NationStates Jolt Archive

Most people either love President Bush or despise him. As he said, "There's no middle ground here." What are your top 5 reasons (In order of how important thay are to you) for either loving him or hating him?

Here's mine:

1 Gay Marriage. Of couse, the DEMs proved how big wimps they are by going against this civil right too. @#$% two party system.

2 Terrorism. Let's fight terrorist by creating martyrs of them and creating an explosion of American Imperialism (in Iraq) to fuel anger against us. Smart.

3 Kerry. I know you have a campaine to run, but calling Kerry a flip flopper? Kerry's either voted with you or with me. Therefore, freak chance better than no chance.

4 The Federal Budget. He created fake social welfare programs while retracting funds for real ones; he spent billions on a war few in congress would have support if the hadn't been LIED to; And to "pay" for it, he cut taxes for the ultra-wealthy.

5 Gay Marriage. This issue is too important to only be on my list once.

hah, good to see we're back to normal so fast.

5 Reasons I hate Bush...

1 - that illegal war in Iraq. I mean, I hate Hussein as much as the next person, but, there is no justification for what was done. If there had been a UN backing, I might see the matter in a different light.

2 - the gay marriage agenda. I mean, letting a few fruits get married will HELP marriage rates and INCREASE them. How's that for promoting the institute of marriage!

3 - The rigged election... That ain't democracy!

4 - The lies! The idiocy! See 9-11! It could have been avoided!! Why do I say it this? Because the CIA could have done it's job!

5 - He's a bloody republican!!

I think George W. Bush should be re-elected and here is why:

1.)He is a Christian man that stands on what he believes, that there is evil in this world and that it must be defeated.

2.)He has done more for this economy than Bill Clinton ever did, consider, he cut taxes for EVERYONE that pays taxes, along with Greenspan's extremely easy money policy provided the liquidity to stimulate the American economy after the attacks on 9/11/2001.

3.)He can be trusted with the defense of this great nation while Kerry cannot, Mr. I'll vote for the war but not to fund our troops when they get there.

4.)He believes in defending marriage as it has been known since Genesis, it simply far more effective and better for our children to have a mother and a father, just look at the Black community as a present day example where there is a soaring illegitimacy rate because single parenthood was endorsed by our welfare state.

5.)Kerry & Edwards would bring a whole new hurt to our economy by enacting trade restrictions that would limit the ability of our companies to turn a profit, which would hurt our jobless rate because if a company isn't making a profit then they are going to layoff people (I know I risk sounding like I'm talking down to people but some Democrats need some basic lessons in economics).

6.)And I'm throwing in a sixth reason just for fun but I hate to break it to you, Bush did not lie to the American public or Congress when it came to Iraq. Many members of Congress were privy to the exact same information as Bush because they sat on intelligence committees and they still voted for the war on Iraq, and this would apply to Edwards and Kerry. The words imminent threat never came out of the mouth of Bush at all, but it did come out of the mouth of the Breck Girl himself, Mr. John Edwards.

And let me just say that we clearly broadcast our intentions of invading Iraq when Congress authorized it in the fall of 2002 and by going to the UN repeatedly. In that six month period between authorization and the invasion in the spring of 2003, I think it would be easy enough for Mr. Hussein to move his chemical and biological teams out of country or to destroy them altogether. Not to mention that Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people.

1. Gay marriage: What's the big fuckin' deal!? So two guys or two girls wanna get married, big whoop. Let 'em get married and do what they will. And you wanna know something? Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter! And he has totally betrayed her by supporting the constituional ban of same sex marriage. And another thing, you cannot write discrimination into the constitution, because then the nation is in essence based on hate.

2. Iraq: Look, he said he had good intelligence a year ago, and it was obvious he was lying. Now he's telling us that the intelligence was wrong OOPS! Sorry dudes! Great. And whenever he speaks, you can tell he is lying! He is not good at it!

3. Liar: Like above. He's not a liar like every president since forever has been. That's nothing special. He's a liar in that everything he says is a lie!

4. Lazy-ass: In his first year of presidency he took more vacation time than CLinton did in his 8 years in office. If he was at work, maybe 9/11 wouldn't happen. He knew something would happen. He just never thought they would actually do it. Dumb ass

5. Not cool: He's not cool. Kerry is cool. That cat can snowboard. He can play the BASS! What can George do? All he can do is start a multi-million dollar ad campaign, and maybe play some silver spoons, or a jew harp. NOT COOL INSTRUMENTS! You would think that with all that time on the ranch, and ignoring all his clear intelligence about the terrorist attacks he could have learned some skill that drives people wild, and makes them want to re-elect (well, elect, he was never elected the first time) him. The ad campaign is lazy! And his wife is an ugly, souless, soccer mom! Kerry's wife is a German...or something. And she doesn't look like a half retarded fish.

6.)And I'm throwing in a sixth reason just for fun but I hate to break it to you, Bush did not lie to the American public or Congress when it came to Iraq. Many members of Congress were privy to the exact same information as Bush because they sat on intelligence committees and they still voted for the war on Iraq, and this would apply to Edwards and Kerry. The words imminent threat never came out of the mouth of Bush at all, but it did come out of the mouth of the Breck Girl himself, Mr. John Edwards.

Then where are the WEAPONS!??!?!?!

Um, yeah....
Eridanus, you just might want to look at the second paragraph of my point 6.

Next time, read the entire post before you go off half-cocked.

And please, leave the First Lady out of the debate. Just debate the issues instead of saying the First Lady looks retarded. Oops, my bad, Democrats can't debate the issues because they know they'll lose so they have to resort to name calling.

And I would rather have a man of substance than someone who "looks cool" as our president.

1. Mr. Anti-terror has done nothing in recent years but make terrorists stronger. Lets see, who does al qaeda (sp?) recruit. Muslims that are ticked off at america. Wow, we made a few dozen million more of those. He declares a WAR over some personal vendetta, as he said himself "he tried to kill my father" (he may have said dad, not sure). He calls Kerry a flip flopper when he can't even make up his own freaking mind. Before the war in Iraq it was all about "He has weapons of mass destruction, he's an immenant threat to American safety, he supports Al Qaeda" Every last bit of which has been disproven, so now Bush and company say that, "Oh we never said that, we said he needed to be taken out of power for the good of the Iraqi people." Yeah, bombing houses is really good for the Iraqi people. He was talking about careful, precise choices on bombing targets, yet apparently we're hitting more houses than we are military bases (though admitted, this is nothing new, remember when we bombed our OWN embassy?) Even the name for his crusade against muslim extremists (you notice they're the only terrorists he seems to care about) is idiot, "The War on Terror" um...doesn't it have to be...you know...a COUNTRY before you can declare war on it. Thats like me walking up to those annoying pro-lifers infront of my school and saying, "I declare war on you!!!!"

2.That STUPID abortion issue. To him the entire thing is about protecting the sanctity of life. That is really hilarious coming from a guy that as governor set a freaken RECORD for executions. Oh yes, a random collection of cells that may or may not be alive is a human being, but if you "mess with texas" your butts gonna fry.

3.Gay marriage. He wants to make a constitutional amendment putting a stop to gay marriage. Lets consider this for a while here. Okay, what reason do we have for saying that gay marriage is bad. Okay, the bible says that god says its wrong. Okay, so its religious based. Now are there any conflicts with existing amendments? Okay, lets start at the beginning.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." WHOOPS!!!

4.His campaign. Now I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories, but there are a lot of unusual coincidences regarding the election in 2000. First, everyone said that gore was winning, then Fox News (known for being the most biased news network in america) said that Bush won, suddenly everyone's saying it, but here's the thing, Bushs COUSIN worked for Fox News and made that announcement. Second, the state in question's governor was Bushs kid brother. Every independent investigation afterwards said that bush should have LOST. Apparently bush and independent investigators don't get along, because they screw him over every time. On top of that, wasn't there some big problem with voter registration of minorities, which just happen to be statistically inclined to vote democratic. Even if you care to disregard all the coincidences, the fact remains that bush was only elected because of confused hebrews. (the region that had the massive ballot problem is populated mainly by retired jewish people).

5. His attack on Edwards. This is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever. You know your canidate is a roast goose when you have to attack the VICE PRESIDENT. "Oh we can't take on kerry, he'll kick our rears, lets go after the cute young guy instead." On top of that "Cheney can be president." Cheney has been president for four years! September eleventh. Bush is sitting there reading a story about goats with a bunch of little kids (and apparently having a hard time keeping up), America comes under attack. Does the secret service run to get our president to safety? Nope, he just sits there reading his book. Meanwhile Cheney is shipped off to the most secure location this side of NORAD. Doesn't that kinda say who the REALLY important one is? (Why the heck micheal moore didn't bring that up I will never know) Besides, Bush is just ticked off that Kerry got the right idea to pick his VP. Bush picked a vice president that was basically like them in every way, if anything a even more polarized version of themself. What does Kerry do, he picks the 2nd post popular person on the democratic ticket. Wow, why didn't Dubya think of that? Its cause McCain is a "bleeding heart liberal". Shoot, if McCain had been VP instead of Cheney, I think we'd be in a lot better situation now that we are. Oh yeah. Just remembered another fun little tidbit of the attacks on edwards. "He doesn't have the experience necessary to be vice president." Um, Dubya (btw, what the heck is that? its a vowel away from rhyming with BUBBA), I'd like to point out that this is your record, 3 oil related companies, all of which were driven under by your really weird opinion of how the economy works, and 1 term as governor. Wow......You're (personal) political experience was as a basically ineffective position. Seriously, at least in my state, governors don't do crap. Edwards on the other hand has been a successful lawyer (okay yes, i know lawyers get a bad rap, but not all of them chase ambulances, and I'd like to think that Edwards wouldn't be one of the lawyers that would sue McDonalds for serving their coffee to hot) and a senator, a position that actually has power. How do you know a senator is better than a governor? Easy, Ex-SC governor David Beasley is running for Senate. So guess what Bush, by your own qualifications, your not even qualified to be vice president, let alone president. So give us back our fricken country okay? Btw, I happen to like the Breck Girl (both real and fake). Real one=Hot as heck. Fake one=He actually says how he plans to fix things. Bush: "I know the economy is bad, so I am raising the terror alert to code Orange!" Kerry: "We need to improve the economy. Well bye ::ride off on motorcycle::" Edwards: "We need to improve the economy, raise minimum wage, cut down on out sourcing." This year is going to be odd. I'm gonna vote for kerry and hope someone poisons his food so we can have an effectual president. However, even if Kerry doesn't do anything, at least he won't be continually making things worse.

PS Everyone who says bush is helping the economy needs to come to ask someone who isn't the CEO of a multinational corporation. Unemployment is the highest its been since *gasp* Daddy Bush was in office. Okay, here is proof positive that Bush can't run a freaking piggy bank, let alone a national economy. What was one of his first actions after 9/11? He gave everyone a tax cut and then immediate increased military spending. Less money in, more money out, somethings bout to break.

I think George W. Bush should be re-elected and here is why:

1.)He is a Christian man that stands on what he believes, that there is evil in this world and that it must be defeated.

I didn't think Christians were supposed to lie about such important issues, especially where thousands of INNOCENT men, women, and children die as a result?


2.)He has done more for this economy than Bill Clinton ever did, consider, he cut taxes for EVERYONE that pays taxes, along with Greenspan's extremely easy money policy provided the liquidity to stimulate the American economy after the attacks on 9/11/2001.

You really believe that? The economy under Bush Jr. is perhaps one of the worse all time. Don't trust me, just check out the numbers and facts.

As far as "tax cuts" are concerned, the wealthiest few Americans have gained the most out of Bush's generosity, while another 3 million Americans joined the ranks of the impoverished.


3.)He can be trusted with the defense of this great nation while Kerry cannot, Mr. I'll vote for the war but not to fund our troops when they get there.

Most experts are suggesting that Americans are LESS safe now than before the attack on Iraq. Get your facts straight.



4.)He believes in defending marriage as it has been known since Genesis, it simply far more effective and better for our children to have a mother and a father, just look at the Black community as a present day example where there is a soaring illegitimacy rate because single parenthood was endorsed by our welfare state.

Not only are you a homophobe, but a racist? You call yourself a Christian?



5.)Kerry & Edwards would bring a whole new hurt to our economy by enacting trade restrictions that would limit the ability of our companies to turn a profit, which would hurt our jobless rate because if a company isn't making a profit then they are going to layoff people (I know I risk sounding like I'm talking down to people but some Democrats need some basic lessons in economics).

Like I said before, the Bush administration is about the worst of all time and is on course to have NET job LOSSES, the first time that has happened since Herbert Hoover.



6.)And I'm throwing in a sixth reason just for fun but I hate to break it to you, Bush did not lie to the American public or Congress when it came to Iraq. Many members of Congress were privy to the exact same information as Bush because they sat on intelligence committees and they still voted for the war on Iraq, and this would apply to Edwards and Kerry. The words imminent threat never came out of the mouth of Bush at all, but it did come out of the mouth of the Breck Girl himself, Mr. John Edwards.

"My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities."

"My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom."

No IMMINENT threat huh? You really need to read more, or perhaps listen?


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html


And let me just say that we clearly broadcast our intentions of invading Iraq when Congress authorized it in the fall of 2002 and by going to the UN repeatedly. In that six month period between authorization and the invasion in the spring of 2003, I think it would be easy enough for Mr. Hussein to move his chemical and biological teams out of country or to destroy them altogether. Not to mention that Hussein used chemical weapons on his own people.

Bush wanted this war, come Hell or high water, and he got it. Unfortunately, it has done far more harm than good.

Hmmmm

first post in the new forums...

let's see.... top 5 reasons why I like Bush over antibush...

1. He means what he says, even if he can't say it well.
2. He listens to his heart, and not the loudest group of protestors.
3. He doesn't cuss out his sworn bodyguards, but has no problem cursing at reporters :)
4. Like he said to Bob Woodward, when he has a tough decision to make, he doesn't go to his Dad, he turns to his Heavenly Father, which is a definate plus in my opinion.
5. He shows the UN that freedom is more important than money.

My top 10 reasons for not likning Bush
1) He's not a [b]real[/b[ Republican.
2) He's a back east yankee carpet bagger who pretends he was brought up in Texas and not in yankee prep-schools.
3) The mishandling of virtually all foreign affairs that has occured on his watch.
4) The ill-advised war in Iraq, which was carried out under false pretenses while ignoring other dangers.
5) The cronism and corruption he represents.
6) His having gone AWOL, and his records conveniently having been destroyed.
7) His attacks on the military records of McCain and Kerry, in light of the above.
8) His choice of advisors - Mullah Ashcroft in particular.
9) His holier than thou born again Christianity.
10) His rich frat boy sense of entitlement.

Then where are the WEAPONS!??!?!?!
That IS the scariest question of them all... we're asking it too.

1) War in Iraq: Ths was the wrong time to go. The right time to oust Sadam was at the end of the Persian Gulf War. We had a clear shot to Baghdad, where we could have easily ousted Sadam then, but we end up leaving and giving Sadam not much more than a warning. That, and he KNEW that it wouldn't pass in the UN, so he bypassed the UN and went in himself. I wouldn't mind the War in Iraq as much IF the UN had backed it. Luckily, countries like France, Germany, and Russia(?) had their eyes open. Where the hell are the weapons of mass destruction? Don't give me this crap about Sadam getting rid of them. IF he had them, he WOULD HAVE used them on the "coallition" force there. Desperate men will do desperate things.

2) Economic Recession: The setup couldn't have been worse for Dubya. When he came into office, America was riding on one hell of an economy. It also didn't help Dubya that he came in after one of the best presidents in American history, but that's for another place. Sure, with the economy, 9/11 didn't help it, but that SHOULDN'T have affected the economy as much as it did.

3) National Debt: During Clinton's second administration, the national debt actually started going DOWN, something that very rarely happens. So, at the end of Clinton's administration, the national debt was at $5.4 trillion (I think, but the next thing I'm completely sure about). Now, three and a half years later and $1.7 trillion later, the national debt is up to $7.1 trillion.

4) His past record with big corporations: Sure, he has a Harvard or Yale MBA, but, apparently, it means nothing, as every single corporation or company he was in charge of went straight down the drain.

5) Gay Marriage: I can't leave this one out. The idiot is trying to create a Constitutional Amendment BANNING gay marriage. This amendment, I might add, is NOT going to get the 67 votes in the Senate needed to pass. It's not even going to get the 60 votes to break a philibuster. ALSO, this amendment, if there was a miracle to happen where it would pass, would be only the SECOND amendment to LIMIT freedoms. The first one to do so (the prohibition amendment) was later made null and void by a later amendment.

6) War Crimes?: If it weren't for the UN giving the U.S. immunity from being brought up on war crimes, Dubya would be charged for war crimes. This was an act of pure aggression, which goes against international law. His attack on Iraq was that, and then the prisoner abuse ALSO goes against international law.

Okay, that was 6 reasons.

1) War in Iraq: Ths was the wrong time to go. The right time to oust Sadam was at the end of the Persian Gulf War. We had a clear shot to Baghdad, where we could have easily ousted Sadam then, but we end up leaving and giving Sadam not much more than a warning. That, and he KNEW that it wouldn't pass in the UN, so he bypassed the UN and went in himself. I wouldn't mind the War in Iraq as much IF the UN had backed it. Luckily, countries like France, Germany, and Russia(?) had their eyes open. Where the hell are the weapons of mass destruction? Don't give me this crap about Sadam getting rid of them. IF he had them, he WOULD HAVE used them on the "coallition" force there. Desperate men will do desperate things.


Are you serious??

Um, yeah....
Eridanus, you just might want to look at the second paragraph of my point 6.

Next time, read the entire post before you go off half-cocked.

And please, leave the First Lady out of the debate. Just debate the issues instead of saying the First Lady looks retarded. Oops, my bad, Democrats can't debate the issues because they know they'll lose so they have to resort to name calling.

And I would rather have a man of substance than someone who "looks cool" as our president.
Um wait, who are you to talk about name calling when you actually used that stupid "Breck Girl" name?

1. Gulf War 2: A complete waste of money and lives. Saddam Hussein might have been punishing his people and whatnot but did anyone care to ask the Iraqi people if they wanted to get rid of him by getting invaded? And where's the proof that he's connected with bin Laden? Supposedly bin Laden's principles and ideas conflicted with Hussein's. And again and again he's been told by the UN weapons inspectors that there are NO WEAPONS yet he still insists that they're there somewhere. As if he was the one wandering all over Iraq looking for nuclear warheads. He also went ahead with the war even though the UN did not support it and then after he made Iraq one big messed-up piece of desert, he says to the UN that it's their responsibility to clean up after him! What is up with that?!

2. Gay marriage: Just because I really dislike homophobes and these idiots who think gays go against the Christian religion and are a "perversion". Hello? God created gays too just like straights and I doubt he'd do that if he just wanted them to burn in hell with the serial killers and rapists.

3. He's stupid: Has anyone noticed that when he does public speaking or talks on TV that he sounds exactly like he's reading the words from a teleprompter and he really does not sound like he knows what he's saying? He should just step down and let the real brains behind his administration be president like Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Dick Cheney.

4. "You are either with us or against us.": I thought this was a really bad way to react to 9/11. The American people have my sympathy for that tragedy but Bush shouldn't have focused on revenge but on rehabilitation and rebuilding. A better response could have been to show the world that the USA is not beaten and whatever happens, they will stand strong and together. Instead, he outraged the rest of the world and lost the respect other countries once held for America.

5. His wierd idea that all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists: That is total discrimination and this comes from someone who spent a lot of time in a Muslim country. It's completely unjustified and it's disgusting that there is such intolerance and prejudice in a country that is a cultural melting pot. Not all Muslims are extremists. In fact, most of them are not. Islam is a peaceful religion until some madman decides to distort and pervert it. Christianity has some pretty evil pasts too (eg KKK, witch-hunts).

1) War in Iraq: Ths was the wrong time to go. The right time to oust Sadam was at the end of the Persian Gulf War. We had a clear shot to Baghdad, where we could have easily ousted Sadam then, but we end up leaving and giving Sadam not much more than a warning. That, and he KNEW that it wouldn't pass in the UN, so he bypassed the UN and went in himself. I wouldn't mind the War in Iraq as much IF the UN had backed it. Luckily, countries like France, Germany, and Russia(?) had their eyes open. Where the hell are the weapons of mass destruction? Don't give me this crap about Sadam getting rid of them. IF he had them, he WOULD HAVE used them on the "coallition" force there. Desperate men will do desperate things.So there is a statue of limitations on Genocide? Hmm... that's an interesting point you got there. :roll:

2) Economic Recession: The setup couldn't have been worse for Dubya. When he came into office, America was riding on one hell of an economy. It also didn't help Dubya that he came in after one of the best presidents in American history, but that's for another place. Sure, with the economy, 9/11 didn't help it, but that SHOULDN'T have affected the economy as much as it did.It's what happens when you use economy quick-fixes like clinton's instead of long-term realistic repairs like Bush's.

3) National Debt: During Clinton's second administration, the national debt actually started going DOWN, something that very rarely happens. So, at the end of Clinton's administration, the national debt was at $5.4 trillion (I think, but the next thing I'm completely sure about). Now, three and a half years later and $1.7 trillion later, the national debt is up to $7.1 trillion.Yeah, umm, usually when you raise taxes, your budget increases... that's a big fat duh.

4) His past record with big corporations: Sure, he has a Harvard or Yale MBA, but, apparently, it means nothing, as every single corporation or company he was in charge of went straight down the drain.So he sucked as a business man, isn't that why he went into politics?

5) Gay Marriage: I can't leave this one out. The idiot is trying to create a Constitutional Amendment BANNING gay marriage. This amendment, I might add, is NOT going to get the 67 votes in the Senate needed to pass. It's not even going to get the 60 votes to break a philibuster. ALSO, this amendment, if there was a miracle to happen where it would pass, would be only the SECOND amendment to LIMIT freedoms. The first one to do so (the prohibition amendment) was later made null and void by a later amendment. Are you sure? Already at least 60% of america is against gay marriage... with the right campaigning, it could happen. The reason why we need an AMMENDMENT is because this is not a state matter... if you make it a state matter, then even if you manage to ban gay marriage in your state, and manage to not have any wacko activist judges, your people can still go to the next-door state and get married and then come back and your state has to recognize it. Basically, the laws on the state level are useless, and easily overruled... a consitutional ammedment, although it sounds extreme, is the only solution.

6) War Crimes?: If it weren't for the UN giving the U.S. immunity from being brought up on war crimes, Dubya would be charged for war crimes. This was an act of pure aggression, which goes against international law. His attack on Iraq was that, and then the prisoner abuse ALSO goes against international law.For the second point, that's a big duh. You think we don't realize that? You don't think we're punishing those involved? Wake up.

Okay, that was 6 reasons.
meh

5. His wierd idea that all Muslims/Arabs are terrorists: That is total discrimination and this comes from someone who spent a lot of time in a Muslim country. It's completely unjustified and it's disgusting that there is such intolerance and prejudice in a country that is a cultural melting pot. Not all Muslims are extremists. In fact, most of them are not. Islam is a peaceful religion until some madman decides to distort and pervert it. Christianity has some pretty evil pasts too (eg KKK, witch-hunts).Sorry, this is a point that stood out the most... and I have to comment on it simply because you MUST be a complete.... nevermind, I won't even call you that lol I'll just inform you that everything you said Bush thinks, he never said... in fact, he agrees with every point you just made... where on Earth did you get the idea that he thinks all Arabs are terrorists? One of the things he has been very adament about is that they AREn'T all terrorists, and that they are extremists... and he has also said very often that he believes islam is a religion of peace.

You are confusing GWB with Michael Savage :)

ummm... I should be going to bed soon, so I'm keeping it to three (but I promise there are plenty more)
3. The War
2. his stance on gay marriage- esp. with the "let's make MORE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT" because apparently that's what the republicans stand for. Oh, and the whole part about not letting gay people have rights
1. Because HE hates ME (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040308&c=1&s=kennedy) :headbang:

You really should be ashamed

1) Gay marrige. There is no legal reason that people of the same sex cannot marry. So far, the only arguments I've heard are:

"God didn't intend that!"
Response: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." ~Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814
Wait, not good enough? How about this one?
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ~George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

OR, I hear "I'm against gay people"

Well whoop de do! I'm against fundamentalists, but that doesn't mean I want to take away their rights as a human being.

2) Iraq. Why are we there? You say "he got rid of the weapons!" So why did we invade?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we invading because he had the weapons? So...if he no longer has the weapons...?

And it's horrible that he gassed his own people. He was an awful dictator. But there are a LOT of those. I mean, wow, we're gonna hav a lot of work on our hands since we're now in chage of Making Sure Only the Right People are in Power.

3) "I'm a better guy, because I'm a Christian!" See various quotes in reason one.

4) Ashcroft. I mean...the guy seriously gives me the chills.

5) The way he gave a big "F YOU!" to the UN and, really, the rest of the world.



I'm lousy with economics, so I didn't list any reasons based on that ;)

1. Ruined the Economy

2. Unjust war in Iraq

3. Lied about so called "threat" posed by saddam

4. Tax cut seems to help only rich guys

5. Lack of action immedietly after WTC attacks, unless you call reading "My Pet Goat" action.

And, this is more of a personal thing, but he has a really dumb name.

Reasons to like Bush

1. More funds for NASA

2. none

3. none

4. none

5. none

1) Gay marrige. There is no legal reason that people of the same sex cannot marry. So far, the only arguments I've heard are:

"God didn't intend that!"
Response: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." ~Thomas Jefferson, February 10, 1814
Wait, not good enough? How about this one?
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." ~George Washington, Treaty of Tripoli, 1796

OR, I hear "I'm against gay people"

Well whoop de do! I'm against fundamentalists, but that doesn't mean I want to take away their rights as a human being.Yes, because we all know that the spiritual ceremony of marriage is a legal matter *roll* I swear man, I'm sick of this debate, and I'm also sick of you putting wors in GWB's mouth.

My colution is simple... let them have civil unions... heck, call them all civil unions, that way it's all equal. Leave the definition of marriage up to the churches and society... it most certainly is not a legal matter.

2) Iraq. Why are we there? You say "he got rid of the weapons!" So why did we invade?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we invading because he had the weapons? So...if he no longer has the weapons...?

And it's horrible that he gassed his own people. He was an awful dictator. But there are a LOT of those. I mean, wow, we're gonna hav a lot of work on our hands since we're now in chage of Making Sure Only the Right People are in Power.
Yeah, we go bomb their country, find no weapons, and now you think we should just pull out immediately? yeah, that's a great idea. Are you crazy?? Total power vacuum!
3) "I'm a better guy, because I'm a Christian!" See various quotes in reason one.Oh come on, you're not even trying here. Put down your libby books and watch the news for once.

4) Ashcroft. I mean...the guy seriously gives me the chills.lol

5) The way he gave a big "F YOU!" to the UN and, really, the rest of the world.that was awesome :)

1. More funds for NASA
And there was an increase in funding to fight AIDS in Africa, I think. Two years back, maybe?

1. Ruined the Economy

2. Unjust war in Iraq

3. Lied about so called "threat" posed by saddam

4. Tax cut seems to help only rich guys

5. Lack of action immedietly after WTC attacks, unless you call reading "My Pet Goat" action.

And, this is more of a personal thing, but he has a really dumb name.

