NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your opinion on the United States of America and its government/current administration?
Why is that what you think?

Any other opinions?

Could you also please state your location, or any other info you want us to know. :)

I for one think it's 100% shit, and I'd sooner have the people in power executed than listen to any more of their bullshit.

I think its hell.

I live in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Overall, I think that the US goverment is very good. The current administration does leave some things to be desired in several areas.

(I live in Chicago, IL.)

Our federal government has been growing at a frightening rate . . .

Why is it so horrible? What have they done?

What HAVEN'T they done?

Not another one of these threads... :rolleyes:

i couldnt care less about its domestic policy, but in my opinion its current foreign policy is fundamentally wrong

What HAVEN'T they done?

They haven't done anything bad to a major degree.

I don't like the current administration. Having said that, the way government is structured is pretty good. The only changes I would make would be to the electoral process. Force TV and Radio stations to air campaign ads for all qualified candidates for free and on decent time slots. Eliminate any donations to campaigns that don't come from individual people, and limit those donations to $1,000 or less.

I'm from New Jersey, USA

Our federal government has been growing at a frightening rate . . .

The budget, yes.

Federal power has been on the decline in recent years under the Rehnquist court, however.

My overall opinion of the government isn't rosy, but the system itself (the Constitution, seperation of powers, recent precedent) is improving and is, on the whole, representative of the people.

These three points are enough for any one.

1: Invading a nation under false pretenses, getting thousands of people killed for no reason.

2: Trying to fuck all the lower classes by proposing to do away with Social Security and Welfare.

3: Totally disregarding the opinions of the U.N. and other nations, mainly France.

What HAVEN'T they done?
Oh! Argh! Your incisive reasoning, stunning facts and rapier-like wit have delt a death-blow to any arguments I may have had in support of the most humanitarian country on earth! I am cut to the quick!

Oh, that was supposed to be a bit of razor-sharp wit now, was it?

So, will three be enough?
Might be, if they were anything other than bald, unsupported opinion. :rolleyes:

Personally I’d like to see the federal government give the right to collect income tax to the states and bail out of a lot of their programs.

The United States is too diverse to have one government dictating policy to the masses. While I believe that the ideals it was founded on to be beyond reproach I’d have to agree with SP, the feds are awfully big for something that was founded as a confederation in the beginning.

These three points are enough for any one.

1: Invading a nation under false pretenses, getting thousands of people killed for no reason.

2: Trying to fuck all the lower classes by proposing to do away with Social Security and Welfare.

3: Totally disregarding the opinions of the U.N. and other nations, mainly France.

Corrections:
1. The nation was not invaded under false pretenses. The nation was invaded because there was solid evidence that that nation had nuclear arms, possibly for bad intent. Weapons/weapon making things WERE found. Second, a hostile leader was taken out of control, who murdered thousands of his own people.
2.That is just a proposal because of lack of government funding. Other choices are: raise taxes, have another great depression, or pull the money out of their asses.
3. What opinions? Be nice to the cute Iraqis?

I think that there are some areas where the US is lacking quite a bit, but it's a hell of a lot better than living in some other places. It rates a solid middle for me, probably a little a bit above.

Corrections:
1. The nation was not invaded under false pretenses. The nation was invaded because there was sloid evidence that that nation had nuclear arms, possibly for bad intent. Weapons/weapon making things WERE found. Second, a hostile leader was taken out of control, who murdered thousands of his own people.
2.That is just a proposal because of lack of government funding. Other choices are: raise taxes, have another great depression, or pull the money out of their asses.
3. What opinions? Be nice to the cute Iraqis?


1: Especially since said evidence somehow got "lost". Yeah, that's a surprise!

2: Said lack of government funding is because our dumb-fuck of a President got us into this massive deficit! He's trying to accomplish what Reagen started so many years ago.

3: You could've at least come up with a real response to this one, but obviously, you didn't have one.

Might be, if they were anything other than bald, unsupported opinion. :rolleyes:


Obviously, you didn't get what I was saying. There was a reason I edited that post --- maybe you can figure out what it is.

1: Especially since said evidence somehow got "lost". Yeah, that's a surprise!

2: Said lack of government funding is because our dumb-fuck of a President got us into this massive deficit! He's trying to accomplish what Reagen started so many years ago.

3: You could've at least come up with a half-witted response to this one, but obviously, you didn't have one.

1. So how do you know your 'evidence' is real?
2. 9/11 caused the deficit, and we already were in a deficit
3. OK, sorry. What were the disregarded opinions of UN nations?

George W Bush and his administration have been great sofar.

The mess left over by Clinton (one of the worst presidents in history) was gigantic. I am grateful to democrats for not helping to remove this rat from office during impeachment because otherwise president Gore would have done even worse. Thank God Bush managed to beat out Gore, despite the latters attempt to steal the election.

