk about saving money by sending work to third-world countries and make 144 times as much as the average worker), but we also need to regulate the unions. As you read in my previous post, the union cost my father his job. Simply, Unions ask too much of companies. They drive up wages too high, so the upper-level management is tempted to send the work somewhere where they can pay a dollar an hour as opposed to $25 or $30 an hour.

My hatred of conservatives is NOT unjustified. I hate them for promoting bigotry and hatred, racial strifeIn which decade was this?
Liberals have also done this. The classic case is Affirmative Action. If a "white" finds out he/she has been barred from admission to college because their spot was filled because of AA, doesn't it make sense that there would be resentment?

And no...you don't really want me to take morphine. Not if you knew what it does to me. You'd better make that Demerol. Morphine makes me irritable, only dulls the pain, and makes me feel drunk, grounchy, and out of sorts. I know, I've been on morphine before. It does not have very salutaory effects on me, take my word for it.Can't you take a joke?

And you have the NERVE to call US LIBERALS "partisan?" you're probably right, there likely ISN'T a liberal viewpoint I've not embracedAs to your calling me partisan...now there's another charge to which I proudly proclaim "guilty as charged."
I rest my case.

In closing let me say that, until the Republican Party disavows the radical fringe on the right that seems now to control them...they will never sway me...I will never listen toa word they say...and NOTHING will ever make me change my mind on that. As long as the Republcans are in bed with the Christian Taliban fundamentalist redneck yahoos, I have no use whatsoever for them. And they will not get my vote, or my ear. They will get nothing but contempt and hatred from me until they radically change their ways. Until they do, they are my enemy. They consort with my enemy...they pander to my enemy...and that makes THEM my enemy, too.You mean the radical fringe that you assume controls the entire party. For the last time, there are extremists on both sides. In no way do they represent the minority.

Our reality is shaped by our perceptions, and I suspect our perceptions are very different from one another, Reynes. And no, I'm not deliberately trying to piss you off, eother. Since when did you think my world revolved around you? You are NOT "all that and a bag of chips."I've accepted that our positions are very different. I never said your world revolved around me. However, for several pages this topic has revolved mainly around our back-and-forth.
I suppose it has, at that. but I am not deliberately trying to piss you off. We just happen to have two different realities, because our realities were shaped by completely different perceptions and sets of experience.

Although I suspect a lot of the conservatives ARE here solely and exclusively to piss of Libs like me.I hate ultraliberals, you hate ultraconservatives. Sounds like we're even. Kapish?
Works for me.

I think conservatives would rather piss on other people's parades than start their own parade. They seem, in my experience, to get a certain joy out of making life even more intolerable for some groups of people...usually the already downtrodden.I'm not deliberately trying to piss you off. I'm just trying to show that (I'm saying this for the last time) there has been corruption and deceit, merit and accomplishment on both sides.
CORRUPT (impeachment):
Richard Nixon (r): Watergate scandal
William Clinton (d): Vince Foster, lying under oath
LEGENDARY:
Franklin Roosevelt (d): pulled us out of the great depression and led us through WWII
Abraham Lincoln (r): Ended slavery and kept the Union from falling apart during the Civil War
INEFFECTIVE:
Herbert Hoover (r): failed to quell the Great Depression
James Carter (d): failed to get the 100 US embassy hostages out of Iran

You see how this list can go on and on.
Fair enough assessment. However I would add:
MEAN-SPIRITED:
Ronald Reagan (r) Caused, in 1982, the worst recession since the Great Depression. Maybe YOU don't remember Reaganomics, but I sure as hell do! Trickle down, my ass! More like "tinkle-down" as in PISS ON YOU, POOR PEOPLE!! I well remember that era. I was 12 years old at the time, and living in Chicago. We went through most of a Chicago winter with no goddam heat, until the Masons had it turned on for us. We slept, all four of us, in one bed...just to share our body heat, to stay somewhat warm! And we lived, a family of four, on one chicken for a freaking week! I starved and froze my ass off thanks to Reaganomics. I'll never forgive or forget. He hurt my family with his economic policies, and his utter disregard for needed social welfare programs.

Dubya (r) Attempted, and still HAS attempted to pass the Faith-Based Initiative, forcing taxpayers to support churches they may not agree with, all while exempting the recipients of MY tax dollars from all local and statewide non-discrimination laws...and placing no limits on churhes proseltyzing bigotry and hatred in exchange for providing charity. Abd placed no limitations on their ability to deny charity to anyone they may find "morally reprehensible." Thus, they could refuse to help a needy gay man. That's plain WRONG! Also has attempted to pass, amd supports a Federal Marriage Amendment, supposedly to "protect the sanctity of marriag," yet does nothing about banning divorces, which do far more harm to the institution of marriage than allowing two people who honestly love one another to get married. Please tell me how two gay men getting hitched has any deleterious effect upon anyone else's heterosexual marriage? The way I see it, the only people who can "cheapen" a marriage are the people involved in the marriage. And government needs to keep it's nose out of our bedrooms! Damned if I like the idea of being taxed the same, to get less rights and freedoms and benefits! Once, we went to war over taxation without representation.

I think Bush would "disappear people because he is absolutely power-crazy, and would do anything to gain and maintain power. He's truly evil. And the only reason he ISN'T worse than Saddam is because no one ever gave him the CHANCE to be that, yet. Given the chance, he would be worse than Saddam. He has a black heart, in my estimation. He has no compassion for anyone who does not agree with him 100 percent on absolutely everything.I'll ask this one more time. Why do you feel this way? Don't start with the crematorium speech, please.
I truly believe that he so disparages gays that he would do it to gays if he thought he could get away with it. His actions bear out the notion that he utterly despises gay people. Such an intolerant bigot has no place in our government, as far as I am concerned! Damned if I like MY tax money going to support these cretins!

And I meant that. They can't make 140 million people disappear. But I bet they could make at least 20 million disappear before anyone really started to say something!With our media? Please! You can't make ONE person disappear without the whole country finding out. Also, I think that the UN would notice if America's population dropped significantly without an explaination.

Never said people wouldn't NOTICE. But would anyone do anything to STOP him? I doubt it.

and I do not think the FNC is comntrolled by the government. never said it was. I think FNC is bought and paid for shills for the government...particularly the conservatives. Never said they were controlled by the government. But they do march to the current government's beat.Bought and paid for versus controlled. So, I take it that when the Mafia ruled the country, they didn't control the politicians they bought and paid for. :roll: Tell me, where is a report that says that FNC was "bought and paid for?" Shills of the government means that they are under government control, so that means you are saying that the government controls FNC. When did the government buy FNC?
When they passed all sorts of laws favorable to the media conglomerates like FNC, they all went ga-ga over this Administration. You ever hear of quid pro quo? THIS is what I believe is running our media these days. Not objective journalism. So, in a way, perhaps the government DID buy FNC...and ClearChannel.

FNC is NOT open about being the conservative shills they are. they advertise themselves as "fair and balanced." Fair and balanced my left clavicle! They wouldn't know fair and balanced if it hit them between the eyes!
If you watch, instead of learning about them what you can from news sources that will try to make them look as bad as possible my sources are generally liberal news sitesyou will find that they admit they are conservative (on shows such as the O'Reilly factor). I think they are "fair and balanced" in the sense that they balance out the rest of the networks, which have a subtly liberal stance on the issues.
Why would I want to watch FNC? I don't particularly enjoy it when I have to scream at the radio or TV constantly in frustration and rage over the misreporting, and obvious partisan spin that passes for "news" at FNC and ClearChannel.

Granted my sources are generally liberal news sites, so I won't bother sourcing them, because you won't read them...and even if you did, you'd just call it partisan spin, so why waste the time to look them up? You won't believe any news source that tells any story you don't want to hear...that gives you news that is different from what you want to believe...which is what FNC spoon-feeds to the brainwashed sheeple of America.Likewise, you won't believe any sources I can offer, because by our psychological nature, humans listen to what they want to hear. The way I watch the news is by watching stories reported on both FNC and CNN. I compare the way they are reported, and the most accurate information is likely to be the information that appears in both reports.
Probably true. We do tend to listen to news sources that give us the spin we want to hear. This is why I choose liberal news sources, and you choose conservative ones. Likely neither of us is going to change the other's mind, either. This country is so divided and polarized, I fear we shall soon have another Civil War. Except, this time, it will not be a nice, neat North versus South. This time, it will literally EXPLODE...and you will see about 100 different factions, all fighting each other! There is a very thin veneer over the repressed violence and rage in both sides, these days, in our country...and I don't think it'll take too much more for one side or the other to finally be unable to take any more shit from the other side, and take up arms! I really believe I will see this in my lifetime. No one can continue to suppress as much anger, rage, and polarization as I see in our country today. Something has to give. I mean, look at the two of us. We don't even know each other, really...we are just two people on the Internet...and we are both convinced the other is trying to deliberately piss us off, by holding and espousing views so radically different from our own. There's a big-time culture war being fought right now in this country, and I suspect neither side is going to gracefully accept defeat in this culture war...and it is THIS that I suspect will touch off a REAL war. And I know which side I'm going to be fighting for. Maybe we'll see each other on the battlefield some day. Probably across enemy lines.

Bush pressed intelligence to come up with a link between al-qudea, 9/11, and Iraq. When intelligence delivered an accurate report of there being no such link, the report went back saying "do it again." Bush WANTED a pretext, an excuse, to go after Iraq from the very moment the first plane hit the WTC. PNAC has long wanted to go to war with Iraq. They said so way back in 1997. And they needed the equivalent of another Pearl Harbor to do it.However, all of this information is from one man. This man is contradicting what he said shortly after 9-11.
And Bush has never contradicted himself? Puh-leeze! First, Iraq was about WMD's. They weren't there. So then, all of a sudden, he began pushing this supposed "connection" between Saddam and Osama. It was not there. So then the spin became "liberating the Iraqi people" which sure as HELL isn't what we were told when this thing started! And if we are so hell-bent on liberating these people...then why will we allow them only to have a government of which WE approve? Seems the vast majority of Iraqis want a Constitution based on Islamic law...but we won't let them have that! Some liberation! No, we have merely changed one oppressor for another. And why did we do this? Really? I suspect if Iraq grew carrots we wouldn't give a rat's ass about Iraq. But Iraq produces O-I-L!!

Clarke served three Republican administrations and one Democrat Administration, and is, himself, a Republican. But when you don't like the message, Dubya's response, and FNC's response, is to shoot the messenger. So you resort to character attacks on Clarke, because you can't refute his assertions. So you attempt to assassinate his character. Typical Republican ploy. Except, of course when you can't attack their character...and out their CIA operative wife instead!Does that make any difference? It's not like people can't change their political parties. He has offered no proof of anything he wrote down.

In case you haven't noticed, people on both sides try to assasinate each others character. John Kerry is doing it to Bush, so now Bush is doing it to Kerry. You of all people should remember the big stink about Bush's 30-year-old DWI charge, y'know, the one that mysteriously swept across the media five days before the election?
Well, I wish both sides would stop it. Quite frankly, I think there's enough dirt on the record of the Bush Administration that Kerry need not stoop to cheap personal shots. And Bush CAN'T run on his own record, he's lost 3 million Americans their jobs, cut every social-welfare program he got his hands on, in a time of gretaer need for those very services, all while bloating the military to unbelieveable size, so that he could use it to enrich his corporate cronies.

There is only one good reason Condi refuses to testify UNDER OATH...and that is because she plans to lie!Assumption. In any case, Clarke vs. Rice: a lie for a lie. Okay, bad joke.
Besides, I don't think Clarke is lying. And you give me any other good reason why someone would refuse to testify under oath? It MUST be becuase she intends to lie...to obfuscate, to inveigle, to withhold information and be less than cooperative. What's she got to hide?