Reasons to like Bush

1. More funds for NASA

2. none

3. none

4. none

5. none
1. Economic long term, plus it is picking up, plus if Clinton had a surplus that probably didn't help the economy long term.
2. Nope, pretty much all I have to say, why was it unjust would you say?
3. That was because of wrong intelligence, he questioned it and was persuaded it was correct.
4. They pay the most anyway, percentage wise of course they are going to get the large rebates.

If i can stop at five reasons why to hate George Dubya Bush, I will do so, but if not...oh forking well.

1. His foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired - say what you will about the Iraq war. Talk about how justified it was, or how Bush is a hero, or what-have-you. The bottom line is, Bush doesn't know how to do diplomacy, and he could have ggone into Iraq WITHOUT getting the world cheesed off at us. All it would have taken was getting UN approval, which could have been done with the right maneuvering, but Bush would rather cheese the world off. He has to have everything done his way, what with his whole "you're either with us or you're against us" - using that logic, Switzerland is somewhere on the list of nations to be blacklisted for not enthusiastically supporting the war.

2. His economic policy is madness - cutting taxes and raising spending generally leads to deficits. I also know I wasn't eligible for his bogus tax cut in 2001, which was more a loan than a break anyway. I also don't see where the jobs are going, except overseas...and can someone explain the logic behing giving tax breaks to corporations that ship jobs overseas? That does NOT...MAKE...SENSE! Letting corporations do as they please without tax incentives one way or the other is free market, and penalizing for shipping jobs overseas is protectionism...what the hell is encouragement of shipping jobs overseas? I label it madness myself.

3. His cronies - OK, so yanking the rug out from under Rumsfeld or Cheney would be really bad form and might cause some harm to his campaign, but he could have chosen someone a little more...I don't know, moderate? And Colin Powell doesn't count, since he's practically blacklisted from the Bush team anyway. And John Ashcroft is definitely a scary character...even more fundamentalist than Bush.

4. Going to Mars - great idea, terrible timing. Try it agains when the economy isn't in a difficult spot, or when we're not occupying two countries that may turn into powder kegs on us.

5. The gay marriage amendment - even people who don't like gay marriage aren't necessarily fond of the amendment. More people oppose the amendment than favor it, so leaving it as a state matter is for the best right now. Aside from that, personally I favor gay marriage if only to be consistent...it doesn't hurt me at all if two men or two women get married. If the argument is "sanctity of marriage", then the next logical step is to ban divorce, institute the death penalty for adultery or something, require arranged marriages for everyone, etc. If it's personal repulsion, then sooner or later everything will be against the law just because one person hates it. There, I said it. No one can ever eat ketchup again, because I hate it.

OK, I got it down to five, but I had to combine things, like putting all the foreign policy stuff under one thing.

In response...

First of all, on gay marrige, why don't you tell me why he's opposed to it? I agree with what you say-get politics OUT of marrige. But since I doubt that'll happen, go with the next best thing, and at least keep things equal.

Secondly, in response to what I said, Unashamed Christians said that they probebly got rid of their weapons before we attacked. Well, if they got rid of them before we attacked, then we didn't even need to attack in the first place.

Thridly, he whores out his religion. Really, he does. He uses it as a scheme to nab more votes. Sadly, it works.

Oh, and I'm glad you liked my last two :p

In response...

First of all, on gay marrige, why don't you tell me why he's opposed to it? I agree with what you say-get politics OUT of marrige. But since I doubt that'll happen, go with the next best thing, and at least keep things equal.

Secondly, in response to what I said, Unashamed Christians said that they probebly got rid of their weapons before we attacked. Well, if they got rid of them before we attacked, then we didn't even need to attack in the first place.

Thridly, he whores out his religion. Really, he does. He uses it as a scheme to nab more votes. Sadly, it works.

Oh, and I'm glad you liked my last two :pWhat can I say, people vote for the candidate that thinks the same way they do... or at least most people do... and if 2/3 of america says marriage is only between a man and a woman simply because anything else seems immoral, then why is it so weird that the guy they elect thinks the same way?

To make more of a point on Bush's ruin of the economy, I have made some images to help you visual learners.

Clinton's Economy:
http://img27.exs.cx/img27/8518/untitled21.png

Bush's Economy:
http://img27.exs.cx/img27/6893/untitled22.png

To Capsule: then it's just a weak move to try and gain votes by oppressing others. You know, innerracial marrige used to be illegal, too.

To Pongar: OH DEAR GOD that's funny xD

To Capsule: then it's just a weak move to try and gain votes by oppressing others. You know, innerracial marrige used to be illegal, too.

To Pongar: OH DEAR GOD that's funny xD
why do you call it "oppression" when the majority dislikes the idea of leaving the definition of something sacred up to some activist liberals in the supreme courts?

Because the majority used to be for slavery. The majority also once told us that women were inferior to men.

Just because the majority says it's right, doesn't mean that it is right. That should be common sense.

Because the majority used to be for slavery. The majority also once told us that women were inferior to men.

Just because the majority says it's right, doesn't mean that it is right. That should be common sense.
leave it to the democrats to be pro-republic and the republicans to be pro-democracy I guess :)

why do you call it "oppression" when the majority dislikes the idea of leaving the definition of something sacred up to some activist liberals in the supreme courts?

A majority of conservatives used to think it was perfectly right to have seperate seats and drinking fountains for dem coloreds.

The majority is not always right.

Activist liberals? About the only liberal courts in this country is the 9th circut in San Francisco, I think one in Boston, and 1 in New York. Hmmm sounds like a good reason for an amendment since 3 courts can tell the rest of the country what to do.

Even the Supreame Court of the US is more centrist and conservative. I think only 2 of the justices can be labeled liberal.

Finally, the use of "Liberal" To me that is a warning word that you can usually ignore the person spitting it.

But that is just me! ;)

Actually, I'm neither democrat nor republican; I'm an independent, and I hate both political parties :p

why do you call it "oppression" when the majority dislikes the idea of leaving the definition of something sacred up to some activist liberals in the supreme courts?
Well if it's the majority that's oppressing the minority...then that's oppression by the majority
I think it works that way lots of times- though not nearly most...then again, it comes down to how you define it...You can look at it as 'white people oppressed the black people [during slavery, specifically]' where it's a majority oppressing the minority, or you can see it as 'slaveowners oppressed the slaves' which probably means a minority oppressing a majority
besides...if gay marriages were suddenly made legal in the whole country- but churches (and other private organizations) were not required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies- that would be going against what the majority support, but would not be, in any way I can see, oppression...(no one is losing rights, it's just that some people are gaining them)

BTW...I really tried to go to sleep...I should know better than to sleep all afternoon

Well if it's the majority that's oppressing the minority...then that's oppression by the majority
I think it works that way lots of times- though not nearly most...then again, it comes down to how you define it...You can look at it as 'white people oppressed the black people [during slavery, specifically]' where it's a majority oppressing the minority, or you can see it as 'slaveowners oppressed the slaves' which probably means a minority oppressing a majority
besides...if gay marriages were suddenly made legal in the whole country- but churches (and other private organizations) were not required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies- that would be going against what the majority support, but would not be, in any way I can see, oppression...(no one is losing rights, it's just that some people are gaining them)

BTW...I really tried to go to sleep...I should know better than to sleep all afternoonOK, get it straight... marriage laws apply equally to gays... by becoming gay, they knew right from the start that they wouldn't fit the criteria for marriage. It's kind of a "duh" in my mind. How on earth is that comparable to a black man being forced into slavery?

Seriously, come on... I could see you arguing this if it were something that you actually had control over, unlike skin color... but ultimately, homosexuality is a choice, and when you make that choice, you are telling yourself that you can not get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Sheesh

3.)He can be trusted with the defense of this great nation while Kerry cannot, Mr. I'll vote for the war but not to fund our troops when they get there.

Ok..You HAVE to know that The reason you say this is becuase youve heard the commercials, and heard people like Bill O Reilly mention it on Fox News, right?

Know this...

The Bill that the vote you are talking about was on...

Happened BEFORE 9/11.

He most certainly did not vote against such a thing after that date.
In fact, if you will recall...the Senate gave President 80 Billion dollars to fight his "War On Terrorism", when he only asked for 40.

The vote was unanimous.

Do you understand now, how you may have not been told the entire truth?

Ok..You HAVE to know that The reason you say this is becuase youve heard the commercials, and heard people like Bill O Reilly mention it on Fox News, right?

Know this...

The Bill that the vote you are talking about was on...

Happened BEFORE 9/11.

He most certainly did not vote against such a thing after that date.
In fact, if you will recall...the Senate gave President 80 Billion dollars to fight his "War On Terrorism", when he only asked for 40.

The vote was unanimous.

Do you understand now, how you may have not been told the entire truth?
Nothing is as concerning as when kerry basically said "i voted to give the president the power to have a legit 'threat' of war, not to actually go to war."

Nothing is as concerning as when kerry basically said "i voted to give the president the power to have a legit 'threat' of war, not to actually go to war."


Are you sure that your not misquoting that?

Becuase frankly, that makes no sense at all.
Its not concerning, it simply makes no sense.

Why dont you find that quote and print it verbatim, and then we can decide from there?

OK, get it straight... marriage laws apply equally to gays... by becoming gay, they knew right from the start that they wouldn't fit the criteria for marriage. It's kind of a "duh" in my mind. How on earth is that comparable to a black man being forced into slavery?

Seriously, come on... I could see you arguing this if it were something that you actually had control over, unlike skin color... but ultimately, homosexuality is a choice, and when you make that choice, you are telling yourself that you can not get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Sheesh
Actually, there's no solid evidence anywhere that says homosexuality is a choice, and there's limited evidence to suggest that while there's not a single "gay gene," there's certainly a genetic predisposition toward homosexual behavior.

And regardless, are you really suggesting that if a person chooses a particular lifestyle, that person deserves to be shat upon by his or her government? What if, instead of sexuality, the choice one made was religious? Spare me the First Amendment protections argument and answer the question--one's religion is a choice, so if a person chose to become a member of a socially unacceptable religion, would it be morally just to deny that person the basic rights of citizenship because of his or her choice in how to worship?

And really, why would anyone actually choose to live in fear of ridicule, and ostracizement, from those who know knothing of tolerance....


...Like Christians.

OK, get it straight... marriage laws apply equally to gays... by becoming gay, they knew right from the start that they wouldn't fit the criteria for marriage. It's kind of a "duh" in my mind. How on earth is that comparable to a black man being forced into slavery?

Seriously, come on... I could see you arguing this if it were something that you actually had control over, unlike skin color... but ultimately, homosexuality is a choice, and when you make that choice, you are telling yourself that you can not get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Sheesh
well first, to make myself clear- I wasn't trying to compare a ban on gay marriage to slavery...I was only speaking of different kinds of oppression...
secondly, I don't think of marriage as "being united with someone" I think of it as "being united with someone you love" and currently, in most of the US, gay people don't have that right. Ultimately, yes, gay actions are a choice, but not the emotions, and not the attraction. Seriously, if I had control over who I was attracted to, I'm sure I wouldn't like dorks NEARLY as much

1. War. Whatever you want to believe, he told us there were weapons there day we walked in, there are no weapons there now. It doesn't matter if Saddam moved them in the time leading up to the invasion, we should have only gone in if we were sure we could have gotten everything. That's assuming he ever had weapons, something i'm not convinced of.

2. Demagoguery. He accuses Tom Daschele of being un-America for voicing opposition to his national security plans. He critcizes Kerry's war record while he served (or claims to have, dental records don't convince me) in the Texas Air National Guard, protecting America from Mexico or something. He visits Bob Jones University and talks about how he gets his inspiration from the 'higher father', both of which are attempts at placating the religious conservative racist whites in the South, not traits I want in the President.

3. Appointments. He appointed Aschcroft Attorney General, the man who couldn't beat a dead man in a Congressional race, and who was too much the prude to see Justice's bare breasts, so he ordered every statue of Justice in a Federal Courthouse to have them covered. He chose Cheney, who has committed many blatantly unethical acts, ranging from isolated duck hunts with judges to making sure his former oil company gets the majority of contracts in Iraq, where they are currently milking me and every other American for every penny they can, and then some more.

4. Civil Liberties. Bush has time and time again stripped people of their constitutional rights, violating the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, and if he could, i'm sure he would try to violate everything else in the Bill of Rights except the second. If you would like a few concrete examples, he is holding 'enemy combatants' in Guantanamo Bay for what he has said can be an unlimited amount of time, while not giving them access to lawyers, or even allowing the Red Cross to make sure that the Geneva Convention is being followed. They aren't allowed any rights, and they can be held forever, withour their families even being notified that they are being held, and the best part is, no one will ever hear about these people because they aren't allowed to speak to anyone and their files are kept secret. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court just recently ruled, Bush was violating the Eighth Amendment in his detention of a US citizen without giving him his due process rights. Bush has showed time and time again that he is willing to sacrifice civil liberties in the name of national security, without ever providing us with concrete evidence of a threat.

5. Stem Cells. This is a minor issue, but in stem cell research, the US is lagging far behind Europe, and only because there are virtually no stem cell lines with which US researchers can work. There is no child being killed, it is not baby killing, it is the taking of undifferentiated cells from an already discarded fetus. Honestly, I don't care how many aborted fetuses are used, if it can provide a cure for Alzheimers or another as of now uncurable disease, I see no reason to throw the fetuses.

Of course, I could also talk about Gay Marriage, his education policy, the economy, the fact that he spends more time than any other President taking vacations, or maybe his hypocrisy in talking about family values while his daughters get wasted using fake ID's and use the Secret Service as a Shuttle Service.

Actually, there's no solid evidence anywhere that says homosexuality is a choice, and there's limited evidence to suggest that while there's not a single "gay gene," there's certainly a genetic predisposition toward homosexual behavior.

And regardless, are you really suggesting that if a person chooses a particular lifestyle, that person deserves to be shat upon by his or her government? What if, instead of sexuality, the choice one made was religious? Spare me the First Amendment protections argument and answer the question--one's religion is a choice, so if a person chose to become a member of a socially unacceptable religion, would it be morally just to deny that person the basic rights of citizenship because of his or her choice in how to worship?

Marriage isn't a "basic right of citizenship" it is an institution. The isntitution of marriage is between a man and a woman.
Whether you choose to be gay or genetically predispositioned to being gay makes no difference. The lifestyles we choose or are predispositioned to lead open some doors and close others.

OK, get it straight... marriage laws apply equally to gays... by becoming gay, they knew right from the start that they wouldn't fit the criteria for marriage. It's kind of a "duh" in my mind. How on earth is that comparable to a black man being forced into slavery?

Seriously, come on... I could see you arguing this if it were something that you actually had control over, unlike skin color... but ultimately, homosexuality is a choice, and when you make that choice, you are telling yourself that you can not get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Sheesh

By becoming gay?????? Ahh are you one of those "people choose to be gay!" types?

Marriage is not simply a promise to have children. It is also a union of two people who want to remain with each other and only "be" with each other.

Some people actually get married knowing full well their partner can't have children.

As to the black comments. You have argued that the majority says no so that is what it should be. The majority(in their states) said seperation of black and white was perfectly right. I think it was Mississippi that screamed oppression by the majority interfering in their ways.

Also slavery? Oppression of the blacks went well past it's end. Seperate drinking fountains was only 50 years ago.....

The majority is not always right.

Are you sure that your not misquoting that?

Becuase frankly, that makes no sense at all.
Its not concerning, it simply makes no sense.

Why dont you find that quote and print it verbatim, and then we can decide from there?The quote: "We needed the legitimate threat of [war] to get our inspectors into Iraq."

Here's the full quote, sorry for the caps:
THE CANDIDATES WITH DAVID YEPSEN #2401>>Senator John Kerry (#2401) January 5, 2004
http://www.iptv.org/iowapress/transcripts/2401.cfm

Yepsen: DID YOU MAKE A MISTAKE VOTING FOR THE WAR?

Kerry: NO, I DIDN'T -- WELL, WHEN YOU SAY VOTE FOR THE WAR, DAVID, NOBODY -- I MEAN NOBODY ON OUR SIDE CERTAINLY VOTED "FOR THE WAR." WE VOTED TO PUT A PROCESS IN PLACE WHERE WAR WAS THE LAST RESORT. WE NEEDED THE LEGITIMATE THREAT OF IT TO GET OUR INSPECTORS INTO IRAQ AND DO WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO. AND GEORGE BUSH MADE A SERIES OF PROMISES TO AMERICA: PROMISED THAT HE WOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO BUILD A LEGITIMATE INTERNATIONAL COALITION; PROMISED HE WOULD DO THE INSPECTIONS JUSTICE AND GO THROUGH THE U.N.; PROMISED HE WOULD GO TO WAR AS A LAST RESORT. HE BROKE EVERY SINGLE PROMISE. AND I BELIEVE THAT I AM A PARTICULARLY STRONG CANDIDATE TO TAKE HIM ON BECAUSE I KNOW HOW A PRESIDENT OUGHT TO SEND PEOPLE TO WAR IN THIS COUNTRY, AND I LAID IT ALL OUT AHEAD OF TIME. IT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO HOLD SADDAM HUSSEIN ACCOUNTABLE. GEORGE BUSH DID IT THE WRONG WAY EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, AND I WOULD HAVE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY. AND EVERYONE WHO KNOWS MY LIFE KNOWS THAT I WOULD NEVER HAVE TAKEN US TO WAR THE WAY GEORGE BUSH DID. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN TRULY A LAST RESORT.

:fluffle: Gay marriage, :headbang: Georger Bush and :sniper: Iraq... NS is back alright :p

Old Narn,

I gotta say, you hit the nail right on the head.
Every bit of it is true, and irrefutable.
The right can say what they want, but even they know its true.
Someday Bush will be looked upon as one of the most corrupt, and worst presidents in American history.

Recent polls show that even with the number of votes that Nader is going to steal from Kerry, John Kerry would still win the election if it were today.

This is only looking worse and worse for Bush.
The war isnt getting any better, and the campaign is not far off..
No Osama, yet either....(if he's even alive)

Moore's movie was seen by a lot of people....
The dvd will let many more see it before the election.

Cheney's under fire...
The CIA was found to be inept...
No WMD's say Senate Commission...
War started on False infromation says Senate Hearing.


all this...

and Kerry hasnt even started mudslinging, yet.


John Kerry is very likely going to be your next president, wether you like it or not.

Marriage isn't a "basic right of citizenship" it is an institution. The isntitution of marriage is between a man and a woman.
Whether you choose to be gay or genetically predispositioned to being gay makes no difference. The lifestyles we choose or are predispositioned to lead open some doors and close others.When the federal government provides over a thousand benefits to married heterosexual couples and then denies same-sex couples the ability to marry and receive those same benefits, then the government is violating the 14th Amendment to the Constitution--the equal protection clause. By definition, that's a violation of a basic human right under US law.

The quote: "We needed the legitimate threat of [war] to get our inspectors into Iraq."

Ok..I see where your confused.

He 's saying that they needed the legitimate threat of War from Iraq.
If THEY posed a legitimate threat of war against american interests, or safety.
He's not imply that America needed to enforce a legitimate threat of war, simply to get UN weapons Inspectors into Iraq.

Hussein eventually allowed them in, remember?

They found nothing.

No one found anything.

WE VOTED TO PUT A PROCESS IN PLACE WHERE WAR WAS THE LAST RESORT.

Remember whos decision it was to ignore that policy and invade by "Shock and Awe" ?

Dubya's.

When the federal government provides over a thousand benefits to married heterosexual couples and then denies same-sex couples the ability to marry and receive those same benefits, then the government is violating the 14th Amendment to the Constitution--the equal protection clause. By definition, that's a violation of a basic human right under US law.

The argument isn't about discrimination over benefits, it is about the institution of marriage. More precisely, protecting the institution of marriage in a traditional sense.
If the argument was about discrimination and access to benefits then gay couples would give up the desire for a "marriage" and have a civil union. The fight should be to give those who are joined by a civil union to have access to those benefits given to married couples.

Ok..I see where your confused.
He 's saying that they needed the legitimate threat of War from Iraq.
If THEY posed a legitimate threat of war against american interests, or safety.
He's not imply that America needed to enforce a legitimate threat of war, simply to get UN weapons Inspectors into Iraq.


No, Kerry meant that in order for Iraq to allow inspectors in, Saddam had to believe that the UN would go to war if he didn't comply. Saddam did let inspectors in as a result of the USA's decision, but Bush decided to invade anyway. Kerry is saying, that he voted to get the inspectors in, and since the inspectors got in there was no need for a war, as they didn't find anything.

The argument isn't about discrimination over benefits, it is about the institution of marriage. More precisely, protecting the institution of marriage in a traditional sense.
If the argument was about discrimination and access to benefits then gay couples would give up the desire for a "marriage" and have a civil union. The fight should be to give those who are joined by a civil union to have access to those benefits given to married couples.That's where you're mistaken--the fundamental argument is over benefits. The religious right in the US has spun it into a debate over the institution, perhaps because they know they lose the other debate, perhaps because they actually believe it's over the institution, but make no mistake, this is being driven by same-sex couples who want the same benefits as heterosexual married couples receive--the right to be considered next of kin in emergency medical situations, the right to inherit as a spouse and receive Social Security benefits, the right for both partners to be considered legal parents to adopted or birthed children--the list goes on and on. This fight was started over and continues to be driven by the desire by same sex couples to have the same privileges that married couples receive.

That's where you're mistaken--the fundamental argument is over benefits. The religious right in the US has spun it into a debate over the institution, perhaps because they know they lose the other debate, perhaps because they actually believe it's over the institution, but make no mistake, this is being driven by same-sex couples who want the same benefits as heterosexual married couples receive--the right to be considered next of kin in emergency medical situations, the right to inherit as a spouse and receive Social Security benefits, the right for both partners to be considered legal parents to adopted or birthed children--the list goes on and on. This fight was started over and continues to be driven by the desire by same sex couples to have the same privileges that married couples receive.

What I am saying is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is the institution of marriage. Gay couples should have the same rights as married couples but access to the institution of marriage should not be granted.
A civil union or whatever name you want to give to it should be an adequate substitute to marriage for gay couples provided that couples joined by civil union are treated legally as equals of married couples.

Actually, there's no solid evidence anywhere that says homosexuality is a choice


That's incorrect. There are studies where the results suggest a genetic cause and others that say it's a conscious choice and still others with mixed or inconclusive results.

What I am saying is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is the institution of marriage. Gay couples should have the same rights as married couples but access to the institution of marriage should not be granted.
A civil union or whatever name you want to give to it should be an adequate substitute to marriage for gay couples provided that couples joined by civil union are treated legally as equals of married couples.Now we get into the question of why language matters.

Many people would consider that a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, in the US we have a nasty history with what's known popularly as "separate but equal" thanks to an old Supreme Court case titled Plessy v. Ferguson. It dealt with civil rights and basically stated that it was legal to segregate whites and blacks on the basis of race as long as the facilities provided to both were "separate but equal." When the case was finally overturned many many years later, the Justice who wrote the decision noted that "separate can never be truly equal."

Which brings us to the marriage debate. So we say heteros get marriage and homos get civil unions, everything else is equal and everyone is happy, right? That assumes that everything will remain equal, and assumption is the devil's handmaiden. And even if it does remain equal, there will always be a part of society that will feel as though they are being prejudiced against by their own government, simply because of the difference of language.

And the difference cuts both ways, too. My girlfriend and I have been together for over 4 years now, and we've talked about making our relationship more formal. But we've both been married before, and we have lots of gay friends and don't feel it's right that we take part in a tradition that excludes so many people who are close to us, so we looked into the possibility of a civil union or domestic partnership. Not possible for us--why? Because we've got marriage. Never mind that we don't want marriage--we've got it and it's our only option other than cohabitation.

Now I'm not agitating for a heterosexual option for domestic partnerships or civil unions--I'm agitating for same-sex marriage because it puts all humans, regardless of their orientation, on the same playing field--they ought to be allowed to be spouses to each other, just as my girlfriend and I are allowed to be if we so choose.

That's incorrect. There are studies where the results suggest a genetic cause and others that say it's a conscious choice and still others with mixed or inconclusive results.
Like I said--solid evidence.

I don't hate Bush, I just think he is a bad president. It comes down to him being too American for the rest of the world to take, and as the principal ambassador for the country, you would hope that he was respected on an international stage

12 Reasons Bush is not popular on the world stage:

1. Most Europeans speak better English than Bush.
2. Portrays himself as a Cowboy, a very negative image in Europe.
3. Policies in Africa, (esp. AIDS related programmes are condemned by WHO).
4. Trade issues with EU.
5. Sponsorship of Israel.
6. Guantanemo (sp?) Bay.
7. Fundamentalist religion.
8. Seen as stupid and slow-witted.
9. Believed to be daddies-boy.
10. Disregard for the UN.
11. "Axis of Evil", does he know anything about those countries?
12. War on Terror is seen as an over-reaction by many.

If Europe was to vote in the elections, Kerry would get 75%, and Nader would get 25%.

What I am saying is that marriage should be between a man and a woman. That is the institution of marriage. Gay couples should have the same rights as married couples but access to the institution of marriage should not be granted.
A civil union or whatever name you want to give to it should be an adequate substitute to marriage for gay couples provided that couples joined by civil union are treated legally as equals of married couples.
well I intend to be joined legally to the man of my choice- but not under god- since neither of us really "believes" in god...so, as heterosexual agnostics, can we be granted passage into your institution?

Now we get into the question of why language matters.

Many people would consider that a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, in the US we have a nasty history with what's known popularly as "separate but equal" thanks to an old Supreme Court case titled Plessy v. Ferguson. It dealt with civil rights and basically stated that it was legal to segregate whites and blacks on the basis of race as long as the facilities provided to both were "separate but equal." When the case was finally overturned many many years later, the Justice who wrote the decision noted that "separate can never be truly equal."
heh...beat me to it

Reasons to dislike them all:

1) They do not do anything truly in the best interest of this nation
2) They are all elitist pigs
3) They are all related
4) They are all very very rich
5) The mainstream media has a biased agenda
6) John kerry does not even do his job
7) John Kerry is a socialist and so is his wife
8) bush looks like howdy doody
9) he has alienated the conservative base by pandering to Socialist liberal agenda
10) There are no WMD's in IRAQ

We have degraded as a society, split in belief and motivation, by small groups of well organized, well funded organizations. Divided we can further ensure our Rapid decline and turn it into utter destruction of everything this country was based upon in it's inception. We are one generation away from complete failure of this once great IDEA. You are ALLOWED to debate this subject because we are a free nation, Debate is a priveledge. Sedition is a crime

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law

sedition

\Se*di"tion\, n. [OE. sedicioun, OF. sedition, F. s['e]dition, fr. L. seditio, originally, a going aside; hence, an insurrectionary separation; pref. se-, sed-, aside + itio a going, fr. ire, itum, to go. Cf. Issue.]
1. The raising of commotion in a state, not amounting to insurrection; conduct tending to treason, but without an overt act; excitement of discontent against the government, or of resistance to lawful authority.