The military needed rebuilding after Clinton undermined it. The CIA needed to be reorganized after Clinton stuffed it with diversity bureaus and all that crap, instead of field agents.Democrat activist judges had to be stopped from legislating from the bench, democrat filibusters of good constitutional judges needed to be stopped.The economy which Clinton had ballooned up so much that it exploded needed to be fixed. People finally got some tax cuts now that they escaped from the clutches of democrat tax and spend liberals.

Also, the Middle East is now in transition and tin pot dictatorships can no longer rely on support.

The attacks on the WTC in february 1993. Clinton did nothing.
A massacre going on in Ruanda in 1994, Clinton did nothing, oh wait he did do something, he told people to do nothing ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12271%2C1182431%2C00.html )
North Korea was busy seeking nukes, Clinton did nothing.
Clinton lied under oath, an impeachable offense in itself.
And isn't it funny how there is a long list of former Clinton political operatives and cronies from the Arkansas era that have all died in mysterious circumstances? Arkancide anyone? ( http://cbn2.tripod.com/dlink.html )

Clinton was the lowest, lying, dirtiest scumbag in the White House after WW II, makes Nixon look like a saint in comparison.

Bush is a wonderful, compassionate, moderate man with great integrity.

Praise Hitlerreich!

Thanks! :D

They suck. The govern completely without regard for anyone, including their own people. Their domination of the world scene, and the willingness to do things without the support of the international community worries me a great deal.

Basically, they're a non-representative bunch of old conservative rich men (with the exception of a couple of women- traitors! :p) who thereore don't have anyone's best interest at heart.

Hitlerreich, whatever amount of respect I may have had for you has just been sucked into a black hole, unable to be recovered.

How could you say something like that? Oh yeah, it's in your name. Almost forgot about the name!

I think it's okay, but it could be better:

Lower taxes (so we get to decide what to do with more of our money)

Smarter spending (we're at war against terror, so we need to make cuts elsewhere. money doesn't grow on trees.)

...would be a good start.

These three points are enough for any one.

1: Invading a nation under false pretenses, getting thousands of people killed for no reason.

2: Trying to fuck all the lower classes by proposing to do away with Social Security and Welfare.

3: Totally disregarding the opinions of the U.N. and other nations, mainly France.

1.it was Saddam who killed thousands, and now the 'insurgents' are doing just that.

2.a blatant lie if there ever was one, social security is broken and needs to be fixed, even old liberal idol FDR spoke of privatizing part of it.

3.who cares what a bunch of tinpot dictatorships, corrupt idiots like Annan and lying weasels like Chirac (oil voucher bribes anyone?) think?

I think it's okay, but it could be better:

Lower taxes (so we get to decide what to do with more of our money)

Smarter spending (we're at war against terror, so we need to make cuts elsewhere. money doesn't grow on trees.)

...would be a good start.


Lowering taxes is a good idea, but the tax money needs to be used for a good cause. Welfare, Social Security, Healthcare, and Education. Not useless government programs for business and excessive funding for the Military.

Spending so much money on our already massively-gigantic military is stupid in itself. We can make some key cuts in Military funding and save a ton of money without risking security.

Hitlerreich, whatever amount of respect I may have had for you has just been sucked into a black hole, unable to be recovered.

How could you say something like that? Oh yeah, it's in your name. Almost forgot about the name!

boohoo how will I ever recover from not having your respect :rolleyes:

1.it was Saddam who killed thousands, and now the 'insurgents' are doing just that.

2.a blatant lie if there ever was one, social security is broken and needs to be fixed, even old liberal idol FDR spoke of privatizing part of it.

3.who cares what a bunch of tinpot dictatorships, corrupt idiots like Annan and lying weasels like Chirac (oil voucher bribes anyone?) think?


1: Insurgents are rising because we didn't leave their country like we said we would.

2: Social Security and Welfare are broken, and they do need to be fixed. But, these assholes in our government (Bush, mainly) want to throw these things away *completely*. They don't have compassion for those in need, and Afghanistan is a perfect example (what the fuck happened to us cleaning that place up? It's like nothing ever happened!).

3: This is exactly the attitude I'd expect from somebody who supports our government, no matter what it does.

1: Insurgents are rising because we didn't leave their country like we said we would.


what is it with liberals and their obsession with 'insurgents' and 'mass uprising' against the 'occupation'.

95% of the country is stable, it's just a bunch of Saddam loving a*holes who are pissed off at losing their power to kill and maim at will. And of course, their foreign born terrorist allies.

George W Bush and his administration have been great sofar.

The mess left over by Clinton (one of the worst presidents in history) was gigantic. I am grateful to democrats for not helping to remove this rat from office because otherwise president Gore would have done even worse. Thank God Bush managed to beat out Gore, despite the latters attempt to steal the election.