As far as your snarky comment re: telling the victims of 9/11 that I was more likely to be a target of my own government than terrorists...well, you know what? Given the horror that my government has visited on me in my life already, what with refusing to protect me against the meanness and injustice of my fellow man...as opposed to 3,000 dying on 9/11 out of a coutry of 280 million...I like my chances with the terorists better. I think my own government is far more likely to hurt me than terrorists are. In fact, many in our governemnt have BECOME the terrorists!Reflect on your life. You have mentioned your employer many times, and how he is responsible for many of those problems. What has the government got to do with that? The 50's are dead and gone, Labrador. I think terrorism is a greater threat than you realize.
Yes, the 50's are dead and gone. 1984 has now arrived. Look around you. Drop your blinders and LOOK. Personal freedoms and liberties have been squelched. The Constitution has been shit upon. The First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment are now no more than distant memories. What President, other than Dubya, has cordoned off protestors a mile or more away from him, so that he can carry forth the illusion and self-delusion that he is universally loved by the people? Who the eff ever HEARD of "First Amendment Zones" before this "President?" Last I checked...in 1999, the whole freaking COUNTRY was a First Amendment Zone. But not under the current outlaw regime.

And Bush, given the chance, would gladly be responsible for millions of deaths. He DID set a record for executions while Governor of Texas...and many of those he sent to death were later found to have been innocent...did he ever even say, "oops, sorry?? Nope. Did he show any remorse that he sent innocent men to their deaths? Nope. I'm suggesting that, given the opportunity, and if he could get rid of the pesky checks and balances he has to work with for now...that he would repeat this on a grand scale...targeting all those he considers his political enemies. Yes, I really believe he is capable of it, and secretly desires to do just that.
First, no, you're right...they couldn't make 140 million people disappearGive me a list of those executed, with the names of those proven innocent checked. Keep in mind that the COURTS are the people who sentenced those men. This arguement holds as much water as the attacks on Reagan about Iran-Contra when he knew nothing about it.
And the Governor has the power to stay executions and to order a new trial if evidence is in the offing that would support a man's innocence. And Bush repeatedly refused to stay executions and grant new trials. And, as such, he has sent some innocent men to their deaths.

Then I'm full-blown crazy, because I believe every word I said! I believe we are looking at possibly the most evil, wretched, horrible person ever to occupy the White House in our entire history!Without going into your doomsday prediction again, explain why you feel that way, based on what Bush has already done in office.
I already have, above. But, to recap...his utter disregard for the sufferings, economically, of the average American, his obvious hatred for gay people...his obvious lack of compassion when it comes to needed social welfare programs, his obvious thirst for blood and conquest. Need I go on?

you're probably right, there likely ISN'T a liberal viewpoint I've not embraced. At least I'm willing to own up to that. Conversely, I suspect there isn't a conservative viewpoint YOU haven't embraced. I'm also betting you won't own up to that, either.As I have said before, there is one liberal agenda I agree with, and that is that we need to crack down on big business.
Now there's the first thing we AGREE on!


However, I think that the problem is on both sides. To stop outsourcing, we need to cap the wages of CEOs (who talk about saving money by sending work to third-world countries and make 144 times as much as the average worker), but we also need to regulate the unions. As you read in my previous post, the union cost my father his job. Simply, Unions ask too much of companies. They drive up wages too high, so the upper-level management is tempted to send the work somewhere where they can pay a dollar an hour as opposed to $25 or $30 an hour.
No, try about 431 times that of the average worker. THAT is hat the average CEO now rakes in. And Unions have no power anymore. They have all but been decimated. Only 12% of Americans today belong to unions. We need MORE unions. Every right and benefit you enjoy today came about because unions fought for it. Do you like getting time and a half for working more hours than you want to (40 hours) Do you like having a weekend? Do you like being assured you work in a healthy =, clean, and safe environment? You can thank the unions who came before both you and me for the benefits we now take for granted! Or would you rather go back to the Gilded Age, where men worked over 80 hours a week...worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for shit wages? Where men worked in unhealthy and unsafe working environments?? Coal miners particularly come to mind here... Where there were no child-labor laws, and children were forced to discontinue school and go to work to help support their families, at the tender age of ten years old...thus insuring that they would have no future? They were forced to give up any chance at a better, brighter future, in order to address immediate survival concerns. Is THAT what you want to go back to? Because that is what big corporations want to go back to. And if we allow the unions to be utterly brooken, it won't take them long to get us right back there! I sure as hell hope I'm retired or dead before we get back to that era!

My hatred of conservatives is NOT unjustified. I hate them for promoting bigotry and hatred, racial strifeIn which decade was this?
Liberals have also done this. The classic case is Affirmative Action. If a "white" finds out he/she has been barred from admission to college because their spot was filled because of AA, doesn't it make sense that there would be resentment?
Unjustified resentment, yes. Beuase something has to be done to repair the centuries of systemic prejudice and racism that have prevented blacks in this country from reaching their full potential. You can't have a race between a black man and a white man...give the white man 300 yars heead start, and then expect the black man to have any chance at all of even coming close to tying the race. The playing field has to be levelled. Once we reach a point where truly equal opportunity exists, then we can have another look at things like AA. In my opinion, however, we have yet to reach that point.
When will we? When blacks and other minorities have a fair representation of the wealth of America. blacks make up about 12% of our nation's population, no? Thus, 12% of all CEO's ought to be black...twelve percent of all Senators and Congressmen ought to be black. but that isn't the reality, is it? No, I'm not looking for a strict quota here, but it would be worth looking at AA again once there is a fair representation of the population of America across socio-economic categories...this would indictae that opportunity has become more equal. It hasn't happened yet. We are making progress...but we have a long way to go. And, for the record, I'm white. I'm sure I have been denied advancement, promotions, and college admissions because of racial quotas. And I'm not bitter about this. I have more opportunities, as a white, than the black man does. So I'll just go find my opportunity somewhere else. Why should I be bitter that the low-hanging fruit was held out to the black man, and I was forced to reach for some fruit that hung a little higher, and thus was a little harder to get at? I've got a better chance of getting that higher-hanging fruit, for no better reason than the fact of my skin color. And that's sad. I did nothing to earn that ability. I just got born white.

And no...you don't really want me to take morphine. Not if you knew what it does to me. You'd better make that Demerol. Morphine makes me irritable, only dulls the pain, and makes me feel drunk, grounchy, and out of sorts. I know, I've been on morphine before. It does not have very salutaory effects on me, take my word for it.Can't you take a joke?
When I understand the context as being a joke, yes. I didn't take your comments as a joke. I generally do not take "jokes" from people who are so diametrically opposed to my own views.

And you have the NERVE to call US LIBERALS "partisan?" you're probably right, there likely ISN'T a liberal viewpoint I've not embracedAs to your calling me partisan...now there's another charge to which I proudly proclaim "guilty as charged."
I rest my case.
And the jury probably finds in your favor here, especially since I have proudly confessed my guilt to the charges you levelled, regarding my liberal viewpoint.

In closing let me say that, until the Republican Party disavows the radical fringe on the right that seems now to control them...they will never sway me...I will never listen toa word they say...and NOTHING will ever make me change my mind on that. As long as the Republcans are in bed with the Christian Taliban fundamentalist redneck yahoos, I have no use whatsoever for them. And they will not get my vote, or my ear. They will get nothing but contempt and hatred from me until they radically change their ways. Until they do, they are my enemy. They consort with my enemy...they pander to my enemy...and that makes THEM my enemy, too.You mean the radical fringe that you assume controls the entire party. For the last time, there are extremists on both sides. In no way do they represent the minority.
Coulda fooled ME!! why does the radical right seem to have such power then? Why does Dubya and the modern-day Republicans all but break their neck to pander to that "religious" fringe on the right? you guys constantly charge that we liberals "march in lockstep." This may well be true, but you guys are every bit as guilty. Peronally, me...I'm pissed off with the radical left fringe of the neo-Democrats...because I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. The Nader supporters who refused to support Gore in 2000 gave us Dubya...and put a man who was the most unfriend;y to their causes in charge. I'll admit to being pretty far out on the fringe myself, but I have yet to stray off the reservation. My knowledge that straying off the reservation will cause more harm than good to the causes I care about keeps me on the reservation.

On the other hand, the fringe on the right keeps trying to stray off the reservation...and the Republicans move the fences to keep them in. So, in that sense they ARE controlling the party. Because they are pulling the party ever-further to the right. the firnge on the left does not have that effect on the Democratic Party. That's why THEY voted for Nader in 2000.

I think conservatives would rather piss on other people's parades than start their own parade. They seem, in my experience, to get a certain joy out of making life even more intolerable for some groups of people...usually the already downtrodden.I'm not deliberately trying to piss you off. I'm just trying to show that (I'm saying this for the last time) there has been corruption and deceit, merit and accomplishment on both sides.
CORRUPT (impeachment):
Richard Nixon (r): Watergate scandal
William Clinton (d): Vince Foster, lying under oath
LEGENDARY:
Franklin Roosevelt (d): pulled us out of the great depression and led us through WWII
Abraham Lincoln (r): Ended slavery and kept the Union from falling apart during the Civil War
INEFFECTIVE:
Herbert Hoover (r): failed to quell the Great Depression
James Carter (d): failed to get the 100 US embassy hostages out of Iran

You see how this list can go on and on.
Fair enough assessment. However I would add:
MEAN-SPIRITED:
Ronald Reagan (r) Caused, in 1982, the worst recession since the Great Depression. Maybe YOU don't remember Reaganomics, but I sure as hell do! Trickle down, my ass! More like "tinkle-down" as in PISS ON YOU, POOR PEOPLE!! I well remember that era. I was 12 years old at the time, and living in Chicago. We went through most of a Chicago winter with no goddam heat, until the Masons had it turned on for us. We slept, all four of us, in one bed...just to share our body heat, to stay somewhat warm! And we lived, a family of four, on one chicken for a freaking week! I starved and froze my ass off thanks to Reaganomics. I'll never forgive or forget. He hurt my family with his economic policies, and his utter disregard for needed social welfare programs.

Dubya (r) Attempted, and still HAS attempted to pass the Faith-Based Initiative, forcing taxpayers to support churches they may not agree with, all while exempting the recipients of MY tax dollars from all local and statewide non-discrimination laws...and placing no limits on churhes proseltyzing bigotry and hatred in exchange for providing charity. Abd placed no limitations on their ability to deny charity to anyone they may find "morally reprehensible." Thus, they could refuse to help a needy gay man. That's plain WRONG! Also has attempted to pass, amd supports a Federal Marriage Amendment, supposedly to "protect the sanctity of marriag," yet does nothing about banning divorces, which do far more harm to the institution of marriage than allowing two people who honestly love one another to get married. Please tell me how two gay men getting hitched has any deleterious effect upon anyone else's heterosexual marriage? The way I see it, the only people who can "cheapen" a marriage are the people involved in the marriage. And government needs to keep it's nose out of our bedrooms! Damned if I like the idea of being taxed the same, to get less rights and freedoms and benefits! Once, we went to war over taxation without representation.I think we should agree on something here: we could go on naming names and pointing fingers until the end of time. Let's knock it off-it doesn't prove anything.

I think Bush would "disappear people because he is absolutely power-crazy, and would do anything to gain and maintain power. He's truly evil. And the only reason he ISN'T worse than Saddam is because no one ever gave him the CHANCE to be that, yet. Given the chance, he would be worse than Saddam. He has a black heart, in my estimation. He has no compassion for anyone who does not agree with him 100 percent on absolutely everything.I'll ask this one more time. Why do you feel this way? Don't start with the crematorium speech, please.
I truly believe that he so disparages gays that he would do it to gays if he thought he could get away with it. His actions bear out the notion that he utterly despises gay people. Such an intolerant bigot has no place in our government, as far as I am concerned! Damned if I like MY tax money going to support these cretins!This happens on both sides. Many actions taken by more liberally-minded administrations make me equally mad.