I love Bush because:

1) he is a sentient being who is capable of love and hate, happiness and sadness, good and evil, so I wish him to have love and happiness and do good for the sake of all sentient beings;

2) he is a human being;

3) love is good for my soul and hatred is bad for it;

4) I believe he wants to do good;

5) I call myself a Christian.



I do not want Bush to be "reelected" because:

1) the popular vote will NOT support a second Bush term, even more so than it did not support the first;

2) he and his secretaries have time and again proven willing to trade essential freedoms for a little security, namely, ours and theirs respectively;

3) he was never legally elected in the first place, since Florida's appointment of electors to the electoral college was not legal under Florida's state laws as written by their legislature and interpreted by the courts of jurisdiction and thus the acceptance of their list of appointed electors was in violation of U.S. Code Title 3;

4) he is not competent as Commander In Chief of the U.S.A. and is either not competent or dishonest or both in terms of his handling of intelligence related to his duties as Commander In Chief. He can blame the intel community all he likes, but as a COMPETENT and in fact truly great President once said, from his seat in the oval office, "the buck stops here". He is also even less qualified for that position than Clinton, a man who stood for his convictions and, rather than dodging the draft, put his legally aquired academic deferment at risk by protesting it. Like most of his buddies Bush got a deferment, his to serve in the Guard, and then he deserted for a year. He is an arm chair general, with power. You could say that Clinton was as well, but at least Clinton was not a war mongering deserter. And Kerry is a decorated veteran;

5) he is not competent to handle the economy. We may be creating new jobs in the final hours of his reign but the deficits that we are running up will cripple us later. Clinton left him a surplus and he pissed all of it away in about a year, giving a few bucks back to the poor and millions to the rich. We are definitely worse of economically since he took office.



Also let me add that certain posters here need to look into what an "omnibus spending bill" is. Basically is is the bill that determines the vast majority of the federal budget for the coming year. It contains everything, from the needed core budgets of the government infrastructure to the fatty juicy slabs of pork that connected legislators have grafted on for the benefits of their voting bases. It contains things like funding for our troops and their equipment as well as massive retroactive tax cuts that favor the rich.

And this is why it is also the main sourse of ammunition for misleading attacks that call Kerry a "flip-flopper". He supported needed programs and funding and voted for their inclusion in the omnibus bill, but once the finalized version of that enormous porker that our children's taxes will be paying for reached the floor, he voted against it, as a whole, due to the size of the deficit and national debt that it ensured.

And anyway what is bad about having a president who is capable of being wrong, and of changing his mind? It's a lot better than what we have now.



- Druthulhu

Reasons for Hating President Dubyah:

1) Iraq. The 11th Crusade. It was illegal, it was based upon rumors, it was meddling, it proved nothing, and it damn well dragged us (Brits) and a bunch of other normal, peaceful countries (Spain, Japan and suchlike...) into a war.

2) He's a f**king idiot.

3) Gay marriage. "Against the will of God, blah blah blah...". Bollocks. If it's been done before then it is possible, and therefore (Because it's participants were not struck by holy lightning) is all in accordance with the ideas of the man upstairs.

4) He's foreign. I have a particular dislike for certain countries. Not the people in them, mind. Just the countries themselves. The French, Americans, Spanish, Israelis and the Italians are all mad.

5) He's a stereotypical American. Talks a good game but knows f**k all. He's so patriotic it's annoying.

I have so far met two Americans. One, named Robert somethingorother, is fat, wears glasses, has an annoying voice, and randomly threw stones at me when I was at school. The other, named Alex, was also fat, but was far less annoying and could be funny and friendly at times. Sadly, I suspect there are far more Roberts in the world.

Also, I would like to express my dislike of Mister Blair, the current Prime Minister. He is an intelligent man, and does what he believes is good for Britain. It's just a shame he chose to be Dubyah's lapdog.

If Europe was to vote in the elections, Kerry would get 75%, and Nader would get 25%.

Not entirely true, I think it would be more like Bush 20%, Kerry 60%, Nader 20%. There are people here who actually support Bush (I don't get it either).

1) He's a fundamentalist Christian: And I know this hard for you overly religious people in this forum, but religious thought in government doesn't belong. A good portion of you probably believe that we are a Xian nation. Not according to the Treaty of Tripoli: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever interrupt the harmony existing between the two countries."

2) The War in Iraq: Weapons of Mass Distruction, Saddam and Al Qadia have ties together, Mission Accomplished, Whoring out to big business, Alienating us from the rest of the world....Good job Bush, it'll will take decades to fix the problems created by your administration....

3) Government Spending...Massive Tax Cuts for the Rich....Increased Spending for the military...Common Sense...That won't work...

4) Bush's Arrogance/Gay Marriage...This is a tie....As an American living abroad I can see easily why the rest of the world dislikes us. The American attitude of "Us against Them" is starting to seperate us from the rest of the world. They are fed up with his blatant disregard of the International Court and the Geneva Conventions....As for gay marriage, when the divorce rate in the states in nearing 50 percent, what institution are you trying to protect....

5) Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Ashcroft....Need I say more....

well I intend to be joined legally to the man of my choice- but not under god- since neither of us really "believes" in god...so, as heterosexual agnostics, can we be granted passage into your institution?

Its not my institution, it is a traditional institution. And before you label me a religious zealot, I was married in a civil service making no mention of God as I am not religious at all either. Religion has no part in my stance on this issue.

I do not like Bush because he calls himself a Christian.Jesus is turning in his grave(yeah he didn't rise or anything he was just a good politician).

My colution is simple... let them have civil unions... heck, call them all civil unions, that way it's all equal. Leave the definition of marriage up to the churches and society... it most certainly is not a legal matter. Okay, they are already allowed "civil unions" but the entire reason they want to be able to be married is there are several laws that the term "married" has to be used in order for them to take advantage of it. For instance some of these couples have been together 20 years, if one of them was just a different gender, they would be a common law married couple, and get a nice little tax break.

Also, lets not forget, John Ashcroft lost to a dead man.

Options: Dead man, John Ashcroft
"Sorry John, but the dead guy scares us less than you do."

Like I said before, the Bush administration is about the worst of all time and is on course to have NET job LOSSES, the first time that has happened since Herbert Hoover.

Number-wise, this may be true. However, like most Democrats, you are failing to look at the whole picture. While the physical number is the same, the population has grown exponentially since the days of Hoover. So while Hoover's unemployment percentage was between 20 and 25 percent, Bush's is around 5. You have to look at and consider the entire picture before you make an argument. If not, you risk looking like a partisan idiot who doesn't do their research and just spews the Michael Moore giberish which is the real lies.

I like Bush because he is a man of character that does what he knows is right, even if the left wing whiners are too scared to agree with him. Kerry doesn't know what is right.

"I beleive life begins at conception. I believe abortion is wrong. I won't, however, impose my beliefs on legislation." All this show's me about Mr. Kerry is that he either 1) has no principles or 2) fails to believe in them strongly enough to vote on them. Either way, he is unfit to be President of this great country.

So sit down, shut up, and go hug a tree.

OK, get it straight... marriage laws apply equally to gays... by becoming gay, they knew right from the start that they wouldn't fit the criteria for marriage. It's kind of a "duh" in my mind. How on earth is that comparable to a black man being forced into slavery?

Seriously, come on... I could see you arguing this if it were something that you actually had control over, unlike skin color... but ultimately, homosexuality is a choice, and when you make that choice, you are telling yourself that you can not get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.

Sheesh
Okay, I'm just gonna go out on a limb and say that you don't know any homosexuals. How do I know this? Because its not a freaken choice, every time I hear someone say that, "Oh they're just confused, they need to find a nice girl and settle down" (is it just me or are lesbians considerably more accepted?) I want to reach over and smack them, hard. How would you feel if everyone told you that loving women was wrong and that you should find a nice guy to settle down with? You'd be pissed off as all hell, because guess what, Homosexuality is not a choice. The only thing you could claim is that practicing homosexuality is a choice. Course, then we'd have what we've had for hundred of years, men getting married to women just for appearances."I beleive life begins at conception. I believe abortion is wrong. I won't, however, impose my beliefs on legislation." All this show's me about Mr. Kerry is that he either 1) has no principles or 2) fails to believe in them strongly enough to vote on them. Either way, he is unfit to be President of this great country.
No, it means he's like me, personally he is against Abortion, but he believes in allowing people to choose. And frankly, the pro-lifers would have a lot more clout in my opinion, if they could convince someone with ovaries.

but ultimately, homosexuality is a choice, and when you make that choice, you are telling yourself that you can not get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman.


Uhm! I think i'll continue to be straight this day also!

Naah, lets test to be gay one day!

Oh no, that was no fun, I am going straight again!

Jeez, man. You really think your sexualliety is a choise? Sorry, but that makes me smile irl. :)

That's incorrect. There are studies where the results suggest a genetic cause and others that say it's a conscious choice and still others with mixed or inconclusive results.

That sounds, to me atleast, as "no solid evidence".

edit: spelling

My top 5 reasons for hating GWB:

5. Actually, Gore got more votes than Bush.
4. War in Iraq
3. Tax breaks for the rich
2. Got all huffy when us Canadians didn't join him in his war for oil.
1. Guilt tripping--it really isn't his fault, but whenever I express anti-Bush sentiments, I get, "You know, George Bush is a Christian."

2 reasons for liking him:

2. Gay Marriage
1. Abortion

The argument isn't about discrimination over benefits, it is about the institution of marriage. More precisely, protecting the institution of marriage in a traditional sense.
If the argument was about discrimination and access to benefits then gay couples would give up the desire for a "marriage" and have a civil union. The fight should be to give those who are joined by a civil union to have access to those benefits given to married couples.
Wow, a conservative I agree with. Mostly. You are wrong that this is about the title of "marriage" frankly I've asked around, most of the homosexuals I asked don't really care to much about the title. All they really want is for their union to have all the significance of any other couples. I have however said at several points that just making a civil union a marriage without the religious context would be a good idea. It keeps most of the people against Gay Marriage happy and it would have the same end result. Maybe not the best solution, but for the time being, its a good one.

Well, it is all fun and games when the bullshit flows like wine. Lets get some facts straight here.

1) Bush did not steal the 2000 election. I don't know if you realized this, but we live in a republic, which is a representative democracy. That means that the states elect the president. If you want to lay the blame on, blame Gore; his lovely recount in Florida was anything but democratic, seeing as how he only wished to recount three counties, where he felt he had the most support in, as opposed to the entire state. It has been said that thousands of votes in the western parts of Florida were never cast in favor of Bush because the major news networks had already declared that Gore had won.

2) Bush did not lie about the situation in Iraq. All of the intelligence that was gathered by our own CIA and from foreign nations, such as England, pointed to Saddam possessing and developing WMD's. I cannot fathom why it is beyond people to entertain the possibility that Saddam sold or gave away these weapons to terrorist groups. Even now, the story about Saddam trying to purchase uranium from Niger is breaking, yet you cling to your story as if he was some benevolent ruler planning on uniting the Middle East.

3) One of my favorite myths is that the economy is "getting worse." Heres a newsflash, more Americans are employed right now than ever before! Our economy is booming, wealth is being created, and there aren't any signs of it stopping any time soon.

4) Tax cuts for the rich, that one never gets old. Lets take a moment to examine this statement. To be in the top ten percent of tax payers, you must make $70,000 a year, that isn't a lot of money for most people. The top ten percent pays sixty-four percent of that tax in this country, therefore, it only makes sense that the top ten percent recieves a break. Overtaxing the rich creates a gap in equality among people, they do not deserve to pay more because they make more money. It is a fact that the majority of rich people got there by working their way up, not inheriting their money. For those of you with downs, that means they earned everything they have, and you have no right to take it from them.

5) Abortion is a very touchy issue, but I do not agree that a woman has a right to kill the baby because it is inside of her body for two reasons. First off, she made a conscious choice to have sex, thus resulting in the baby. In our modern times, we have contraceptives, use them or be prepared to face the consequences. Don't give me the rape argument, less than two percent of rapes end up in pregnancy; if you're that worried, take the pill or carry a pistol. Number two, life begins at conception, when the sperm enters the egg, cell division occurs, thus life is created.

6) Gay marriage is not marriage at all, it is at most a civil union. Like it or not, marriage is a religious institution, now whether or not the government needs to respect that, that is another issue. I personally feel that the government should have no involvement in marriage, which of course would entail no more marriage tax, along with no governmental benefits for a married couple.

okay, reason #6 for hating bush

His partisan bullsh*t
Does anyone remember that last senatorial election? The one when bush went around giving his personal support for all his little puppets in the Republican party. The one where, because people still liked Bush then, everyone voted Republican? The one that basically gave seperation of powers the finger. Basically, a good portion of the senate either owes allegance to Bush due to party politics, or because he got them their job. Thats why I'm suspicious of the findings of the 9/11 commity (sp?). It was put together by a republican controlled congress, I would have much more faith in an independant study, but unfortunately Dubya is blocking any attempts to form one.

5) Abortion is a very touchy issue, but I do not agree that a woman has a right to kill the baby because it is inside of her body for two reasons. First off, she made a conscious choice to have sex, thus resulting in the baby. In our modern times, we have contraceptives, use them or be prepared to face the consequences. Don't give me the rape argument, less than two percent of rapes end up in pregnancy; if you're that worried, take the pill or carry a pistol. Number two, life begins at conception, when the sperm enters the egg, cell division occurs, thus life is created.



First of your 2nd reason is the result of the 1st one so it's pretty much the same reason.

Secondly, newsflash, but no kind of protection is 100% "safe".

Oh, and about rapes... I am pretty sure that a gun wont hellp in most cases. The rapist will pick out a pray that isn't much of a challange and he wont scream "I am a rapist" from 20 yards before he attacks. Actually, he will attack supricingly from behind, and a gun in your pocket wont help much. It might even end up getting you killed.

And finally, if you got pregnant I am pretty sure you'd keep, it right? If you're a male imagen that you'd been born a female. But why not let it be a choise? I find it silly not to be up to every female to make this choise. Something in the line of "you aren't bright enough to do this desision so we, the government do it for you".

I'd like to point out that nearly all people of a "pro-life" persuasion are male. Meaning it doesn't directly effect them in any way. Which itself means they should shut up and let the women choose.

Well, it is all fun and games when the bullshit flows like wine. Lets get some facts straight here.

1) Bush did not steal the 2000 election. I don't know if you realized this, but we live in a republic, which is a representative democracy. That means that the states elect the president. If you want to lay the blame on, blame Gore; his lovely recount in Florida was anything but democratic, seeing as how he only wished to recount three counties, where he felt he had the most support in, as opposed to the entire state. It has been said that thousands of votes in the western parts of Florida were never cast in favor of Bush because the major news networks had already declared that Gore had won.

2) Bush did not lie about the situation in Iraq. All of the intelligence that was gathered by our own CIA and from foreign nations, such as England, pointed to Saddam possessing and developing WMD's. I cannot fathom why it is beyond people to entertain the possibility that Saddam sold or gave away these weapons to terrorist groups. Even now, the story about Saddam trying to purchase uranium from Niger is breaking, yet you cling to your story as if he was some benevolent ruler planning on uniting the Middle East.

3) One of my favorite myths is that the economy is "getting worse." Heres a newsflash, more Americans are employed right now than ever before! Our economy is booming, wealth is being created, and there aren't any signs of it stopping any time soon.

4) Tax cuts for the rich, that one never gets old. Lets take a moment to examine this statement. To be in the top ten percent of tax payers, you must make $70,000 a year, that isn't a lot of money for most people. The top ten percent pays sixty-four percent of that tax in this country, therefore, it only makes sense that the top ten percent recieves a break. Overtaxing the rich creates a gap in equality among people, they do not deserve to pay more because they make more money. It is a fact that the majority of rich people got there by working their way up, not inheriting their money. For those of you with downs, that means they earned everything they have, and you have no right to take it from them.

5) Abortion is a very touchy issue, but I do not agree that a woman has a right to kill the baby because it is inside of her body for two reasons. First off, she made a conscious choice to have sex, thus resulting in the baby. In our modern times, we have contraceptives, use them or be prepared to face the consequences. Don't give me the rape argument, less than two percent of rapes end up in pregnancy; if you're that worried, take the pill or carry a pistol. Number two, life begins at conception, when the sperm enters the egg, cell division occurs, thus life is created.

6) Gay marriage is not marriage at all, it is at most a civil union. Like it or not, marriage is a religious institution, now whether or not the government needs to respect that, that is another issue. I personally feel that the government should have no involvement in marriage, which of course would entail no more marriage tax, along with no governmental benefits for a married couple.

1) I'm not going to say much about this one as i don't have enough information, but let's just say that some nasty things have happened in the state of george his brother.

2) No evidence has ever been shown when he said they had evidence and i still don't see bush showing me wmd, so it's pretty logical to assume he lied.

3) The economy is probably not as fantastic as you portray it, but on the other hand people are always complaining about the economy.

4) I don't see why we should give the rich taxcuts. they worked, yes, but do they deserve to earn more money than someone who has two underpaid jobs in harsh conditions? the rich allready make enough money to survive and to live a good life, so why give them more money? I prefer to spend that money on helping the poor, giving the entire population good healthcare, etc. I don't say that the rich shouldn't be allowed to have a big house, expensive cars, etc. but i do say that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor (percentage wise) simply because they don't 'need' the extra cash that much and because every human is in some way equal and has the right to live a decent live. I know that i myself am on the good side of the poverty line and that i'll get a job that will earn me more money than i need and i'll happely pay a larger amount of my salary than someone who makes less money. my dad pays more taxes than he is required to simply because we don't need the extra money.

5) abortion: it's the woman's life that will get ruined, so if she wants an abortion, let her have one. You don't have the right to make that decision for her. Before you start about "but we don't have the right to decide for the baby" allow me to state that foetus is not human life in my eyes. It's possible life and just as we don't call it murder to use a condom to prevent possible life (an egg and a spermcell) from becomming life i don't call it murder to prevent this possible life from becomming real life. By the logic that a fertilised egg is a child and taking it away is murder, you are killing people right now by NOT having sex as the possible child that would come forth out of this act does not get born if you don't have sex and therefor doesn't get the choice.

6) marriage is not a religious institution in my eyes as i'm an atheist and i'm planning on getting married. and even if you see it as a religious institution, what religion would control it? the muslims? the newly found religion of Worshippers of the Jackal? So if one religion would allow gay marriages, this would make it legal and moral all of a sudden? gays have the right to be married as you don't have the right to deny them marriage as there is no fundamental difference between a man and a woman loving eachother and a man and a man/woman and woman loving eachother.

1) Unilateralism and disregard for the U.N.
2) Nearly unconditional support for Israël
3) Supporting policies that lead to arresting sick or dying people. (Medicinal marihuana issue).
4) Attacking/invading certain countries, while there were other countries more deserving of being invaded, namely Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia.
5) Hiding behind a Christian facade and doing some not-so orthodox things.

My top 5 reasons for disliking Bush.

1. His Arrogance
2. Piously stating he's guided by God, like we're just supposed to believe that.
(Unfortunately alot of people including my wife and her family do)
3.Ditching out on the ANG in his younger days while presenting such a Pro-military stance now.
4.His handling of the English language, of course he probably does'nt know better.
5. The Creation of "Free speech zones". The whole country is a free speech zone is'nt it?

You people keep assuming that no religious institution will allow people of the same sex to wed. Hello? Episcopalians?

And please, leave the First Lady out of the debate. Just debate the issues instead of saying the First Lady looks retarded. Oops, my bad, Democrats can't debate the issues because they know they'll lose so they have to resort to name calling..
LOL!

This from the side that called Chelsea Clinton the White House dog. That ran ads with a Democratic, disabled war hero alongside pictures of Stalin. Or the seaweed ads against Senator Wellstone. What are those phrases your lot use for Micheal Moore again? Are those based on reasoned debate of the issues rather than personal attacks? How about Cheney swearing in Congress? Now I admit, I've used some bad words in my time, but I have a little more respect than to swear at someone in the house of the government. How about Bush being caught when he thought he was off camera describing an unflattering reporter as "a real asshole"? Or the words "scumbag", "sociopath", "perpetual preener", "rapist" and "craven miscreant", as various members of Congress and the press called Bill Clinton?

How about Karl Rove doing push polling for Bush in the primaries, asking people if they'd heard that John McCain had an illegitimate black child? This wasn't exactly a partisan issue it has to be said, but it was Bush vs Anyone to his left, so I had to put it in.

Also, I would like to express my dislike of Mister Blair, the current Prime Minister. He is an intelligent man, and does what he believes is good for Britain. It's just a shame he chose to be Dubyah's lapdog.
The first time ever I will say this to a player with "Aryan" in their name: I agree.

5. Gay marriage
4. Patriot act
3. Starting a war
2. Supporting government
1. Supporting capitalism

Why I dislike Bush? Let me tell you why.

Its not the Greeco-Roman wrestling matches he has with the english language. Its not the way he take being unintelligent and unengaged and turns it into an art form. Its not the way he invaded Iraq, or the way he pointed two fingers up at the whole of the rest of the world. Its the way that, for two centuries, America lit the world as a beacon of democracy, tolerance, freedom and pluralism, and now it does not. In just four years Bush has taken America back towards corporate culture, classism, sexism, racism, homophobia, black-and-white ways of looking at the world. He's lowered the level of public debate, he's raised the level of fear. But most of all, he's brought us all down to his level. He, George W. Bush, he of C-Grades, the man who brought us "misunderestimated", the person who removed civil liberties in favour of some temporary security, he has destroyed America, felling the high towers of the country's ideals like the planes that brought down the World Trade Centre. His legacy to America has been to destroy America. That's why I don't like George W. Bush.

I felt compelled to join in this flame war, except i'll either be preaching to the enlighened or trying to draw blood from the stones of ignorance.

Bush and his advisors, in their mockery of the illuminati, are repeating history. There is no enemy, there never was scince the spread of nazism. Now that russian communism has ceased that means no longer can america focus it's hatred towards the largest nation on Earth.

Bush's actions are very similar to the roman emperor's of yesterempire. He belives by creating an enemy (Bin Laden, which is unusal as the Bin Ladens are one of the closest family friends to the Bush's) and saying "Follow me, or die because this terrorist hates you." is an excuse to use the american economy as his financier for war, and of course in war you can install "temporary emergency measures" such as the patriot act. Unfortunatly too many americans, ones who belive they are patriotic and christian belive what Bush says and will need to be convinced of the truth, as they don't want to belive it. Why is this? I don't know. Maybe they think the president of their country is supposed to protect them, which makes sense. However blind faith is as good as signing away your freedom, is that not the central tenate of being american?

I have one reason: the man hasn't a single fiber of morality in his body. Or in his administration for that matter.

I'm really getting tired of the whole Bush is dumb, Bush is dumb, Bush is dumb from the American political left. Now I'll admit that Bush is no Bill Clinton in eloquence with the English language but Bush is not dumb, graduated from Yale and then proceeded to graduate from Harvard with a Masters in Business Administration. Seems to me that you would have to be pretty smart to do all of that.

The whole Bush lied angle, read the just released Senate Intel report refuting all the claims that Bush lied, including the accusation of the sixteen words in the State of the Union that stated Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger, Hussein did try to buy uranium, look to the British report just released that sticks by its claim.

And what right does the government have to say that I don't "need" the money that I worked long and hard to make. All you liberals out there can go ahead and give your money to the government for social welfare but I would like to keep my money and give it to a much more effective private charity that I would like to call a church.

1) I'm not going to say much about this one as i don't have enough information, but let's just say that some nasty things have happened in the state of george his brother.

2) No evidence has ever been shown when he said they had evidence and i still don't see bush showing me wmd, so it's pretty logical to assume he lied.

3) The economy is probably not as fantastic as you portray it, but on the other hand people are always complaining about the economy.

4) I don't see why we should give the rich taxcuts. they worked, yes, but do they deserve to earn more money than someone who has two underpaid jobs in harsh conditions? the rich allready make enough money to survive and to live a good life, so why give them more money? I prefer to spend that money on helping the poor, giving the entire population good healthcare, etc. I don't say that the rich shouldn't be allowed to have a big house, expensive cars, etc. but i do say that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor (percentage wise) simply because they don't 'need' the extra cash that much and because every human is in some way equal and has the right to live a decent live. I know that i myself am on the good side of the poverty line and that i'll get a job that will earn me more money than i need and i'll happely pay a larger amount of my salary than someone who makes less money. my dad pays more taxes than he is required to simply because we don't need the extra money.

5) abortion: it's the woman's life that will get ruined, so if she wants an abortion, let her have one. You don't have the right to make that decision for her. Before you start about "but we don't have the right to decide for the baby" allow me to state that foetus is not human life in my eyes. It's possible life and just as we don't call it murder to use a condom to prevent possible life (an egg and a spermcell) from becomming life i don't call it murder to prevent this possible life from becomming real life. By the logic that a fertilised egg is a child and taking it away is murder, you are killing people right now by NOT having sex as the possible child that would come forth out of this act does not get born if you don't have sex and therefor doesn't get the choice.

6) marriage is not a religious institution in my eyes as i'm an atheist and i'm planning on getting married. and even if you see it as a religious institution, what religion would control it? the muslims? the newly found religion of Worshippers of the Jackal? So if one religion would allow gay marriages, this would make it legal and moral all of a sudden? gays have the right to be married as you don't have the right to deny them marriage as there is no fundamental difference between a man and a woman loving eachother and a man and a man/woman and woman loving eachother.

1) Recount after recount, it was proven that Bush did get the popular vote in Florida, thus resulting in him receiving their electoral votes. CNN even ran the article.

2) What did you want? I mean, seriously, did you need Bush to go on C-SPAN holding an artillery shell with mustard gas in it? There was sufficient evidence that Saddam had/was developing WMD's. Just as I pointed out earlier, he was trying to get uranium from Niger. Was he going to set up a nuclear power plant for the good of his people? Hell no, he wanted nuclear capabilities.

3) The economy is, in fact, just as wonderful as I said. We have had something along the lines of a five percent growth, that is very good; it is quite close to the boom we had under the Reagan years.

4) The idea that people are entitled to someone else's money comes down to one truth: theft. If I took the risks, got the education, and put in the extra time, there is no reason that you are entitled to my money. America's poor are not really poor at all, they may lack some of the luxuries that the middle class has, but they are hundreds of times better than what other countries consider poor. People in this country are not dieing of starvation, you never have this conversation: "Hey, did you hear about Bob? He starved to death." The simple truth is that Americans are the most charitable people on Earth, despite what Jimmy Carter might have you believe. I believe I read that more than sixty percent of households around the U.S. donated to charity, imagine how many more would do so with lower taxes! Hell, with government welfare programs abolished, the money that gets put into private charities gets handled much more efficiently. Do you want an organization who manages to only get thirty cents out of every dollar of child support to the child handling any more money than they have to?