The military needed rebuilding after Clinton undermined it. The CIA needed to be reorganized after Clinton stuffed it with diversity bureaus and all that crap, instead of field agents.Democrat activist judges had to be stopped from legislating from the bench, democrat filibusters of good constitutional judges needed to be stopped.The economy which Clinton had ballooned up so much that it exploded needed to be fixed. People finally got some tax cuts now that they escaped from the clutches of democrat tax and spend liberals.

Also, the Middle East is now in transition and tin pot dictatorships can no longer rely on support.

The attacks on the WTC in february 1993. Clinton did nothing.
A massacre going on in Ruanda in 1994, Clinton did nothing, oh wait he did do something, he told people to do nothing ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12271%2C1182431%2C00.html )
North Korea was busy seeking nukes, Clinton did nothing.
Clinton lied under oath, an impeachable offense in itself.
And isn't it funny how there is a long list of former Clinton political operatives and cronies from the Arkansas era that have all died in mysterious circumstances? Arkancide anyone? ( http://cbn2.tripod.com/dlink.html )

Clinton was the lowest, lying, dirtiest scumbag in the White House after WW II, makes Nixon look like a saint in comparison.

Bush is a wonderful, compassionate, moderate man with great integrity.

I’d agree that Clinton was no peach. The man’s action in Rwanda were deplorable, all he had to do was air strike half a dozen Hutu radio stations in a country that could no possibly touch a B-2 or F-117a.

While I respect his ability to stay in office I’d agree that it probably did no good to the country. An egoist to be sure but I do believe that he deserves some recognition for his ability to deflect and negotiate. Perhaps he’d be better suited in a career as a diplomat with a country that is respectable but at odds with America (possibly France).

I think the CIA’s ineptitude is a very good point to be made. People will often talk about Bush’s inaction to CIA warnings but the CIA really had no ability to verify after Clinton. Bush did have a hard time because 9/11 could not have happened at a worse time, speaking in context of the current (at the time) CIA situation.

As for Bush and his tax cuts; I will not contend that the man is able to run a domestic policy. It is my opinion that as a war President your country is in good hands. At the same time he’s done more to extend the deficit than anyone since WWII. I’ll also contend that he is in no way moderate.

As far as I’m concerned he’s very extreme, arguably too extreme. At the same time extreme reactions were needed after 9/11. The man is a broadsword to boot and right now the US is at arms. Domestic policy however requires softer handling, a scalpel.

It’s sad to say but after Bush the US needs an accountant as President. This man ham hands your economy. Just now (within the last couple of months) has the US regained the amount of jobs it lost since 9/11. This is an unnerving statistic considering population growth has not slowed in the least.

2: Social Security and Welfare are broken, and they do need to be fixed. But, these assholes in our government (Bush, mainly) want to throw these things away *completely*. They don't have compassion for those in need, and Afghanistan is a perfect example (what the fuck happened to us cleaning that place up? It's like nothing ever happened!).


The president doesn't have a concrete proposal yet on Social Security, but the most it'll ver be is a 5-10% investment option, with the remainder in transferrable, unbreakable account. Right now, Social Security's nothing more than an IOU. No one has ever proposed we get rid of it. Taking the money out of the government's hands and giving it to the individual is something only Congress should oppose.

Has it yet occured to you that over a thousand of our soldiers have been killed in this unnecessary "war"? And many more Iraqis, both citizens and insurgents, have been killed.

I'd like to see how Mr. Bush would fare in an environment like Baghdad. Then we'd see just how much he'd support this bullshit.

Has it yet occured to you that over a thousand of our soldiers have been killed in this unnecessary "war"? And many more Iraqis, both citizens and insurgents, have been killed.

Unnecassary? When they could have had the power to take millions of lives through nuclear weapons? Or when Saddam would still be testing toxic gases on his citizens?

It would've been fine if we went to Iraq just to oust Saddam. But the truth is that we went under false pretenses --- because some idiots in our higher ranks said that they definately had Nuclear weapons.

And they didn't. They never had any.

The president doesn't have a concrete proposal yet on Social Security, but the most it'll ver be is a 5-10% investment option, with the remainder in transferrable, unbreakable account. Right now, Social Security's nothing more than an IOU. No one has ever proposed we get rid of it. Taking the money out of the government's hands and giving it to the individual is something only Congress should oppose.

spot on. This is what democrat politicians are afraid of, that they can no longer dip their grubby hands into the SS fund and put IOU's back in. Social Security will be made more secure, and it's about time too.

in fact, what Bush will propose is a worked out version of Al Gore's original 'lock box' plan, coupled with FDR's original idea to have part of people's SS money privatized, so they can invest it themselves IF THEY WANT TO (not compulsory). You'd think they'd be all for it but no, it's a Bush plan so it must be opposed whether it's good or bad (I admit, Bush plans are not always good, but more often than not they are :D )

It would've been fine if we went to Iraq just to oust Saddam. But the truth is that we went under false pretenses --- because some idiots in our higher ranks said that they definately had Nuclear weapons.