And I meant that. They can't make 140 million people disappear. But I bet they could make at least 20 million disappear before anyone really started to say something!With our media? Please! You can't make ONE person disappear without the whole country finding out. Also, I think that the UN would notice if America's population dropped significantly without an explaination.

Never said people wouldn't NOTICE. But would anyone do anything to STOP him? I doubt it.I think people would stop the government. It happened before. A couple guys named Washington and Jefferson.

and I do not think the FNC is comntrolled by the government. never said it was. I think FNC is bought and paid for shills for the government...particularly the conservatives. Never said they were controlled by the government. But they do march to the current government's beat.Bought and paid for versus controlled. So, I take it that when the Mafia ruled the country, they didn't control the politicians they bought and paid for. :roll: Tell me, where is a report that says that FNC was "bought and paid for?" Shills of the government means that they are under government control, so that means you are saying that the government controls FNC. When did the government buy FNC?
When they passed all sorts of laws favorable to the media conglomerates like FNC, they all went ga-ga over this Administration. You ever hear of quid pro quo? THIS is what I believe is running our media these days. Not objective journalism. So, in a way, perhaps the government DID buy FNC...and ClearChannel.Recently, members of the New York Times, Washington Times and several news networks met with John Kerry for an interview. After asking Kerry about his stance on the economy, one of the reporters was quoted as saying "by the third go-around, his answers were getting shorter and more relevant." I may be wrong, but this sounds like coaching to me. This occurance received almost no attention from the media.

Can you imagine what would happen if members of FNC or other conservative sources met with Bush at camp david and the New York Times found out? It's called "page one bold-face headline."

There is spin in all aspects of the media.

FNC is NOT open about being the conservative shills they are. they advertise themselves as "fair and balanced." Fair and balanced my left clavicle! They wouldn't know fair and balanced if it hit them between the eyes!
If you watch, instead of learning about them what you can from news sources that will try to make them look as bad as possible my sources are generally liberal news sitesyou will find that they admit they are conservative (on shows such as the O'Reilly factor). I think they are "fair and balanced" in the sense that they balance out the rest of the networks, which have a subtly liberal stance on the issues.
Why would I want to watch FNC? I don't particularly enjoy it when I have to scream at the radio or TV constantly in frustration and rage over the misreporting, and obvious partisan spin that passes for "news" at FNC and ClearChannel.You don't watch FNC for the same reason I don't go to these liberal news sites.

Granted my sources are generally liberal news sites, so I won't bother sourcing them, because you won't read them...and even if you did, you'd just call it partisan spin, so why waste the time to look them up? You won't believe any news source that tells any story you don't want to hear...that gives you news that is different from what you want to believe...which is what FNC spoon-feeds to the brainwashed sheeple of America.Likewise, you won't believe any sources I can offer, because by our psychological nature, humans listen to what they want to hear. The way I watch the news is by watching stories reported on both FNC and CNN. I compare the way they are reported, and the most accurate information is likely to be the information that appears in both reports.
Probably true. We do tend to listen to news sources that give us the spin we want to hear. This is why I choose liberal news sources, and you choose conservative ones. Likely neither of us is going to change the other's mind, either. This country is so divided and polarized, I fear we shall soon have another Civil War. Except, this time, it will not be a nice, neat North versus South. This time, it will literally EXPLODE...and you will see about 100 different factions, all fighting each other! There is a very thin veneer over the repressed violence and rage in both sides, these days, in our country...and I don't think it'll take too much more for one side or the other to finally be unable to take any more shit from the other side, and take up arms! I really believe I will see this in my lifetime. No one can continue to suppress as much anger, rage, and polarization as I see in our country today. Something has to give. I mean, look at the two of us. We don't even know each other, really...we are just two people on the Internet...and we are both convinced the other is trying to deliberately piss us off, by holding and espousing views so radically different from our own. There's a big-time culture war being fought right now in this country, and I suspect neither side is going to gracefully accept defeat in this culture war...and it is THIS that I suspect will touch off a REAL war. And I know which side I'm going to be fighting for. Maybe we'll see each other on the battlefield some day. Probably across enemy lines.The way things are going, I almost agree with you.

Bush pressed intelligence to come up with a link between al-qudea, 9/11, and Iraq. When intelligence delivered an accurate report of there being no such link, the report went back saying "do it again." Bush WANTED a pretext, an excuse, to go after Iraq from the very moment the first plane hit the WTC. PNAC has long wanted to go to war with Iraq. They said so way back in 1997. And they needed the equivalent of another Pearl Harbor to do it.However, all of this information is from one man. This man is contradicting what he said shortly after 9-11.
And Bush has never contradicted himself? Puh-leeze! First, Iraq was about WMD's. They weren't there. So then, all of a sudden, he began pushing this supposed "connection" between Saddam and Osama. It was not there. So then the spin became "liberating the Iraqi people" which sure as HELL isn't what we were told when this thing started! And if we are so hell-bent on liberating these people...then why will we allow them only to have a government of which WE approve? Seems the vast majority of Iraqis want a Constitution based on Islamic law...but we won't let them have that! Some liberation! No, we have merely changed one oppressor for another. And why did we do this? Really? I suspect if Iraq grew carrots we wouldn't give a rat's ass about Iraq. But Iraq produces O-I-L!!Has Bush made a single move for the oil? We are allowing a constitution based on islamic law, just we are mandating that minorities (kurds, etc.) have a say. If you look up what Bush said to the UN before the war, you will see that WMD are far from being the only reason we did it. WMD is just what the media hyped. Also, we aren't oppressing them. By oppression, in Iraqi terms, that means mass graves, torture chambers, and hundreds of thousands (possibly upwards of a million) being mutilated or murdered for failing Saddam.

Clarke served three Republican administrations and one Democrat Administration, and is, himself, a Republican. But when you don't like the message, Dubya's response, and FNC's response, is to shoot the messenger. So you resort to character attacks on Clarke, because you can't refute his assertions. So you attempt to assassinate his character. Typical Republican ploy. Except, of course when you can't attack their character...and out their CIA operative wife instead!Does that make any difference? It's not like people can't change their political parties. He has offered no proof of anything he wrote down.

In case you haven't noticed, people on both sides try to assasinate each others character. John Kerry is doing it to Bush, so now Bush is doing it to Kerry. You of all people should remember the big stink about Bush's 30-year-old DWI charge, y'know, the one that mysteriously swept across the media five days before the election?
Well, I wish both sides would stop it. Quite frankly, I think there's enough dirt on the record of the Bush Administration that Kerry need not stoop to cheap personal shots. And Bush CAN'T run on his own record, he's lost 3 million Americans their jobs, cut every social-welfare program he got his hands on, in a time of gretaer need for those very services, all while bloating the military to unbelieveable size, so that he could use it to enrich his corporate cronies. I'm sick of the mudslinging on both sides. You have to admit that Kerry isn't exactly a beacon of light, either, though. He voted against a bill to increase funding to producing military body armor, and now he is complaining that it didn't pass, saying Bush is the only reason why. I don't want to start an arguement here (God knows we have enough in progress already.) I just think that it's never a good idea to put a man in the oval office just to get another man out.

So, come the next election, ask yourself this question: are you voting for Kerry or against Bush? There have been times in history when this has helped, and times when this has destroyed a country (see Nazi Germany.)

There is only one good reason Condi refuses to testify UNDER OATH...and that is because she plans to lie!Assumption. In any case, Clarke vs. Rice: a lie for a lie. Okay, bad joke.
Besides, I don't think Clarke is lying. And you give me any other good reason why someone would refuse to testify under oath? It MUST be becuase she intends to lie...to obfuscate, to inveigle, to withhold information and be less than cooperative. What's she got to hide?The reason I think Clarke is lying is because he says Bush dodged the subject of terrorism, when Bush increased funding to counterterrorism and intelligence fourfold before 9-11. I think Rice has refused to testify not because she would lie, but because the 9-11 commission would twist her story. If they didn't hear what they wanted to hear, they would try to ruin her, too.[/quote]

As far as your snarky comment re: telling the victims of 9/11 that I was more likely to be a target of my own government than terrorists...well, you know what? Given the horror that my government has visited on me in my life already, what with refusing to protect me against the meanness and injustice of my fellow man...as opposed to 3,000 dying on 9/11 out of a coutry of 280 million...I like my chances with the terorists better. I think my own government is far more likely to hurt me than terrorists are. In fact, many in our governemnt have BECOME the terrorists!Reflect on your life. You have mentioned your employer many times, and how he is responsible for many of those problems. What has the government got to do with that? The 50's are dead and gone, Labrador. I think terrorism is a greater threat than you realize.
Yes, the 50's are dead and gone. 1984 has now arrived. Look around you. Drop your blinders and LOOK. Personal freedoms and liberties have been squelched. The Constitution has been shit upon. The First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment are now no more than distant memories. What President, other than Dubya, has cordoned off protestors a mile or more away from him, so that he can carry forth the illusion and self-delusion that he is universally loved by the people? Who the eff ever HEARD of "First Amendment Zones" before this "President?" Last I checked...in 1999, the whole freaking COUNTRY was a First Amendment Zone. But not under the current outlaw regime.There goes the 1984 thing again. Listen, if the first and fourth amendments were "distant memories," would we be having this conversation right now? The situation with Bush is different. People have tried to assasinate his father, and most likely he now feels that someone might try to assasinate him. None of the other presidents worked in the conditions we see today. None ever thought that someone would decapitate an airline pilot with a damn box cutter and try to crash a commercial jet into a building, somehow enjoying going 700 to 0 in a split second and incineterating in a 2000 degree fireball. Don't get me started on the first amendment.

And Bush, given the chance, would gladly be responsible for millions of deaths. He DID set a record for executions while Governor of Texas...and many of those he sent to death were later found to have been innocent...did he ever even say, "oops, sorry?? Nope. Did he show any remorse that he sent innocent men to their deaths? Nope. I'm suggesting that, given the opportunity, and if he could get rid of the pesky checks and balances he has to work with for now...that he would repeat this on a grand scale...targeting all those he considers his political enemies. Yes, I really believe he is capable of it, and secretly desires to do just that.
First, no, you're right...they couldn't make 140 million people disappearGive me a list of those executed, with the names of those proven innocent checked. Keep in mind that the COURTS are the people who sentenced those men. This arguement holds as much water as the attacks on Reagan about Iran-Contra when he knew nothing about it.
And the Governor has the power to stay executions and to order a new trial if evidence is in the offing that would support a man's innocence. And Bush repeatedly refused to stay executions and grant new trials. And, as such, he has sent some innocent men to their deaths.However, you said it wasn't known until afterwards that they were innocent (I still haven't seen a list.) If he were to grant new trials to EVERYONE on death row, we would accomplish nothing except swamping the court system at the cost of millions of dollars.