5) Having sex is a conscious choice, deal with it or accept the consequences, it is that simple. We don't need to get religion involved here, the moment the egg is fertilized, cell division occurs. Your argument about not having sex means children are dieing doesn't hold up, unfertilized eggs are not alive, therefore murder doesn't occur. The same argument applies to having sex with birth control, until the egg is fertilized, no wrong is committed.

6) Marriage is a religious institution that has been in practice since the founding of Judeo-Christian times, including Muslims. In case you didn't know, all three of those religions stem from the Old Testament, which is why there is so much in common between them. If you read what I said, I don't think the government should officially recognize marriage at all, as in no benefits or penalties. Now whether a religious leader wishes to marry two homosexuals, that is his choice.

Wow, a conservative I agree with. Mostly. You are wrong that this is about the title of "marriage" frankly I've asked around, most of the homosexuals I asked don't really care to much about the title. All they really want is for their union to have all the significance of any other couples. I have however said at several points that just making a civil union a marriage without the religious context would be a good idea. It keeps most of the people against Gay Marriage happy and it would have the same end result. Maybe not the best solution, but for the time being, its a good one.

When I said "The argument" I was meaning "My argument". I have no problem with gay couple having a civil union and getting the benefits afforded a married couple but I do think the tradition of "marriage" needs to be kept for man and woman.
I agree with what you have said. It is not a perfect solution but everyone gets what they want.

Hmm... Top 5 Reasons why I hate Bush...

5. Attacking a foreign nation without proven cause and against the will of nearly every western nation.

4. The PATRIOT Act

3. Trying to pass another PATRIOT Act

2. Oppresion of Homosexual couples, in a country where, by law, the rights of everyone are protected.

1. Pretty much toasting a powerhouse economy, at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of jobs.

This is pretty much what everyone has said so far, with a few changes. And I'm not going to even touch abortion here. Someone should start another thread for that.

First of your 2nd reason is the result of the 1st one so it's pretty much the same reason.

Secondly, newsflash, but no kind of protection is 100% "safe".

Oh, and about rapes... I am pretty sure that a gun wont hellp in most cases. The rapist will pick out a pray that isn't much of a challange and he wont scream "I am a rapist" from 20 yards before he attacks. Actually, he will attack supricingly from behind, and a gun in your pocket wont help much. It might even end up getting you killed.

And finally, if you got pregnant I am pretty sure you'd keep, it right? If you're a male imagen that you'd been born a female. But why not let it be a choise? I find it silly not to be up to every female to make this choise. Something in the line of "you aren't bright enough to do this desision so we, the government do it for you".

No protection is 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy, a risk people are well aware of when they make the conscious decision to have sex.
There are only a few cases where I feel abortion is acceptable. If a pregnancy occurs due to rape, if the pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother or if the child has been prediagnosed with a genetic defect that will eventually kill the the child before or shortly after birth.
I should not be a woman's right to abort of child because they don't want it. Yes, the child is inside the woman's body but it is a child and the child also has a father. There are more people involved than just the woman who is pregnant.

I'm not American, but I want all you guys to vote for someone who isn't Bush this November. John Kerry should do the trick.
This is more than five reasons, but there is virtually nothing I like about this president's policies.

1. The USA PATRIOT Act. You can't be fighting for freedom and cancelling it out at the same time. Infringing on the US constitution's first, fourth, and fifth amendments is not OK, in fact it's un-American if you ask me.

www.aclu.org

2. His foreign policies have made the world a more dangerous place. Al-Qaeda has never had an easier time recruiting young Muslim men into its ranks of terrorists. Bush has only made people in the Arab world angrier, and anti-Americanism has increased there.

3. The illegal war in Iraq. Iraq was not a threat. Removing Saddam Hussein is a good idea but when you have hi-tech precision weapons you should be able to do it without killing some multiple of the innocents killed on 11th September 2001.

4. His robbery of the 2000 election. Supreme Courts don't appoint the president, the people elect him. The guy who gets the most votes gets the presidency. I would have liked to see this happen.

5. His lack of respect for human rights. The Guantanamo Bay prisoners have no access to lawyers and the almighty Bush has dictated that they have no rights under the Geneva Conventions. Luckily the Supreme Court is standing up for American values in this area. Most prisoners at Guantanamo Bay probably are terrorists, but they all deserve a fair trial. They deserve justice.

6. His anti-Europeanism. Freedom Fries? Liberty Lip-Lock? Come on. France is America's oldest ally. To make an enemy of them is folly.
American relations with Europe will take decades to heal. America should have a president that is a friend to the world, not the global bully.

7. The lies. His cronies always wanted to invade Iraq. They just needed some fake evidence to send in the troops to die for their oil-company agenda. I don't think i need to say any more about this.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

8. The death penalty. It's an outdated practice, it's morally wrong (how does a government have the right to decide on life like that?) and it's more expensive than life imprisonment.

9. The gay marriage issue. He wants to write discrimination into the US Constitution for the first time. His rationale for his argument was thinly-veiled homophobia.

10. His pandering to Christian fundamentalism. With his statements that God is on his side, and that "God wants this war", he doesn't sound too far from the crazed political-religious ranting of Osama bin Laden.

Um, yeah....
Eridanus, you just might want to look at the second paragraph of my point 6.

Next time, read the entire post before you go off half-cocked.

And please, leave the First Lady out of the debate. Just debate the issues instead of saying the First Lady looks retarded. Oops, my bad, Democrats can't debate the issues because they know they'll lose so they have to resort to name calling.

And I would rather have a man of substance than someone who "looks cool" as our president.

Including "He's a good Christian" in your praise of Bush isn't a debate. And I think you should really give some thought as to how much substance there is to Bush...considering he has managed to run every single corporation he has ever owned into the ground. When you say that you like Bush, you have no respect for this country. When you support Bush, you alow the Constitution to be torn to ribbons. DO you like the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001? You might say "Oh,well, I'm willing to give up some freedoms for protection from terrorists" well, under the Patriot act, you are giving up all your rights except the 2nd ammendment. Which means that if you step out of line and say something that someone high up in the government doesn't like, you could be hauled into a federal prison, and no one would know. But a real terrorist could keep low with his opinions, and buy all the guns and ammo he wants. Which makes no sense to me. I say that the only amendment under the patiot act that should be suspended is the right to bear and own arms, which is actually the only right you're guaranteed under the Patriot Act is the right to own a gun. That makes no sense.

Oh, and your little "debate" was far more offensive than mine. At least mine was funny!

...

4. His robbery of the 2000 election. Supreme Courts don't appoint the president, the people elect him. The guy who gets the most votes gets the presidency. I would have liked to see this happen.

...



No, actually here the person who gets the most ELECTORAL votes gets the presidency, assuming his electors don't turn on him. A pretty stupid system that is a holdover to the time when we weren't sure whether to be a democratic republic or a confederacy.

Thing is according to U.S. Code Title 3 all states, including Florida, had until a certain date to submit its list of electors, chosen by the laws of that state, for appointment to the electoral college. Florida did NOT choose its electors according to its laws. Therefor it had no legally appointed electors. Therefor Bush's "election" was illegal.

- A.J.H.

I'm really getting tired of the whole Bush is dumb, Bush is dumb, Bush is dumb from the American political left. Now I'll admit that Bush is no Bill Clinton in eloquence with the English language but Bush is not dumb, graduated from Yale and then proceeded to graduate from Harvard with a Masters in Business Administration. Seems to me that you would have to be pretty smart to do all of that.

The whole Bush lied angle, read the just released Senate Intel report refuting all the claims that Bush lied, including the accusation of the sixteen words in the State of the Union that stated Hussein tried to buy uranium from Niger, Hussein did try to buy uranium, look to the British report just released that sticks by its claim.

And what right does the government have to say that I don't "need" the money that I worked long and hard to make. All you liberals out there can go ahead and give your money to the government for social welfare but I would like to keep my money and give it to a much more effective private charity that I would like to call a church.


He graduated with a C- average. He's run every business he's ever owned into the ground. Face it. He's a dumb ass. He tries to emulate his father. His father wasn't a genius, but he wasn't as dumb as his son. You jsut love him because he's a "good christian". Funny. I seem to remember him saying something like "god wanted me to be president" well, if god wanted him to be president, he would have been elected, not appointed by a family friend in the Supreme Court. He's a flaming racist, and a dip weed, and should be demoted to a PE Teacher (sorry PE Teachers, you're not all dumb. I'm so sorry. But as a PE Teacher, he can't take our country to war and kill all the muslims for a couple extra years worth the oil)

5 Reasons I hate Bush...

1 - that illegal war in Iraq. I mean, I hate Hussein as much as the next person, but, there is no justification for what was done. If there had been a UN backing, I might see the matter in a different light.

2 - the gay marriage agenda. I mean, letting a few fruits get married will HELP marriage rates and INCREASE them. How's that for promoting the institute of marriage!

3 - The rigged election... That ain't democracy!

4 - The lies! The idiocy! See 9-11! It could have been avoided!! Why do I say it this? Because the CIA could have done it's job!

5 - He's a bloody republican!!

Son, I don't like correcting people, but America ain't a democracy. It never was, and, hopefully, never will be. It is a republic. The Founders despised democracy; for details, read the Federalist Papers.

I appear to be in the minority but I like Bush.

1) Sincerity. Bush is the kind of person who says and does what he wants and believes in. He doesn't base his arguments on the poll of the day. You know that what he pushes is what he stands for. Very few people in Washington are that upfront. (Including a lot of people in his administration.)

2) Duty. More's drivel notwithstanding, Bush steped up to the plate (or rather up to the devistation) after 9/11 and did the things he thought were necessary to win the war on terrorism. People may disagree with those things, but the point is that he did them. He made the hard decisions that often many politicians would never dare touch. Along with Guiliani, he was the right man at the right time.

3) Persistance. He is not the type of person who gives up at the first sign of opposition. He will continue to argue for things that he believes in until he gets those things.

4) A generally pro-life attitude. Alghough he does tend to favor capitol punishment, he is generally pro-life.

5) I like a lot of his policies and the ones I don't like I can live with.

On abortion:

YOu can easily say "I only think abortion should be allowed in specific cases." How do you decide what these cases are?

I think that abortion should be legal. That way the WOMAN, as in THE ONE CARRING THE CHILD, as in THE ONE THAT SHOULD HAVE AN ACTUAL OPINION, gets to decide.

On abortion:

YOu can easily say "I only think abortion should be allowed in specific cases." How do you decide what these cases are?

I think that abortion should be legal. That way the WOMAN, as in THE ONE CARRING THE CHILD, as in THE ONE THAT SHOULD HAVE AN ACTUAL OPINION, gets to decide.

As stated earlier:

There are only a few cases where I feel abortion is acceptable. If a pregnancy occurs due to rape, if the pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother or if the child has been prediagnosed with a genetic defect that will eventually kill the the child before or shortly after birth.

So you are saying a couple who are in a relationship have sex. The woman falls pregnant. The father of the child has no right to want the child born? a perfectly healthy child can be aborted for no other reason than the woman doesn't want it?

All name as many as I can think of:

1.Illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (illegal because they were fought
without congressional declarations of war).

2.Put us back in UNESCO.

3.The gestapo-like Department of Homeland Security and the misnomer 'Patriot' Act.

4.Wanting a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (I oppose gay marrriage, but it's a social issue, not a government issue, and it should be left to the states).

5.Praised radical internationalist President Woodrow Wilson.

6.Claims to fight terrorism, yet many of the 'allies' he has recruited are either hard-core terrorists, funders of terrorism, or at the least pro-terrorism (Russia, China, Pakistan, etc.). Also, just recently he renewed diplomatic relations with the terroristic nation of Libya.

7.Like all Presidents since Franklin Roosevelt, loaded his administration with scores of CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) members.

8.Wants to increase foreign aid (whereas a true conservative would want to eliminate it entirely).

9.His socialistic, anti-states' rights 'No Child Left Behind' Act.

10.Is an adamant supporter of NAFTA and the WTO.

11.Also, he's just a plain idiot!

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Here's a question: if the father wants the child and tries to convince the mother, and she refuses and aborts it, then:

1) why, and 2) is it a healthy relationship that would encourage and help the child anyways?

2. Piously stating he's guided by God, like we're just supposed to believe that.
(Unfortunately alot of people including my wife and her family do)


Oh, you're in that boat too, eh? I'm pretty much the only anti-Bush Christian I know. It stinks. Like rotten eggs.

Oh, you're in that boat too, eh? I'm pretty much the only anti-Bush Christian I know. It stinks. Like rotten eggs.

Here too, if you accept neo-Ariunism (a Gnostic sect).

5) Abortion is a very touchy issue, but I do not agree that a woman has a right to kill the baby because it is inside of her body for two reasons. First off, she made a conscious choice to have sex, thus resulting in the baby. In our modern times, we have contraceptives, use them or be prepared to face the consequences. Don't give me the rape argument, less than two percent of rapes end up in pregnancy; if you're that worried, take the pill or carry a pistol. Number two, life begins at conception, when the sperm enters the egg, cell division occurs, thus life is created.



The last sentence is a major one to disagree with Bush (and you) on. By your definition, every single cell in your body is "alive" and should be protected. Every cell that you lose from your body or kill is you killing life. That's nonsensical.

A fetus or a baby should not be considered alive unless it could survive on its own. Maybe with some help like hospitals can give, but certainly not at the 2 cell stage.

Until scientists can recreate the womb and birth babies outside a human, cells (whether they are solely the mother's DNA or mother + father) are not alive in and of themselves.

I'm not sure about abortion at stages where the fetus is viable, but I certainly wouldn't consider it murder.

I appear to be in the minority but I like Bush.

1) Sincerity. Bush is the kind of person who says and does what he wants and believes in. He doesn't base his arguments on the poll of the day. You know that what he pushes is what he stands for. Very few people in Washington are that upfront. (Including a lot of people in his administration.)


It might be nice to have a president that takes what the people want into account, even a little bitty bit, now and then. Of course if Bush did what the people want then Gore would be president now.


2) Duty. More's drivel notwithstanding, Bush steped up to the plate (or rather up to the devistation) after 9/11 and did the things he thought were necessary to win the war on terrorism. People may disagree with those things, but the point is that he did them. He made the hard decisions that often many politicians would never dare touch. Along with Guiliani, he was the right man at the right time.


People may indeed disagree with those things. So bush is a guy with strong beliefs that ignores dissent and acts decisively. So were Hitler, Hussain, Khan, Mao, Neopolean, Stalin, etc. That in itself is not a mark of nobility or integrity, only how it is used is.


3) Persistance. He is not the type of person who gives up at the first sign of opposition. He will continue to argue for things that he believes in until he gets those things.


See (1) and (2) above.


4) A generally pro-life attitude. Alghough he does tend to favor capitol punishment, he is generally pro-life.


The only way he can be called "pro-life" is in being anti-abortion. He is a warmonger who values killing so far above talk that he couldn't even be bothered to formulate an occupation plan. He supports relaxed restraints on gun ownership. He supports executing the retarded and the mentally ill, and sees no problem btw with the alarmingly disproportionate comparissons of race vs. crime rate to race vs. arrest/trial/conviction/sentancing rates. The only life he is in favour of protecting (other than being generally anti-crime, which I'll give him) is that of the unborn.

BTW, the only thing remotely like illegalizing abortion in the Bible is the passage that says that if a man causes a woman to miscarry, and she lives, he must pay the father of the foetus a sum of money. It's not even homicide.


5) I like a lot of his policies and the ones I don't like I can live with.

Great. So as long as you're not the one being secretly imprisoned without attorney, indightment or trial, potentially for the rest of your life, you can live with it. I am SO happy for you.



- A.J.H.

How did that one thingie go?

"When they came for the jews, I didn't care, because I wasn't jewish. When they came for the homosexuals, I didn't care, because I wasn't homosexual. When they came for the gypsies, I didn't care, because I wasn't a gypsie. When they came for me..."

yup.

That 'thingy' goes: When they came for the Jews, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't Jewish. When they came for the homosexuals, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't homosexual. When they came for the gypsies, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't a gypsy. When they came for the Catholics, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't Catholic. When they came for the Blacks, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't Black. When they came for the protestants, there was nobody left to stand up for me.

Now - to point out some things -

"For a man to lie with another man is an abomination."
Rabbi Sha-ul (or Paul)

Homosexuality is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in the Tav-Vav-Resh-Hey (Torah) or the "law" in English. Yeshua (or Jesus) said "I have not come to destroy the Torah, but to fulfill it. If it is an abomination before Adonai (the Lord), then why would he create humans without a choice?

Other points:
Homosexuals have not been 'struck down by lightning' as you put it, but things have happened to some.

At Sodom and Gommorah, homosexuality was common (Hence the term 'Sodomy') and they were destroyed pretty much with a Nuke from above (the Dead Sea is where they once were. Too salty for even the greatest of ocean fish to live in).

Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt passed a law allowing Homosexual activities: his son the Pharaoh Seti I upheld the law, and his grandson Rameses II lost all of Egypt's power and it was never a world power again (previous to Rameses II, Egypt had been the most powerful nation on Earth for more than 500 years).

In 453, the Roman Empire officialy sanctioned Same-sex marriage. In 500, there was no Roman Empire.

At one point (no exact people or date for this one), the Caliph of the Muslim empire allowed Homosexuality. A few years later, his son was tossed out of the Empire and forced to rule Spain. The following royal family and his son's family both banned it to keep something like that from happenning again.

In 1935, the Reichstag of Germany allowed same-sex marriage. In 1936, Hitler took full control of the German government, and only seven homosexuals on continental Europe survived his Holocaust.

Goodness gracious!!! I just agreed with Republicans!!! ???????????????????

Anyway top for not wanting Bush re-elected

1. He has alienated most of our Allies and the United Nations.

2. He has allowed Richard Cheney to run the country.

3. He has insulted McCain, who is a disabled vet of Vietnam

4. Has claimed that Kerry did not deserve all of his medals. (He did better than Bush, who was 'protecting Texas from the Commies' in the National Guard, and Cheney who got five deferments and then got his wife pregnant for a sixth)

5. He has sent the economy to the dumps. Yeah, highest amount of employed people ever, but not percentage wise.

6. Taken away civilian government personnel's (including my mother and two uncles (one of whom works FOR THE NAVY)) paychecks to pay for an illegal war which he already had $80 billion to fight.

7. Completely belittled John Kerry, even when RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON could not do it. To quote that man "He's. . .different. . .from those bearded wierdos. . .we see every day. . .He's been there. . .we can't just ignore him."

Well, if you still don't understand my position, my motto says it all.

And, if you doubt I'm a Christian/Believer

How many people know that Hebrew once had "a letter means a word" system, like Chinese, and the Hebrew letters for "Torah" (Tav-Vav-Resh-Hey) would translate in pictures into this sentence:

BEHOLD (Hey), TO A CROSS (Tav) IS NAILED (Vav) THE HIGHEST (Resh)

CFP

Bush:

Top 5 Reasons why I feel sorry for him.

1.) He has one of the hardest jobs in the world and he's not cut out for it. I can't image how tough it is to wake up every day and have this sinking feeling that you have the weight of the world on your shoulders and you don't quite know what to do with it.

2.) He trusted his advisors to help make his presidency a good one and they pretty much failed.

3.) He gets way too much flak for his decision to go to war in Iraq. I mean, come on, the guy almost died eating a pretzel, and you expect him to have the judgement to know that our intelligence agencies were kinda under par and that people might be telling him what they thought he wanted to hear?

4.) He gets called evil and sneaky and dictatorial but the poor guy doesn't have the intelligence to do any of those things. How come some people give the guy so much credit for things his advisors do?

5.) And who writes his speeches? Blegh.


Top 5 Reasons why I have a little respect for him.

1.) Although I often disagree with his beliefs, he stands up for what he believes in and I respect that.

2.) He truly cares for his country and wants the United States of America to be the best it can be.

3.) He ordered Osama Bin Laden hunted down. It's about time that perverter of Islam was brought to justice.

4.) He got a military coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I think just about everyone in the world was pleased with that, except the few who benefitted from Saddam's rule.

5.) He said he was going to give America a tax cut, and he actually did it. That's a rare thing folks.

You know Hotrodia, that was a very respectful post, and I'm glad to see it. But let me address the five reasons you gave for having a little respect for Bush.

1.) Although I often disagree with his beliefs, he stands up for what he believes in and I respect that.

I'll give him that one. I personally have my doubts about his beliefs, and I disagree with a lot of them, but he does stand up for them. Whether that's out of honor or political expediency is moot.

2.) He truly cares for his country and wants the United States of America to be the best it can be.

I have my doubts. I think he cares for certain segments of the country (corporate buddies and oilmen above all), but I have serious doubts as to whether he cares for the country as a whole. This is one where his actions speak more loudly to me than his words.

3.) He ordered Osama Bin Laden hunted down. It's about time that perverter of Islam was brought to justice.

Bush did do this, but a little late in the game despite warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration that he was going to have to make Bin Laden his top security priority. It's a case of too little too late, and it ties in to number 4 as well.

4.) He got a military coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I think just about everyone in the world was pleased with that, except the few who benefitted from Saddam's rule.

Sort of true--let's be frank though. It's not much of a coalition. It's largely the US, and the planning has been so terrible that we're in seriously bad shape there and here as a result. The other problem is that while getting rid of Saddam was a good thing on its own, looked at as part of a larger picture, it was poorly timed. We took resources from the job mentioned in number 3 in order to take care of number four, and as a result, we've botched both jobs pretty royally.

5.) He said he was going to give America a tax cut, and he actually did it. That's a rare thing folks.

He did come through, but at what cost? Skyrocketing deficits and a recovery that has sputtered more often than it has recovered. Job recovery is still down--those huge job numbers the last few months have all been revised downward--and the markets are about where they were 6 months ago.

I should not that this wasn;t meant as an attack, Hotrodia--just a slightly different take on the points you made.

Hey, just to make it clear, i'm very much against Bush, and I'm very surprised he hasn't locked all pretzels in a top jail in a foreign country pending military trial for crimes against America and trespassing on government property.

Quote- 4.) He got a military coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I think just about everyone in the world was pleased with that, except the few who benefitted from Saddam's rule.

However, I have to note that while France and Germany now look very smart and noble for protesting against the war on Iraq, they did have Oil contracts with Saddam, which would have been enacted once the UN restrictions were lifted. Now with Saddam out of power, the contracts are null, and the new government will have to negoitage new ones. Will they favour the people who put them in power? or European nations that were more interested in cheap power for themselves? Money might equal Power, but it's Oil that runs our cars.

Remember, politicans rarely have a social consience, but always an economic one.

Pommygirl.

I will vote for Mr. Bush...again.

1. A liberal president will try (harder) to take my hard earned salary and give it to undeserving ne'er-do-well's.
2. A Democrat will roll over and play dead to foreigners.
3. I don't trust a Democrat to protect our borders.
4. I don't trust a Democrat to protect much of anything.
5. Bush's daughters are both very attractive. Kerry's daughters are ugly.

You know Hotrodia, that was a very respectful post, and I'm glad to see it. But let me address the five reasons you gave for having a little respect for Bush.

*sigh* I knew someone would address them. :p

1.) Although I often disagree with his beliefs, he stands up for what he believes in and I respect that.

I'll give him that one. I personally have my doubts about his beliefs, and I disagree with a lot of them, but he does stand up for them. Whether that's out of honor or political expediency is moot.

Agreed.

2.) He truly cares for his country and wants the United States of America to be the best it can be.

I have my doubts. I think he cares for certain segments of the country (corporate buddies and oilmen above all), but I have serious doubts as to whether he cares for the country as a whole. This is one where his actions speak more loudly to me than his words.

Well, I'm pretty sure he does care about the country as a whole, but you certainly don't agree with his way of showing it, and that's fine. Neither do I. We're both just speculating, really. *shrugs*

3.) He ordered Osama Bin Laden hunted down. It's about time that perverter of Islam was brought to justice.

Bush did do this, but a little late in the game despite warnings from the outgoing Clinton administration that he was going to have to make Bin Laden his top security priority. It's a case of too little too late, and it ties in to number 4 as well.

Hmmm...yes, but maybe if Clinton spent more office time on his job and less on his intern he might have had Bin Laden long ago and 911 wouldn't have happened, but probably not. I'm not so quick to assign him or anyone else blame for that mishap. I think a variety of problems were to blame for the "Osama Problem".

Side Note: I don't give a damn about who Clinton does on his own time in a hotel suite somewhere but doing Lewinsky during his time in the office is just insulting. I think that when the President is in his office he should be working, not dilly-dallying.

4.) He got a military coalition to remove Saddam Hussein from power. I think just about everyone in the world was pleased with that, except the few who benefitted from Saddam's rule.

Sort of true--let's be frank though. It's not much of a coalition. It's largely the US, and the planning has been so terrible that we're in seriously bad shape there and here as a result. The other problem is that while getting rid of Saddam was a good thing on its own, looked at as part of a larger picture, it was poorly timed. We took resources from the job mentioned in number 3 in order to take care of number four, and as a result, we've botched both jobs pretty royally.

And that response was why I specified the removal of Saddam rather than saying the Iraq War in general. :D

5.) He said he was going to give America a tax cut, and he actually did it. That's a rare thing folks.

He did come through, but at what cost? Skyrocketing deficits and a recovery that has sputtered more often than it has recovered. Job recovery is still down--those huge job numbers the last few months have all been revised downward--and the markets are about where they were 6 months ago.

I'm not so content to blame the current economic slump on the tax cuts. It was likely a variety of factors, one of which may well have been the tax cuts, but they certainly weren't the whole problem.

I should not that this wasn;t meant as an attack, Hotrodia--just a slightly different take on the points you made.

Understood. I figured that was it. I appreciate that you actually take my posts pertaining to politics seriously. Most people just kind of ignore them. I'm not sure if that's because my posts are unassailable by the common generalite or if my posts are just too stupid to respond to. ;) :p

That's exactly what I'm saying.

Here's a question: if the father wants the child and tries to convince the mother, and she refuses and aborts it, then:

1) why, and 2) is it a healthy relationship that would encourage and help the child anyways?

1. Why did she abort the child? You'd have to ask her but it would more than likely that she did not want a child (obviously). If she was so determined not to become a mother that she would kill the child inside her rather than have it born then she should really think twice about having sex in the first place.

2. We'll never know because the child was aborted. The fact that the father wanted the child suggests that he was willing to commit to the woman and the child. The fact that you advocate for a woman to terminate any pregnancy she feels like irrespective of the father's wishes or the right of the child to live amazes me. If you consent to have sex then there are consequences of such actions, the major one being pregnancy.

The only scenarios where I see abortion as a real alternative is if the pregnancy is due to rape, if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy or if the child has been diagnosed with a condition that will cause it to die prior to or shortly after birth.

Well, here's a question. What kind of relationship were they in if she wanted an abortion so much when he wanted it? Obviously it wasn't casual sex, because then he wouldn't have wanted the child. Obviously they arn't in a healthy relationship, because otherwise they would've discused it earlier.

So tell me why it would happen? SO far, rape is the only possibility that comes to mind-only in that case, it's not so much that the father doesn't want the abortion as he doesn't care.