And they didn't. They never had any.

WTF?!?!?!? What false pretenses??? And anyway, just taking out Saddam wouldn't stop it- he would just be replaced. They had supplies to make weapons of mass destruction.

Well, that *does* sound like a very good plan. Nothing like how they say it is on the news.

But I do have a problem with one thing you said: It depends on your political stance. Anybody who's not a raging Republican thinks that most of his plans are shit.

WTF?!?!?!? What false pretenses??? And anyway, just taking out Saddam wouldn't stop it- he would just be replaced. They had supplies to make weapons of mass destruction.


Do you believe all the propaganda that FOX News issues? Sounds like it.

Corrections:
1. The nation was not invaded under false pretenses. The nation was invaded because there was solid evidence that that nation had nuclear arms, possibly for bad intent. Weapons/weapon making things WERE found. Second, a hostile leader was taken out of control, who murdered thousands of his own people.
2.That is just a proposal because of lack of government funding. Other choices are: raise taxes, have another great depression, or pull the money out of their asses.
3. What opinions? Be nice to the cute Iraqis?
I'm sorry that you're so thoroughly blind as to the state of affairs, Qek (how do you pronounce that, anyway? kwek? kek?); let me enlighten you.

In the past, a nation having The Bomb would never be a valid pretense for invasion. If it is now, why have we not invaded Korea, Russia, France, China, the U.K., Israel, India or Pakistan?

No, it's obvious enough now why Bush invaded Iraq: as he has proclaimed, he plans to force democracy on the Middle East. It's not his place to go around pushing his ideals on other nations, no matter how small, unstable or tin-potted they may be. What this amounts to is a form of empire building, in which Bush installs puppet governments in the various countries of the Middle East so that he can control them as he pleases. "Democracy?" Pssh, yeah right. More like sort-of-ocracy: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/sortof.html

As for your WMD, I'd like to see some evidence. A link, maybe? Thank you.

Really? Then why don't you give us some of these reasons? It seems you have no support for any of your remarks.

Dodging the issue there, kid/stupid old man.

spot on. This is what democrat politicians are afraid of, that they can no longer dip their grubby hands into the SS fund and put IOU's back in. Social Security will be made more secure, and it's about time too.

in fact, what Bush will propose is a worked out version of Al Gore's original 'lock box' plan, coupled with FDR's original idea to have part of people's SS money privatized, so they can invest it themselves IF THEY WANT TO (not compulsory). You'd think they'd be all for it but no, it's a Bush plan so it must be opposed whether it's good or bad (I admit, Bush plans are not always good, but more often than not they are :D )

You've got your head in the clouds, kiddo. I won't even waste my time lecturing you - just go read the facts. For that matter, I'd love to see you watch C-SPAN now and again.

Dodging the issue there, kid/stupid old man.

amen to that. :rolleyes:

You've got your head in the clouds, kiddo. I won't even waste my time lecturing you - just go read the facts. For that matter, I'd love to see you watch C-SPAN now and again.

you've been listening to Ted Kennedy too many times haven't you!

{Ted Kennedy drunken rant}
BUSH EVIL! MUST BE STOPPED! DANGEROUS! QUAGMIRE! VIETNAM! DID I MENTION KERRY WAS IN VIETNAM AND BUSH WASN'T?
{/Ted Kennedy drunken rant}

It's funny how these Republicans are supposed to be about total Democracy, but they come off more as hard-line, Authoritarian Fascists. Why's that, then? Because in a sense, that's exactly what they are.

You've got your head in the clouds, kiddo. I won't even waste my time lecturing you - just go read the facts. For that matter, I'd love to see you watch C-SPAN now and again.

Everyone on Nationstates except for Pepe is wrong on every issue. In fact, I'm so superior to everyone that I'm not even going to supply facts, evidence, or logic to support my opinions. They're all flawless. No one on these boards is worthy of my time and effort in explaining my intellectual superiority. There, all political issues have been solved. You can all go home.

Everyone on Nationstates except for Pepe is wrong on every issue. In fact, I'm so superior to everyone that I'm not even going to supply facts, evidence, or logic to support my opinions. They're all flawless. No one on these boards is worthy of my time and effort in explaining my intellectual superiority. There, all political issues have been solved. You can all go home.
:D

you've been listening to Ted Kennedy too many times haven't you!

{Ted Kennedy drunken rant}
BUSH EVIL! MUST BE STOPPED! DANGEROUS! QUAGMIRE! VIETNAM! DID I MENTION KERRY WAS IN VIETNAM AND BUSH WASN'T?
{/Ted Kennedy drunken rant}


Wow... That was just stupid. Have you lost your will to fight (un)reasonably?