Then I'm full-blown crazy, because I believe every word I said! I believe we are looking at possibly the most evil, wretched, horrible person ever to occupy the White House in our entire history!Without going into your doomsday prediction again, explain why you feel that way, based on what Bush has already done in office.
I already have, above. But, to recap...his utter disregard for the sufferings, economically, of the average American, his obvious hatred for gay people...his obvious lack of compassion when it comes to needed social welfare programs, his obvious thirst for blood and conquest. Need I go on?Homosexuality: I have already told you about the slippery slope. Gay marraige was never a right.
Bloodlust: if you mean killing terrorists who would otherwise try to kill us at a ratio of 157:1 (I rounded down), and a dictator who killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (possibly millions) of his own people, yes.
SS: I know many people on social security. Many of them complain they don't get enough. However, those same people spend more time at the casinos than they do at home. :roll:

However, I think that the problem is on both sides. To stop outsourcing, we need to cap the wages of CEOs (who talk about saving money by sending work to third-world countries and make 144 times as much as the average worker), but we also need to regulate the unions. As you read in my previous post, the union cost my father his job. Simply, Unions ask too much of companies. They drive up wages too high, so the upper-level management is tempted to send the work somewhere where they can pay a dollar an hour as opposed to $25 or $30 an hour.
No, try about 431 times that of the average worker.[/quote]Simple mistake. I couldn't remember the exact number from my economics class.THAT is hat the average CEO now rakes in. And Unions have no power anymore. They have all but been decimated. Only 12% of Americans today belong to unions. We need MORE unions. Every right and benefit you enjoy today came about because unions fought for it. Do you like getting time and a half for working more hours than you want to (40 hours) Do you like having a weekend? Do you like being assured you work in a healthy =, clean, and safe environment? You can thank the unions who came before both you and me for the benefits we now take for granted!Exactly. They have fulfilled their purpose. Federal law now enforces those.Or would you rather go back to the Gilded Age, where men worked over 80 hours a week...worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week, for shit wages? Where men worked in unhealthy and unsafe working environments?? Coal miners particularly come to mind here... Where there were no child-labor laws, and children were forced to discontinue school and go to work to help support their families, at the tender age of ten years old...thus insuring that they would have no future? They were forced to give up any chance at a better, brighter future, in order to address immediate survival concerns. Is THAT what you want to go back to? Because that is what big corporations want to go back to. And if we allow the unions to be utterly brooken, it won't take them long to get us right back there! I sure as hell hope I'm retired or dead before we get back to that era!Again, federal law has made it impossible for this to happen again. My father worked at a union company. If you read that post I made earlier, you would know he lost his job because the union expressly said they didn't want to protect his job: they wanted to protect the jobs of people who should have retired ten years earlier, but didn't because they lost all of their retirement funds in the stock market when the dot com bubble burst.

My hatred of conservatives is NOT unjustified. I hate them for promoting bigotry and hatred, racial strifeIn which decade was this?
Liberals have also done this. The classic case is Affirmative Action. If a "white" finds out he/she has been barred from admission to college because their spot was filled because of AA, doesn't it make sense that there would be resentment?
Unjustified resentment, yes. Beuase something has to be done to repair the centuries of systemic prejudice and racism that have prevented blacks in this country from reaching their full potential. You can't have a race between a black man and a white man...give the white man 300 yars heead start, and then expect the black man to have any chance at all of even coming close to tying the race. The playing field has to be levelled. Once we reach a point where truly equal opportunity exists, then we can have another look at things like AA. In my opinion, however, we have yet to reach that point.
When will we? When blacks and other minorities have a fair representation of the wealth of America. blacks make up about 12% of our nation's population, no? Thus, 12% of all CEO's ought to be black...twelve percent of all Senators and Congressmen ought to be black. but that isn't the reality, is it? No, I'm not looking for a strict quota here, but it would be worth looking at AA again once there is a fair representation of the population of America across socio-economic categories...this would indictae that opportunity has become more equal. It hasn't happened yet. We are making progress...but we have a long way to go. And, for the record, I'm white. I'm sure I have been denied advancement, promotions, and college admissions because of racial quotas. And I'm not bitter about this. I have more opportunities, as a white, than the black man does. So I'll just go find my opportunity somewhere else. Why should I be bitter that the low-hanging fruit was held out to the black man, and I was forced to reach for some fruit that hung a little higher, and thus was a little harder to get at? I've got a better chance of getting that higher-hanging fruit, for no better reason than the fact of my skin color. And that's sad. I did nothing to earn that ability. I just got born white.I think we have gone far enough on this subject. If you want, I can start a new topic on AA. Besides, our threads are getting too long already.

And no...you don't really want me to take morphine. Not if you knew what it does to me. You'd better make that Demerol. Morphine makes me irritable, only dulls the pain, and makes me feel drunk, grounchy, and out of sorts. I know, I've been on morphine before. It does not have very salutaory effects on me, take my word for it.Can't you take a joke?
When I understand the context as being a joke, yes. I didn't take your comments as a joke. I generally do not take "jokes" from people who are so diametrically opposed to my own views.I'll admit, I typed that last part first. I meant to have a more restrained thread, but I got kinda carried away.
In closing let me say that, until the Republican Party disavows the radical fringe on the right that seems now to control them...they will never sway me...I will never listen toa word they say...and NOTHING will ever make me change my mind on that. As long as the Republcans are in bed with the Christian Taliban fundamentalist redneck yahoos, I have no use whatsoever for them. And they will not get my vote, or my ear. They will get nothing but contempt and hatred from me until they radically change their ways. Until they do, they are my enemy. They consort with my enemy...they pander to my enemy...and that makes THEM my enemy, too.You mean the radical fringe that you assume controls the entire party. For the last time, there are extremists on both sides. In no way do they represent the minority.
Coulda fooled ME!! why does the radical right seem to have such power then? Why does Dubya and the modern-day Republicans all but break their neck to pander to that "religious" fringe on the right? you guys constantly charge that we liberals "march in lockstep." This may well be true, but you guys are every bit as guilty. Peronally, me...I'm pissed off with the radical left fringe of the neo-Democrats...because I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. The Nader supporters who refused to support Gore in 2000 gave us Dubya...and put a man who was the most unfriend;y to their causes in charge. I'll admit to being pretty far out on the fringe myself, but I have yet to stray off the reservation. My knowledge that straying off the reservation will cause more harm than good to the causes I care about keeps me on the reservation.

On the other hand, the fringe on the right keeps trying to stray off the reservation...and the Republicans move the fences to keep them in. So, in that sense they ARE controlling the party. Because they are pulling the party ever-further to the right. the firnge on the left does not have that effect on the Democratic Party. That's why THEY voted for Nader in 2000.I'll keep this short. We conservatives resent right-wing extremists as much as you resent the radical left fringe of the neo-Democrats.

Republicanism is obviously not genetic.

A disease of childhood, perhaps.

I'm a republican but am unlike many republicans. The party was and is supposed to be about smaller government and less tax and regulation etc. it is more so than the democratic party but in my opinion not enough. Thus I am a republican/libertarian. I want less tax and smaller government period. I don't care if gays marry I am against it personally but its not my business what to people do. Same with smoking and pot thats there choice not mine and neither should be banned. Abortion I am against entirely I consider it murder. I'm also not fond of how free speech is being handled (howard stern for instance) and I have to say the two party system sucks the people should have more than two choices and it should be just as easy for a third party to run as the two main parties.

This is so witty and comical! Haha! Political satires are always great to make people see their faults. Quite a role reversal, eh? At first I was like “ is this real?” lol But then the whole reminisce of gays in our society became just too obvious. Wow! Making fun of republicans by using their own ways of thinking…..impressive I think. This deserves further analysis. I might just talk about it in my politics class.

Republicanism is obviously not genetic.

A disease of childhood, perhaps.

Well. If it’s a disease, HURRY! Someone call the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)!!! It must be stopped! A cure must be found! lol

lol fascinating theory smeagol-gollum, but if it were a real disease, how come I was spared while my entire family wasn't?.....yes, my family succumbed to republicanism and religious worshiping….tragic, I know

Republicanism is obviously not genetic.

A disease of childhood, perhaps.

Well. If it’s a disease, HURRY! Someone call the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)!!! It must be stopped! A cure must be found! lol

lol fascinating theory smeagol-gollum, but if it were a real disease, how come I was spared while my entire family wasn't?.....yes, my family succumbed to republicanism and religious worshiping….tragic, I know

Oh, you poor thing.

Perhaps you were able to build up sufficient resistance early in life, possibly by being exposed to small doses of silliness, allowing you to gradually develop anitbodies.

Do not despair for your family, I belief suitable treatment programs are available.

I truly believe that he so disparages gays that he would do it to gays if he thought he could get away with it. His actions bear out the notion that he utterly despises gay people. Such an intolerant bigot has no place in our government, as far as I am concerned! Damned if I like MY tax money going to support these cretins!This happens on both sides. Many actions taken by more liberally-minded administrations make me equally mad.

Liberals make people mad because they try to give everyone equal rights and some people believe they shouldn't have equal rights. Conservatives make people mad because they are actually denying the rights.....hmmm, which of these actually makes sense, I wonder?



Never said people wouldn't NOTICE. But would anyone do anything to STOP him? I doubt it.I think people would stop the government. It happened before. A couple guys named Washington and Jefferson.

Those crazy flaming liberals!

If you look up what Bush said to the UN before the war, you will see that WMD are far from being the only reason we did it. WMD is just what the media hyped.

The reason he gave Congress and the American people for going to war was that Iraq provided a clear threat to us. Why? Because he claimed a connection to 9/11 and WMDs. Labrador is right here that the talk of liberating a nation didn't come up until the fighting had already begun and they got good footage of happy people. Whether or not the war was a good thing is a moot point, Bush was dishonest about his reasons for going there. I won't scream about oil, I actually believe it was more of a revenge/political ploy thing.

I'm sick of the mudslinging on both sides. You have to admit that Kerry isn't exactly a beacon of light, either, though. He voted against a bill to increase funding to producing military body armor, and now he is complaining that it didn't pass, saying Bush is the only reason why.

From what I've read, he's not complaining that that particular bill didn't pass, he is complaining that troops without enough body armor were sent to Iraq. The bill wasn't just about body armor, that was a part of the many things it would be funding. And Kerry tried to amend the bill in such a way to actually have a source of money for it (other than just increasing the deficit like Bush seems to want to do) and that ammendment didn't pass. This *was* Bush's (or at least the Repub party's) fault, since they were the ones who seem to want to pass lots of spending bills without anywhere to get the money from. Not to mention that troops had already been shipped off without body armor. Kerry is complaining that Bush committed all of these troops to conflict without first providing them with the necessary equipment.

I don't want to start an arguement here (God knows we have enough in progress already.) I just think that it's never a good idea to put a man in the oval office just to get another man out.

I don't agree with leaving someone who has shown no reason why we should keep him in the Oval Office. Having the so called "religious right" in control could very well destroy my career and force me to leave the country just so I can actually practice my profession ethically. I don't much like that idea.

So, come the next election, ask yourself this question: are you voting for Kerry or against Bush? There have been times in history when this has helped, and times when this has destroyed a country (see Nazi Germany.)

I think Rice has refused to testify not because she would lie, but because the 9-11 commission would twist her story. If they didn't hear what they wanted to hear, they would try to ruin her, too.

LOL! If I'm ever on trial for something that I am innocent of, I'll remember this tactic. "If you refuse to say anything, at least they can't twist it to make you look guilty. It's much better if they just assume you're guilty since you refuse to talk."

There goes the 1984 thing again. Listen, if the first and fourth amendments were "distant memories," would we be having this conversation right now? The situation with Bush is different. People have tried to assasinate his father, and most likely he now feels that someone might try to assasinate him. None of the other presidents worked in the conditions we see today. None ever thought that someone would decapitate an airline pilot with a damn box cutter and try to crash a commercial jet into a building, somehow enjoying going 700 to 0 in a split second and incineterating in a 2000 degree fireball. Don't get me started on the first amendment.

No one ever thought something like Pearl Harbor would happen either, but we don't look back on Japanese-Americans being confined in camps and say "Oh, what a good idea that was. Protecting all the Americans that way."

Homosexuality: I have already told you about the slippery slope. Gay marraige was never a right.