Well, here's a question. What kind of relationship were they in if she wanted an abortion so much when he wanted it? Obviously it wasn't casual sex, because then he wouldn't have wanted the child. Obviously they arn't in a healthy relationship, because otherwise they would've discused it earlier.

So tell me why it would happen? SO far, rape is the only possibility that comes to mind-only in that case, it's not so much that the father doesn't want the abortion as he doesn't care.

No, there are many possibilities. Shock...didn't "plan" on becoming pregnant. Having a child not in her best interest career-wise. Believe it or not couples have sex before discussiing bringing up a family. Just because they have not planned a pregnancy does not give the woman the right to kill the child inside her.
Are you assuming the only scenario where a woman would want an abortion was because she was raped? If so, then why do you have a problem with legislating for abortions under the conditions I have stated?

1. Iraq. I honestly don't understand how ANYONE who is sentient could possibly be happy with the decision over Iraq. Even if the move were made for humanitarian reasons, it would be nice for that to be understood from the start. Claiming someone has weapons and then invading them pre-emptively means you HAVE TO BACK IT UP. I myself supported the war initially, saying "He probably has a spy or really good intelligence. He wouldn't want war if he wasn't absolutely SURE." The Senate just this week showed how poor our intelligence was.

2. Budget deficit. I know I am not alone in saying that *I happily pay taxes*. Taxes are good. They pay for the police officers that keep me safe, for the roads I travel down every day, and for my education. That said, I will also gladly pay more taxes if it will reduce our national deficit. It seems to me like politics just gets in the way of all of the economic decisions. But all this debt is unhealthy. Just as long as my tax dollars don't go to POOR PEOPLE. Man do I hate poor people! They take my money and spend it all on Fifty Cent records or cereal or shoes for their kids or something.

3. His Christianity being the basis for social policy. I'm a Christian myself, and while I think it's swell that the President is too, I'd rather he make decisions based on stronger stuff than just religion. Take nearly every single domestic issue: abortion for instance. Abortions have gone on for thousands of years, and here's a little secret: Christians have abortions, too. They also divorce one another, hurt each other, and sin. Moses created a system in which a man could divorce his wife because it would be better to have a system that acknowledges man's imperfections than one that expects perfection. It was created to protect society. Why can't abortions be the same? We need sociologists and scientists and ethicists to help us out on this one: subscribing to a strict religious view is not nuanced enough. The same thing goes for all the rest of the social non-issues that Bush wants to debate because ganging up on homosexuals is easier than discussing Iraq.

4. "He sticks to his values instead of what polls indicate". This is a big one for me because it sounds pretty good from the start. Of course we want someone to stick to their values rather than the hoi polloi flavor of the nanosecond. But it makes me feel disenfranchised and helpless when I know that my leader will not listen to what I have to say. I want to feel that George W. Bush is MY president, but I don't because he has publicly said that he basically doesn't care what I or my friends think. Moderates like me really feel squeezed.

5. The PATRIOT ACT. I'm all for helping our police do their job to prevent a future terrorist attack. Everyone is. I'm even in favor of giving up some of my rights for my security. I know you'll quote Jefferson on me, but Jefferson lived 200 years ago, before this modern world. Some of my leftie friends gave me the 1984 speech, but I would have none of it: this is America, man. But then it turns out that we're seriously using it for the wrong reasons. We're searching activists and contrarians, not terrorists. So I'm glad that my senator was the only one to vote against it.

AND, most importantly, NUMBER 6: The way he pronounces "Nuke-U-Ler" instead of "New-Clear". Ahhhh! He does it every time! EVERY TIME! Doesn't anybody else notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! I don't know how you add this extra syllable to 'Nuclear'.

1. Look, the simple fact is that the intelligence Bush based his decisons on was the same as that of every other nation in the world. To be completely fair, Hussein had ample time to remove any biological weapons, and it is very possible he did just that. To blame the (possibly) bad intel on Bush is ridiculous, since it would be akin to blaming a blind man for being born blind. Interestingly, you take the same source that Bush got his intel from, the CIA, and then claim that he should have known about 9/11 before it happened by using intel who's source you question. Maybe Bush did hear a a report about possible terrorist action, but dismissed it because there was not enough evidence. However, you then claim that he should have acted on that information anyways? But later, when he DOES act on intel from the same source about a Hussein/Al Quaida link, and biological weapons, you say he should NOT have acted? So tell me, should Bush act on his intel or not? Or are you always going to wait until after the fact to tell us all how you could have done it right? In other words, either you act on your intel or you don't. However, when Bush doesn't, you say he should have. When he does, you say he shouldn't have. Hindsight is 20/20, but I can assure you that you don't know everything. Personally, I beleive that if they DO find WMDs, they will wait until closer to election time to release that news, just because everything is a publicity stunt to politicians, regardless of party.

2. I honestly couldn't care less about the UN. You see, the US contributes more money to fighting AIDS in foreign countries than every other nation in the world combined. However, the UN, many of whose member nations were so vocal in attacking the US, had no problem with asking the Bush administration for even more money than it is already giving. In other words, the UN can say what it wants, but the US is the backbone of that organization. UN member nations will denounce the US all day long, and then come and demand money from it. I personally don't care what the UN thinks, since it apparently sees the US as a big wallet.

3. Gay Marriage. Ok, honestly, I don't really care if they want to get married. I'm a christian, but it just doesn't matter to me. Granted, I think homosexuality is disgusting, but I just can't see the need to prevent them from getting married. To be honest(and a little bit blunt), since people who engage in homosexual relations are much more likely to contract AIDS, I think it would be better for them to be able to get married. This would minimize contact with individuals who may be infected, and would equalize the ratios I think. However, I will not vote against Bush simply to back up an institution that I believe is morally wrong. I should also say that I think the government has too much power at this point, but that is a legacy of the Democratic party. The conservative approach has always been more hands off. If the government has the power to ban gay marriages, it is only because misguided liberals gave it too much power to enforce laws on the lives of people. If you can force people to not be racist (at least publicly), then it is immediately apparent that you can force them to not show their homosexuality publicly. It all depends on what way the public feels. This election will show which way the general public is moving. Sadly, the government has been given the power to make moral decisions that may be disadvantagous for any group, and it will use this power. Once again, I point out that our original government did not have this power, and only through liberalization did this occur. If you don't like it, then we have something in common.

Hades? Kerry's saying to leave gay amrrige to the states. Bush wants it to be a government issue.

Don't you love it when the parties stick to their beliefs? ;)


Tygaland, we're assuming that the father wants the child to live. If they didn't expect it, and it's out of shock, then why would the father care so much about it living?

And secondly, does this go for ALL types of abortion? What about the morning after pill?

Tygaland, we're assuming that the father wants the child to live. If they didn't expect it, and it's out of shock, then why would the father care so much about it living?

You proposed the example where the father DID want to keep the child, I responded to that example. Don't move the goal posts.

And secondly, does this go for ALL types of abortion? What about the morning after pill?

Yes

Ummm...how did I move the goal posts? I'm keeping it in track with the "dad is against abortion" thing.

And...wow, all types of abortion? No pleasing you, eh? Guess we should all live in celibacy for the rest of our lives.

Ummm...how did I move the goal posts? I'm keeping it in track with the "dad is against abortion" thing.

No, the original example was a couple having a child, the father wanted to keep the child, the mother aborted the pregnancy. It was not a father who is anti-abortion versus a pro-abortion mother, but a scenario whereby the father wanted to keep the child and the mother did not. Changing the argument to ask why would the father want to keep the child is not relevant to what we were discussing. And, as these "people" we are discussing are hypothetical we cannot try and interpret why they acted the way they did. all we know about these "people" is what was presented in your example.

And...wow, all types of abortion? No pleasing you, eh? Guess we should all live in celibacy for the rest of our lives.

No, we should accept the responsibilities of our actions. If you have sex, even using contraception, there is a chance that pregnancy can occur. That is the risk you take.

.....Are you not reading what I'm posting? "Dad is against abortion thing." You know what that means, right? He's pro-life. Wants the kid to live. Does NOT want the abortion.

Are we clear on that?


Now, if you're even against the morning after pill, well, there's no pleasing you period :p. So, another question:


How do you determine that a woman's been raped? Do you want doctors to give them little interregations when they come in?

.....Are you not reading what I'm posting? "Dad is against abortion thing." You know what that means, right? He's pro-life. Wants the kid to live. Does NOT want the abortion.

Are we clear on that?

No, he wants his kid to live! The difference is you are looking at them as members of some political stance while I am looking at them as human beings. He may well have been pro-abortion until he realised he was going to be a father..who knows. I am not debating political labels, I am debating life choices. He finds out his wife/girlfriend is pregnant and wants that child to be born, not out of some political belief but because he wants that child to be born. The wife/girlfriend, for reasons unknown in the example, wants to abort the pregnancy and does so.


Now, if you're even against the morning after pill, well, there's no pleasing you period :p. So, another question:


How do you determine that a woman's been raped? Do you want doctors to give them little interregations when they come in?

The same way any rape is determined. Complaint by the victim, forensic evidence and questioning of the rapist if they have been caught.

..........


Seriously, is this some kind of joke? Are you paying NO attention to what I've been saying?

THE DAD WANTS THE CHILD TO BE BORN

YES OR NO?!

..........


Seriously, is this some kind of joke? Are you paying NO attention to what I've been saying?

THE DAD WANTS THE CHILD TO BE BORN

YES OR NO?!

I have read everything you have said.
Yes, he does want the child to be born, that was pointed out in the original example. What you have failed to grasp is that people are not mindless drones to political standpoints. He is the father of an unborn child that he wants to be born and live its life. You really cannot get your head around the fact that people have feelings. The father's standpoint on abortion in this example is unknown. So calling him "pro-life" is a rather simplistic approach to the situation. He is putting the life of his child first. He has committed himself to the child and its mother as any father should. Are you saying his feelings are irrelevant? Do you really think people live solely by political labels? Not in the real world.

Maybe you've read everything, but you don't understand any of it.

Fine. He has feelings for the child. Whoop de do. Name a situation in which the father wants the child to be born and the mother does not.

Maybe you've read everything, but you don't understand any of it.

Fine. He has feelings for the child. Whoop de do. Name a situation in which the father wants the child to be born and the mother does not.


Actually a woman at work once admited to that situation. She got pregnant(teenager) and did not want the child. The guy did.......

Ah, but were they married and in a healthy relationship?

Maybe you've read everything, but you don't understand any of it.

Fine. He has feelings for the child. Whoop de do. Name a situation in which the father wants the child to be born and the mother does not.

I understand exactly what you are saying and I think your interpretation of the example and the resulting situation is shallow. I am glad to see you hold the feelings of a father for his child in such high esteem.

You provided the example, not me. Don't attempt to make me justify the example you have chosen to try and argue your case.

Ah, but were they married and in a healthy relationship?

No they were not. In fact it could have been considered statch as she was under age and he was not.

Sorry but I clicked accidentally. I should read all before commenting.....

The point of me doing that, was because examples of such are usually very, very rare.

Pretty much every story I've ever heard about the two disagreeing was about the father trying to push the abortion. In most cases, they either end up agreeing or disagreeing together on the issue.


You're really confusing me. How am I NOT holding the values of the father in high esteem? Because ONCE I commented on him being pro-life? That's becase we were arguing in a very stupid manner.

Me: "The father wants the baby to live."
You: "No, the FATHER wants the baby to live!"

So, I set up a list of phrases that would hopefully catch your attention. "Against the abortion," "wants the kid to live," and "pro-life."


So where are YOU comming from?

.
Fine. He has feelings for the child. Whoop de do.....

That is where you showed a lack of respect for a fathers feelings for their child.

I don't care how common or rare such a situation is. You chose the example and I discussed this issue using that example.

I am arguing that unless the pregnancy was due to rape (which in your example it was not stated this was the case), the pregnancy caused the woman's life to be endangered (not mentioned in your example) or if the child was diagnosed with a condition that would cause it do die before or shortly after birth (also not mentioned in your example) then the woman, in my opinion, has no right to terminate the pregnancy. I was using the feelings and wishes of the father (which you provided in the example) to show that such a decision involves more than just the woman, but also a child and the child's father.
You, on the other hand, are arguing that the decision to terminate is solely up to the woman and the father's wishes and feelings are irrelevant, not to mention the life of the child.
I used the feelings of the father and his desire to see his child born (you stated this was the case in your example) to show the reasoning behind my stance on this issue. To think that people rely solely on their political points of view to make decisions about these issues is a shallow way to look at the issue. It is far more complex than that because people's lives are involved.

Me: "The father wants the baby to live."
You: "No, the FATHER wants the baby to live!"

So, I set up a list of phrases that would hopefully catch your attention. "Against the abortion," "wants the kid to live," and "pro-life."


So where are YOU comming from?

You are arguing from a political standpoint. I am arguing from a personal standpoint. You write the father off as pro-life which I feel is a shallow label for a person in the situation you have provided. He may well have been pro-abortion up until the point he realised he was to become a father. To dismiss his decision as a political one is simplistic. Thats the point I was trying to make. I am concerned you may have trouble isolating the two concepts.

1. Iraq...yes, I'm sure everyone has said this, but the main thing I have to say about Iraq is that he knew for a fact there were no WMDs there, because who in their right mind would go out of their way to piss off a country that could bomb the hell out of you? North Korea claimed to have WMD, and as soon as Bush found that out, he left them alone, and even stopped referring to them in a negative manner, because he KNEW they weren't kidding. He's a coward. Do you really think he'd attack Iraq if he really thought they could fight back? No, I didn't think so either.

2. When he was governor of Texas, Bush was responsible for 152 executions. That in itself is not even the most terrible part. The worst part is, several of those that were executed under Bush were mentally handicapped! Does he even HAVE morals?

3. He purposely enstilled fear in the hearts of Americans by talks of more attacks and terrorists and the like. He made them scared so they would look to him for protection and guidance, using this as a smokescreen for Iraq, in the attempt to get his way and make himself look like a hero. People will do anything when they're afraid.

4. The unemployment rate has increased so much that 2 out of 3 college graduates have to move back home with their parents after they graduate because they cannot find a half-decent job. As a university student, I do not find that cool.

5. Going against UN orders, therefore breaking international law, has made the United States of America technically a rogue nation, according to UN law.

Why is it not called terrorism when carried out by the United States?

You don't seem to understand what I was saying. I was saying that it doesn't matter why he wants the child to live. The example was that he doesn't want the abortion, but the mom does.


And what I was saying was, that this case rarely happens. It's like saying guns should be banned, because some people mis-use them. In some-read: very, VERY few-cases, yes, the father wants the child to live despite the mother. However, it is in a very clear minority.

Plus, you seem to think the world of the father, and nothing of the mother. What if she's raped? Most rape cases go uninvestigated, because the victim doesn't want it to be known that she was raped. I KNOW people who have been raped, in one case a VERY private report was done, in the other, since she didn't know who it had actually done it, nothing was filed.


And you seem to care a lot about the child. Or at least, about the child being born. What family will he/she be born into? WILL he/she be born into a family? Or will the child be born to a single mom because of one mistake she made? Sure, the mom gets her just dividends-but what does the child have to go through?

Let me put it this way: We're scewed both ways, but I happen to hate all the socialist programs that Kerry is promising.

I'd also love to keep all of my guns.

5 Reasons why I'm voting for bush:

1. You say that the war in Iraq is ILLEGAL? NO JUSTIFACATION? In this case, WW1, WW2, The Korean and Vietnam war were unjustified. You guys say "Where teh nukes at?" I say "Where is the asshole at?" And besides, everything runs on fossil fuel. Oil is a totally legitmate reason for war.

2. If I join the Air Force when Kerry is in office, I will be doing Deck runs not doing shit. We will be cut back, and unengaged.

3. Like I said before, Kerry will enact all sorts of Gun Control bills..and with my collection of:

AK-47 /w Red Dot Scope, G3A3, FN-FAL, 3 SKS's (1 /w collapsable stock, 1 /w grenade launcher), French MAS 1936, 2 .22's, Berreta 92f, CZ-52.

will be considered illegal, confiscation, and unavailablility of other rare guns.

4. Where do you think Kerry is going to get all that money that will support all of these social programs like welfare? Strait out of your pocket, thats where. And with such a great welfare program, Why should I work my ass off, when I could recieve more money than id make anyways and all I have to do is sit on my ass! Fuck standing in line, they'll mail me a check!

5. Kerry is a pansy. You guys think bush is way more stupid than he really is.

You don't seem to understand what I was saying. I was saying that it doesn't matter why he wants the child to live. The example was that he doesn't want the abortion, but the mom does.

Yes, as I said, it is patently obvious who wanted the child to be born and who didn't in the example. I am not arguing about who wants the abortion and who doesn't because it is clear in the example. What we were discussing is why I think the woman should not be permitted to abort the pregnancy and why you think she should.


And what I was saying was, that this case rarely happens. It's like saying guns should be banned, because some people mis-use them. In some-read: very, VERY few-cases, yes, the father wants the child to live despite the mother. However, it is in a very clear minority.

You brought up the example. Again, how rare it is is not relevant. You produced the example for discussion. Dismissing it as rare is not the point of the discussion.

Plus, you seem to think the world of the father, and nothing of the mother. What if she's raped? Most rape cases go uninvestigated, because the victim doesn't want it to be known that she was raped. I KNOW people who have been raped, in one case a VERY private report was done, in the other, since she didn't know who it had actually done it, nothing was filed.

The example you proposed did not state she was raped. Don't start adding information now. If you have read anything I have said you will be aware that if the woman was raped that was one of the grounds where I felt abortion was acceptable. If a rape victim doesn't report the rape then they cannot have an abortion in my opinion. Also the fact that you seem to have nothing but contempt for the feelings of the father in this example and on this issue as a whole. The mother is also charged with making a decision that noone should have to make. Choosing to kill your unborn child? Does providing the choice you want to offer really help the woman in the long run?


And you seem to care a lot about the child. Or at least, about the child being born. What family will he/she be born into? WILL he/she be born into a family? Or will the child be born to a single mom because of one mistake she made? Sure, the mom gets her just dividends-but what does the child have to go through?

The child is the only party in this thats life is in the hands of people making decisions about its future. How do you know what type of family the child will be born into? Do you think single mothers are incapable of raising a child? Ever heard of adoption? Childless couples are lining up to adopt children. To hypothesise over what a child will go through in its life is ridiculous because the possible outcomes are endless.

5 Reasons I hate Bush...

1 - that illegal war in Iraq. I mean, I hate Hussein as much as the next person, but, there is no justification for what was done. If there had been a UN backing, I might see the matter in a different light.

2 - the gay marriage agenda. I mean, letting a few fruits get married will HELP marriage rates and INCREASE them. How's that for promoting the institute of marriage!

3 - The rigged election... That ain't democracy!

4 - The lies! The idiocy! See 9-11! It could have been avoided!! Why do I say it this? Because the CIA could have done it's job!

5 - He's a bloody republican!!


Man you are brainwashed beyond belief!

1. You say that the war in Iraq is ILLEGAL? NO JUSTIFACATION? In this case, WW1, WW2, The Korean and Vietnam war were unjustified.

Yes, as I said, according the UN law, (which the USA helped write!), the war on Iraq was illegal. WW1 and WW2 had no way of being either legal or illegal, because the UN was not established until the end of WW2. Therefore, there were no "UN laws" making such a war illegal. So those wars are completely irrelevant to Iraq.

By US law and International law, the war in Iraq is illegal.
By US law and International law, the war in Vietnam was illegal.
By US law, the war in Korea was illegal. By International law, it was legal.
By US law, World War I was legal. By International law, the war would be illegal by no fault of the United States or any other Allied power.
By US law, World War II was legal. By international law, it was illegal by no fault of the Allied powers nor the Comintern.

Iraq: War without reason is unjustified. Oil is not a justification because that would make the justification 'Greed'. Greed is not a reason for war. Therefore, it is Internationally Illegal. It is illegal by US law because WAR WAS NOT DECLARED BY CONGRESS which is EXPLICITLY STATED in the CONSTITUTION of the United States as a REQUIREMENT FOR WAR (Sorry about all the caps, I get touchy with politics.).

Vietnam was not legal by IL because of actions taken by members of the US Army in Vietnam. Not legal in US because WAR WAS NOT DECLARED BY CONGRESS.

Korea was legal in IL because the US did not torture anybody, and had a plausible reason for entering the war (to stop Communism from spreading). Not legal in US because CONGRESS DID NOT DECLARE WAR.

WWII was illegal in IL because of the illegal Nazi invasion of Poland and France. Legal by US because A FOREIGN POWER DECLARED WAR (specifically, The Empire of the Rising Sun (better known as Japan)).

WWI was illegal in IL because Germany without provacation invaded Russian Poland, France, and Italy. WWI was legal by US because CONGRESS DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.

Thank you for reading.

CFP

No protection is 100% guaranteed to prevent pregnancy, a risk people are well aware of when they make the conscious decision to have sex.
There are only a few cases where I feel abortion is acceptable. If a pregnancy occurs due to rape, if the pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother or if the child has been prediagnosed with a genetic defect that will eventually kill the the child before or shortly after birth.
I should not be a woman's right to abort of child because they don't want it. Yes, the child is inside the woman's body but it is a child and the child also has a father. There are more people involved than just the woman who is pregnant.
Even most of the pro-choice people think that it should be between the woman and her lover/husband/whatever. Personally I'm against abortion, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to pass a law banning it. Its not like abortion is truely harmful (to anyone other than the fetus that is, which may or may not be aware, there is no proof either way). Now I agree, after a certain point, like the third trimester, you should not be allowed to have an abortion, because that is 1. Painful as all h*ll for the woman, 2. Killing something that at the very least, looks human. I am really tired of hearing conservatives go 'Its taking a life.' Well so is that hamburger your eating, so unless you're a vegan who goes out of their way to not even step on a little bug, I suggest you stop using the 'all life is sacred' arguement.

That's awesome that everyone here is up for discussing specific reasons why they are for one candidate or the other. Don't forget to take that politcal/philosophical debate where it really matters--when the time comes, GO VOTE!

Actually, there's no solid evidence anywhere that says homosexuality is a choice, and there's limited evidence to suggest that while there's not a single "gay gene," there's certainly a genetic predisposition toward homosexual behavior.

And regardless, are you really suggesting that if a person chooses a particular lifestyle, that person deserves to be shat upon by his or her government? What if, instead of sexuality, the choice one made was religious? Spare me the First Amendment protections argument and answer the question--one's religion is a choice, so if a person chose to become a member of a socially unacceptable religion, would it be morally just to deny that person the basic rights of citizenship because of his or her choice in how to worship?

Umm, that is already being done to American Muslims. How many of them were harassed, for no good reason, detained for weeks without access to counsel, or even with them being made aware of the charges against them, post 9/11?

I have to say thank you to the starter of this thread, because you are making it easy to identify the people I want to add to my Ignore List, straight off. Anyone who likes Bush, I don't wanna see their spew. So far, Unashamed Christians, and Capsule Corporation have made my list...and I'm just on page 2. More will follow. You are being added to my ignore list for the simple reason you don't agree with me, and people who do not agree with me anger me. Especially, as seeing I am ALWAYS right....

That 'thingy' goes: When they came for the Jews, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't Jewish. When they came for the homosexuals, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't homosexual. When they came for the gypsies, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't a gypsy. When they came for the Catholics, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't Catholic. When they came for the Blacks, I didn't stand up for them because I wasn't Black. When they came for the protestants, there was nobody left to stand up for me.

Now - to point out some things -

"For a man to lie with another man is an abomination."
Rabbi Sha-ul (or Paul)

Homosexuality is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN in the Tav-Vav-Resh-Hey (Torah) or the "law" in English. Yeshua (or Jesus) said "I have not come to destroy the Torah, but to fulfill it. If it is an abomination before Adonai (the Lord), then why would he create humans without a choice?

Other points:
Homosexuals have not been 'struck down by lightning' as you put it, but things have happened to some.

At Sodom and Gommorah, homosexuality was common (Hence the term 'Sodomy') and they were destroyed pretty much with a Nuke from above (the Dead Sea is where they once were. Too salty for even the greatest of ocean fish to live in).

Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt passed a law allowing Homosexual activities: his son the Pharaoh Seti I upheld the law, and his grandson Rameses II lost all of Egypt's power and it was never a world power again (previous to Rameses II, Egypt had been the most powerful nation on Earth for more than 500 years).

In 453, the Roman Empire officialy sanctioned Same-sex marriage. In 500, there was no Roman Empire.

At one point (no exact people or date for this one), the Caliph of the Muslim empire allowed Homosexuality. A few years later, his son was tossed out of the Empire and forced to rule Spain. The following royal family and his son's family both banned it to keep something like that from happenning again.

In 1935, the Reichstag of Germany allowed same-sex marriage. In 1936, Hitler took full control of the German government, and only seven homosexuals on continental Europe survived his Holocaust.

Goodness gracious!!! I just agreed with Republicans!!! ???????????????????

Anyway top for not wanting Bush re-elected

1. He has alienated most of our Allies and the United Nations.

2. He has allowed Richard Cheney to run the country.

3. He has insulted McCain, who is a disabled vet of Vietnam

4. Has claimed that Kerry did not deserve all of his medals. (He did better than Bush, who was 'protecting Texas from the Commies' in the National Guard, and Cheney who got five deferments and then got his wife pregnant for a sixth)

5. He has sent the economy to the dumps. Yeah, highest amount of employed people ever, but not percentage wise.

6. Taken away civilian government personnel's (including my mother and two uncles (one of whom works FOR THE NAVY)) paychecks to pay for an illegal war which he already had $80 billion to fight.

7. Completely belittled John Kerry, even when RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON could not do it. To quote that man "He's. . .different. . .from those bearded wierdos. . .we see every day. . .He's been there. . .we can't just ignore him."

Well, if you still don't understand my position, my motto says it all.

And, if you doubt I'm a Christian/Believer

How many people know that Hebrew once had "a letter means a word" system, like Chinese, and the Hebrew letters for "Torah" (Tav-Vav-Resh-Hey) would translate in pictures into this sentence:

BEHOLD (Hey), TO A CROSS (Tav) IS NAILED (Vav) THE HIGHEST (Resh)

CFP
Okay, I don't consider that last Homosexuals have bad stuff happen to them thing to count, seeing as that was not some Divine punishment in any way shape or form, that was one, incredibly racist/sexist/homophobic individual taking out everyone he didn't like.

Hmmm...yes, but maybe if Clinton spent more office time on his job and less on his intern he might have had Bin Laden long ago and 911 wouldn't have happened, but probably not. I'm not so quick to assign him or anyone else blame for that mishap. I think a variety of problems were to blame for the "Osama Problem".

Side Note: I don't give a damn about who Clinton does on his own time in a hotel suite somewhere but doing Lewinsky during his time in the office is just insulting. I think that when the President is in his office he should be working, not dilly-dallying.
Hey now, he was working while he was getting his freak on, didn't you hear? He was on the phone with a congressman while she was under the desk ^_^. Sorry, find that too funny not to bring up :p

Then where are the WEAPONS!??!?!?!

I find that strange, since Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted to the fact that there was false evidence in regards to the WMD...