Wow... That was just stupid. Have you lost your will to fight (un)reasonably?
Fight with ad hominems? Both sides seem to have lost their capabilities to argue logically.

Wow... That was just stupid. Have you lost your will to fight (un)reasonably?

undoing the liberal brainwashing you've been exposed to is tiring work :D

as an American citizen,im glad i was born here and not elsewhere like Ethiopia or Pakistan. still,this "democratic" capitalist society leaves much room for improvement. the government is gradually getting out of control both abroad and at home. civil rights are being stripped away step by step and the true spirit of the constitution is being spit on. its only a matter of time before it becomes completely controlled by the government,and evidently that is what most of the sheeple here want. add to this the fact that most americans have become obsessed with sex(both the positive and negative aspects)which is deemed by the mindless as being a purely "moral" issue and you have a nation of insanity where common sense has gone out the window along with other nations respect for us and our government. we spend too much money trying to rescue or dominate other countries when we should be taking care of our own problems here at home. we are a nation of spoiled,self-deluded hypocrits who feel its their job to judge everyone else and compare them to us.(just like jesus told us to do...not) the american ego and rampant nationalism is scary. most americans dont care about anything outside the US unless its THEIR son dying in the middle east. they live in a bubble of selfishness and apathy.

humanitarian?!!! sure,its real humanitarian to use terrorism as an excuse to kill "non-amaricans" and rape their country for oil and power.

america gets an A- for prosperity,innovation,and artistic contributions.
it gets a D- for honesty,common sense,and social tolerance.

they say that if you are not moving forward,you are falling behind. when it comes to moral and political issues,we have stopped dead in our tracks...

you've been listening to Ted Kennedy too many times haven't you!

{Ted Kennedy drunken rant}
BUSH EVIL! MUST BE STOPPED! DANGEROUS! QUAGMIRE! VIETNAM! DID I MENTION KERRY WAS IN VIETNAM AND BUSH WASN'T?
{/Ted Kennedy drunken rant}

Hey, don't fuck with Ted Kennedy!

And don't you even touch Nancy Pelosi, either...

Hmm... Some of these liberals get on my nerves. Bush the evil guy wants oil and power! Hes mean! He has to be stopped! He never had any reasons! Could you at least TRY to have some factual things included in your opinions?

when it comes to moral and political issues,we have stopped dead in our tracks...

you got it right on the moral issues.

A small minority of liberal activists shoved the holocaust machine known as 'abortion' through our throats, justifying it by calling it a 'right' and a 'choice' and calling a new life a 'fetus' to soothe their murdering conscience. Oh and they did it via the courts, not via the normal legislative process.

A small minority of liberal activists is trying to go the same route in shoving this 'gay marriage' business down our throats as well, despite 80%+ opposition to it. They claim that gays are somehow denied a civil right, when in reality the marriage rules are the same for everyone, therefore there is no discrimination. There are however a few exceptions, but they apply to all of us.

Hmm... Some of these liberals get on my nerves. Bush the evil guy wants oil and power! Hes mean! He has to be stopped! He never had any reasons! Could you at least TRY to have some factual things included in your opinions?
Can you say "Faith Based Reality?" You just listed the facts, buddo.

undoing the liberal brainwashing you've been exposed to is tiring work :D


I haven't been exposed to anything. For seven years I've been locked inside this prison of a house, under the iron fist of my dictator of a father. His politics aren't exactly peachy (the "N" word is used often). He's obnoxious. He's a liar and an asshole.

I've developed my own consience, my own brand of politics, and my own sense of compassion. I have not been told how to do one fucking thing.

Get to know somebody before you start acting like an idiot.

Hey, don't fuck with Ted Kennedy!

And don't you even touch Nancy Pelosi, either...

I won't get started on her, I promise. But... did you ever hear the story about the wicked witch of the west? :D

Can you say "Faith Based Reality?" You just listed the facts, buddo.

Those are facts? Where have I been? Those are not true, and have no basis whatsoever.

Everyone on Nationstates except for Pepe is wrong on every issue.
Proof?
In fact, I'm so superior to everyone that I'm not even going to supply facts, evidence, or logic to support my opinions.
No, you're not. You have to.
They're all flawless. No one on these boards is worthy of my time and effort in explaining my intellectual superiority.
I am. By far. Actually you should apologize taking my time.
There, all political issues have been solved. You can all go home.
No they are not. I won't go home. You go home!

I like how Potaria responds to things like the liberals are brainwashing him(which is true) with stories about his family and past.

you got it right on the moral issues.

A small minority of liberal activists shoved the holocaust machine known as 'abortion' through our throats, justifying it by calling it a 'right' and a 'choice' and calling a new life a 'fetus' to soothe their murdering conscience. Oh and they did it via the courts, not via the normal legislative process.

A small minority of liberal activists is trying to go the same route in shoving this 'gay marriage' business down our throats as well, despite 80%+ opposition to it. They claim that gays are somehow denied a civil right, when in reality the marriage rules are the same for everyone, therefore there is no discrimination. There are however a few exceptions, but they apply to all of us.

Oh, I see. So I should be denied the ability to marry because I'm different than you in one minor area, and it's somehow not a civil rights issue? Forfuckinggive me if I don't buy that. Your fucking president has a lot of pain and suffering to answer for in all the cultural discrimination and hate he's continuing and strengthening.

Don't you even get me fucking started on you anti-choice people and your "facts." An early-term foetus has less intelligence than a black widow spider - keep that in mind next time you squish an insect.

Ah, so you're another typical "mean person in training".

So, what I said about my past (and present) isn't true? Tell me why.

I like how Potaria responds to things like the liberals are brainwashing him(which is true) with stories about his family and past.
Eh, the closest thing I'd have to say to "liberal brainwashing" is our education system - political correctness and affirmative action, anybody? (Thank God my history teacher is conservative*)

*as a libertarian I still disagree w/him on a bunch of stuff; don't think he's indoctrinated me tho

Oh, I see. So I should be denied the ability to marry because I'm different than you in one minor area, and it's somehow not a civil rights issue? Forfuckinggive me if I don't buy that. Your fucking president has a lot of pain and suffering to answer for in all the cultural discrimination and hate he's continuing and strengthening.

Don't you even get me fucking started on you anti-choice people and your "facts." An early-term foetus has less intelligence than a black widow spider - keep that in mind next time you squish an insect.


I *love* squishing spiders. If one of those things comes so much as five inches within my vicinity, it's gone. I'm not gonna risk the amputation of my limbs just so that thing can pass by and continue on with its ultimately meaningless life.

Oh, I see. So I should be denied the ability to marry because I'm different than you in one minor area, and it's somehow not a civil rights issue? Forfuckinggive me if I don't buy that. Your fucking president has a lot of pain and suffering to answer for in all the cultural discrimination and hate he's continuing and strengthening.

Don't you even get me fucking started on you anti-choice people and your "facts." An early-term foetus has less intelligence than a black widow spider - keep that in mind next time you squish an insect.

I'm sorry to offend you and your 'pro-death' ideology (abortion)

And do try to explain, exactly where the discrimination is in not having gay marriage? How are the rules different for you than they are for me?

Ah, so you're another typical "mean person in training".

So, what I said about my past (and present) isn't true? Tell me why.

I didn't say it wasn't true. I said it was completely irrelevant(like 'dodging the issue' when you were the one dodging). Try to pay a little more attention.

And do try to explain, exactly where the discrimination is in not having gay marriage? How are the rules different for you than they are for me?
You just answered your own question. The rules shou;dn't be different for anyone, anybody should be allowed to get married.

So you completely deny dodging the issue on that one post where you were clearly asked a serious question, but you went with the usual "go get some facts/get a clue" response.

I wasn't dodging the issue by pointing out that you were doing so.

I'm sorry to offend you and your 'pro-death' ideology (abortion)

And do try to explain, exactly where the discrimination is in not having gay marriage? How are the rules different for you than they are for me?
Why not just make it even simpler and eliminate *ALL* govt-administered marriages? I'm not gonna fault your religious nature; but since marriage has religious connotations (thus govt-administered ones violate 1st amendment) to you, why not return them to where they belong?

You just answered your own question. The rules shou;dn't be different for anyone, anybody should be allowed to get married.

What if I want to marry my dog or something? That is just as disgusting to, like he said, %80 percent of the people.

So you completely deny dodging the issue on that one post where you were clearly asked a serious question, but you went with the usual "go get some facts/get a clue" response.

I wasn't dodging the issue by pointing out that you were doing so.

What are you trying to ask? Go get a clue.

You just answered your own question. The rules shou;dn't be different for anyone, anybody should be allowed to get married.

ANY unmarried consenting male adult can marry ANY unmarried consenting female adult.

There you have it, the rules are the same for you and me. The exceptions are the same for you and me. Therefore there cannot possibly be any discrimination in the concept.

What if I want to marry my dog or something? That is just as disgusting to, like he said, %80 percent of the people.


Where the hell did you get this "80% of the population" figure?

And Bunnyducks --- what? If you need clarification, read the rest of the thread.

So you completely deny dodging the issue on that one post where you were clearly asked a serious question, but you went with the usual "go get some facts/get a clue" response.

I wasn't dodging the issue by pointing out that you were doing so.

OK, FOX news is not propaganda, and if it was I wouldn't believe it. So, where are your'e facts? that was also a completely serious question.

ANY unmarried consenting male adult can marry ANY unmarried consenting female adult.

There you have it, the rules are the same for you and me. The exceptions are the same for you and me. Therefore there cannot possibly be any discrimination in the concept.