Except there is no slippery slope, as has been more than adequately pointed out more than once on this forum.

Bloodlust: if you mean killing terrorists who would otherwise try to kill us at a ratio of 157:1 (I rounded down), and a dictator who killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (possibly millions) of his own people, yes.

Doing a good thing for the wrong reasons doesn't necessarily make you a good person.

SS: I know many people on social security. Many of them complain they don't get enough. However, those same people spend more time at the casinos than they do at home. :roll:

And many of them are going to be expected to pay even more for their prescriptions on that measly little amount they get each month. Not that it really matters, by the time I retire SS will be gone.

Again, federal law has made it impossible for this to happen again. My father worked at a union company. If you read that post I made earlier, you would know he lost his job because the union expressly said they didn't want to protect his job: they wanted to protect the jobs of people who should have retired ten years earlier, but didn't because they lost all of their retirement funds in the stock market when the dot com bubble burst.

Of course, the union didn't fire him, you know. The company wanted to fire him, and the union chose not to help him - that sucks. But many more would have lost their jobs if the union weren't there at all. You really must think in a larger scope than just one person in the company, even if that person does mean a great deal to you.

I know that the union saved my stepfather's job when he was wrongfully fired. It goes both ways and while the unions sometimes cause problems, they are necessary to protect the rights of the workers.

I'll keep this short. We conservatives resent right-wing extremists as much as you resent the radical left fringe of the neo-Democrats.

Now now Reynes, I've read many of your posts around here. You are part of the right-wing extremist group. If there are many more right-wing than you, I'm a little afraid.

Now now Reynes, I've read many of your posts around here. You are part of the right-wing extremist group. If there are many more right-wing than you, I'm a little afraid.By "right-wing extremists," I am referring to the people Labrador listed such as Tom Delay, who called for homosexuals to be rounded up and shot and for the constitution to be replaced by a Bible-based theocracy. By right-wing extremists, I'm referring to members of the dumb [explitive]s klan. I'm not as hard-core as you think.

By left-wing extremists, I'm referring to the people like Alec Baldwin, who called for the senate minority leader and his family to be stoned to death during the Clinton impeachment hearings.

Now now Reynes, I've read many of your posts around here. You are part of the right-wing extremist group. If there are many more right-wing than you, I'm a little afraid.By "right-wing extremists," I am referring to the people Labrador listed such as Tom Delay, who called for homosexuals to be rounded up and shot and for the constitution to be replaced by a Bible-based theocracy. By right-wing extremists, I'm referring to members of the dumb [explitive]s klan. I'm not as hard-core as you think.

By left-wing extremists, I'm referring to the people like Alec Baldwin, who called for the senate minority leader and his family to be stoned to death during the Clinton impeachment hearings.

Look, Reynes...if you conservatives had a bit more human compassion for the plight of those less fortunate...and y'all keot your noses out of our private lives, y'all might actually even be tolerable!

By "right-wing extremists," I am referring to the people Labrador listed such as Tom Delay, who called for homosexuals to be rounded up and shot and for the constitution to be replaced by a Bible-based theocracy. By right-wing extremists, I'm referring to members of the dumb [explitive]s klan. I'm not as hard-core as you think.

Right, so the people who say out loud what you only hint at. Gotcha.

CORRUPT (impeachment):
Richard Nixon (r): Watergate scandal
William Clinton (d): Vince Foster, lying under oath

While I have no problem with your argument.. and your facts are accurate. I just wanted to ask you a question. You certainly aren't comparing Clinton to Nixon are you? I mean, I realize that Clinton lied under oath about getting a blow job , but surely you don't put that in the same category as what Nixon did, do you?

By "right-wing extremists," I am referring to the people Labrador listed such as Tom Delay, who called for homosexuals to be rounded up and shot and for the constitution to be replaced by a Bible-based theocracy. By right-wing extremists, I'm referring to members of the dumb [explitive]s klan. I'm not as hard-core as you think.

Right, so the people who say out loud what you only hint at. Gotcha.I do not hint at or in the slightest way agree with anything that those dipshits say. You are basing your arguement on scanning my posts and letting your stereotypical views guide you. Before you jump to conclusions about me, try reading what I am responding to. It is pretty obvious that you haven't, because throughout our debate (which has lasted for nearly the entire topic) Labrador has made it very clear that she is a woman. I have been responding in this way because I have difficulties seeing how she justifies her views, more specifically the one in which she believesI truly believe that, if Republicans thought they could get away with it...they would have absolutely no compunction, whatsoever, against opening up the concentration camps and crematories, and consigning ME to one of the crematories, burning me up, alive, in the white-hot flames, just because of the fact that I gross them out, being a transsexual (which is a condition brought on by a birth dfect over which I had no control!) And they would laugh as they heard my agonized screams from within the crematory before I mercifully died.You can probably see that I am frustrated.

Also, Stephistan, when I listed off Nixon and Clinton, the determinant was that they were both impeached (it's in parenthesis after the word "Corrupt.")

I do not hint at or in the slightest way agree with anything that those dipshits say. You are basing your arguement on scanning my posts and letting your stereotypical views guide you. Before you jump to conclusions about me, try reading what I am responding to. It is pretty obvious that you haven't, because throughout our debate (which has lasted for nearly the entire topic) Labrador has made it very clear that she is a woman. I have been responding in this way because I have difficulties seeing how she justifies her views, more specifically the one in which she believesI truly believe that, if Republicans thought they could get away with it...they would have absolutely no compunction, whatsoever, against opening up the concentration camps and crematories, and consigning ME to one of the crematories, burning me up, alive, in the white-hot flames, just because of the fact that I gross them out, being a transsexual (which is a condition brought on by a birth dfect over which I had no control!) And they would laugh as they heard my agonized screams from within the crematory before I mercifully died.You can probably see that I am frustrated.


OK, then, let me help you with that frustration. I have made it clear I was born intersex, with a condition known as Klinefelter Syndrome. This means my chromosome makeup at birth was 47XXY. I have both the male and the female chromosome. What the condition of Klinefelter Syndrome produces is what appears to me a normal male child at birth. One quick look between the legs by the doctor. No outward evidence exists, at birth, to suggest otherwise. It is not until puberty that things begin to show up in a Klinefelter patient. So, what went on my original birth certificate is "M."
I had corrective surgeries to make my outward appearnce conform to the female norm, matchingmy psyche, and the way my body seemed to want to go, anyway. But, here's the rub...those conservative "Christian" zealot bigots WILL NEVER SEE ME AS A WOMAN!! They will continue to insist I am a man, which I'm not, and never was. They will continue to see me as being a "freak," and as such, I WILL BE A TARGET OF THEM IF AND WHEN THEY OPEN THE CAMPS!!

Don't believe me? Do a Google search on Littleton v. Prange sometime, and see what the courts ruled in her case, in Texas (my RL home.) See what they decided in HER case...and without even the benefit of a chromosome test! Conversely, look up MT v JT, a 1975 case from New Jersey (or it might be JT v MT not sure) Compare those two rulings in those two seperate cases, and maybe then you will see why I am concerned.

I used to live in New Jersey. I now live in Texas. I am familiar, therefore, with the political and cultural climate of both places. I truly believe those who want to persecute sexual minorities, like mself...will not quibble over the fact that mine is a genetic condition. They will toss me in the camps because they can't (read: won't) deal with the reality of my condition. They will continue to insist that my condition is a "choice" and that I am an immoral freak who deserves the crematory.

I really believe this of those extremists. Does that clear up your frustration, Reynes?

Yes, as far as I am concerned, I am a woman, and appreciate your addressing me as such. But MY PERSECUTORS WILL NEVER SEE ME AS BEING A WOMAN!! They will persist in seeing me as a "morally degenerate freak."

Oh...and as an aside....Nixon was never impeached. He resigned. He would have been impeached...and removed, had he not done so. Clinton was impeached, and beat the impeachment. Similarly, Andrew Johnson was impeached. He, too, beat the charges. By one vote. But, in actuality, Nixon never was impeached.

Now now Reynes, I've read many of your posts around here. You are part of the right-wing extremist group. If there are many more right-wing than you, I'm a little afraid.By "right-wing extremists," I am referring to the people Labrador listed such as Tom Delay, who called for homosexuals to be rounded up and shot and for the constitution to be replaced by a Bible-based theocracy. By right-wing extremists, I'm referring to members of the dumb [explitive]s klan. I'm not as hard-core as you think.

By left-wing extremists, I'm referring to the people like Alec Baldwin, who called for the senate minority leader and his family to be stoned to death during the Clinton impeachment hearings.

Look, Reynes...if you conservatives had a bit more human compassion for the plight of those less fortunate...and y'all keot your noses out of our private lives, y'all might actually even be tolerable!Republicans do care about the unfortunate, but in a less direct way. The rich in this country already pay upwards of 40% of their incomes in taxes, while the poorest pay nothing at all. I'm all for that. However, in the nature of mathematics, it is unavoidable that those who pay the most get the most out of a tax cut. Since the poorest pay nothing, it is impossible to have a tax rebate for them. However, when you cut taxes, you actually bring in more taxes. More people are buying things as a result, so more tax is collected and there is more money to fund social security, welfare etc. It's kind of like if a TV manufacturer lowers their prices. Right off the bat, they may have to cut down production (fewer benefits). Sales of the less costly product increase, though, so more money is made as a result, and production can have a net increase (more benefits than at the beginning).

I will try to explain trickle-down economics (not tinkle-down economics) one more time. A rich person benefits from a tax cut. When that person buys a durable product with the rebate (expected to last 3+ years), somebody has to build it, right? That means somebody is employed. As a result, they have money to afford to buy a better car or something. Somebody has to make that car, right?

The scenario is the same for small business owners. With a tax break, they can afford to expand their company and hire new workers, resulting in higher output. With a tax hike, like the one expected from Kerry, a small business would lose money. They would have to lower production and may have to let a few people go, actually raising unemployment. That means you would have more money going to welfare, but you would have a flood of new people going onto welfare. Never a good thing.

The trickle-down model works better because it promotes employment instead of handouts. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. The reason unemployment is "high" (at 5.7%. The normal unemployment rate is considered to be anything between 4 and 6%) is not Bush's tax policy. Unless, of course, you want to ignore NAFTA (blue-collar jobs flocked south of the border), the dot com crash (late in the Clinton administration), 9-11 (shortly into the Bush administration) and the two wars it began, and the corporate scandals (which began long before the Bush administration).

Labrador, you were right about one thing: there definitely are people who would abuse a tax cut. There are corrupt corporations (Avaya comes immediately to mind). However, there are far more corporations that would use a tax break to speed up growth. Those companies don't get media attention. Scandal stories yield higher ratings than "Oh, look at that benevolent company! They didn't lay off a single person despite the state of the economy!"

I found out that Avaya bought a company jet shortly after my father was laid off, and that they were exporting work to other domestic companies while laying off workers. There was corruption on that side. That still doesn't change the fact that the labor union didn't lift a finger to protect my father's job. They expressly said that they wanted to protect the jobs of the people who should have retired years before, but lost their retirement funds in the stock market and were trying to increase their pensions with the company by staying, despite generous buyouts offered by the company. Those people still have their jobs. The people who lost their jobs were the younger ones with families to raise.

When my father was hit by the layoff, he was re-hired at a non-union corporation. He has never been happier. During the recession, this company only laid off two people at the plant he works at (out of hundreds), whereas the company where my father had worked (union company) laid off hundreds of people at that plant alone.