Makes the Conservo-creeps easy to spot. This thread has yielded, just in scanning thru, eight people going on my IGNORE list under the general principle that they support Bush. If you like Bush, you piss me off. I'm taking no chances on getting into flame wars anymore. From now on, if you do not agree with me, you get ignored, and I don't have to listen to you...nah-nee-nah-nee-boo-boo!!

Unashamed Christians
Capsule Corporation
Tygaland
Roanokia
Betan
Tzorsland
Vexilars
Cold Hard Bitch

Y'all are the first winners of my all-expense-paid vacation package of a one-way ticket to Ignoreland, courtesy of ValuJet!! Enjoy your trip. At least I won't have to listen to you or your conservo-creep ideas, which will only serve to piss me off and raise my blood pressure!! Good bye.

Umm, that is already being done to American Muslims. How many of them were harassed, for no good reason, detained for weeks without access to counsel, or even with them being made aware of the charges against them, post 9/11?

I have to say thank you to the starter of this thread, because you are making it easy to identify the people I want to add to my Ignore List, straight off. Anyone who likes Bush, I don't wanna see their spew. So far, Unashamed Christians, and Capsule Corporation have made my list...and I'm just on page 2. More will follow. You are being added to my ignore list for the simple reason you don't agree with me, and people who do not agree with me anger me. Especially, as seeing I am ALWAYS right....
Is Labrador dubya?

Also, totally unrelated.
There is one good reason for not outlawing abortions, and frankly, you conservatives gave it to me. If abortions are outlawed, only outlaws will perform abortions. Seriously, would you rather have a trained doctor perform an abortion in sanitary facilities or some quack with a coathanger do one in a dark alley.

I really like all the debate I'm seeing here, though (thanks mainly to bush's actions) politics is becoming more and more left vs. right, I still consider myself a moderate liberal, and I like seeing people using any of there constitutional rights. Now, I think all of the Americans posting (Foreigners don't count, you'll see why) who are able, should go right now and register to vote, and then do so. If you don't, you are nothing but a little b*tch that sits back and whines and whines and whines and takes no action to do anything to change your situation, which is a serious crime against the system of government present in America and all other demopublics (think about it, you'll get it)

1)Foreign policy; For once in a very long time has there been a President who puts the US first and everyone else second. Folks seem to forget that the Office of the President works for the citizens of the US. Not for other countries. The war on terror wasnt started because Bush got into Office, and those of you who think fighting back creates more martyrs then what does not fighting back get us? Because in the 80s we left Lebanon after the Marine Barracks were bombed and then we got the 93 attack on the World Trade Center, which next up came the fact Osama trained Somalians to kill US and UN Peacekeepers, the embassy bombings which led to a very bad policy move by Clinton(Tomahawks do not cure every military problem), the USS Cole(which nothing was done about), and then final the 2001 WTC attack. There comes a point where a Democracy can not turn its cheek anymore and must fight back.

2)The tax cut, I dont know about you folks complaining about this taxcut, but I come from a single parent two child house hold. My mother was rather happy to see the cash she got.

3)For once I feel smarter than the President. I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all, but I feel as if I'm on the same level as the guy. I dont feel this with Kerry at all. It's probably because while Bush fakes being a Southerner he at least appears to be an open person. Kerry looks like a stiff. Sure Kerry looks like a President, unfortunately that President is Lincolns body.

4)Not afraid to say what he thinks and like most Americans mispronounces words. Not one person on this forum can not say at one point in their life they tripped over a word. Sorry, no one is perfect and it lends me to believe that Presidents can still be human. (Part of the reason why I liked Clinton was because he managed to spectacular fuck up and prove that he's just an ordinary guy as well.)

5)This is the most important reason for it all...the folks who dislike Bush have such a disgusting attitude for it that it turns me off to their arguements of him. I saw Farenheit 9/11 and I pretty much think if Moore speaks for the left you guys are doomed. You complain about Bush lying to the government well go ask Moore to provide some facts. Not even recently but a week before F 9/11 came out the 9/11 Commission investigating the governments role on that day pretty much discredited a good chunk of that movie...and yet folks still buy into what the jagoff said. Why? Because as long as he's Anti-Bush then its acceptable. Most folks on the left never even gave Bush a chance. There is so much dislike for him stemming from the elections that it doesnt even make sense to me anymore...so I like Bush simply because it'd be stupid to not like the man for no reason whatsoever.

At Sodom and Gommorah, homosexuality was common (Hence the term 'Sodomy') and they were destroyed pretty much with a Nuke from above (the Dead Sea is where they once were. Too salty for even the greatest of ocean fish to live in). See, thats one way of reading it. Personally, I read it that the bad, bad men of Sodom and Gommorah were in favour of raping a pair of (male) angels. The reason I put male in brackets is because I think that there would've been enough reason for god to punish them whether they'd been trying to rape a man or a woman. Oh, btw, you fundamentalists should take a leaf out of Lot's book. He offered his virgin daughters to the mob to prevent them from from raping the angels. Hows that for protecting yourselves from a homosexual agenda?

Pharaoh Rameses I of Egypt passed a law allowing Homosexual activities: his son the Pharaoh Seti I upheld the law, and his grandson Rameses II lost all of Egypt's power and it was never a world power again (previous to Rameses II, Egypt had been the most powerful nation on Earth for more than 500 years).

In 453, the Roman Empire officialy sanctioned Same-sex marriage. In 500, there was no Roman Empire.Yeah, I'm sure it was the queers in Egypt and Rome that lead to their downfalls, as opposed to war, internal conflict, porus borders and an empire that stretched its defences too thin.

In 1935, the Reichstag of Germany allowed same-sex marriage. In 1936, Hitler took full control of the German government, and only seven homosexuals on continental Europe survived his Holocaust.Those dates seem a little off to me. Also, I'm sure that, after surviving a holocaust, you'd want to admit to everyone that you were gay.

1)Foreign policy; For once in a very long time has there been a President who puts the US first and everyone else second. Folks seem to forget that the Office of the President works for the citizens of the US. Not for other countries. The war on terror wasnt started because Bush got into Office, and those of you who think fighting back creates more martyrs then what does not fighting back get us? Because in the 80s we left Lebanon after the Marine Barracks were bombed and then we got the 93 attack on the World Trade Center, which next up came the fact Osama trained Somalians to kill US and UN Peacekeepers, the embassy bombings which led to a very bad policy move by Clinton(Tomahawks do not cure every military problem), the USS Cole(which nothing was done about), and then final the 2001 WTC attack. There comes a point where a Democracy can not turn its cheek anymore and must fight back.

2)The tax cut, I dont know about you folks complaining about this taxcut, but I come from a single parent two child house hold. My mother was rather happy to see the cash she got.

3)For once I feel smarter than the President. I'm not saying this is a bad thing at all, but I feel as if I'm on the same level as the guy. I dont feel this with Kerry at all. It's probably because while Bush fakes being a Southerner he at least appears to be an open person. Kerry looks like a stiff. Sure Kerry looks like a President, unfortunately that President is Lincolns body.

4)Not afraid to say what he thinks and like most Americans mispronounces words. Not one person on this forum can not say at one point in their life they tripped over a word. Sorry, no one is perfect and it lends me to believe that Presidents can still be human. (Part of the reason why I liked Clinton was because he managed to spectacular fuck up and prove that he's just an ordinary guy as well.)

5)This is the most important reason for it all...the folks who dislike Bush have such a disgusting attitude for it that it turns me off to their arguements of him. I saw Farenheit 9/11 and I pretty much think if Moore speaks for the left you guys are doomed. You complain about Bush lying to the government well go ask Moore to provide some facts. Not even recently but a week before F 9/11 came out the 9/11 Commission investigating the governments role on that day pretty much discredited a good chunk of that movie...and yet folks still buy into what the jagoff said. Why? Because as long as he's Anti-Bush then its acceptable. Most folks on the left never even gave Bush a chance. There is so much dislike for him stemming from the elections that it doesnt even make sense to me anymore...so I like Bush simply because it'd be stupid to not like the man for no reason whatsoever.

Ah, but I don't hate him for no reason. I hate him simply because he is a Republican...ergo, he is against everything I'm for...and for everything I'm against!! I could spend hours making up my own list, but why bother? The fact remains, we gotta get him outta office now, or he will never go! We won't have an America by 2008, if this clown is given another four years! He will be our Castro.
He even SAID he wanted to be a dictator....

And he came right out and called the haves, and the have-mores...his base! He definitely therefore, is acting in the interests of those people, and thus, is acting in ways inimical to MY interests.

Soo..let me get this straight..you dont like him simply because he's Republican? And what are you? I thought the left was suppose to be all inclusive...and rejective to the ideals and viewpoints of others. Guess thats just another horrid misconception hmm?

I will vote for Mr. Bush...again.

1. A liberal president will try (harder) to take my hard earned salary and give it to undeserving ne'er-do-well's.
2. A Democrat will roll over and play dead to foreigners.
3. I don't trust a Democrat to protect our borders.
4. I don't trust a Democrat to protect much of anything.
5. Bush's daughters are both very attractive. Kerry's daughters are ugly.
1) Under a liberal president such as Kerry, theres about an 85% chance that, on net, you'll have more money. Reasons for this: I'm guessing that as you have a computer, you're not among the absolute poorest in the country. They are the ones who'll benefit the most from Kerry's tax plan. But the middle and working classes will do pretty well too. The people who won't do so well are the millionaires and multi-millionaires. They'll be hit fairly hard by the Paris Hilton Tax (aka the Death Tax), but that won't affect anyone who's worth less than a million dollars. This money, taken from CEOs and corporate monopoly holders will be used to pay for frivilous Democratic spending programmes like teaching people to read and curing disease. You might have some shares, yes? Well, if Kerry comes to power, you'll be making a little bit less on them. But the odds of the difference costing you more than $20 is minimal. You'd need quite a lot of shares to make any real difference. But the real savings are for people who have kids, either below school age, at school or at college. Voting for Kerry will reduce the amount you have to pay for college tuition, for daycare, and will ensure that schools can offer AP courses, art and music, gym, afterschool activities and all the other things at school that kids tend to find fun and enjoyable.

Overall, you'll probably end up paying less.

Oh, the other 4 points were moronic.

4. Where do you think Kerry is going to get all that money that will support all of these social programs like welfare? Strait out of your pocket, thats where. And with such a great welfare program, Why should I work my ass off, when I could recieve more money than id make anyways and all I have to do is sit on my ass! Fuck standing in line, they'll mail me a check!

I will vote for Mr. Bush...again.

1. A liberal president will try (harder) to take my hard earned salary and give it to undeserving ne'er-do-well's.
2. A Democrat will roll over and play dead to foreigners.
3. I don't trust a Democrat to protect our borders.
4. I don't trust a Democrat to protect much of anything.
5. Bush's daughters are both very attractive. Kerry's daughters are ugly.
1) Under a liberal president such as Kerry, theres about an 85% chance that, on net, you'll have more money. Reasons for this: I'm guessing that as you have a computer, you're not among the absolute poorest in the country. They are the ones who'll benefit the most from Kerry's tax plan. But the middle and working classes will do pretty well too. The people who won't do so well are the millionaires and multi-millionaires. They'll be hit fairly hard by the Paris Hilton Tax (aka the Death Tax), but that won't affect anyone who's worth less than a million dollars. This money, taken from CEOs and corporate monopoly holders will be used to pay for frivilous Democratic spending programmes like teaching people to read and curing disease. You might have some shares, yes? Well, if Kerry comes to power, you'll be making a little bit less on them. But the odds of the difference costing you more than $20 is minimal. You'd need quite a lot of shares to make any real difference. But the real savings are for people who have kids, either below school age, at school or at college. Voting for Kerry will reduce the amount you have to pay for college tuition, for daycare, and will ensure that schools can offer AP courses, art and music, gym, afterschool activities and all the other things at school that kids tend to find fun and enjoyable.

Overall, you'll probably end up paying less.

Sorry to waste your time if you read that again. They were just repeating each other, so I saw no real reason not to do the same

OK, it was hard to keep it down to just 5 but here goes:

1. Election Fraud is what got him elected. (http://gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency) - Read it and weep, or don't read it and keep spouting ignorance. - Purging TENS OF THOUSANDS of legal minority democrats from the voting roles is the biggy here folks and it WAS done, no matter how often you try to say otherwise, there is indisputable proof.

2. War in Iraq. Unjustified to say the least. No WMD's, no ties to AL-Queda, and all we did was give more reasons for terrorists to hate us.

3. Environmental Policies. (http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/default.asp)

4. Economic Policies. Gee, lets give huge tax breaks to the rich , THAT should help our economy. Oh, nice job George... record job losses and a record deficit.

5. The Gay Marriage Issue. Keep religion out of politics. Keep prejudice out of the constitution.

Here we go, Kerry's tax plan in his own words.

Provide Tax Relief to Middle Class Families
John Kerry has the courage to take on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. However, he believes that we should keep the middle class tax cuts that Democrats fought for in 2001 and 2003. Specifically, he wants to protect the increases in the child tax credit, the reduced marriage penalty and the new tax bracket that helps people save $350 on their first level of income. He strongly disagrees with Democrats who want to repeal these tax cuts because it would cost a typical middle-class family with two children an additional $2,000. These families are often already struggling with higher health care costs and higher state and local taxes. In fact, John Kerry wants to give more tax breaks to the middle class with new tax credits on health care and college tuition. These tax cuts are part of his plan to restore the economy and cut the budget deficit in half in four years.

I don't like Bush and his regime because he (and the media conglomerates) have promoted reasoning and values like these, from another forum site.

http://www.youthlinks.org/ubb/Forum16/HTML/000006.html


Nathaniel W. (Eagle Harbor High School, Grade 12 - Global Diplomacy, UNITED STATES)
posted 03-23-2004 01:15 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See its easy for other countries to contridict our porpose of war in the middleast. But what they don't know is that we had every right to invade that place we call the middleast.First off no other country in the past 10 years has been hit by terrorism harder than America. It seems like everybody forgot about September 11 2001. When 4 Jets where highjacked and sent on a kamikaze mission intended for the killing of 6000 Americans. Terrorism is our main reason for invasion but thiers a second reason as well. What about reconstruction. Its now obvoius that only America cares about saving peoples lifes and a few a soldiers day is alot better than a few hundred families a day (death)
To make a long story short, lay off American beliefs we believe families should be able to go to the park and not worry about seeing gunfire or being killed because they believe in a different god.

Nathaniel W. (Eagle Harbor High School, Grade 12 - Global Diplomacy, UNITED STATES)
posted 03-30-2004 12:49 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all the forieghn relations out thier that dont know or understand America, i have a little history lesson to teach ya'll. First off America is the most highly technologicaly Advanced super country in the world.It provides the world with Mircroft,industry,strong religion,Marlboro,Chevy and grade A music. Our history started a good 300 years ago, while other third world countries date back thousands of years. We dont crave war but fiene safety we like to take our kids to the park with having to worry about terrorism lurking in our back door.In conclusion For somebody who lives so close to America and has benefited from America since its dawn of history. You C#$%dian% have alot of unrational allegtions towards our way of life. In other words lets say Canada for an example went to war, who do you think is going to protect them? "yah that what i thought the (U.S). Thats why our militray is so advanced and so massive. Its because we have a whole Northern hemisphere to defend!!!!!.

To see my replies to this, and further discussion of the Gulf War II, go to the site.

Soo..let me get this straight..you dont like him simply because he's Republican? And what are you? I thought the left was suppose to be all inclusive...and rejective to the ideals and viewpoints of others. Guess thats just another horrid misconception hmm?

So you were under the impression that the basic tennents of "leftism" require its adherents to support those who are opposed to them? Glad you've got it straight now, sparky.

I know this will get lost, but it still pertains to this thread: Why I can't stand the guy..

He's a child throwing a tantrum in an attempt to have Daddy Love him.

"I wanna be Prez-i-dunt! Recount it again! My Daddy was Prez-i-dunt, and I wanna be just like him!"

"I wanna be a War Hero, like Daddy! Daddy, I'm gonna get that skunk Hussain and finish the job you started!"

On another point, doesn't anyone realize just WHY the Dub wants a Constitutional Amendment rather than just a(n unconstitutional) Federal law against "gay marriage" ?? A Constutional Amendment requires the conviening(sp) of a Constitutional Convention.. which doesn't just make a change to the Bill of Rights.. it tears the whole document to tiny pieces and they START ALL OVER AGAIN FROM THE GROUND UP. A Constitutional Convention gives the committee members the right and/or obligation to rewrite the entire document!

This is VERY dangerous ground.

If you haven't been there yet.. http://www.bushin30seconds.org says a LOT.

And, if you haven't read them yet... The Ugly American and Orwell's 1984 would be a great summer read. Note the similarities between the Osama furor and the Goldstein 2 minute hate.


And.. I support anyone's right to their religion.. but I don't support having it rubbed in my face in the name of "patriotism". If "hating Muslim Extremists/Terrorists" and "God bless America" isn't talking out of both sides of the mouth.. I don't know what is.

5 Reasons I hate Bush...

1 - that illegal war in Iraq. I mean, I hate Hussein as much as the next person, but, there is no justification for what was done. If there had been a UN backing, I might see the matter in a different light.

2 - the gay marriage agenda. I mean, letting a few fruits get married will HELP marriage rates and INCREASE them. How's that for promoting the institute of marriage!

3 - The rigged election... That ain't democracy!

4 - The lies! The idiocy! See 9-11! It could have been avoided!! Why do I say it this? Because the CIA could have done it's job!

5 - He's a bloody republican!!


Whats wrong with being a republican -.- I dont denote any democrates just for being democrats.

-How is the war Illegal? There isnt any "world laws" that the UN can enforce so in turn it does not exist except on paper. We dont need the UN at all we have to long let them tell us what to do and get our asses shot up in peace keeping efforts for them.

-Gay Marriage I dont like Bush's position on it but the ban on it has a slim to no chnace of even getting to him for sighning. Other people in america agree with him even though that is a stupid position to take.

-The election was not rigged I mean democrates controled parts of the voting last I checked so unless they rigged it for him then I dout it was rigged.

-Its easy to say it could have been avoided after seeing what happened but No one could have though it was gonna be that big. At least He did do something about it. The CIA screwed up not Bush. I have yet to see anything besides political comics that has convinced me that he is stupid.

-Being a republican isn't something to be ashamed by It just means that you agree with alot of things they stand for.

I will attempt to list some of my main beefs with Bush here, and see if any REASONABLE conservative wants to take issue with these...CIVILLY!!

1. Gay marriage - Who does it hurt? The only people who can cheapen a marraige are the people involved in it. Period. Why can't same-sex couples have the same LEGAL rights as hetero couples? Mind, I have no dog in this fight, because I have no interest in marrying ANYONE...and the idea of sexual relations with anyone is revolting to me. Understandable, if you know of my long history of being a sexual abuse survivor. BUT, I do not want to see our Constitution trashed, by singling out an "undesireable" group for special discrimination. they always howl about "special rights." Well, what about "special discrimination" faced by GLBT people??

2. Iraq - stupid, stupid, stupid!! We weren't done in Afghanistan yet, and North Korea posed a far more imminent threat than Saddam did. All we have accomplished now is...if it were possible...to piss off the Muslim world even further at us...and make them more determined than ever to "get even with us." And this makes us safer, how?? There are a record number of young men (and women) now willing to sign up for suicide missions to strike at "The Great Satan!" Witness the 2003 Report on Global Terrorism...which the State Department admitted was originally flawed, and had to be corrected...and now it reflects the REAL oicture...which is that terrorism is at a 20-year high!! Again, I ask...this makes America safer...how??

3. The Economy - I have to break this one down...

3A - The overtime takeaway - Bush shows exactly how much he disdains workers and workers rights, by his attempt to take away overtime pay for people earning as little as $23,000 a year. On my last job, I earned (with overtime,) about $26,000. With a one-time adjustment to my salary, my employer could have made sure that, without overtime, I made just over $23,000...thus making it possible for him to cut off my overtime...and then slave me for $23,000 a year!

3B - Tax cuts for the wealthy - Bush again shows his disdain for the working class here. Hardly surprising, since the man never punched a clock or put in an honest day's work in his life! Most of the tax cuts went to the supremely walthy who didn't need them, and not to the poor struggling families, the working poor...a lot of the tax cuts went to rich, multi-national corporations...making it ever more profitable for them to ship our jobs overseas.

3C - Reclassifying McDonald's jobs as "manufacturing jobs" to artifically create the impression that the job loss wasn't as bad as it really was! This is as bad as Reagan's attempt to reclassify kethup as a vegetable in order to slash funding to school lunch programs for needy people.

3D - Turning a 500 billion dollar surplus into a 500 billion dollar defecit in just three years, insuring that my generation will be the first who will NOT do better than their parents did...because we now have the albatross of a huge national debt to pay off around our necks.

3E - Record unemployment. As a transgender person, who faces unfair discrimination constantly...it is hard enough in good times for me to find a job, since many are not willing to look past that aspect of me to examine the skills, abilities, and merits I can bring to the table...choosing instead to discriminate (legally) against me based on superficial B.S. By creating such high unemployment, he makes it that much tougher for me to find a job to support myself. You take two people...me and anyone you can think of...with equal skills and experience...and put them on 100 job interviews. I guarantee you, 99 times out of 100 the non-transgender person gets the job offer! and with so much unemployment, that means there is far more competition out there for the available jobs.

3F - Since there is that much more competition for jobs out there, it enables employers to pay substandard wages.

4. The Environment - He is very unfriendly with regards to the environment, allowing big huge corporations the ability to spew their crud all over the place, and makes up for it, by placing more and more of it on poor people, by things like auto-emissions testing...you do know, of course, it is mostly the poor people who can afford nothing better, that are most likely to be driving the cars that will fail...forcing them to make expensive repairs to a car so they can keep going to work...and often having to go without food in order to make the repairs...all while allowing his big corporate buddies the ability to buy "pollution credits."

5. - The PATRIOT Act - He is systematically stripping away our fundamental rights here...and making it so that everyone is now guilty until proved innocent. No longer do I have the right to read what I want to read...without fear that Big Brother is looking over my shoulder. While I am doing nothing wrong...all's it takes is for me to read something Big Brother doesn't APPROVE of...and I am the target of a secret investigation...and if anyone even TELLS me I'm being investigated, they can be punished. by fighting the war on terror this way, he is making our country more and more like the very terrorists he claims to be fighting...and in that, the terrorists are winning.

6 - The Campaign of Fear - Prime example, the Terror Code. Why even have Blue or Green on the list? We're never gonna get there!! Yeah, sure, let's lower it to green and announce to the terrorists: "Hey, we got our guard way down now, so why don't you come in and slap our nose for us!!" so of course it will never go below yellow. And then, they raise it every so often..."Uh, well, we know they want to attack us...but we don't know how, when, or where..." So just be afraid...and make sure to vote for us, so that we can keep protecting you from the Big Bad Wolf!! and then they accuser US of playing scare tactics with senior citizens and Social Security... THEY are playing scare tactics with ALL AMERICANS and HOMELAND SECURITY!!

7 - And speaking of Social Security...where's the guarantee that thirty-somethings like me...who've paid into the system for our whole lives...will ever get ANYTHING from Social Security...and not just be hung out to dry when we retire!??

8 - and speaking of Homeland Security...where's the bulk of the money promised to NYC and other municipalities to fund first responders in the event of another large-scale attack?

9 - Speaking of First Responders...where ARE a lot of them?? In friggin' IRAQ...fighting for oil for his rich cronies! Many...probably most first responders are also in the Reserves...and they are being sent to Iraq in astounding numbers!! If they are in Iraq, then how can they protect us HERE at home?

10 - The Stolen 2000 "Election." sorry, I don't care how many of you want to claim it wasn't stolen. I believe otherwise, and noting anyone will say will convince me otherwise. Awful suspicious that in the state where Dubya's brother just happens to be Gubnor...that the recounts get stopped before they are done (contrary to popular belief Al Gore DID call for a FULL STATE RECOUNT) and was rebuffed, claiming it would take too long, so then he suggested a recount only in the disputed counties of Miami/Dade, Duval, and Palm Beach. and awful convenient to have your Florida campaign manager, Katherine Harris...also be the one who certifies the voter rolls...and illegally disenfranchise more than 50,000 eligible voters who are not likely to vote for YOU...because their names were SIMILAR to known felons....

11 - Liebold and Black Box Voting - As long as we are talking about stolen elections...why is he so afraid to mandate certifyable voter paper trails for recounts in close elections? Why does the CEO of Liebold promise to "help deliver Ohio to the Republican Party" and then still get to make our voting machines?? Oh, yeah...that's right...he wants to mandate paper trails...beginning in 2006, after he is safely "re-elected." After he has stolen another election! The right to vote...and the confidence our vote will be counted as we cast it is the very foundation of democracy...and Bush is crapping all over it!

12 - Unprofessional Conduct - Cheney's famous outburst on the Senate floor, telling Sen. Leahy to "go F*** himself" and then BRAGGING about it afterwards! I expect more professionalism from people in high elected (or in this case SELECTED) office!

13 - Underfunding of vital programs - LIHEAP in the Northeast...was slashed by $300,000...forcing more families than ever to have to choose between food and heat in the winter in the bitter-cold Northeast of America. LIHEAP is the program that provides heating for low-income families in the Northeast. No Child Left Behind...gimme a break!! This unfunded mandate has resulted in EVER POOR CHILD being left behind. It should've been called "No RICH Child Left Behind!"

14 - Speaking of rich kids...school vouchers! He wants to use MY tax money to send kids to "religious" schools, so they can be brainwashed into being good little bigots!

15 - Speaking of religion...the Faith BIASED Initiative (misspelling intentional) He wants to use MY tax money to give to churches so they can discriminate against "undesireables" and not help them out when they need it...and other things, like prosetyzing their damn religion on all recipients of assistance.

16 - Teacher pay and morale are at an all-time low, due to constant underfunding of public education...making an already bad situation even worse! One might even think he was doing it intentionally, to make a case for school vouchers

17 - Underfunding of AIDS in Africa - He promised 15 billion. Where is it? This is a dreadful, deadly disease that kills MILLIONS...and yet he can only find 1.2 billion of 15 billion promised in his 2003 State of the Union address!! But he can sure come up with a ready $87 BILLION when it comes to carrying out Operation Inigo Montoya in Iraq, to the benefit of his rich cronies in the oil business!

I have more, but that oughta be enuff for you to be getting started on...

Debates are raging now, at least in my small anticapitalist community in NS, on how inclusive we actually should be. Do we cast aside core values and embrace groups who would curtail liberty in the name of solidarity? I don't know, yet.

But I see an awfully disturbing level of ignorance in this thread. Without fail, nearly 100% of "pro-war" comments are based solely on ignorance about the Middle East, Arabs and Muslims. What reason did we have for being in Lebanon in the first place? Troops to protect Israel's interests. Why were in Saudi? To protect Israel's interests.

I'll wait for the screams of "anti-Semite", a term which is, unfortunately, losing its meaning through overuse, but you'll find plenty of people in the progressive community, including Zionist Jews, that are demanding the US extract itself from the "...unholy alliance with Israel."

Bush is an ignorant redneck, a man who thinks everyone should be a Christian and be held to Christian morals (is this any better than Sha'riah law under the Taliban?!) and that American has a duty to become an imperial power. I am adamantly opposed to all three (yes, I adamantly oppose ignorance and rednecks).

Vote for who you like, gents, but remember this: Kerry will most likely be a one-term President. Can we really afford another four years of Bush?

Debates are raging now, at least in my small anticapitalist community in NS, on how inclusive we actually should be. Do we cast aside core values and embrace groups who would curtail liberty in the name of solidarity? I don't know, yet.

But I see an awfully disturbing level of ignorance in this thread. Without fail, nearly 100% of "pro-war" comments are based solely on ignorance about the Middle East, Arabs and Muslims. What reason did we have for being in Lebanon in the first place? Troops to protect Israel's interests. Why were in Saudi? To protect Israel's interests.

I'll wait for the screams of "anti-Semite", a term which is, unfortunately, losing its meaning through overuse, but you'll find plenty of people in the progressive community, including Zionist Jews, that are demanding the US extract itself from the "...unholy alliance with Israel."

Bush is an ignorant redneck, a man who thinks everyone should be a Christian and be held to Christian morals (is this any better than Sha'riah law under the Taliban?!) and that American has a duty to become an imperial power. I am adamantly opposed to all three (yes, I adamantly oppose ignorance and rednecks).

Vote for who you like, gents, but remember this: Kerry will most likely be a one-term President. Can we really afford another four years of Bush?


AMEN

I say that we push hard for more sensible leaders while Kerry is in office. I am pretty sure that Kerry will win. Bush skrewed up things pretty badly and everyone knows it. Noone in their right mind is happy with Bush; he not only made enemies all around the world but here at home as well (even in his own party).

*sigh* I knew someone would address them. :p



Agreed.



Well, I'm pretty sure he does care about the country as a whole, but you certainly don't agree with his way of showing it, and that's fine. Neither do I. We're both just speculating, really. *shrugs*



Hmmm...yes, but maybe if Clinton spent more office time on his job and less on his intern he might have had Bin Laden long ago and 911 wouldn't have happened, but probably not. I'm not so quick to assign him or anyone else blame for that mishap. I think a variety of problems were to blame for the "Osama Problem".

Side Note: I don't give a damn about who Clinton does on his own time in a hotel suite somewhere but doing Lewinsky during his time in the office is just insulting. I think that when the President is in his office he should be working, not dilly-dallying.



And that response was why I specified the removal of Saddam rather than saying the Iraq War in general. :D



I'm not so content to blame the current economic slump on the tax cuts. It was likely a variety of factors, one of which may well have been the tax cuts, but they certainly weren't the whole problem.



Understood. I figured that was it. I appreciate that you actually take my posts pertaining to politics seriously. Most people just kind of ignore them. I'm not sure if that's because my posts are unassailable by the common generalite or if my posts are just too stupid to respond to. ;) :pI hate the way this forum automatically destroys quote pyramids. I understand the reason for it, but it makes it tough to carry on a conversation inside a larger discussion.

Since we largely agree on the first two, I'm going to let them go the way of the dodo. As far as Clinton is concerned, well, you can argue he was distracted by Lewinsky, but it's just as easy to make the case that he was distracted by the witch hunt that started with Whitewater (of which he was ultimately absolved of any wrongdoing) and that continues to this very day. I tihnk more people today know the term "wag the dog" from the way Republicans used it whenever Clinton wanted to bomb Afghanistan than know it from the movie of the same name or from its literary source. The Lewinsky indiscretion is what Clinton will always be linked with, but in terms of distracting him from his job, I think it's minor compared to the other stuff he was dealing with at the time.

As far as parsing the difference between the removal of Saddam and the war in Iraq, I don't think it's possible to really make a difference between them. Now if the US had been pursuing a long term strategy of squeezing Hussein out by expanding the no-fly zones incrementally and reducing Hussein's stranglehold on Iraq gradually, thereby allowing the local people to rebuild their own government themselves like the Kurds have done in the north, and Bush had had a way to remove Hussein without war, then there might be a difference. But at the time, and under the existing conditions, the removal of Hussein = war, and in my opinion and in the opinion of people far wiser than I am, that war was unnecessary at that time and took resources away from the hunt for Bin Laden, so that as a result, we have massive amounts of military tied down in Iraq and al Qaeda is largely intact.

As to the tax cuts, they're not fully responsible for the current economic situation, but a number of economists said at the time of the cuts that they were targeted poorly and that they wouldn't provide the short term boost the President claimed to be looking for. They've been proven correct. Now, the cynical part of me says that the tax cuts have had the effect Bush wanted, namely, that they've benefited corporate profits and those who make money off of investments instead of those people who earn wages as their primary form of income. He's benefitted the "haves and the have-mores" at the cost of harming those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

I hate the way this forum automatically destroys quote pyramids. I understand the reason for it, but it makes it tough to carry on a conversation inside a larger discussion.

Since we largely agree on the first two, I'm going to let them go the way of the dodo.

Sounds good.

As far as Clinton is concerned, well, you can argue he was distracted by Lewinsky, but it's just as easy to make the case that he was distracted by the witch hunt that started with Whitewater (of which he was ultimately absolved of any wrongdoing) and that continues to this very day. I tihnk more people today know the term "wag the dog" from the way Republicans used it whenever Clinton wanted to bomb Afghanistan than know it from the movie of the same name or from its literary source. The Lewinsky indiscretion is what Clinton will always be linked with, but in terms of distracting him from his job, I think it's minor compared to the other stuff he was dealing with at the time.

My point was not that Clinton was bad or that he actually could be blamed for Osama on the basis of his affair with Lewinsky. Quite the opposite, I was being a bit facetious in the part where I said, "Well maybe...". I was simply pointing out through my statement that it is ridiculous to say "so and so should have done this but s/he was doing something else." There were a lot of things that could have and should have been done while other things were happening instead. Maybe Bush has a larger share in the blame for the "Osama Problem" than many others, but such a thing is hard to reliably measure. If we go assigning blame, we need to acknowledge all the relevant factors, not just the one that strikes us as most onerous.

As far as parsing the difference between the removal of Saddam and the war in Iraq, I don't think it's possible to really make a difference between them. Now if the US had been pursuing a long term strategy of squeezing Hussein out by expanding the no-fly zones incrementally and reducing Hussein's stranglehold on Iraq gradually, thereby allowing the local people to rebuild their own government themselves like the Kurds have done in the north, and Bush had had a way to remove Hussein without war, then there might be a difference. But at the time, and under the existing conditions, the removal of Hussein = war, and in my opinion and in the opinion of people far wiser than I am, that war was unnecessary at that time and took resources away from the hunt for Bin Laden, so that as a result, we have massive amounts of military tied down in Iraq and al Qaeda is largely intact.

That actually sounds a lot like the strategy I would have suggested had I been a Bush advisor. I tend to prefer strategies that don't involves sudden violence. I like a long slow buildup that keeps the pressure on the enemy while being as effecient as possible with my resources. Maybe I play too many strategy games or something...but I digress. And it is relatively simple to parse the difference between the removal of Saddam and the Iraq War. Neither necessarily includes the other. As you pointed out, the removal of Saddam need not require the Iraq War. I make a very simple distinction.

Saddam Removed=Good Thing

Methodology Used to Achieve the Removal of Saddam=Sure As Hell Not The Best Thing

As to the tax cuts, they're not fully responsible for the current economic situation, but a number of economists said at the time of the cuts that they were targeted poorly and that they wouldn't provide the short term boost the President claimed to be looking for. They've been proven correct.

Yes, the tax cuts were "targeted poorly" as you say, and I would never deny it. What I said was that they certainly weren't the only reason for the economic slump we're in. Companies moving overseas for cheap labor, the economic aftermath of 9/11, and probably several other things I'm forgetting at the moment were added to the mix and helped get us where we are today. Call the tax cuts bad fiscal policy if you want, and I'll agree with you, but please don't lose sight of the fact that the problem is larger than an unrealistic and ill-timed tax cut.

Now, the cynical part of me says that the tax cuts have had the effect Bush wanted, namely, that they've benefited corporate profits and those who make money off of investments instead of those people who earn wages as their primary form of income. He's benefitted the "haves and the have-mores" at the cost of harming those at the bottom of the economic ladder.

I think the cynical part of you is wrong, but that's just speculation too. :D

What you say about Clinton and Bush as per OBL is correct. Clinton said once in an interview recently that his biggest regret from his Presidency was his lack of success in getting Bin Laden, and to his credit, he didn't claim that anyone else was to blame for that failure. He took responsibility for it and then did the best he could to prepare the incoming administration for what they were going to have to face. In the end, it doesn't matter--we didn't get OBL then and we still don't have him now and instead we have discussions about what to do in case there's a terrorist attack close to the elections (a discussion that gives me shit chills--the chills you get when you're afraid you won't get to the bathroom in time--whenever I think about it).

As far as the Iraq War is concerned, I guess the point I was trying to make was that if the US had been working incrementally to get rid of Hussein by squeezing his area of control for the last ten years, then it might have been possible to get rid of him without a war, or at least not a war on the scale that we have. We hadn't been doing that, however, and so when it came right down to it in this circumstance, the only way to get rid of Hussein was to invade.

What you say about Clinton and Bush as per OBL is correct. Clinton said once in an interview recently that his biggest regret from his Presidency was his lack of success in getting Bin Laden, and to his credit, he didn't claim that anyone else was to blame for that failure. He took responsibility for it and then did the best he could to prepare the incoming administration for what they were going to have to face. In the end, it doesn't matter--we didn't get OBL then and we still don't have him now and instead we have discussions about what to do in case there's a terrorist attack close to the elections (a discussion that gives me shit chills--the chills you get when you're afraid you won't get to the bathroom in time--whenever I think about it).

Understood. I actually have alot of respect for Clinton and his behavior, myself, though I disagree with him at times.

The possibility of an attack during the election causes me concern, too. I don't want an opportunity for the more authoritarian persons running the show to take advantage of such an event, though I don't think such a thing is likely.

As far as the Iraq War is concerned, I guess the point I was trying to make was that if the US had been working incrementally to get rid of Hussein by squeezing his area of control for the last ten years, then it might have been possible to get rid of him without a war, or at least not a war on the scale that we have. We hadn't been doing that, however, and so when it came right down to it in this circumstance, the only way to get rid of Hussein was to invade.

Yeah, that's the main problem I have with people in general and politicians in particular. They often don't have any sense of how to go about achieving long-term objectives in an efficient manner, so they end up being stuck with a short-term solution that is very messy.

Yeah, that's the main problem I have with people in general and politicians in particular. They often don't have any sense of how to go about achieving long-term objectives in an efficient manner, so they end up being stuck with a short-term solution that is very messy.With presidents, it's understandable, because they have to think that if they start a project right away, they've got four years to get it done, since there are no guarantees for the second four. Still, I wish they were more long-term in their approaches as well.

Even most of the pro-choice people think that it should be between the woman and her lover/husband/whatever. Personally I'm against abortion, but I don't think that is a good enough reason to pass a law banning it. Its not like abortion is truely harmful (to anyone other than the fetus that is, which may or may not be aware, there is no proof either way). Now I agree, after a certain point, like the third trimester, you should not be allowed to have an abortion, because that is 1. Painful as all h*ll for the woman, 2. Killing something that at the very least, looks human. I am really tired of hearing conservatives go 'Its taking a life.' Well so is that hamburger your eating, so unless you're a vegan who goes out of their way to not even step on a little bug, I suggest you stop using the 'all life is sacred' arguement.

I have stated that I do not support a total ban on abortion. I have said I think abortion should only be an option if the pregnancy is a result of rape, if the pregnancy puts the woman's life in jeopardy or if the child has been diagnosed with a condition which will cause it to die before birth or shortly afterwards.
Outside of these scenarios I feel that abortion is taking a life for no reason. If a cow or pig or chicken is killed, it is killed and eaten. Therefore the killing of the animal has a purpose and is not comparable to the killing of child because they do not want a child at that point in time.

The abortion of a fetus has a purpose too: To stop the horrible case of a parent or parents having o have a kid they do not want and to save a child from having parents that dont want them.

Of course there are other methods than abortion, like adoption, but that is cruel to the child ultimately and saves him/her from that greif.

Abortion is not cruel. Does anyone in teh world remember being a fetus? No. After a certain point there is brain activity though and at that point I do say that there shouldn't be an abortion.

The abortion of a fetus has a purpose too: To stop the horrible case of a parent or parents having o have a kid they do not want and to save a child from having parents that dont want them.

Of course there are other methods than abortion, like adoption, but that is cruel to the child ultimately and saves him/her from that greif.

Abortion is not cruel. Does anyone in teh world remember being a fetus? No. After a certain point there is brain activity though and at that point I do say that there shouldn't be an abortion.

If the parents were that determined not to have children then they should have thought twice before having sex. Becoming sexually active means taking responsibility for those actions.
Adoption is cruel? In what way? Adoption is a worse fate than death?

agreed, and I think that there should be public school classes every year on How to be responsible for your life. People shouldnt even be allowed to have kids unless they take and pass several parenting/social/psycological classes and I also think that their income should be adequate and saving should be had before they receive a liscence to ahve a kid. If you aren't responsible enough to do these things then you aren't responsible enough to care for a human life.

In many cases Adoption is cruel because kids grow up feeling unwanted and they don't get to have the things that kids with real familys get to have and they go their whole lives dealing with this. How can death be cruel to something that doesnt even know it was ever alive? Is it really even death when they were never really alive on their own in the first place?

Ok look. Life IS cruel, especially if you're unwanted by your parents. I sure as hell know I am-they tell me all the god damn time. My upbringing was shit. At least, shitty enough to make me a reformed cutter and surviver of multiple suicide attempts.

Don't bitch to me about loving parents, 'cause not all of them are. Especially if they didn't want the kid.

agreed, and I think that there should be public school classes every year on How to be responsible for your life. People shouldnt even be allowed to have kids unless they take and pass several parenting/social/psycological classes and I also think that their income should be adequate and saving should be had before they receive a liscence to ahve a kid. If you aren't responsible enough to do these things then you aren't responsible enough to care for a human life.

OK, I don't agree with the majority of what you have said here. I do feel that parents should take more responsibility in teaching their kids about sex and the consequences of having sex. I also feel that schools shouls also provide education in these areas but schools should not be a replacement for the the parents input and guidance.
I also think that parenting advice and classes ahould be available to those who feel they need them.
Setting income tests and sitting tests for a parenting licence is over-the-top in my opinion. It also would prevent couples from lower socio-economic groups from having children. I think it is a misconception that wealth correlates to the happiness and health of the child.

In many cases Adoption is cruel because kids grow up feeling unwanted and they don't get to have the things that kids with real familys get to have and they go their whole lives dealing with this. How can death be cruel to something that doesnt even know it was ever alive? Is it really even death when they were never really alive on their own in the first place?

Where do you get this information from? Adoptive parents have to pass stringent tests before they are eleigible to adopt. Childless couples are grateful for the chance they have to raise a child they otherwise would never have otherwise they would not go through all the interviews and paperwork involved. Not all adoptions are perfect but to class them all as cruel and unloving is ludicrous. The adopted child has a chance to grow up in a family environment which I think is a better shot at happiness and success than being aborted as a "mistake".

Ok look. Life IS cruel, especially if you're unwanted by your parents. I sure as hell know I am-they tell me all the god damn time. My upbringing was shit. At least, shitty enough to make me a reformed cutter and surviver of multiple suicide attempts.

Don't bitch to me about loving parents, 'cause not all of them are. Especially if they didn't want the kid.

Who said all parents were great? Not me. If the parents do not want the child then they can put the child up for adoption by a family that does want the child. I think that is a far better option than allowing open season on abortions because the child is an inconvenience to the parents lifestyle etc.

How many adopted people do you know?

I know several. One of them went to over 8 homes, each one just as crappy as the next. A lot of times, families already have in mind what they want the child to be; when the kid isn't like that, they either a) try to "fix" him/her, b) send them back to the agency, or c) do a, then b when that doesn't work. That's what happened to her. 8 times.

And when you turn 18 and you arn't adopted yet? Pfh, forget having hope, you just get dropped.

Only giving your kid up for adoption is much more embarressing to the parents then the morning after pill, which you're against.

You have to understand that quite a good number of bad parents don't show it until the child is over 5. At that age, they feel that it's too late for adoption.

How many adopted people do you know?

I know several. One of them went to over 8 homes, each one just as crappy as the next. A lot of times, families already have in mind what they want the child to be; when the kid isn't like that, they either a) try to "fix" him/her, b) send them back to the agency, or c) do a, then b when that doesn't work. That's what happened to her. 8 times.

And when you turn 18 and you arn't adopted yet? Pfh, forget having hope, you just get dropped.

So we legislate for worst case scenarios and scrap adoption altogether? Are you talking about adoption or foster care? As far as I am aware adoption is not just providing a home but taking legal responsibility for the child you adopt. That is, the child you adopt becomes a part of your family under the law.

Only giving your kid up for adoption is much more embarressing to the parents then the morning after pill, which you're against.

You have to understand that quite a good number of bad parents don't show it until the child is over 5. At that age, they feel that it's too late for adoption.

So we should allow open season on abortions for trivial reasons because the parents might get embarrassed putting their child up for adoption? I am amazed at how many people are willing to write off the entire population based on a few bad cases. No option is perfect but I think the option that gives a child a chance to live, grow up in a family enviroment and the opportunity to succeed is far better than killing them before they are born.

What about orphaned children? If adoption is so horrific then what becomes of these children?

Um, you can still give the child back to adoption. Just like a parent can put his/her birth child in adoption.

I'm not saying "scrap adoption." What you're saying is "adoption and forcing the child to live with parents that won't live him is better then the morning after pill"

Honestly, I can understand someone being against partial birth abortions. But you're against the pill, which is just ludicrious.

Um, you can still give the child back to adoption. Just like a parent can put his/her birth child in adoption.

I'm not saying "scrap adoption." What you're saying is "adoption and forcing the child to live with parents that won't live him is better then the morning after pill"

Honestly, I can understand someone being against partial birth abortions. But you're against the pill, which is just ludicrious.

The adoptive parents would need to go through a due process to "un-adopt" a child, it is not a case of returning them to the adoption agency. I am not advocating forcing a child to live with parents that don't love them. You are making the assumption that all parents who conceive a child that they were not planning on having will automatically not love the child. This is ludicrous.

I am against the morning after pill because it is a cop out. I am tired of people advocating a society where we are no longer responsible for our actions. Its always someone else's fault or there is always a quick fix so people continue to make the same mistakes because they know they can get around the consequences that would normally arise. If you make the conscious decision to have sex then you need to be responsible for the results of that action.

That is why I would only like to see the morning after pill used in the cases I have previously described because it is a form of abortion.

Fine, the parents pay the price. But the child does too.

You're too busy saying "They need take responsibility, so they're punished!" to notice that others are affected too.

I know almost everyone hates bush here. Understandable... I guess. Can anyone find 5 good reasons to vote fo Kerry? Sure its easy to bash bush but can you find reasons to vote for Kerry? I know I can't.

Fine, the parents pay the price. But the child does too.

You're too busy saying "They need take responsibility, so they're punished!" to notice that others are affected too.

Having a child is not punishment. Why do you have such a hard time acknowledging that having children is a positive experience for the vast majority of parents. Even if the pregnancy was unplanned it does not automatically mean the child is not wanted, just unexpected. If they do not want the child then put the child up for adoption by couples that do want a child but for some reason cannot.
I am advocating educating people about the consequences of their actions, thereby allowing them to make an educated decision about their course of action. Simply putting in place escape routes for people who get themselves in trouble only reinforces the fact that their actions have no real consequence for them. Giving people access to education and advice enables them to make educated decisions. If they make an educated decision then they have to be responsible for the results of their decisions.

No, first of all, you're not advocating educating people. All you've said is "ban abortion." Over and over again.

Now I am, by no means, against adoption. It has bugs in the system just like everything else does, and you ALWAYS run the risk of getting shitty parents, weither or not they're your birth parents.

Now, you advocate against the morning after pill. Why? Because that way, the parents have to deal with their actions. In that case, why not take safety locks off of guns? I mean, if someone does something wrong with it, it's their own fault, right? I mean, hey-make them learn from their decisions when their kid shoots themself. They should know better.

If they want an abortion then they obviously don't want a child. If they can't take responsibitlity for their own actions then they are not responsible enough to care for a child. Nobody deserves to be brought into a world of strife.

No, first of all, you're not advocating educating people. All you've said is "ban abortion." Over and over again.

No, that is what you interpret me as saying. what I have actually said, and feel free to go back and read what I have posted in this thread, is that abortion should only be an option if the pregnancy was a result of a rape, if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered by the pregnancy or if the child has been diagnosed with a condition whereby it will die before or shortly after birth. Thats is not screaming "ban abortion" it is providing a logical outline of my thoughts with regards to when abortion is an option and when it isn't.

Now I am, by no means, against adoption. It has bugs in the system just like everything else does, and you ALWAYS run the risk of getting shitty parents, weither or not they're your birth parents.

Yes, I am aware of that. I got a bad apple from the supermarket the other day but to not think all apples are bad nor do I think that the trade of apples should be ceased because of this incident.

Now, you advocate against the morning after pill. Why? Because that way, the parents have to deal with their actions. In that case, why not take safety locks off of guns? I mean, if someone does something wrong with it, it's their own fault, right? I mean, hey-make them learn from their decisions when their kid shoots themself. They should know better.

I do advocate education and I have said so in this thread and in others discussing similar topics.
Taking safety locks off guns? No, you see the difference here is safety locks on guns prevent an incident occurring. Educating children about the dangers of guns and ensuring they are safely stored go towards preventing an accident occurring. Prevention is better than cure. With regards to the sex issue I believe educating people enables people to make educated decisions. With guns...playing with the gun means I might kill myself or someone else. With sex....having sex means I may fall pregnant or impregnate my partner. Not to mention sexually transmitted diseases etc. and before you start, treating STDs is treating an illness, pregnancy is not an illness, it is the natural result of having sex.

If a child who knows the dangers, because they have been educated about the dangers of guns, gains access to a gun and takes the safety catch off then fires it then they will learn a lesson from their mistake. You cannot prevent people from making mistakes if they are intent on doing so. You can educate them about the consequences of their actions and then they will make an educated decision.
It is called being responsible for your actions.

Reasons I really don't like (note, not hate) George Bush:

1) He has absolutly no intelectual honesty. The best example I can think of is criticizing Kerry for "flip-flopping" on Abortion because he thinks life begins at coneception but is pro-choice. Now to somewhat that doesn't follow politics this may seem hypocritical, and undoubtudly who Bush is targeting, but to anyone with much political sense it isn't, you can oppose abortion personally while being opposed to goverment enforcing your opinion.
2) Bush's attack on the environment, and intelectual dishonesty about the issues concerning it.
3) Complete lack of diplomacy. Pissing off other nations on purpose for no reason, esspecially anti-Iraq war nations such as France. Doing a horrible job on Iraq, ensuring that we get little help and making terrorism worse by giving terrorists propoganda to use against us.
4) His complete disregard to civil rights, including the use of torture and scrapping the bill or rights to "protect us".
5) Sacrficing the long term for temporary gain, both in tax cuts (more deficet) and environmental issues (global warming, energy, overpopulation).
6) His willingness to try to label decent as being "unpatriotic" which is complete BS. Blind patriotism or nationalism is not patriotic. Dissent is not "opposing the troops" or "giving aid and confort to the enemy".

I know almost everyone hates bush here. Understandable... I guess. Can anyone find 5 good reasons to vote fo Kerry? Sure its easy to bash bush but can you find reasons to vote for Kerry? I know I can't.Five reasons to vote for Kerry.
1. He understands and appreciates the necessity of multilateralism and will work with our traditional allies instead of pissing them off.

2. He understands the need for fiscally responsible policies and will return the US to a balanced budget.

3. He understands the need for health care reform and plans to reform the system so that the uninsured will be able to get coverage if they want it and will relieve the burden of catastrophic coverage from insurance companies.

4. He understands that the US should only go to war when it must, not just when it wishes.

5. He will nominate federal judges and Supreme Court Justices who don;t let personal religious belief get in the way of upholding the laws and principles that have made the US great.

I can give more, but you asked for five.

Well I can see someone is getting e-mails from the kerry campaign.

1) "freedom fries" and "freedom toast"

2) The Bush Administration released fake news reports to tout their new Medicare law. They even hired actors to pretend to be news reporters.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/US/bush_medicare_reports_040315-1.html

3) The Bush administration has distorted scientific data in an effort to shape environmental, health, and bio-medical research policy to such an extreme that an independent group of scientists (including 20 Nobel laureates) have issued a statement and report on the subject.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1320

4) He throws around words like "freedom" as a battle cry to attack other nations, but refuses his own citizens the freedom to marry whomever they happen to fall in love with. And then there's the Patriot Act, which is another example of Bush limiting freedoms and covering it in words like "patriot", "democracy", and "freedom".

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

5) According to an August 2003 article in the Washington Post, President Bush has spent all or part of 166 days during his presidency at his Crawford, Texas, ranch or en route. Add the time spent at or en route to the presidential retreat of Camp David and at the Bush family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, and Bush has taken 250 days off as of August 2003. That's 27% of his presidency spent on vacation.

Debates are raging now, at least in my small anticapitalist community in NS, on how inclusive we actually should be. Do we cast aside core values and embrace groups who would curtail liberty in the name of solidarity? I don't know, yet.

But I see an awfully disturbing level of ignorance in this thread. Without fail, nearly 100% of "pro-war" comments are based solely on ignorance about the Middle East, Arabs and Muslims. What reason did we have for being in Lebanon in the first place? Troops to protect Israel's interests. Why were in Saudi? To protect Israel's interests.

I'll wait for the screams of "anti-Semite", a term which is, unfortunately, losing its meaning through overuse, but you'll find plenty of people in the progressive community, including Zionist Jews, that are demanding the US extract itself from the "...unholy alliance with Israel."

Bush is an ignorant redneck, a man who thinks everyone should be a Christian and be held to Christian morals (is this any better than Sha'riah law under the Taliban?!) and that American has a duty to become an imperial power. I am adamantly opposed to all three (yes, I adamantly oppose ignorance and rednecks).

Vote for who you like, gents, but remember this: Kerry will most likely be a one-term President. Can we really afford another four years of Bush?
Interesting little bit of trivia actually, this is a REAL study, also makes me and all the liberals I know wanna do the happy dance. Statistically speaking, well educated people tend to vote democrat, meaning they are at least slightly liberal. So if there is a reason for the ignorance present in the pro-war posts, its just that they don't have the ability/incentive to look at all the evidence. They yell at us for being biased when we go watch Farenheit 9/11 (sp?) yet they dismiss any argument against there sacrosanct (not literal) beliefs before it can even be made. Who's really the biased one, the one who looks at all sides of the argument and forms their own opinion, or the one who listens to arguments from only one side, and refuses to even acknowledge that the other side exists. Also, this statistic might explain Bush's massive cuts to education budgets... BTW, what is up with that? His wife is one of the most pro-education first ladies we've had, and there's Dubya, giving teachers the shaft and insisting that "no child be left behind" Don't worry, no child is being left behind, standards are being lowered to the point that even Mr. Texas himself could get a 4.0 without going to a school that is one crib course after another.

That brings me to the fact of his education. He graduated with a C-, okay admitted, compared to some of my grades in High School (namely english, I suck at turning in projects on time) that's not that bad, but that was his grades at an IVY league college. Yes, I know nerds and the ignorant like to think that those are the toughest schools in the country, but guess what, they're not. They are however, the toughest to get into. There are two ways into the colleges. One, be in the top 10 of your graduating class (not 10 percent, top 10). Two, be the child of someone with high amounts of social/political/financial power. As a result of this second group, the school is known for being lax, and is actually one of the bigger party colleges in America. Basically it breaks down like this (hyperbole coming up, don't know what it is, look it up). Show a pulse, D. Know what classes you're taking, C. Show up for the classes, B. Show up for the exam, A. And he made a C-, so by that definition, he was even iffy on what classes he was taking.

Well I can see someone is getting e-mails from the kerry campaign.
While that is true, that's not where I got my information. Kerry wasn't even in my top 4 for Democratic presidential candidates, but even so, he's a damn sight better than Bush and I've given positive reasons to vote for him. The fact that he's not Bush is enough for me--these reasons are just lagniappe.

Ah, but if you wanted to prevent an accident from buying a gun, you shouldn't have bought a gun in the first place.

You didn't understand what I was saying: I didn't mean the emphasis on the "ban abortion" part, I meant that you haven't talked about educating people. The only thing you've been saying is to severily limit abortion.

Ok, no more abortion. After all, that's a waste of a life.

Instead, I say we follow some of Jonathan Swift's ideas outlined in A Modest Proposal. That way, everyone wins! Parents who don't want their children can simply donate them to the greater good, and their lives arn't wasted. It's foil proof!

(There's gotta be SOMEONE here who gets that ;))

I have stated that I do not support a total ban on abortion. I have said I think abortion should only be an option if the pregnancy is a result of rape, if the pregnancy puts the woman's life in jeopardy or if the child has been diagnosed with a condition which will cause it to die before birth or shortly afterwards.
Outside of these scenarios I feel that abortion is taking a life for no reason. If a cow or pig or chicken is killed, it is killed and eaten. Therefore the killing of the animal has a purpose and is not comparable to the killing of child because they do not want a child at that point in time.So if cannibals have abortions, would i be okay with you???
(BTW, this is a really nasty, wrong, dark humor joke, its 2 AM here, thats how I am this late)
Where do you get this information from? Adoptive parents have to pass stringent tests before they are eleigible to adopt. Childless couples are grateful for the chance they have to raise a child they otherwise would never have otherwise they would not go through all the interviews and paperwork involved. Not all adoptions are perfect but to class them all as cruel and unloving is ludicrous. The adopted child has a chance to grow up in a family environment which I think is a better shot at happiness and success than being aborted as a "mistake".What about children that aren't adopted, or are passed from one foster home to another? The sad fact is, if the kid isn't cute, they don't stand much chance of being adopted. Also, most people want to adopt a little baby, so they can raise it as their own, they don't want a teenager with emotional issues due to years of people just like them passing them over in favor of cuter kids. Its the same opinion most people have with cars, new is better than used.I know almost everyone hates bush here. Understandable... I guess. Can anyone find 5 good reasons to vote fo Kerry? Sure its easy to bash bush but can you find reasons to vote for Kerry? I know I can't.
1. He's not bush (BIG PLUS)
2. He has one of the most liberal voting records in congress (Two thumbs up!)
3. He actually did the things he takes credit for (Good as Anchorman)
4. He cares about the common man, not just the rich (Little happy dance)
5. He's the anti-bush (Better than sex)

Having a child is not punishment. Why do you have such a hard time acknowledging that having children is a positive experience for the vast majority of parents. Even if the pregnancy was unplanned it does not automatically mean the child is not wanted, just unexpected. If they do not want the child then put the child up for adoption by couples that do want a child but for some reason cannot.
I am advocating educating people about the consequences of their actions, thereby allowing them to make an educated decision about their course of action. Simply putting in place escape routes for people who get themselves in trouble only reinforces the fact that their actions have no real consequence for them. Giving people access to education and advice enables them to make educated decisions. If they make an educated decision then they have to be responsible for the results of their decisions.
So, wouldn't it be a good idea to leave the option of abortion open to them, so that they can truely make an informed desicion (sp?). I mean, no moral doctor is going to just going to allow a patient to come in off the street and say, "I want this, do it now." They want the patient to consider all the risks beforehand. Personally, I don't think abortion is the best option, but I think outlawing it just because "some people like it and I don't" is stupid, and frankly, fascist.

So if cannibals have abortions, would i be okay with you???
(BTW, this is a really nasty, wrong, dark humor joke, its 2 AM here, thats how I am this late)

Only if the pregnant cannibal was raped, the pregnancy posed a risk to the life of the pregnant cannibal or the child the pregnant cannibal was carrying was diagnosed with a condition that would cause the child to die before birth or shortly after. :p


What about children that aren't adopted, or are passed from one foster home to another? The sad fact is, if the kid isn't cute, they don't stand much chance of being adopted. Also, most people want to adopt a little baby, so they can raise it as their own, they don't want a teenager with emotional issues due to years of people just like them passing them over in favor of cuter kids. Its the same opinion most people have with cars, new is better than used.

Well then do you propose some sort of pre-natal cuteness test where we can find the ugly kids and abort them while letting the cute ones be born and go into the adoption programs? Or should we just abort all children that were not planned because, lets face it, only a few will be cute enough to be adopted.
I think a teenager is a little bit past being aborted. Do you propose we put them to sleep if they have no parents and are older than 1 or 2 years old?

So, wouldn't it be a good idea to leave the option of abortion open to them, so that they can truely make an informed desicion (sp?). I mean, no moral doctor is going to just going to allow a patient to come in off the street and say, "I want this, do it now." They want the patient to consider all the risks beforehand. Personally, I don't think abortion is the best option, but I think outlawing it just because "some people like it and I don't" is stupid, and frankly, fascist.

I did not say i wanted it outlawed. I said I felt it should only be an option in the circumstances I have mentioned many times. Please read what I have said before you call me a facist. simply having a get out of jail free card by the way of abortion does not encourage responsibility.

Ah, but if you wanted to prevent an accident from buying a gun, you shouldn't have bought a gun in the first place.


Yes that would be the best way to prevent an accident involving a gun. But it would be too easy to dismiss your questions with such a response. I assumed there was a gun present so that I could argue a realistic case.

Only if the pregnant cannibal was raped, the pregnancy posed a risk to the life of the pregnant cannibal or the child the pregnant cannibal was carrying was diagnosed with a condition that would cause the child to die before birth or shortly after. :p



Well then do you propose some sort of pre-natal cuteness test where we can find the ugly kids and abort them while letting the cute ones be born and go into the adoption programs? Or should we just abort all children that were not planned because, lets face it, only a few will be cute enough to be adopted.
I think a teenager is a little bit past being aborted. Do you propose we put them to sleep if they have no parents and are older than 1 or 2 years old?Okay, you are taking the adoption thing to the extreme, but you're arguement against abortion (except in the cases you've specified) has the fatal flaw of more people are having babies that they don't want than are looking for babies. I was merely pointing out that the window for the child to live a truely happy life despite being adopted is very slim, 3 years at most, as that is when most people actually develop conscience memory, also, the cannibalism thing was a joke mooking your "oh its different with pigs cows and chickens because we eat them" So, lets eat the aborted babies (once again, dark humor), then they won't be senslessly killed.

I did not say i wanted it outlawed. I said I felt it should only be an option in the circumstances I have mentioned many times. Please read what I have said before you call me a facist. simply having a get out of jail free card by the way of abortion does not encourage responsibility.okay, two things, I really hate this forum's instant kill of quote pyramids, I have to have two windows open just so I can see what I WROTE!!! You may not be asking for a total ban of abortion, but you are asking for at the least a partial ban. Now there are several things I truely do disagree with regarding abortions, say the child is in the third trimester, then I would consider it murder. Also, you refering to abortion as a "get out of jail free card" means you really don't know what all is involved in that. 1. Unless performed via the morning after pill (which i don't even think counts seeing as your killing something that doesn't even have nerve cells yet), abortion is painful. My step-sister had a stillborn child (which from what i've heard is similar in overall experience to having an abortion, cept it doesn't cost as much) it was the most painful experience of her LIFE, not even counting emotional pain. As I have said many times before, I am against abortion, but I think involving the government in something that should be up to the 'mother' and/or her partner is stupid and overly authoritarian. If you truely had any faith in the ability of people to make educated choices, you wouldn't even be having this arguement with me. You are basically saying, "I want people to be educated so they can make an intelligent choice, as long as its not to abort." Yes I know you support abortion in the extreme cases of danger to the child/mother or rape, but frankly, that doesn't even count in my book, as it simply shows that you are not crazy enough to totally ignore rational thought.

3. This thread has proven that abortion is THE single most polarizing issue in politics today

You didn't understand what I was saying: I didn't mean the emphasis on the "ban abortion" part, I meant that you haven't talked about educating people. The only thing you've been saying is to severily limit abortion.


Ok, after we finished quibbling over semantics I stated that I was in favour of educating children about sex and the responsibilities it brings. I also said I was in favour of providing education to adults with regards to pregnancy and the responsibility of having a child. This was in post #180. I followed up in posts 190 and 193 reiterating that view.

Okay, you are taking the adoption thing to the extreme, but you're arguement against abortion (except in the cases you've specified) has the fatal flaw of more people are having babies that they don't want than are looking for babies. I was merely pointing out that the window for the child to live a truely happy life despite being adopted is very slim, 3 years at most, as that is when most people actually develop conscience memory, also, the cannibalism thing was a joke mooking your "oh its different with pigs cows and chickens because we eat them" So, lets eat the aborted babies (once again, dark humor), then they won't be senslessly killed.

i know the cannibal comment was a joke hence the :p after my comment on it.

Now, here is what I am talking about with regards to educating children so they know the ramifications of becoming sexually active. The idea is to try and lower the numbers of unwanted pregnancies. Prevention is better than cure. Allowing open slather on abortions does not teach responsibility.

The case here IS realistic. You're saying "if you have sex, you desirve the fact that you might accidently have a kid"

I'm saying, "If you own a gun, you deserve for your kid to accidently shoot himself or another."

And if abortion was illegal like you want, why would you educate people on it? They wouldn't have a choice to begin with.

The case here IS realistic. You're saying "if you have sex, you desirve the fact that you might accidently have a kid"

I'm saying, "If you own a gun, you deserve for your kid to accidently shoot himself or another."

And if abortion was illegal like you want, why would you educate people on it? They wouldn't have a choice to begin with.

I know the case is realistic. I assumed there was a gun present for the sake of making the argument worth persuing. If I had have simply dismissed the analogy you were making with a simple "don't own a gun" statement it would have not been worth replying.

I am saying that by having sex there is a chance you or your partner may become pregnant. I am not going out on a limb by saying that because it is obvious.
I do not own a gun but I hardly agree with the statement that if you own a gun you deserve to have your child accidentally kill themselves or someone else. That is quite a long bow to draw.

Now I will try and keep this simple so you can finally understand what I am talking about with regards to education. I was not talking about educating people about abortion, I was talking about educating people about sex, contraception and the realities of pregnancy and what it entails. Therefore people will make educated decisions on whether to have sex by knowing the consequences of that action. This is with the aim of preventing unwanted pregnancies...that is prevention rather than "cure". Do you understand?

okay, two things, I really hate this forum's instant kill of quote pyramids, I have to have two windows open just so I can see what I WROTE!!!

I agree!

You may not be asking for a total ban of abortion, but you are asking for at the least a partial ban. Now there are several things I truely do disagree with regarding abortions, say the child is in the third trimester, then I would consider it murder. Also, you refering to abortion as a "get out of jail free card" means you really don't know what all is involved in that. 1. Unless performed via the morning after pill (which i don't even think counts seeing as your killing something that doesn't even have nerve cells yet), abortion is painful. My step-sister had a stillborn child (which from what i've heard is similar in overall experience to having an abortion, cept it doesn't cost as much) it was the most painful experience of her LIFE, not even counting emotional pain.

I never suggested it was a painless procedure. Only that it diminishes the responsibility of people with regards to having a sexual relationship.

As I have said many times before, I am against abortion, but I think involving the government in something that should be up to the 'mother' and/or her partner is stupid and overly authoritarian. If you truely had any faith in the ability of people to make educated choices, you wouldn't even be having this arguement with me. You are basically saying, "I want people to be educated so they can make an intelligent choice, as long as its not to abort." Yes I know you support abortion in the extreme cases of danger to the child/mother or rape, but frankly, that doesn't even count in my book, as it simply shows that you are not crazy enough to totally ignore rational thought.

No, you have misunderstood what I mean by education. I am talking about educating people about sex, contraception and raising a child. Stressing to people that the possibility of pregnancy is a real one and therefore some thought should go into a decision to have sex. I am talking about preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than dealing with them after the fact.
I am not trying to justify myself to you, nor do I feel I need to. I am trying to explain the rationale behind why I think the way I do.

3. This thread has proven that abortion is THE single most polarizing issue in politics today

It may well be. I think it is a serious issue hence I do not dismiss abortion totally but freely offering it as an option regardless of circumstance is dangerous in my view.

On the gun issue, according to you, people should not be allowed one mistake. You screw up, tough shit. Therefore, if you own a gun, there should be no safety. If you screw up, or if someone else does, tough shit.

Once again, I might take your stance on "the child deserves to live" a bit more seriously if you weren't againt the morning after pill. Though I do suppose it matters on one's personal thoughts and ideas, most people don't consider the fetus to be a human being immidiatly after having sex.

I'm sorry, but a lot of your arguments sound more like "the parents should have the kid, oh well if they don't want it," then "the kid deserves to live, give him/her a chance!"

As for education, it already exists. people choose to ignore it. If you wanna get people to stop having unprotected sex, you need to take those concerns to the media may it rot in hell forever

Makes the Conservo-creeps easy to spot. This thread has yielded, just in scanning thru, eight people going on my IGNORE list under the general principle that they support Bush. If you like Bush, you piss me off. I'm taking no chances on getting into flame wars anymore. From now on, if you do not agree with me, you get ignored, and I don't have to listen to you...nah-nee-nah-nee-boo-boo!!

Unashamed Christians
Capsule Corporation
Tygaland
Roanokia
Betan
Tzorsland
Vexilars
Cold Hard Bitch

Y'all are the first winners of my all-expense-paid vacation package of a one-way ticket to Ignoreland, courtesy of ValuJet!! Enjoy your trip. At least I won't have to listen to you or your conservo-creep ideas, which will only serve to piss me off and raise my blood pressure!! Good bye.


Are you crazy? To the kind of mindlessness currently running our country, you've just identified yourself as a sympathizer with *takes deep breath* The Enemy. You aren't with the Big Dubya, so you must be against him. That makes you Evil and *takes another deep breath* Liberal.

You can expect the Washington Weed to call down an airstrike on you --- just as soon as he can find you.

Of course, that might not be until after he finds or invents some WMD, and that can't be until after he can find his own backside with his two hands, so you don't have to worry just yet. But still, you're playing a dangerous game.

PT

I know almost everyone hates bush here. Understandable... I guess. Can anyone find 5 good reasons to vote fo Kerry? Sure its easy to bash bush but can you find reasons to vote for Kerry? I know I can't.

1. He isn't George Bush.
2. He isn't George Bush.
3. He isn't George Bush.
4. He isn't George Bush.
5. He isn't George Bush.

Oh yes, and he is more intelligent than a turnip.

PT

Bush -v- Kerry (http://jibjab.com/thisland.html)

On the gun issue, according to you, people should not be allowed one mistake. You screw up, tough shit. Therefore, if you own a gun, there should be no safety. If you screw up, or if someone else does, tough shit.

Once again, I might take your stance on "the child deserves to live" a bit more seriously if you weren't againt the morning after pill. Though I do suppose it matters on one's personal thoughts and ideas, most people don't consider the fetus to be a human being immidiatly after having sex.

I'm sorry, but a lot of your arguments sound more like "the parents should have the kid, oh well if they don't want it," then "the kid deserves to live, give him/her a chance!"

As for education, it already exists. people choose to ignore it. If you wanna get people to stop having unprotected sex, you need to take those concerns to the media may it rot in hell foreverTechnically, its not even a fetus yet, its still an embryo. And you have a solid point regarding education.

On the gun issue, according to you, people should not be allowed one mistake. You screw up, tough shit. Therefore, if you own a gun, there should be no safety. If you screw up, or if someone else does, tough shit.

No, you again do not understand what I am saying, I am beginning to think you are doing this intentionally because it is not that hard to understand. I am advocating prevention rather than cure. Safe storage of a gun, the use of the safety catch on a gun and education about the dangers of a gun are steps towards prevention of an accident. If someone chooses to seek out the gun, remove the safety catch and play with the gun after they have been taught about its dangers then they have made a conscious decision to do so and any consequences that arise from their actions are their responsibility. If they kill someone then they are responsible, if they kill themselves they pay the ultimate price for their negligence. Your misinterpretation of this issue is mind-numbing. I am not saying have no safety, in fact the exact opposite. If you make a mistake with a gun there may well be no second chance whether you want it or not. Obviously the best solution is not to have a gun in the house, thus removing the danger. But, as i said, for the point of this argument I was asuming a gun was present otherwise there was nothing to discuss.

Once again, I might take your stance on "the child deserves to live" a bit more seriously if you weren't againt the morning after pill. Though I do suppose it matters on one's personal thoughts and ideas, most people don't consider the fetus to be a human being immidiatly after having sex.

What does one point have to do with dismissing the whole argument. Again, everything with you is black and white, all or nothing. I consider life to begin at fertilisation, thats my opinion and that it why the morning after pill in unacceptable to me. My wife is a nurse, she see young woman and teenagers coming into the emergency department seeking the morning after pill (available over counter here, no prescription required). They even request it BEFORE they go out for the night becasue they are "going out on a date with their boyfriend and will need it tomorrow". That is the point I am making. No responsibility!

I'm sorry, but a lot of your arguments sound more like "the parents should have the kid, oh well if they don't want it," then "the kid deserves to live, give him/her a chance!"

That is a simplistic definiton of my views. What I am actually saying is that people should exercise some commonsense and think before they act. Consider the consequences of their actions before they undertake the action. If they make a conscious decision to have sex and they or their partner falls pregnant then they have a responsibility to the child they have created. If they do not want a child then they should reconsider their decision to have sex in the first place. If they choose to have sex that is an acceptance of the risks involved, one of which is pregnancy. Simply allowing people to have open access to abortions does not prevent mistakes it removes people's responsibilities.

As for education, it already exists. people choose to ignore it. If you wanna get people to stop having unprotected sex, you need to take those concerns to the media may it rot in hell forever

I know the education exists. If people choose to ignore information and advice whose fault is that? The child's? It is not just a case of advertising safe sex. Contraception is not 100% "safe". Exercising commonsense and understanding the connotations of your actions through education is the only way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Simply killing off any child that the mother does not want is not an answer to a mistake it is a case of two wrongs do not make a right.

Technically, its not even a fetus yet, its still an embryo. And you have a solid point regarding education.

Yes it is an embryo but that is beside the point. A solid point with regards to education? Simply saying people ignore it is a solid case? So I guess someone ignoring the education and failing to stop at a STOP sign when driving is just something we have to accept. Hey, we tried but it is easier just to write of the death and injury as a fact of life. Why try to reduce the road-toll by educating people to be more responsible? They'll just ignore it. Lets just make rubber cars so we all bounce of each other and screw the road rules!!

5. Not cool: He's not cool. Kerry is cool. That cat can snowboard. He can play the BASS! What can George do? All he can do is start a multi-million dollar ad campaign, and maybe play some silver spoons, or a jew harp. NOT COOL INSTRUMENTS! You would think that with all that time on the ranch, and ignoring all his clear intelligence about the terrorist attacks he could have learned some skill that drives people wild, and makes them want to re-elect (well, elect, he was never elected the first time) him. The ad campaign is lazy! And his wife is an ugly, souless, soccer mom! Kerry's wife is a German...or something. And she doesn't look like a half retarded fish.

ahhhh so true

1. He isn't George Bush.
2. He isn't George Bush.
3. He isn't George Bush.
4. He isn't George Bush.
5. He isn't George Bush.

Oh yes, and he is more intelligent than a turnip.

PT

Bush -v- Kerry (http://jibjab.com/thisland.html)

No offense, but voting for someone just to get rid of someone else is never a good thing (like replacing LBJ with Nixon) or just because you're so desperate for change (like the way the Germans elected Hitler).

Seems like Pure Thought put no thought into his reasons....

1.Because
2.He
3.Is
4.A
5.Moron

No offense, but voting for someone just to get rid of someone else is never a good thing (like replacing LBJ with Nixon) or just because you're so desperate for change (like the way the Germans elected Hitler).

I wasn't offended, thanks.

"Never" is a long time. True, in the two instances you cite, the replacement was certainly worse than what was replaced. But in many instances, replacement of the incumbent may be a very good reason for voting for someone.

Using one of your examples, replacing Nixon with almost anyone who was running in '72 would have been a good idea, and Carter was a good idea after Ford. One may even argue that Clinton was an improvement after Bush George the First, although that one could prove more inflammatory to some.

Again using your own example, wouldn't it have been great if the Germans in the '30s could have replaced Hitler?

But I fear you may have taken my post a wee bit too seriously. Perhaps next time I should resort to putting a :rolleyes: or a :p or even a ;) , for those who take such a discussion just that little bit too much at face value (the way too many of us take our politicians). I included what I'd hoped would be a somewhat entertaining little link to do service for a smiley. Oh well.

Now, what are the key combinations for "irony" and "tongue-in-cheek"? ...

PT

Seems like Pure Thought put no thought into his reasons....


Heh heh. Have a read of my previous post. Then consider that thought in posting requires thought in reading what was posted.

Although I do attempt to communicate with at least the occasional person who reads something I post in a forum like this, I don't expect what I say to make any difference to or in anyone. So, I try to do something interesting with what I write instead, in the hope that at least I will challenge myself.

If you are the sort who likes all the dots joined together for him or her, and likes the boxes neatly coloured in, then try this:

The opposition to Dubya may be viewed on a continuum of how seriously they have thought about and researched their disapproval of him. A few people posting against Bush George the Second carefully have thought through their reasons and the reasons they have heard cited by others. The majority of people are repeating reasons that make the most sense to them even though they have not researched all the primary resources for themselves. And some others just loathe him the same way a small child or an animal may shrink back from someone who triggers their survival instincts beneath the threshhold of conscious awareness.

Regardless of the precise nature of opposition by different individuals, for most people on this spectrum of supporting Kerry, the final answer boils down to "he isn't George Bush". At the basis of this final answer lies Bush's incompetence to understand and perform the job properly. Perhaps it is because Dubya doesn't understand the difference between his personal opinions and his presidential duties as representative of the whole country, or because he doesn't grasp that the words "constitutional democratic republic" [the technical description for our form of government] do not equate to "Christian theocracy", or because he apparently doesn't even know what he's talking about unless he's coached beforehand [as when he didn't know the most basic things about countries he was going to visit, such as the names of their leaders].

And for better or worse, the root of Bush's incompetence seems to be that he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Hence my reference to the turnip.

Whether Kerry is the best replacement remains to be seen, if he and his supporters can avoid being "Bush-whacked" in Florida the next election.

Now, that's what lay behind my first post. Don't you agree the other was better?

(Oops! -- better remember to add a :) and maybe a ;) and how about a :rolleyes: ? Or should I get expressive and be defensive -- :mp5: -- or get conciliatory with :fluffle: ? Tough one. If only they had one for kissing babies and shaking hands and waving expansively.)

PT

Well back to the original format of this thread:


1. Two words, BIG OIL

2. www.bushdraft.com I'm not being drafted to go to his damn war

3. His private bank roll with the Saudis

4. The leader of the free world was almost taken out by a snack food (remember the whole pretzel incident?)

5. Compassionativity is not a word

Personally, I'd vote Nader...but that is essentially taking votes away from Kerry and giving Shrub --i mean Bush-- a chance at being re-elected.

Well lets make sure that he doesn't serve his own term in office....seeing as he just wasted Al Gore's term... :headbang:

Another thing. I think that everyone should have to pass a civil service test to be able to vote. I know a lot of teenagers who should be voting but can't, and I know a lot of middle aged egnoramouses who are allowed to. Age doesn't determine knowledge, especially when it comes to politics.

9.His socialistic, anti-states' rights 'No Child Left Behind' Act.
Don't worry, that was just something to make him look "compassionate". The program has received very little actual government money.

Don't worry, that was just something to make him look "compassionate". The program has received very little actual government money.

And that's part of the problem. He claims to be compassionate and yet, when he makes proposals that he says are meant to improve education, he refuses to budget any money for it! The cost of NCLB per child varies according to school district. In some it is $2000/child and in some it can be up to $10,000/child! How is that helping education?

Teachers who aren't paid enough to begin with, are now having to come up with money out of their own pockets to pay for an unfunded mandate that undermines the actual value of education. NCLB, ignores the fact that education involves a heck of a lot more than test scores. I know plenty of highly intelligent people who don't test well. NCLB also ignores the fact that there are other aspects of education other than math and science that are just as important (and I'm saying this as a future science teacher). Music may seem unimportant to education, but there are studies that have been doen, showing that having music in schools stimulates a part of the brain that wouldn't normally be stimulated, increasing overall brain activity. This improves the student's ability to concentrate on the "important" parts of his/her studies. IMO, music (or some other creative outlet) in schools is just as important as a good breakfast.

Teachers who aren't paid enough to begin with, are now having to come up with money out of their own pockets to pay for an unfunded mandate that undermines the actual value of education. NCLB, ignores the fact that education involves a heck of a lot more than test scores. I know plenty of highly intelligent people who don't test well. NCLB also ignores the fact that there are other aspects of education other than math and science that are just as important (and I'm saying this as a future science teacher). Music may seem unimportant to education, but there are studies that have been doen, showing that having music in schools stimulates a part of the brain that wouldn't normally be stimulated, increasing overall brain activity. This improves the student's ability to concentrate on the "important" parts of his/her studies. IMO, music (or some other creative outlet) in schools is just as important as a good breakfast.

I agree with you about how music is good. Not only is to good for the brain, it is also good for the soul. By teaching it in school, students can be taught to appreciate the classics, even if some hate it. It's a good thing to experience because it can open up your mind. An open mind is a good thing.

Another reason why music is good academically is because when you listen to music while you study - on a low volume - it can actually help you to concentrate because you're not listening to pure silence.

Don't worry, that was just something to make him look "compassionate". The program has received very little actual government money.
Why doesn't that surprise me...