But you're discriminating against homosexuals. Tell me: What *is* wrong with two people of the same sex marrying each other, and how does it harm you?

But you're discriminating against homosexuals. Tell me: What *is* wrong with two people of the same sex marrying each other, and how does it harm you?
Why not just get the damn government out of marriage altogether?

Where the hell did you get this "80% of the population" figure?

And Bunnyducks --- what? If you need clarification, read the rest of the thread.

Where? Through my own experimentation, for one. Most people do not want gay marraige to be legal. And do you notice how so many people use 'gay' as a form of something bad? e.g. That is so gay.

Why not just make it even simpler and eliminate *ALL* govt-administered marriages? I'm not gonna fault your religious nature; but since marriage has religious connotations (thus govt-administered ones violate 1st amendment) to you, why not return them to where they belong?

govt administered marriages are secular.

and there is nothing anywhere in the constitution that specifically states religion is off limits for government, what the constitution states is that religion cannot be enforced upon people. It isn't enforced, never has been and never will be. Are there jack booted thugs at your door forcing you to be religous when u don't wanna be? No there are not. Religion shall always remain a personal choice. But you cannot deny it's existence.

OK, FOX news is not propaganda, and if it was I wouldn't believe it. So, where are your'e facts? that was also a completely serious question.


My god, FOX News is the most biased news station on the planet. Now I know where you got your "80% of the population" bullshit.

My facts? I watch CNN. Their figures are much different from yours. It's more like 51/49, not 80/20.

Where the hell did you get this "80% of the population" figure?

And Bunnyducks --- what? If you need clarification, read the rest of the thread.
Thanks man. I rather not. I prefer busting in while drunk beyond my wits. But thanks.

But you're discriminating against homosexuals. Tell me: What *is* wrong with two people of the same sex marrying each other, and how does it harm you?

It's disgusting, unnatural, and marraige is clearly defined as a joint between man and woman.

My god, FOX News is the most biased news station on the planet. Now I know where you got your "80% of the population" bullshit.

My facts? I watch CNN. Their figures are much different from yours. It's more like 51/49, not 80/20.

I get my facts from the source - the people. FOX- the most biased on the planet? Why? What about CBS?

govt administered marriages are secular.

and there is nothing anywhere in the constitution that specifically states religion is off limits for government, what the constitution states is that religion cannot be enforced upon people. It isn't enforced, never has been and never will be. Are there jack booted thugs at your door forcing you to be religous when u don't wanna be? No there are not. Religion shall always remain a personal choice. But you cannot deny it's existence.


Kids are forced to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That's more than enough to get me to keep silent during it.

Are you kidding me? Mormons try to force it on me all the time! This one group force-fed me Bible bullshit at my door for thirty minutes. I couldn't shut it, either, because two guys had their shoes in the way. And they were there on purpose.

It's disgusting, unnatural, and marraige is clearly defined as a joint between man and woman.
What's wrong with it was the question. Nobody cares if you don't like it. :)

On the gay marriage issue :
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

The latest poll, from the New York Times / CBS, shows that 23% of the population is in favor of gay marriage, 34% for civil unions, 41% for nothing, and 2% unsure.

But you're discriminating against homosexuals. Tell me: What *is* wrong with two people of the same sex marrying each other, and how does it harm you?

no I am not discriminating, that's the point I'm trying to make.

what's wrong with it? it's against the rules, that's whats wrong with it. We don't have to chance the system if the system ain't broken. And it ain't broken.

How does it harm me? In physical terms, not at all. But that's not the point.

I get my facts from the source - the people. FOX- the most biased on the planet? Why? What about CBS?


How is CBS biased? On election night, they showed the actual number of votes and elector college points, and didn't have Bush as the winner until the end. And don't start with Dan Rather...

FOX News had Bush as the winner in the first 15 minutes. They had him at 269 Elector College points before they even counted the votes for the seven remaining states!

Kids are forced to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That's more than enough to get me to keep silent during it.

Are you kidding me? Mormons try to force it on me all the time! This one group force-fed me Bible bullshit at my door for thirty minutes. I couldn't shut it, either, because two guys had their shoes in the way. And they were there on purpose.

No one is forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. You are allowed to opt out or refuse to say it.

no I am not discriminating, that's the point I'm trying to make.

what's wrong with it? it's against the rules, that's whats wrong with it. We don't have to chance the system if the system ain't broken. And it ain't broken.

How does it harm me? In physical terms, not at all. But that's not the point.


Against what rules? Oh yeah, rules made by a bunch of dictatorial priests in the Middle Ages so they could control people.

The system *is* broken, and we *do* need to change it. These discriminating laws against homosexuals are complete garbage.

Kids are forced to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. That's more than enough to get me to keep silent during it.
If they're forced to, you can bring it up to the school administrator and have them change the rule. If they don't, you can sue the school. Its been ruled, back in the 40's I think, that kids can't be forced to sing or recite patriotic songs or pledges.

Are you kidding me? Mormons try to force it on me all the time! This one group force-fed me Bible bullshit at my door for thirty minutes. I couldn't shut it, either, because two guys had their shoes in the way. And they were there on purpose.
Tell them they're trespassing, and if they don't leave, you'll call the police. Its not too hard.

Kids are forced to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

forced? not at gunpoint last time I checked.

how does saying the word God harm you then? is religion being forced upon you?

How is CBS biased? On election night, they showed the actual number of votes and elector college points, and didn't have Bush as the winner until the end. And don't start with Dan Rather...

FOX News had Bush as the winner in the first 15 minutes. They had him at 269 Elector College points before they even counted the votes for the seven remaining states!

No, they didn't. I watched it and all of the network stations, they were about even.

How does it harm me? In physical terms, not at all. But that's not the point.
I might agree with you... but what IS the point?

No one is forced to say the Pledge of Allegiance. You are allowed to opt out or refuse to say it.


Oh really? Then why was i sent to ISS (in-school suspension) on five seperate occasions for refusing to say it?

And kids in Derry Elementary (in Port Isabelle, TX) were beaten with paddles by a Mr. Garza for refusing to say the Pledge.

No, they didn't. I watched it and all of the network stations, they were about even.


Yeah, sure they were. Just like how President Bush's IQ is even with Albert Einstein's.

What's wrong with it was the question. Nobody cares if you don't like it. :)

I didn't only say I didn't like it. It is unnatural, and that is what marraige is defined as.

Oh really? Then why was i sent to ISS (in-school suspension) on five seperate occasions for refusing to say it?

And kids in Derry Elementary (in Port Isabelle, TX) were beaten with paddles by a Mr. Garza for refusing to say the Pledge.

Because those individuals were breaking the law, and/or you decided to scream at them.

I might agree with you... but what IS the point?

the point is, you don't go around and change everything just because a small minority wants it so.

And what's wrong with having civil unions? I have no problems with that.

Because those individuals were breaking the law, and/or you decided to scream at them.


Scream at them? Okay, thanks for shoving words down my throat.

It wasn't even against the rules, much less the law. They just decided to "discipline" kids whenever they wanted.

And it isn't a small minority that wants these discriminating laws against homosexuals to be changed. It's pretty much half of the country, Mr. FOX News drone.

I didn't only say I didn't like it. It is unnatural, and that is what marraige is defined as.
Ok. Have fun with the definition then.

Well, I have to go.

I leave saying that all liberals are gay-right-loving, idiotic, sensitive-war-fighters, who probably don't even know what the word 'fact' means. They are wrong. Period.

And it isn't a small minority that wants these discriminating laws against homosexuals to be changed. It's pretty much half of the country, Mr. FOX News drone.
No its not. Either provide some facts or, please, stop posting this. The latest poll out by the NYTimes and CBS, as I said, has shown that the number in support of gay marriage is much closer to 20% than 49%.

Scream at them? Okay, thanks for shoving words down my throat.

It wasn't even against the rules, much less the law. They just decided to "discipline" kids whenever they wanted.

And it isn't a small minority that wants these discriminating laws against homosexuals to be changed. It's pretty much half of the country, Mr. FOX News drone.

what country would that be, last time I checked (november 2 2004), 11 statewide referenda on banning it were approved by 80-20 margins or better.

New York, LA and SanFran are not representative of the country.

the point is, you don't go around and change everything just because a small minority wants it so.

And what's wrong with having civil unions? I have no problems with that.
How so? Christianity hasn't been changing its rules just because small minority wants so?

You can't keep slaves... yet you can judge homosexuals... stil, both ok in the book. Judgement needed.

the thing is... you always change/interpret everything when going by the bible.

EDIT: I just leave this here... as an example of a VERY STUPID POST. I could have deleted it... but I need that.. Stupid fuck...

Got a link for the 80-20 poll numbers?

And to Qek --- You fall right into the "Intolerable Intolerant" category. You aren't tolerant of other people's views on things, and you are intolerable yourself.

Got a link for the 80-20 poll numbers?

And to Qek --- You fall right into the "Intolerable Intolerant" category. You aren't tolerant of other people's views on things, and you are intolerable yourself.
http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
Poll closest to the top.

41% for no recognition

34% for civil unions

23% for marriage


That does sound about right, but that's not exactly how the other two were saying it is.

Seems to me that 57% of people seem to favor some kind of recognition, over the 41% who are against any at all.

From outside the US

What America does inside the US is its own business.

However it needs to listen to what the people of other countries are saying when it comes to foreign policy - not the governments as they just kowtow to the USA who ride gung ho roughshod over everything because they think they are right and have no regard for consequences.

Would I visit the USA? Not whilst its a Police State under the guise of Patriot Acts.