As for keeping our noses out of your private lives, in case you haven't noticed, we do. However, marraige is a public thing--you can't be secretly married. You have to submit that you have a joint income to the IRS, for example. Only when these private lives go public and try to make everyone embrace those lifestyles do we have a problem with it.

those conservative "Christian" zealot bigots WILL NEVER SEE ME AS A WOMANI believe that you view me as one. Let me check what I wrote in my last post...
Labrador has made it very clear that she is a woman
I looked up that court case (Littleton v. Prange) and there is no mention of Klinefelter Syndrome. However, at the beginning of the article on www.4thcoa.courts.state.us it said that Littleton did not develop female parts, but had them surgically implanted. The person in the case was a transexual by choice, unlike you, Labrador. Here is the result of the case (court record)
We hold, as a matter of law, that Christie Littleton is a male. As a male, Christie cannot be married to another male. Her marriage to Jonathon was invalid, and she cannot bring a cause of action as his surviving spouse.
We affirm the summary judgment granted by the trial court.

What you have failed to explain is WHY CAMPS? There are so many laws and measures that those kinds of actions are impossible in the United States. The Republican party isn't as uncivilized as you think.

The point is that both sides view the other with suspicion. What would you say if I said that I think the ALCU wants to outlaw religion altogether? (I don't, but it is far more plausible.)
Oh...and as an aside....Nixon was never impeached. He resigned. He would have been impeached...and removed, had he not done so. Clinton was impeached, and beat the impeachment. Similarly, Andrew Johnson was impeached. He, too, beat the charges. By one vote. But, in actuality, Nixon never was impeached.Nixon was never impeached? I'm going to have to write a letter to the people who wrote my high school history book, then, because they screwed up.

I'm going to go out on a limb here... is Dempublicents one of Labrador's puppet nations?

I'm going to go out on a limb here... is Dempublicents one of Labrador's puppet nations?


Nope. My puppets rarely post. I don't need to hide behind an alternate identity when speaking my mind.

I do not hint at or in the slightest way agree with anything that those dipshits say. You are basing your arguement on scanning my posts and letting your stereotypical views guide you. Before you jump to conclusions about me, try reading what I am responding to.

And if you would read what I said, I believe I referred to posts on this forum, not specifically this topic. You have made it quite clear that you advocate making laws based on your personal religion. That pretty much amounts to a Bible-based theocracy if you take it far enough.

It is pretty obvious that you haven't, because throughout our debate (which has lasted for nearly the entire topic) Labrador has made it very clear that she is a woman.

I'm not exactly sure what Labrador being a woman has to do with whether or not you are a right-wing extremist, but ok.

I'm going to go out on a limb here... is Dempublicents one of Labrador's puppet nations?

Yes, because anyone who doesn't agree with your views *must* be Labrador. I don't agree with everything Labrador says, in fact I think she takes some things to the opposite extreme from you. (although I certainly can find that understandable). I, personally, am actually neither a liberal nor a conservative, a Republican nor a Democrat. I have views on either side of the lib/con argument and I think anyone who votes straight party lines needs to learn how to think for themselves. Right now I have a special bone to pick with the Republicans in power because it is very likely that if Bush and people like him remain in power, I will either lose my career or have to move to another country (and hopefully all my gay friends will move with me).

As for keeping our noses out of your private lives, in case you haven't noticed, we do. However, marraige is a public thing--you can't be secretly married. You have to submit that you have a joint income to the IRS, for example. Only when these private lives go public and try to make everyone embrace those lifestyles do we have a problem with it.

No one is asking you (or your church) to embrace anyone's lifestyle. People are simply pointing out that gay couples should have the same *legal* rights as every other couple. At the moment, there is no way for them to do so and the only reasoning anyone can present for not allowing it that even comes close to making sense is "my personal beliefs say it is wrong". (Don't even start in on the "slippery slope" argument - there is no slippery slope here anymore than allowing interracial marriages led to the downfall of society.) That's just not a good enough reason to make laws on (unless you *are* suggesting that you want a theocracy.

I do not hint at or in the slightest way agree with anything that those dipshits say. You are basing your arguement on scanning my posts and letting your stereotypical views guide you. Before you jump to conclusions about me, try reading what I am responding to.

And if you would read what I said, I believe I referred to posts on this forum, not specifically this topic. You have made it quite clear that you advocate making laws based on your personal religion. That pretty much amounts to a Bible-based theocracy if you take it far enough. The only issue I have taken this stance on is homosexual marraige. The reason I think it is dangerous is because it will lessen the meaning of marraige. Please, hear me out. If gay marraige is legalized, homosexuals aren't being discriminated against-polygamists are. So polygamy is legalized. Now homosexuals are being discriminated against again, so homosexual polygamy is legalized. Pretty soon, there are five way marraiges with multiple spouses from each gender.


It is pretty obvious that you haven't, because throughout our debate (which has lasted for nearly the entire topic) Labrador has made it very clear that she is a woman.

I'm not exactly sure what Labrador being a woman has to do with whether or not you are a right-wing extremist, but ok.I am just saying that you should read what I am responding to before you jump to conclusions about me. A moderate agruement brings a moderate response, an extremist arguement brings a more extremist response.


I'm going to go out on a limb here... is Dempublicents one of Labrador's puppet nations?

Yes, because anyone who doesn't agree with your views *must* be Labrador. I don't agree with everything Labrador says, in fact I think she takes some things to the opposite extreme from you. (although I certainly can find that understandable). I, personally, am actually neither a liberal nor a conservative, a Republican nor a Democrat. I have views on either side of the lib/con argument and I think anyone who votes straight party lines needs to learn how to think for themselves. Right now I have a special bone to pick with the Republicans in power because it is very likely that if Bush and people like him remain in power, I will either lose my career or have to move to another country (and hopefully all my gay friends will move with me).How would you lose your career?


As for keeping our noses out of your private lives, in case you haven't noticed, we do. However, marraige is a public thing--you can't be secretly married. You have to submit that you have a joint income to the IRS, for example. Only when these private lives go public and try to make everyone embrace those lifestyles do we have a problem with it.

No one is asking you (or your church) to embrace anyone's lifestyle. People are simply pointing out that gay couples should have the same *legal* rights as every other couple. At the moment, there is no way for them to do so and the only reasoning anyone can present for not allowing it that even comes close to making sense is "my personal beliefs say it is wrong". (Don't even start in on the "slippery slope" argument - there is no slippery slope here anymore than allowing interracial marriages led to the downfall of society.) That's just not a good enough reason to make laws on (unless you *are* suggesting that you want a theocracy.I have said before that I don't want a theocracy, but with the scenario I have illustrated above, I think that sooner or later the government will have to draw the line.

I do not hint at or in the slightest way agree with anything that those dipshits say. You are basing your arguement on scanning my posts and letting your stereotypical views guide you. Before you jump to conclusions about me, try reading what I am responding to.

And if you would read what I said, I believe I referred to posts on this forum, not specifically this topic. You have made it quite clear that you advocate making laws based on your personal religion. That pretty much amounts to a Bible-based theocracy if you take it far enough. The only issue I have taken this stance on is homosexual marraige. The reason I think it is dangerous is because it will lessen the meaning of marraige. Please, hear me out. If gay marraige is legalized, homosexuals aren't being discriminated against-polygamists are. So polygamy is legalized. Now homosexuals are being discriminated against again, so homosexual polygamy is legalized. Pretty soon, there are five way marraiges with multiple spouses from each gender.



yeah, that's the exact same argument that was used to oppose legal recognition of inter-racial marriages. funny, i haven't seen polygamy getting legalized in all the years since then...

the slippery slope hasn't worked to date, what makes you think people will fall for it now?

The only issue I have taken this stance on is homosexual marraige. The reason I think it is dangerous is because it will lessen the meaning of marraige. Please, hear me out. If gay marraige is legalized, homosexuals aren't being discriminated against-polygamists are. So polygamy is legalized. Now homosexuals are being discriminated against again, so homosexual polygamy is legalized. Pretty soon, there are five way marraiges with multiple spouses from each gender.

(a) You still haven't shown how it will lessen the meaning of marraige, you have just argued for a slippery slope that actually isn't there.

(b) The government has a compelling interest in preventing polygamy. Such families would most likely be naturally unstable. Besides, all laws pertaining to marriage would have to be rewritten in order to include polygamy. The problem with your argument is that you are coming from the viewpoint that homosexual relationships are wrong. Therefore, you think that there is a slippery slope that will lead to all things in marriage that you view as wrong. The problem is that a homosexual marriage would differ from heterosexual marriage in one (and only one) way: both people would be members of the same sex. Both parties would still love each other, would still face the same consequences in the case that they wanted to divorce, both would have equal rights to any children, etc, etc. The difference is all in your head (or, if you believe it is wrong, in your religion). Polygamy, on the other hand, brings the issue into a whole new ballpark.


I am just saying that you should read what I am responding to before you jump to conclusions about me. A moderate agruement brings a moderate response, an extremist arguement brings a more extremist response.

And I repeat, my assessment of your views does not come merely from this thread. And I deny that an extremist argument brings a more extremist response, unless you argue simply to antagonize someone. If you are really arguing what you believe, you will be either moderate or extremist in your views of that topic *all the time*. Otherwise, you're flopping around trying to argue with other people, rather than stating your views.


I, personally, am actually neither a liberal nor a conservative, a Republican nor a Democrat. I have views on either side of the lib/con argument and I think anyone who votes straight party lines needs to learn how to think for themselves. Right now I have a special bone to pick with the Republicans in power because it is very likely that if Bush and people like him remain in power, I will either lose my career or have to move to another country (and hopefully all my gay friends will move with me).How would you lose your career?

I am a bioengineer. With the Bush regime treating science the way it does (ie censoring, overregulating, tampering with the way results are presented), science itself is in danger of becoming more political, instead of the objective view it is supposed to present. I *will not* stay in this profession, in this country, if I am not going to be allowed to use science to help create medical technologies that can be used to help people.

By the way, are you aware that right-wingers are the reason that human reproductive cloning is not technically illegal in this country? They are so bent on trying to ban even therapeutic cloning, that they will not pass a bill banning only reproductive cloning. Considering recent scientific events, it would be a good idea to make sure that attempting human reproductive cloning is made illegal, just in case some rogue scientist decides to try it. But the right-wingers are so set in their "My religion is right and so I'm going to make laws based on it" ways, that right now someone could attempt to clone a human being, probably harming (at least psychologicall) hundreds of women in the process, and nothing could be done.

I have said before that I don't want a theocracy, but with the scenario I have illustrated above, I think that sooner or later the government will have to draw the line.

(a) Your scenario is bull (as has been pointed out).
(b) Your placement of the line doesn't make sense.

I do not hint at or in the slightest way agree with anything that those dipshits say. You are basing your arguement on scanning my posts and letting your stereotypical views guide you. Before you jump to conclusions about me, try reading what I am responding to.

And if you would read what I said, I believe I referred to posts on this forum, not specifically this topic. You have made it quite clear that you advocate making laws based on your personal religion. That pretty much amounts to a Bible-based theocracy if you take it far enough. The only issue I have taken this stance on is homosexual marraige. The reason I think it is dangerous is because it will lessen the meaning of marraige. Please, hear me out. If gay marraige is legalized, homosexuals aren't being discriminated against-polygamists are. So polygamy is legalized. Now homosexuals are being discriminated against again, so homosexual polygamy is legalized. Pretty soon, there are five way marraiges with multiple spouses from each gender.



yeah, that's the exact same argument that was used to oppose legal recognition of inter-racial marriages. funny, i haven't seen polygamy getting legalized in all the years since then...

the slippery slope hasn't worked to date, what makes you think people will fall for it now?Interracial marraiges was before my time. Was there a federal or state law that said it was illegal?

The only issue I have taken this stance on is homosexual marraige. The reason I think it is dangerous is because it will lessen the meaning of marraige. Please, hear me out. If gay marraige is legalized, homosexuals aren't being discriminated against-polygamists are. So polygamy is legalized. Now homosexuals are being discriminated against again, so homosexual polygamy is legalized. Pretty soon, there are five way marraiges with multiple spouses from each gender.

(a) You still haven't shown how it will lessen the meaning of marraige, you have just argued for a slippery slope that actually isn't there.

(b) The government has a compelling interest in preventing polygamy. Such families would most likely be naturally unstable. Besides, all laws pertaining to marriage would have to be rewritten in order to include polygamy. The problem with your argument is that you are coming from the viewpoint that homosexual relationships are wrong. Therefore, you think that there is a slippery slope that will lead to all things in marriage that you view as wrong. The problem is that a homosexual marriage would differ from heterosexual marriage in one (and only one) way: both people would be members of the same sex. Both parties would still love each other, would still face the same consequences in the case that they wanted to divorce, both would have equal rights to any children, etc, etc. The difference is all in your head (or, if you believe it is wrong, in your religion). Polygamy, on the other hand, brings the issue into a whole new ballpark.(This also goes to Bottle) There is a difference between interracial and homosexual families: in interracial families, you still have a mother and a father. In homosexual families, there is either a missing father or missing mother. This, in my opinion, makes for a family that is naturally unstable.

I am just saying that you should read what I am responding to before you jump to conclusions about me. A moderate agruement brings a moderate response, an extremist arguement brings a more extremist response.

And I repeat, my assessment of your views does not come merely from this thread. And I deny that an extremist argument brings a more extremist response, unless you argue simply to antagonize someone. If you are really arguing what you believe, you will be either moderate or extremist in your views of that topic *all the time*. Otherwise, you're flopping around trying to argue with other people, rather than stating your views.People get POed when someone doesn't even try to listen. I am looking for and finding some merit in your arguements. Maybe you missed this part:Okay, Labrador.

I've tried coaxing, I've tried reasoning. It comes down to one of two things.

The first is that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.

The second is that YOU ARE CRAZY. I pray to God that the latter isn't true.

YOU HAVE SOME VERY DEEP-ROOTED AND VERY SERIOUS MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
First, why do you think that Bush would "disappear" people? He isn't Saddam, and he isn't worse than Saddam, as I predict you would say. Again, before jumping to conclusions about me (keep in mind this is the first kind of forum/chatroom/non-email internet communication I have ever used. With some of my early posts (first topics) I didn't research beforehand) carefully read what I am responding to. You will see why I "snapped."



I, personally, am actually neither a liberal nor a conservative, a Republican nor a Democrat. I have views on either side of the lib/con argument and I think anyone who votes straight party lines needs to learn how to think for themselves. Right now I have a special bone to pick with the Republicans in power because it is very likely that if Bush and people like him remain in power, I will either lose my career or have to move to another country (and hopefully all my gay friends will move with me).How would you lose your career?

I am a bioengineer. With the Bush regime treating science the way it does (ie censoring, overregulating, tampering with the way results are presented), science itself is in danger of becoming more political, instead of the objective view it is supposed to present. I *will not* stay in this profession, in this country, if I am not going to be allowed to use science to help create medical technologies that can be used to help people.

By the way, are you aware that right-wingers are the reason that human reproductive cloning is not technically illegal in this country? They are so bent on trying to ban even therapeutic cloning, that they will not pass a bill banning only reproductive cloning. Considering recent scientific events, it would be a good idea to make sure that attempting human reproductive cloning is made illegal, just in case some rogue scientist decides to try it. But the right-wingers are so set in their "My religion is right and so I'm going to make laws based on it" ways, that right now someone could attempt to clone a human being, probably harming (at least psychologicall) hundreds of women in the process, and nothing could be done.You see, I didn't know you were a bioengineer. I don't tend to look at individual people before responding, I just react. I myself am against cloning such as fetal stem-cell research. I have no problem with adult stem-cell research (as long as nobody is killed). Besides, I heard that there is a higher rate of success with adult stem cells. I'm no expert, but that is what I heard.

One of my biggest problems with cloning is the high fatality rate. Apparently, hundreds of "failed trials" are recorded before a single viable embryo is produced.

I have said before that I don't want a theocracy, but with the scenario I have illustrated above, I think that sooner or later the government will have to draw the line.

(a) Your scenario is bull (as has been pointed out).
(b) Your placement of the line doesn't make sense.A) how has the scenario been disproved?
B) The line has to be drawn SOMEwhere.

The only issue I have taken this stance on is homosexual marraige. The reason I think it is dangerous is because it will lessen the meaning of marraige. Please, hear me out. If gay marraige is legalized, homosexuals aren't being discriminated against-polygamists are. So polygamy is legalized. Now homosexuals are being discriminated against again, so homosexual polygamy is legalized. Pretty soon, there are five way marraiges with multiple spouses from each gender.

(a) You still haven't shown how it will lessen the meaning of marraige, you have just argued for a slippery slope that actually isn't there.

(b) The government has a compelling interest in preventing polygamy. Such families would most likely be naturally unstable. Besides, all laws pertaining to marriage would have to be rewritten in order to include polygamy. The problem with your argument is that you are coming from the viewpoint that homosexual relationships are wrong. Therefore, you think that there is a slippery slope that will lead to all things in marriage that you view as wrong. The problem is that a homosexual marriage would differ from heterosexual marriage in one (and only one) way: both people would be members of the same sex. Both parties would still love each other, would still face the same consequences in the case that they wanted to divorce, both would have equal rights to any children, etc, etc. The difference is all in your head (or, if you believe it is wrong, in your religion). Polygamy, on the other hand, brings the issue into a whole new ballpark.(This also goes to Bottle) There is a difference between interracial and homosexual families: in interracial families, you still have a mother and a father. In homosexual families, there is either a missing father or missing mother. This, in my opinion, makes for a family that is naturally unstable.

How? There are two parties who love each other and are in a committed relationship. Sounds like what holds a family together to me...

Really? Take a look at Scandinavia. Since homosexual marraige was legalized in 1989, marraige has almost completely disappeared. Today, most children in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are born out of wedlock. Although some older couples get married after having more than one child, almost no new couples get married, and those who do are reluctant to admit it, since it is so far out of the norm. A recent Yale study conducted by William Eskridge in 2000 showed that after nine years, only 2,372 homosexuals took advantage of Danish law allowing gay unions. After four years, only 749 gay Swedes and 674 gay Norwegians bothered to marry.

(a) You still haven't shown how it will lessen the meaning of marraige, you have just argued for a slippery slope that actually isn't there.

(b) The government has a compelling interest in preventing polygamy. Such families would most likely be naturally unstable. Besides, all laws pertaining to marriage would have to be rewritten in order to include polygamy. The problem with your argument is that you are coming from the viewpoint that homosexual relationships are wrong. Therefore, you think that there is a slippery slope that will lead to all things in marriage that you view as wrong. The problem is that a homosexual marriage would differ from heterosexual marriage in one (and only one) way: both people would be members of the same sex. Both parties would still love each other, would still face the same consequences in the case that they wanted to divorce, both would have equal rights to any children, etc, etc. The difference is all in your head (or, if you believe it is wrong, in your religion). Polygamy, on the other hand, brings the issue into a whole new ballpark.(This also goes to Bottle) There is a difference between interracial and homosexual families: in interracial families, you still have a mother and a father. In homosexual families, there is either a missing father or missing mother. This, in my opinion, makes for a family that is naturally unstable.[/quote]

This is what confuses me about your arguments. If you look at what you quoted above, there is no mention whatsoever of interracial families. You completely failed to read what I wrote and then just put in some sort of unrelated reply. Now, if you would actually read it, you will see that I was talking about the reason that legalization of homosexual marriage *is not* a slippery slope that will lead into polygamy.

As for the family being naturally unstable, that is (as you said) simply your opinion. There have been many stable families formed from homosexual couples. There have been many stable one-parent families. There have been many *un*stable mother-father families. I, for one, can state without a doubt that my parents getting divorced was one of the best things that ever happened to our family, and my mother and I were definitely much more stable afterwards. What a child needs is at least one adult who loves it and is willing to sacrifice to give that child a good life. Should a child have both male and female influences? Certainly, but those influences can come from other family members, godparents, family friends, whatever. As long as the child has a good relationship with whoever is acting as his parent(s), the family will be a stable atmosphere for that child.

People get POed when someone doesn't even try to listen. I am looking for and finding some merit in your arguements.

No kidding, considering you obviously don't even read my posts before you reply to them. I didn't miss what is stated below, I have simply tried to point out to you more than once that my statements about your views are not based on this thread alone. I also pointed out that an extremist argument does *not* have to draw an extremist defence.

Maybe you missed this part:Okay, Labrador.

I've tried coaxing, I've tried reasoning. It comes down to one of two things.

The first is that you are deliberately trying to piss me off.

The second is that YOU ARE CRAZY. I pray to God that the latter isn't true.

YOU HAVE SOME VERY DEEP-ROOTED AND VERY SERIOUS MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
First, why do you think that Bush would "disappear" people? He isn't Saddam, and he isn't worse than Saddam, as I predict you would say.


I am a bioengineer. With the Bush regime treating science the way it does (ie censoring, overregulating, tampering with the way results are presented), science itself is in danger of becoming more political, instead of the objective view it is supposed to present. I *will not* stay in this profession, in this country, if I am not going to be allowed to use science to help create medical technologies that can be used to help people.

By the way, are you aware that right-wingers are the reason that human reproductive cloning is not technically illegal in this country? They are so bent on trying to ban even therapeutic cloning, that they will not pass a bill banning only reproductive cloning. Considering recent scientific events, it would be a good idea to make sure that attempting human reproductive cloning is made illegal, just in case some rogue scientist decides to try it. But the right-wingers are so set in their "My religion is right and so I'm going to make laws based on it" ways, that right now someone could attempt to clone a human being, probably harming (at least psychologicall) hundreds of women in the process, and nothing could be done.You see, I didn't know you were a bioengineer. I don't tend to look at individual people before responding, I just react. I myself am against cloning such as fetal stem-cell research. I have no problem with adult stem-cell research (as long as nobody is killed). Besides, I heard that there is a higher rate of success with adult stem cells. I'm no expert, but that is what I heard.

If someone told you there was a higher rate of success with adult stem cells, they were straight-out lying. I, personally, am trying to study the use of bone marrow stem cells in different applications. However, there are *many* things that such cells cannot be used for. Most adult stem cells are already at least somewhat committed to becoming a particular type of cell. This means that using stem cells to help heal any part of your body that is not normally remodeling and repairing itself (ie - nervous tissue) would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, with adult stem cells.

One of my biggest problems with cloning is the high fatality rate. Apparently, hundreds of "failed trials" are recorded before a single viable embryo is produced.

This is why I make a huge distinction between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. As I pointed out above, anyone who decided to undertake research in reproductive cloning would have to put hundreds of women through the ordeal of being implanted with an embryo, and most of them would either miscarry or have stillborn clones. This would be extremely psychologically damaging to many women. Not to mention the fact that I personally think reproductive cloning is just a bad idea in general. How do we treat the clone? Are they to be treated any different than a "normal" human being? Are they even to be considered a human being? There are too many questions. This is why I think it should be made illegal *now*. But the right-wingers are so bent on banning even therapeutic cloning that it is not going to happen.

In therapeutic cloning, however, an embryo is never implanted in a mother or allowed to develop past the blastocyst stage. The DNA is simply removed from an egg cell, an adult cell nucleus injected into the egg, and the egg is given a little electric shock to make it artificially start dividing. The stem cells can then be removed and induced to become some other type of cell. Do all of the attempts work? No, of course not. But, in my opinion, this artificially dividing bundle of cells is no more a person than a culture of skin cells would be. And you wouldn't be successful with every attempt to culture skin cells either.

Sorry, I know this is off topic, but I needed to give my little rant.

A) how has the scenario been disproved?
B) The line has to be drawn SOMEwhere.

A) Read above where you apparently skipped over last time.
B) And, as I pointed out, the line would be drawn at polygamy. There is an actual compelling government interest in not allowing it.

Really? Take a look at Scandinavia. Since homosexual marraige was legalized in 1989, marraige has almost completely disappeared. Today, most children in Sweden, Denmark and Norway are born out of wedlock. Although some older couples get married after having more than one child, almost no new couples get married, and those who do are reluctant to admit it, since it is so far out of the norm. A recent Yale study conducted by William Eskridge in 2000 showed that after nine years, only 2,372 homosexuals took advantage of Danish law allowing gay unions. After four years, only 749 gay Swedes and 674 gay Norwegians bothered to marry.

Sources? You don't think I'm going to take your word for all of this, or that I'm going to waste time ripping into uncited statistics (much less interpretations of them), do you?

Dempublicents: I read your post, but in my reply I also tried to address a post made by Bottle (see above.) Apparently I didn't make a good distinction between them. The right-wingers on this forum are stretched thin. I am the only one left in this topic, and I am trying (somewhat unsuccessfully) to address three people's arguements at once. As for cloning, I have openly admitted that I am no expert. I simply oppose cloning that involves creating a fetus then cutting it up and using the parts.

Anbar: My source is my local newspaper (Omaha World-Herald). When I googled it, I found this: http://www.transhumanism.org/pipermail/wta-politics/2004-January/001578.html
If my schedule permits (I'm still in high school), I will search for more sources.

I have one question for everyone but Reynes (I already know his answer). Do you believe that sexuality is above such things as right and wrong? Well, actually I already know everyone's answer. So I'll tell you mine.

Whether or not you have sex is a decision. Who you have sex with is a decision. Thus it is not above right and wrong. It is not forced upon you.

I have one question for everyone but Reynes (I already know his answer). Do you believe that sexuality is above such things as right and wrong? Well, actually I already know everyone's answer. So I'll tell you mine.

Whether or not you have sex is a decision. Who you have sex with is a decision. Thus it is not above right and wrong. It is not forced upon you.

Whether or not you have sex is a decision. Who you have sex with is a decision. Who you want to have sex with (ie who you are attracted to) is *not* a decision. So, while actually having sex is not forced on someone, who they are attracted to is. Hetero/homosexuality describes who you are attracted to. Hetero/homosexual acts refers to actually having sex.

Either way, who you are attracted to is simply a natural process you have no control over. I know that I have never been able to force myself to find someone attractive or unattractive. Are you going to relegate an entire subset of people to never being able to truly experience love and sex just because you're not attracted to the same gender as them?

The only issue I have taken this stance on is homosexual marraige. The reason I think it is dangerous is because it will lessen the meaning of marraige. Please, hear me out. If gay marraige is legalized, homosexuals aren't being discriminated against-polygamists are. So polygamy is legalized. Now homosexuals are being discriminated against again, so homosexual polygamy is legalized. Pretty soon, there are five way marraiges with multiple spouses from each gender.

Five way marriages? That is something I have no problem with. I doubt many people will be interested in such an arrangement now, but the government, in my humble opinion, has no business stepping in to make judgements there. Polygamists - such as traditional Mormons and Muslims, among others - are indeed discriminated against. The persecution of the Mormons is a singularly dark chapter in our history.

Tell me how drive through marriages, a sky high divorce rate among monogamous heterosexual marriages - some highly publicly lasting only a weekend, and most lasting no more than 2-7 years - and such are not harmful to the concept of marriage... while gay marriages do. [Interesting fact: Separation rate for gay civil unions is well below that for marriages in the US currently.]

(a) You still haven't shown how it will lessen the meaning of marraige, you have just argued for a slippery slope that actually isn't there.

(b) The government has a compelling interest in preventing polygamy. Such families would most likely be naturally unstable. Besides, all laws pertaining to marriage would have to be rewritten in order to include polygamy. The problem with your argument is that you are coming from the viewpoint that homosexual relationships are wrong. Therefore, you think that there is a slippery slope that will lead to all things in marriage that you view as wrong. The problem is that a homosexual marriage would differ from heterosexual marriage in one (and only one) way: both people would be members of the same sex. Both parties would still love each other, would still face the same consequences in the case that they wanted to divorce, both would have equal rights to any children, etc, etc. The difference is all in your head (or, if you believe it is wrong, in your religion). Polygamy, on the other hand, brings the issue into a whole new ballpark.

I think it's a ballpark that we need to bring the marriage laws to. Obviously, an egalitarian approach to polygamous marriages is something with little legal precedent, but I don't think it is that hard to figure out. Thousands of years of civilization and a significant portion of the world hasn't had trouble with polygamous arrangements less stable; in fact, the multiple spousal arrangement allows for contigency - if one wife died in childbirth (not uncommon in earlier days) the children would still have [at least one] mother to look after them.

(In the rare example of a society that operates with two fathers for many children [I'm only aware of one existing IRL in modern times - it has been well studied], if one father dies unexpectedly, the children still can rely on the second father support the family.)

Anbar: My source is my local newspaper (Omaha World-Herald). When I googled it, I found this: http://www.transhumanism.org/pipermail/wta-politics/2004-January/001578.html
If my schedule permits (I'm still in high school), I will search for more sources.

I'll wait. The source you present is full of conclusions based on a lot of correlations strung together by the author - quite far from objective writing, much less objective data. When you get me a study which presents these numbers and has some statistically valid correlations, then I'll dig into it.

A study in Layarteb also found that liberalism and low IQ go hand in hand.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

A study in Layarteb also found that liberalism and low IQ go hand in hand.

*Pats on head* That's nice, dear. We're trying to have a big people discussion here, though, so why don't you run along and play?

the point of the thread was to add humor to the same sex marrage debate. I mean

Nurture instead of nature
should they be allowed to marry
distant mother instead of distant father

everybody needs to have a laugh.

A study in Layarteb also found that liberalism and low IQ go hand in hand.

*Pats on head* That's nice, dear. We're trying to have a big people discussion here, though, so why don't you run along and play?

Easy there...

I think it's a ballpark that we need to bring the marriage laws to. Obviously, an egalitarian approach to polygamous marriages is something with little legal precedent, but I don't think it is that hard to figure out. Thousands of years of civilization and a significant portion of the world hasn't had trouble with polygamous arrangements less stable; in fact, the multiple spousal arrangement allows for contigency - if one wife died in childbirth (not uncommon in earlier days) the children would still have [at least one] mother to look after them.

(In the rare example of a society that operates with two fathers for many children [I'm only aware of one existing IRL in modern times - it has been well studied], if one father dies unexpectedly, the children still can rely on the second father support the family.)

None of this changes the fact that the government has a compelling interest in not recognizing polygamous marriages. I have no problem with people living in such situations, if they choose to do so and if their religion will perform such marriages, that's great. However, as I pointed out, many laws would have to be completely rewritten and changed in order to allow legally recognized polygamy.

*Pats on head* That's nice, dear. We're trying to have a big people discussion here, though, so why don't you run along and play?

I wouldn't want to upset the koombyya fest now would I. Berkinstocks for all!

A study in Layarteb also found that liberalism and low IQ go hand in hand.

*Pats on head* That's nice, dear. We're trying to have a big people discussion here, though, so why don't you run along and play?

Easy there...

Oh, don't worry, I don't intend to go any farther than that.

I wouldn't want to upset the koombyya fest now would I. Berkinstocks for all!

Upset whatever Kumbaya fest you like, but perhaps you ought to read this thread before you go about saying foolish things. This thread is 11 pages long, do you honestly think that no one in all those pages has A) made just such a snide comment, and B) already been chastised for it?

:: gasp :: so if someone says something that means I can't express my opinion either. Maybe I should write that down. "Liberal hippie says I can't say what I want if it's already been said. Worship Stalin from now on." Better?

:: gasp :: so if someone says something that means I can't express my opinion either. Maybe I should write that down. "Liberal hippie says I can't say what I want if it's already been said. Worship Stalin from now on." Better?Naw--go ahead and express yourself. Just expect to be dismissed like the child you obviously are.

:: gasp :: so if someone says something that means I can't express my opinion either. Maybe I should write that down. "Liberal hippie says I can't say what I want if it's already been said. Worship Stalin from now on." Better?Naw--go ahead and express yourself. Just expect to be dismissed like the child you obviously are.

Sarcasm is the root of all humor. Just because I post one minor comment does not label me as a child. Hell I wish I still were a child, less to worry about but those days are gone and over.

I personally support the Monster Raving Loony Party. Their policies seem infinitely more sensible than those of any other political party I have seen.

http://www32.brinkster.com/omrlp/Images/loonyshieldcmyk.jpg

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

A shiny red button. Must resist the urge! LOL creative man I like it.

Go on, you know you want to... http://mysmilies.ipbfree.com/s/otn/angels/bat_angel.gif

Nooo! Don't do it Layarteb! Think of the children! http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/angels/lily.gif

http://www.eunos.com/keith/brb/images/brb_sm.gif (http://fua.board.dk3.com/2/index.php)
DO NOT PRESS
THIS BUTTON

http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/geno/mofo.gif

:: gasp :: so if someone says something that means I can't express my opinion either. Maybe I should write that down. "Liberal hippie says I can't say what I want if it's already been said. Worship Stalin from now on." Better?

A child, indeed. I'm a liberal Libertarian, which is about as bi-partisan as you can be. But hey, keep it up, you're on a role...

:: gasp :: so if someone says something that means I can't express my opinion either. Maybe I should write that down. "Liberal hippie says I can't say what I want if it's already been said. Worship Stalin from now on." Better?

A child, indeed. I'm a liberal Libertarian, which is about as bi-partisan as you can be. But hey, keep it up, you're on a role...

I guess you're the all-mighty voice of NS. I guess I should cower in fear and never post again. I don't have to prove myself to you or any one else so go on and think what you like but remember the first time you post something that is sarcastic or anything like I have I hope people lash into you and call you a child and htis and that. Enjoy yourself and your ego. It's getting too big for this thread.

:: gasp :: so if someone says something that means I can't express my opinion either. Maybe I should write that down. "Liberal hippie says I can't say what I want if it's already been said. Worship Stalin from now on." Better?

A child, indeed. I'm a liberal Libertarian, which is about as bi-partisan as you can be. But hey, keep it up, you're on a role...

I guess you're the all-mighty voice of NS. I guess I should cower in fear and never post again. I don't have to prove myself to you or any one else so go on and think what you like but remember the first time you post something that is sarcastic or anything like I have I hope people lash into you and call you a child and htis and that. Enjoy yourself and your ego. It's getting too big for this thread.

Someone has issues don't we?...whew..I got worst then this from some of the posters on here...yet I don't believe...at least not that I can recall getting personal?

Issues, indeeed, Salishe. I think I'll break this down, seeing as this message is dripping with content to interpret.

I guess you're the all-mighty voice of NS. I guess I should cower in fear and never post again.

"I was wrong, you were right, but I'm not man enough to admit it. So there."

I don't have to prove myself to you or any one else so go on and think what you like...

That's good then, since you certainly haven't, and we certainly will. Hopefully you've learned something.

...but remember the first time you post something that is sarcastic or anything like I have I hope people lash into you and call you a child and htis and that.

So you admit that you were wrong and that anyone else who behaves as such ought to receive the same treatment. At least we're on the same page there.

The first time I post something sarcastic? :lol:

Enjoy yourself and your ego. It's getting too big for this thread.

Oh, I don't know, it's a pretty big thread. :wink: