Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich
Moderator: enderzero
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
Ocean, I know you feel strongly about that one issue (weve been through it all on SJ, and no amount of discussion will have us meeting eye to eye on that). If this was 2000, I'd say sure you're absolutely right it's a big issue, but the truth is america is in the middle of an occupation, there are millions of americans who have lost their jobs, foreign relations are shot.... to name a few major issues. As far as importance to the country goes.... gay marriage falls near the bottom of the list. Gay marriage, being addressed now, in light of everything going on.... is being politicized.
-
enderzero
- Site Admin
- Posts: 3442
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:40 am
- Location: Highland Park, Los Angeles, CA
- Contact:
Wow - quite a thread that developed here.
Beeeph - I find it hard to believe that you are so gung ho about this national security issue. I had no idea you tried to sign up for the Marines. You and I certainly look at things differently. It sounds like you took the 9-11 attacks pretty personally. Same with the Iraq thing? I guess I am in a small minority but I surely did not. All the flag waving and patriotic rhetoric makes me ill. Just because I was born in the US does not mean I believe in what it stands for. To me that basically comes down to greed; putting the superfluous wants of yourself and/or your country in front of others. I have actually seen how on a cultural level I have these fundamental differences from some others not from the land of the free and the home of the brave.
To me it just seems so obvious. So many issues on the table, both domestic and international, across the board from health care and budgetary to issues helping developing nations create working and sustainable systems. This administration, and many in the past have just butchered these issues. Along comes someone like Nader that can sit in front of you and answer every question posed. It is amazing to hear this man speak. He has answers. Answers that, to me, make sense. Ways to fix the ways that as a country we are fucked up. It just seems so much like no one realizes that things are headed towards real bad, real quick. There is a brick wall coming up and we need people that are willing to make changes. The Republicans, and more directly the Corporocrats, aren't going to do that. They are too concerned that Initech ships a few more units and their portfolios go up a quarter of a percent. Greed. It shouldn't be about economic growth, but economic stability. The same is true with many issues. The Democrats, especially Kerry/Gephardt/Lieberman Democrats aren't going to lead us to salvation either...but in my opinion it is a hell of a lot closer to the right direction then the Bush administration.
Beeeph - Have you read any Michael Moore? Chalk another one up to the successful diffusion of the general American public by the conservative interests to make a brilliant and hilarious man with a voice like Michael Moore look like a nutjob. Making up facts? Come on man, you haven't really fallen for that have you? Go watch Roger & Me, Bowling, and read Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country. I find it hard to believe that someone that considers themselves "Independent" and a former Democrat wouldn't get motivated to see the Bush CorpocracyTM kicked the hell out of Washington after that. Just read the first chapter of Dude. Moore goes to great lengths to cite every source he "made up" his facts from. Were you one of those Democrats that thought being labeled "liberal" was as bad as "good-for-nuthin trixter?"
As for the trade issues that you mentioned Mr* - The Democrats are just as responsible if not more than the Republicans for these. NAFTA and the WTO both came about under Clinton and the FTAA would never have happened if he hadn't set the stage. There were probably more isolationist Republicans voting against these than Liberal Democrats voting against for the right reasons. But times have changed and people are starting to realize multi-lateral trade agreements are not the smartest way to handle these issues, and not just because Indians might get Beeeph's yearly $120,000. (Christ man - don't you owe me twenty bucks?)
As for gay marriage, I hadn't heard about the proposed constitutional amendment but give me a freakin break. It is common sense. Let consenting adult human beings do whatever they want. If I was a gay man that wanted to get hitched then more power to me. If you don't like it, then fuck off. Who cares? I sure don't. It makes me sick, SICK, to think that there are people out there that would try to actually ban the coupling of any two people. What the hell gives you the right, ESPECIALLY to put it in a constitutional amendment? Even if Bush was a great president, this small issue alone would be enough to take away my vote. I would never support a candidate that favored a constitutional amendment like this over one that did not.
Beeeph - I find it hard to believe that you are so gung ho about this national security issue. I had no idea you tried to sign up for the Marines. You and I certainly look at things differently. It sounds like you took the 9-11 attacks pretty personally. Same with the Iraq thing? I guess I am in a small minority but I surely did not. All the flag waving and patriotic rhetoric makes me ill. Just because I was born in the US does not mean I believe in what it stands for. To me that basically comes down to greed; putting the superfluous wants of yourself and/or your country in front of others. I have actually seen how on a cultural level I have these fundamental differences from some others not from the land of the free and the home of the brave.
To me it just seems so obvious. So many issues on the table, both domestic and international, across the board from health care and budgetary to issues helping developing nations create working and sustainable systems. This administration, and many in the past have just butchered these issues. Along comes someone like Nader that can sit in front of you and answer every question posed. It is amazing to hear this man speak. He has answers. Answers that, to me, make sense. Ways to fix the ways that as a country we are fucked up. It just seems so much like no one realizes that things are headed towards real bad, real quick. There is a brick wall coming up and we need people that are willing to make changes. The Republicans, and more directly the Corporocrats, aren't going to do that. They are too concerned that Initech ships a few more units and their portfolios go up a quarter of a percent. Greed. It shouldn't be about economic growth, but economic stability. The same is true with many issues. The Democrats, especially Kerry/Gephardt/Lieberman Democrats aren't going to lead us to salvation either...but in my opinion it is a hell of a lot closer to the right direction then the Bush administration.
Beeeph - Have you read any Michael Moore? Chalk another one up to the successful diffusion of the general American public by the conservative interests to make a brilliant and hilarious man with a voice like Michael Moore look like a nutjob. Making up facts? Come on man, you haven't really fallen for that have you? Go watch Roger & Me, Bowling, and read Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country. I find it hard to believe that someone that considers themselves "Independent" and a former Democrat wouldn't get motivated to see the Bush CorpocracyTM kicked the hell out of Washington after that. Just read the first chapter of Dude. Moore goes to great lengths to cite every source he "made up" his facts from. Were you one of those Democrats that thought being labeled "liberal" was as bad as "good-for-nuthin trixter?"
As for the trade issues that you mentioned Mr* - The Democrats are just as responsible if not more than the Republicans for these. NAFTA and the WTO both came about under Clinton and the FTAA would never have happened if he hadn't set the stage. There were probably more isolationist Republicans voting against these than Liberal Democrats voting against for the right reasons. But times have changed and people are starting to realize multi-lateral trade agreements are not the smartest way to handle these issues, and not just because Indians might get Beeeph's yearly $120,000. (Christ man - don't you owe me twenty bucks?)
As for gay marriage, I hadn't heard about the proposed constitutional amendment but give me a freakin break. It is common sense. Let consenting adult human beings do whatever they want. If I was a gay man that wanted to get hitched then more power to me. If you don't like it, then fuck off. Who cares? I sure don't. It makes me sick, SICK, to think that there are people out there that would try to actually ban the coupling of any two people. What the hell gives you the right, ESPECIALLY to put it in a constitutional amendment? Even if Bush was a great president, this small issue alone would be enough to take away my vote. I would never support a candidate that favored a constitutional amendment like this over one that did not.
Michael Moore's fawning endorsement of General Clark, and his apparent willingness to endorse any claim of corporate or Republican wrongdoing via his website makes him about as trustworthy as Bush in my eyes, however much I might sympathize with his overall direction. Greg Palast on the other hand is hypersensitive to wrongdoing by anybody, including Democrats. His 'The Best Democracy Money Can Buy' is an excellent read, and apparently well sourced.
---
"If you don't like it, then fuck off. Who cares? I sure don't. It makes me sick, SICK, to think that there are people out there that would try to actually ban the coupling of any two people"
You seem confused there ender. If you don't care, what's your problem? And the debate isn't actually about banning the coupling of any two people. They can couple to their hearts' content. But unlike a man and a woman, homosexuals cannot produce a child. Hence they are not equal to a man and a woman. Hence they cannot get married. It is so blindingly obvious that it blinds a lot of people, you included.
All this talk about equal rights for gays is totally dishonest - they have equality of opportunity; like anybody else, they can find somebody of the opposite sex and marry them. But they want equality of outcome, thereby destroying the meaning of marriage entirely. For the vast majority of people, marriage has either a biological meaning or a religious meaning, or both. Gays want to stand that on its head. I guess a lot of normal people are tired of hearing how 'loving and stable' these queer couples are, as if that was all marriage was about. Tolerance is fine - I'm all for it. But equality never, until they actually are equal.
I can't help noticing that those in favour of gay marriage are often not married themselves - hey, if you don't care for the institution, have the decency to leave it alone for those who do.
(BTW, I saw this today " These are steps that the Human Rights Campaign officially dismisses as half measures. "In short, civil unions are not separate but equal, they are separate and unequal," the group says on its Web site. And our society has tried separate before. It just doesn't work," it adds, an apparent reference to the discredited "separate but equal" doctrine of the pre-civil rights era. " - Damn cheek to compare themselves to black people, as if black people are incapable of reproducing by themselves, and as if being black is a biological deviancy.
---
"If you don't like it, then fuck off. Who cares? I sure don't. It makes me sick, SICK, to think that there are people out there that would try to actually ban the coupling of any two people"
You seem confused there ender. If you don't care, what's your problem? And the debate isn't actually about banning the coupling of any two people. They can couple to their hearts' content. But unlike a man and a woman, homosexuals cannot produce a child. Hence they are not equal to a man and a woman. Hence they cannot get married. It is so blindingly obvious that it blinds a lot of people, you included.
All this talk about equal rights for gays is totally dishonest - they have equality of opportunity; like anybody else, they can find somebody of the opposite sex and marry them. But they want equality of outcome, thereby destroying the meaning of marriage entirely. For the vast majority of people, marriage has either a biological meaning or a religious meaning, or both. Gays want to stand that on its head. I guess a lot of normal people are tired of hearing how 'loving and stable' these queer couples are, as if that was all marriage was about. Tolerance is fine - I'm all for it. But equality never, until they actually are equal.
I can't help noticing that those in favour of gay marriage are often not married themselves - hey, if you don't care for the institution, have the decency to leave it alone for those who do.
(BTW, I saw this today " These are steps that the Human Rights Campaign officially dismisses as half measures. "In short, civil unions are not separate but equal, they are separate and unequal," the group says on its Web site. And our society has tried separate before. It just doesn't work," it adds, an apparent reference to the discredited "separate but equal" doctrine of the pre-civil rights era. " - Damn cheek to compare themselves to black people, as if black people are incapable of reproducing by themselves, and as if being black is a biological deviancy.
Oh shit
I'm engaged to a heterosexual female; can I still support gay marriage? Or do I have to wait until my marriage has been consecrated and confirmed (I presume Bush will preside over that ceremony)? 
I have to admit that I need to investigate the civil union aspect further. I read over Bush's comments and it seemed more logical as long as I didn't imagine the words coming out of his curled lips. I'll post it later as I'm off to a meeting right now. Based on my own experience filling out forms for company benefits and government taxes, I imagine that there are certain benefits bestowed on married couples that are not given to those who are merely in a civil union. I guess that is what the Human Rights Campaign was describing when they misplayed the race card.
(BTW, O11: I'm sure we could bring out all kinds of nasty, extremist words and pictures from the religious right about gays "burning in hell" or "destroying the world", but I think that doesn't really add to our discussion here.)
I have to admit that I need to investigate the civil union aspect further. I read over Bush's comments and it seemed more logical as long as I didn't imagine the words coming out of his curled lips. I'll post it later as I'm off to a meeting right now. Based on my own experience filling out forms for company benefits and government taxes, I imagine that there are certain benefits bestowed on married couples that are not given to those who are merely in a civil union. I guess that is what the Human Rights Campaign was describing when they misplayed the race card.
(BTW, O11: I'm sure we could bring out all kinds of nasty, extremist words and pictures from the religious right about gays "burning in hell" or "destroying the world", but I think that doesn't really add to our discussion here.)
Goemon, I don't understand your last para there. I'm not religious and don't wish to use that red herring to bash queers. And I see no danger of a fractional deviancy destroying the world.
Nor am I using any unduly offensive language. Gays are happy to call themselves 'queer' on occasion, and refer to people of normal sexuality as 'straight' which I find offensive - so I don't think using the word 'queer' is wrong (if that is what you talking about). I'm just returning the compliment.
Nor am I using any unduly offensive language. Gays are happy to call themselves 'queer' on occasion, and refer to people of normal sexuality as 'straight' which I find offensive - so I don't think using the word 'queer' is wrong (if that is what you talking about). I'm just returning the compliment.
Oh shit
Ocean: sorry, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean to suggest that you are using offensive terms. I think I misinterpreted your intent when you are bringing news of fringe loonies to the argument (ie the Human Rights Campaign people's stupid comments). If you are bringing those people's comments in to paint all proponents of gay marriage, then I will have to counter with equally loony opponents of gay marriage (like the religious right). I think everyone here recognizes those people to be idiots and I don't want to bring those people to the discussion (unless you are doing so just to have a shared laugh at them).
Now I've confused myself.
Now I've confused myself.
fyi, Here's Bush's comments:
Following are remarks at the White House by President Bush about a constitutional amendment on marriage, as transcribed by the Federal Document Clearing House Inc.:
Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage, for purposes of federal law, as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67 and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those Congressional votes and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.
In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.
A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.
Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage.
My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.
Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city. For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.
An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
Government, by recognizing protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage.
There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.
We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.
Following are remarks at the White House by President Bush about a constitutional amendment on marriage, as transcribed by the Federal Document Clearing House Inc.:
Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage, for purposes of federal law, as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67 and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those Congressional votes and the passage of similar defense of marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.
In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California Family Code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California.
A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.
The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.
Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage.
My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress. Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.
Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city. For all these reasons, the defense of marriage requires a constitutional amendment.
An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.
The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring — honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society. Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.
Government, by recognizing protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage.
There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.
We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger. In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
If you actually read any of his books, you'd know that Michael moore goes after the dems just as hard. In fact theres a whole chapter in stupid white men trashing Clinton policies (NAFTA included). The "conservatives" have done a great job of making him out to be a whacko lefty, but the truth is he comes from flint michigan, heartland america, was an NRA member, and couldn't be more in tune with real mainstream values.Ocean11 wrote:Michael Moore's fawning endorsement of General Clark, and his apparent willingness to endorse any claim of corporate or Republican wrongdoing via his website makes him about as trustworthy as Bush in my eyes, however much I might sympathize with his overall direction.
If you feel that your marriage will be threatened by two people on the other side of the world getting married... If those two people "redifine" what it means for you to be with your wife, you should have bigger questions about your confidence in your own marriage. .....honestly I don't really want to get into this debate again.... nothing will be conceded, and in the end we'll just have to scroll alot more to get to the newest post.Ocean11 wrote:...And the debate isn't actually about banning the coupling of any two people. They can couple to their hearts' content. But unlike a man and a woman, homosexuals cannot produce a child. Hence they are not equal to a man and a woman. Hence they cannot get married. It is so blindingly obvious that it blinds a lot of people, you included.
....and.... just notice how every other issue could be eclipsed by this one. It was a brilliant political move for bush to propose the amendment. Its an issue that people are verry passionate about, and its great at dividing people along lines that wouldn't be there if the debate were about more urgently important issues. Score 1 bush. Ive heard alot of pundits talking about how its an obviously politicized issue, saying it will be a short bump up for bush, but in the long run will have no effect on his campaign... let's see what the media does with it....
OK Mr*, I'll read one of his books. I'm just going by what I've read on his website. Have you read Palast? You'd like him.
My interest in US politics lies in the fact that you have everything laid out in the Consitution and other documents so carefully and nicely - and also that debates there end up influencing Europe too. I'm also interested in the issue of rights for its own sake.
I have total confidence in my marriage. But as Bush rightly points out, up till now, marriage has had universal legal and cultural meaning. I wouldn't want to see homosexuals automatically given the right to 'own' somebody else's child (including mine if he were orphaned) simply because they happen to be 'married'. There are more implications than you are admitting.
But would I vote for Bush because I agree with him nearly 100% on this? Hell no! As you say, there are far more important issues.
My interest in US politics lies in the fact that you have everything laid out in the Consitution and other documents so carefully and nicely - and also that debates there end up influencing Europe too. I'm also interested in the issue of rights for its own sake.
I have total confidence in my marriage. But as Bush rightly points out, up till now, marriage has had universal legal and cultural meaning. I wouldn't want to see homosexuals automatically given the right to 'own' somebody else's child (including mine if he were orphaned) simply because they happen to be 'married'. There are more implications than you are admitting.
But would I vote for Bush because I agree with him nearly 100% on this? Hell no! As you say, there are far more important issues.
Oh shit
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
Fair enough. I've heard of Palast, but I haven't read anything of his. I just finished the book I was reading, so I'll keep an eye out for his stuff.Ocean11 wrote:OK Mr*, I'll read one of his books. I'm just going by what I've read on his website. Have you read Palast? You'd like him.
I'm not sure what you mean by "own," but adoption is not exclusive to married couples. There are hundreds of thousands of single parents and single gay parents for that matter that have adopted. Also if you look at the statistics, families with homosexual parents are often a safer place for a child to be raised. As for straight couples, the divorce rate is 40% and the chances of abuse or molestation are far greater: "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." (link)Ocean11 wrote:I wouldn't want to see homosexuals automatically given the right to 'own' somebody else's child (including mine if he were orphaned) simply because they happen to be 'married'. There are more implications than you are admitting.
amen!Ocean11 wrote:But would I vote for Bush because I agree with him nearly 100% on this? Hell no! As you say, there are far more important issues.
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
btw... just found this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/disarm.html
I can't believe they haven't taken that down yet.
this article is also a good read: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/021904A.shtml
I can't believe they haven't taken that down yet.
this article is also a good read: http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/021904A.shtml
ALL HAIL BUSH! I FUCKING LOVE THAT GUY! I'M VOTING FOR HIM FOR SURE!
I'M FUCKING DRUNK AND IT AIN'T EVEN LAST CALL YET!
YOU FUCKING BITCHES! YEAHHHHH! I'M THE FUCKING KING OF THIS WORLD!!!!
WHERE'S THE |21CKSOR WHEN I FUCKING NEED HIM!?!?!?!?
|2ICKSOR YOU FUCKING BYYYOTCH!!!! STEP TO THIS YOU FUCKING BIIZZZZZNATCH!!!!
I'M FUCKING DRUNK AND IT AIN'T EVEN LAST CALL YET!
YOU FUCKING BITCHES! YEAHHHHH! I'M THE FUCKING KING OF THIS WORLD!!!!
WHERE'S THE |21CKSOR WHEN I FUCKING NEED HIM!?!?!?!?
|2ICKSOR YOU FUCKING BYYYOTCH!!!! STEP TO THIS YOU FUCKING BIIZZZZZNATCH!!!!
whoa, i totally missed this thread. it was a good read until the gay marriage issue was raised.
i have become much more interested in politics in the past 2 years, and have even done some policy study of late. most recently i've been reading up on ecological economics.
from everything i come across, the major issues always remain the same. justice and equity.
people care about different things - new cars, gay marriage, rainforests - and i can relate to these different preferences.
what i can't understand is what some people don't care about - global warming, poverty (at home and abroad), corporate interests controlling national policy. out of sight, out of mind is lazy excuse for ignoring things that really MATTER. they matter for ethical reasons. and they matter to all of us because we have turned the entire globe into our own backyard. if we hadn't, the argument that its someone else's problem would be more valid.
appreciation of these issues is shown in foreign policy, taxation, and environmental policy, and from this stance, it would be difficult to see how anyone could vote republican.
mr* was right when when he alluded to the immense power the media have in choosing the issues (and candidates). this is another factor that ought be of great concern to all. and ender was right when he said we need people who recognize we are losing the plot and are ready to make changes.
and finally for those not living in japan... there was just a 'boob off' on telly here, where guys chose teams of girls and the winner was the team with the biggest boobage. this is important because it shows that regardless of what u a talking about, boobs are always interesting.
i have become much more interested in politics in the past 2 years, and have even done some policy study of late. most recently i've been reading up on ecological economics.
from everything i come across, the major issues always remain the same. justice and equity.
people care about different things - new cars, gay marriage, rainforests - and i can relate to these different preferences.
what i can't understand is what some people don't care about - global warming, poverty (at home and abroad), corporate interests controlling national policy. out of sight, out of mind is lazy excuse for ignoring things that really MATTER. they matter for ethical reasons. and they matter to all of us because we have turned the entire globe into our own backyard. if we hadn't, the argument that its someone else's problem would be more valid.
appreciation of these issues is shown in foreign policy, taxation, and environmental policy, and from this stance, it would be difficult to see how anyone could vote republican.
mr* was right when when he alluded to the immense power the media have in choosing the issues (and candidates). this is another factor that ought be of great concern to all. and ender was right when he said we need people who recognize we are losing the plot and are ready to make changes.
and finally for those not living in japan... there was just a 'boob off' on telly here, where guys chose teams of girls and the winner was the team with the biggest boobage. this is important because it shows that regardless of what u a talking about, boobs are always interesting.
Things you have to believe to be a Republican:
1. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless
you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need
our prayers for your recovery.
2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our
highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against
Iraq.
3. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving
their jobs to India.
4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all
mankind without regulation.
5. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and
Hillary Clinton.
6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops
in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday
run for governor of California as a Republican.
8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time
allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
10. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at
heart.
11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing
health care to all Americans is socialism.
12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science,
but creationism should be taught in schools.
13. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when
Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business
with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin
Laden" diversion.
14. A president lying about an extramarital affair which had
absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency is an impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.
15. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the
Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the
Internet.
16. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades,
but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
17. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a
right to adopt.
18. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but
trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international
harmony.
you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need
our prayers for your recovery.
2. The United States should get out of the United Nations, but our
highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against
Iraq.
3. "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving
their jobs to India.
4. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but
multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all
mankind without regulation.
5. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and
Hillary Clinton.
6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops
in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.
7. Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday
run for governor of California as a Republican.
8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.
9. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time
allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
10. HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at
heart.
11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing
health care to all Americans is socialism.
12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science,
but creationism should be taught in schools.
13. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when
Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business
with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin
Laden" diversion.
14. A president lying about an extramarital affair which had
absolutely nothing to do with the Presidency is an impeachable
offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which
thousands die is solid defense policy.
15. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the
Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the
Internet.
16. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades,
but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.
17. You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John
Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a
right to adopt.
18. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but
trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international
harmony.
First off, thanks you! Second, I'm probably not as gung ho as I may sound, I simply think it's a top priority at the moment. Thats all.Beeeph - I find it hard to believe that you are so gung ho about this national security issue.
I can't put in words the few changes that day brought about in me, lets just say my emotions were coupled with feelings of wanting to hurt, and feelings of wanting to help. I didn't take it personally, it's not like I was running around screaming "How dare somebody do this to MY country, to MY people." I certainly consider myself to be more of a human being than a US Citizen. Don't assume me to be patriotic just because I enlisted after the 9-11 attacks. Don't assume me to be patriotic because I effected by the 9-11 attacks. And Mr*, I enlisted in the war for my reasons, not Bush's.It sounds like you took the 9-11 attacks pretty personally. Same with the Iraq thing?
I'm sorry you hate this country so much and I'm glad you discovered yourself in japan.Just because I was born in the US does not mean I believe in what it stands for. To me that basically comes down to greed; putting the superfluous wants of yourself and/or your country in front of others. I have actually seen how on a cultural level I have these fundamental differences from some others not from the land of the free and the home of the brave.
No, and the next time I'm in a book store I'll crack one open.Beeeph - Have you read any Michael Moore?
Not really, I just commend bush on a choice or two he's made out of 100...and you don't. And maybe we don't agree on a couple other things, but I think we see alot alike, and I think we should get married.You and I certainly look at things differently.
-
dirtyprettylittlething
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:00 pm
- Location: Reality
-
dirtyprettylittlething
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:00 pm
- Location: Reality
There are some harsh posts on the this thread. I hope no one's feelings have been hurt. I wanted to post to some of this earlier but Grandpa stopped me.
I don't want to throw out any insanely deep remarks, at least, that's not my intention. I've read all the post and i can see some people's way of thinking and everyone's brought up valid points.
The biggest problem I feel about the election is the crappy selection. I really wish Bush would step down and allow someone else to run as a Republican. I'm not happy about Hanoi Kerry being the the potenial new prez but i'm not happy about cokehead being prez either. That's all i'll say about the candiates.
I wanted to point out a few things. First, does anyone remember when America was supposed to get old Saddam? i get tired of hearing about that subject and i'm sure there are other people that have the same sentiment. I suggest, if someone wants to educate themselves further on the subject, go back before W was in office. Secondly, to ender, i was born in America too but i was a citizen of three different countries. But America's been the best to me so far. It's a bit odd to call America greedy and to claim that America's the only country to put the "wants of yourself and/or your country in front of others". I could give a list and i'm sure that you can too but the ridiculous part is that you discovered this in Japan. I mean, I'm sure all the people Japan slaughtered in 40's were necessary and not superfluous. That's not to say that things have changed since but please, take into consideration your remark. and lastly to Ed, i thought the post about "things to believe" is great except for #6, there are alot of Republicans passing bills to change that. Especially in the state of California, some even include allow for gay couples to receive the same benefits as married hetereosexual couples do. ( just trying to spread the word about these bills)
that's all. i have to go kick someone's ass at Double Dash.
I don't want to throw out any insanely deep remarks, at least, that's not my intention. I've read all the post and i can see some people's way of thinking and everyone's brought up valid points.
The biggest problem I feel about the election is the crappy selection. I really wish Bush would step down and allow someone else to run as a Republican. I'm not happy about Hanoi Kerry being the the potenial new prez but i'm not happy about cokehead being prez either. That's all i'll say about the candiates.
I wanted to point out a few things. First, does anyone remember when America was supposed to get old Saddam? i get tired of hearing about that subject and i'm sure there are other people that have the same sentiment. I suggest, if someone wants to educate themselves further on the subject, go back before W was in office. Secondly, to ender, i was born in America too but i was a citizen of three different countries. But America's been the best to me so far. It's a bit odd to call America greedy and to claim that America's the only country to put the "wants of yourself and/or your country in front of others". I could give a list and i'm sure that you can too but the ridiculous part is that you discovered this in Japan. I mean, I'm sure all the people Japan slaughtered in 40's were necessary and not superfluous. That's not to say that things have changed since but please, take into consideration your remark. and lastly to Ed, i thought the post about "things to believe" is great except for #6, there are alot of Republicans passing bills to change that. Especially in the state of California, some even include allow for gay couples to receive the same benefits as married hetereosexual couples do. ( just trying to spread the word about these bills)
that's all. i have to go kick someone's ass at Double Dash.
-
Bill Drayton Jr.
- Post Apocalyptic
- Posts: 2171
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 2:48 pm
- Location: teh w00ds
WHOA...
THERE SURE ARE A LOT OF WORDS AND LETTERS HERE...
-
SpeedCricket
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: China
Just my luck that as soon as things are too busy for me at school to check the Enderland that a good thread like this would come up. I have a few inpus to the previous posts:
1) I am a straight, married guy who supports gay marriage. Marriage is not essentially about biology or religion as someone asserted earlier. My wife and I are both atheists who aren't having children, but we were still allowed to marry. Why? Because marriage in the US is a state institution. No one can marry without the state's consent, ie; pay the fee. The state doesn't ask first if you are going to have children or make sure that you will take your marriage license to a religious official after you leave the courthouse. If you pay the fee, then you get all kinds of neat benefits like easier tax filing/tax breaks, someone who can make decisions for you if you are comatose, and the ability to inherit possessions, joint insurance/medical benefits... why shouldn't these things be extended to a homosexual couple? Would these benefits destroy the institution of marriage? Probably not. I think that it is fitting that this issue is being pushed and people are defying the law despite the majority of Americans (per most major polling) being against it. I remember learning about something like this happening before called the "underground railroad." This railroad operated illegally moving black slaves from the American South to freedom in Canada. The majority of Americans thought that slavery was a good idea and had laws and penalties for those who defied that institution, but the slaves and underground railroad members realized that the constitution already stated "all men are created equal" and the slavery laws were essentially illegitimate to begin with. The Constituion provides for "equal protection under the law" already... denying that to someone just because they have sex differently than the majority is also illegitimate. James Madison made the point (paraphrase) that the amendment process was intended for the expansion of rights, and that any effort to curtail rights through the amendment process would fail. hmmm....calls to mind Prohibition; that didn't work out to well.
2) The connection of humanitarianism to the Iraq war is fallicious. Anyone who tries to make that connection isn't fully aware of what is going on or has been misled by someone else. Sadam and his Bathist party have been killing Iraqis for decades while the US did nothing. When Iran and Iraq were at war with one another, the US actually sold arms to both sides, escalating that conflict. Sadam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Halabja in 1988 and no one said a damn thing then. In fact, in 1989, Rumsfield was in Iraq, shaking Sadam's hand and negotiating a deal to build a chemical manufacturing plant in Iraq. Rumsfield even brought Sadam a set of golden spurs, a gift from Bush 1. The US sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s killed Iraqis (several 10s of thousands each year at least) and now the breakdown in security in Iraq has led to the takeover of most areas by bandits, gangs, and crime cartels who further torment the Iraqi people. To say now that the Iraq war was waged for the sake of humanitarianism is ridiculous. To say that the Bush admin even cares about global humanitarian conditions is difficult as children have their limbs amputated by machete in Sierra Leone and fathers are forced to rape their daughter while their family watches....or as women in the Congo are forced to cook and eat their husbands.... or as children Madagascar are forced to dig in mineshafts that have no ceiling or wall supports for a few dollars a day..... or Guatemala where babies are being stolen and sold to rich white Americans.... The Iraq war is has no basis in humanitarianism. Access to tabloids, satellite TV, and porno theaters don't count as improvement and the the average Iraqi's lot in life has not improved. Sorry, but it's the truth.
3) National Security. The nation is not more secure, and some would argue that national security has diminished since the Bush admin took over. There are still no secure doors on the cockpits of airliners. Bush vetoed the Container Security Act which would have bolstered the security of our seaports. Iraq has become more a hotbed/breeding ground for terrorists than it was under Sadam...this is supported by the fact that there is only one case of Al-qaeda personnel in Sadam's Iraq (and that was in the northern section he didn't control), while now many have managed to slip through the borders in that country. But the Bush admin, rather than put troops on the borders, calls up National Guard units to patrol/guard corporate office buildings in Kuwait! Where are the priorities? Ask yourself: If the Bush Admin knows national security and are good at it, how is it that two guys in a car with a rifle were able to shut down the East Coast for months (Malvo and Muhammed)?
4) Bush the Man. I think that Bush really isn't a bad guy. Lot's of folks like to make him out as evil, but I find that simplistic. He thinks that he is doing good, but unfortunately, he is simply underqualified to do the job of president. GW is known for his charm, not his intellect, and I think that his staffers take advantage of his incomplete understanding of what is going on. I feel sorry for him a bit. He's the least gifted of a very gifted family, has failed at almost every business venture he's ever touched, and been shouldered with huge responsibility that he can't get out of and can't handle. He has been disconnected from normal Americans his whole life, never having a real job or real interactions with American who make less than six figures. He is simply from a different place than most of us, and is not qualified for the job. If someone isn't qualified, after a while, you've got to get someone new in there.
A great quote I remember from long ago when he was governor of Texas when it was found some counties in Texas has infant mortality rates as high as some third world nations: (paraphrase) "this is ridiculous, if kids were that poor in Texas, don't you think the governor would know about it?" Yeah, you'd think so huh?
1) I am a straight, married guy who supports gay marriage. Marriage is not essentially about biology or religion as someone asserted earlier. My wife and I are both atheists who aren't having children, but we were still allowed to marry. Why? Because marriage in the US is a state institution. No one can marry without the state's consent, ie; pay the fee. The state doesn't ask first if you are going to have children or make sure that you will take your marriage license to a religious official after you leave the courthouse. If you pay the fee, then you get all kinds of neat benefits like easier tax filing/tax breaks, someone who can make decisions for you if you are comatose, and the ability to inherit possessions, joint insurance/medical benefits... why shouldn't these things be extended to a homosexual couple? Would these benefits destroy the institution of marriage? Probably not. I think that it is fitting that this issue is being pushed and people are defying the law despite the majority of Americans (per most major polling) being against it. I remember learning about something like this happening before called the "underground railroad." This railroad operated illegally moving black slaves from the American South to freedom in Canada. The majority of Americans thought that slavery was a good idea and had laws and penalties for those who defied that institution, but the slaves and underground railroad members realized that the constitution already stated "all men are created equal" and the slavery laws were essentially illegitimate to begin with. The Constituion provides for "equal protection under the law" already... denying that to someone just because they have sex differently than the majority is also illegitimate. James Madison made the point (paraphrase) that the amendment process was intended for the expansion of rights, and that any effort to curtail rights through the amendment process would fail. hmmm....calls to mind Prohibition; that didn't work out to well.
2) The connection of humanitarianism to the Iraq war is fallicious. Anyone who tries to make that connection isn't fully aware of what is going on or has been misled by someone else. Sadam and his Bathist party have been killing Iraqis for decades while the US did nothing. When Iran and Iraq were at war with one another, the US actually sold arms to both sides, escalating that conflict. Sadam used chemical weapons on the Kurds in Halabja in 1988 and no one said a damn thing then. In fact, in 1989, Rumsfield was in Iraq, shaking Sadam's hand and negotiating a deal to build a chemical manufacturing plant in Iraq. Rumsfield even brought Sadam a set of golden spurs, a gift from Bush 1. The US sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s killed Iraqis (several 10s of thousands each year at least) and now the breakdown in security in Iraq has led to the takeover of most areas by bandits, gangs, and crime cartels who further torment the Iraqi people. To say now that the Iraq war was waged for the sake of humanitarianism is ridiculous. To say that the Bush admin even cares about global humanitarian conditions is difficult as children have their limbs amputated by machete in Sierra Leone and fathers are forced to rape their daughter while their family watches....or as women in the Congo are forced to cook and eat their husbands.... or as children Madagascar are forced to dig in mineshafts that have no ceiling or wall supports for a few dollars a day..... or Guatemala where babies are being stolen and sold to rich white Americans.... The Iraq war is has no basis in humanitarianism. Access to tabloids, satellite TV, and porno theaters don't count as improvement and the the average Iraqi's lot in life has not improved. Sorry, but it's the truth.
3) National Security. The nation is not more secure, and some would argue that national security has diminished since the Bush admin took over. There are still no secure doors on the cockpits of airliners. Bush vetoed the Container Security Act which would have bolstered the security of our seaports. Iraq has become more a hotbed/breeding ground for terrorists than it was under Sadam...this is supported by the fact that there is only one case of Al-qaeda personnel in Sadam's Iraq (and that was in the northern section he didn't control), while now many have managed to slip through the borders in that country. But the Bush admin, rather than put troops on the borders, calls up National Guard units to patrol/guard corporate office buildings in Kuwait! Where are the priorities? Ask yourself: If the Bush Admin knows national security and are good at it, how is it that two guys in a car with a rifle were able to shut down the East Coast for months (Malvo and Muhammed)?
4) Bush the Man. I think that Bush really isn't a bad guy. Lot's of folks like to make him out as evil, but I find that simplistic. He thinks that he is doing good, but unfortunately, he is simply underqualified to do the job of president. GW is known for his charm, not his intellect, and I think that his staffers take advantage of his incomplete understanding of what is going on. I feel sorry for him a bit. He's the least gifted of a very gifted family, has failed at almost every business venture he's ever touched, and been shouldered with huge responsibility that he can't get out of and can't handle. He has been disconnected from normal Americans his whole life, never having a real job or real interactions with American who make less than six figures. He is simply from a different place than most of us, and is not qualified for the job. If someone isn't qualified, after a while, you've got to get someone new in there.
A great quote I remember from long ago when he was governor of Texas when it was found some counties in Texas has infant mortality rates as high as some third world nations: (paraphrase) "this is ridiculous, if kids were that poor in Texas, don't you think the governor would know about it?" Yeah, you'd think so huh?
SpeedCricket mon, you play the same race card there, although you're not talking equality of opportunity. Black people used to be denied equality of opportunity (to put it mildly). Gay people are not being denied equality of opportunity to get married to somebody of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is. A lot of people simply aren't prepared to pretend that they think that marriage is anything else.
Why you would decide to remain childless is quite beyond me, but you may change your mind (or have it changed for you, teehee), and the institution of marriage is quite accepting of the occasional exceptional case such as yours. But comparing your marriage with queer marriage is comparing apples and oranges, to use a strinkingly appropriate cliche.
Why you would decide to remain childless is quite beyond me, but you may change your mind (or have it changed for you, teehee), and the institution of marriage is quite accepting of the occasional exceptional case such as yours. But comparing your marriage with queer marriage is comparing apples and oranges, to use a strinkingly appropriate cliche.
Oh shit
-
SpeedCricket
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: China
Actually, I'm playing the legal card. Law does not emerge from a void, but evolves over time. What may seem to be unrelated cases of legal precedence to those who only take a cursory look at the law, is really a complex and interconnected relationship of definitions. Freeing blacks was defined as something abnormal, just as teaching women how to read was once defined as unnatural, just as the marriage of a Jew and Gentile was difined as unnatural, just as it was once defined that if you took an IQ test and scored below a certain number you should be steralized by the state, just as it was defined that you should be forced to pledge allegiance to the flag in public classrooms.... these things were all defined as "normal" within the US, supported by a the majority, and any deviation was punished. So yes, you are correct, it is about definition: an arbitrary and archaic definition that is an obvious violation of modern human rights and law.
* My marriage is exactly like "queer marriage." The love and devotion between my wife is no less than that between a gay couple. I am not one to place a higher value upon aspects of my relationship over others just because they have sex in a different way.
*I don't expect to convince anyone with rationality, as most bias stems from irrational sources mitigated at an early age by one's environment. This is exactly why laws exist, to limit the input of human irrationality into the treatment of those who are a segment of the society without/lacking access to power.
* Those of you who know me are probably relieved to know that I don't plan on having kids!
* My marriage is exactly like "queer marriage." The love and devotion between my wife is no less than that between a gay couple. I am not one to place a higher value upon aspects of my relationship over others just because they have sex in a different way.
*I don't expect to convince anyone with rationality, as most bias stems from irrational sources mitigated at an early age by one's environment. This is exactly why laws exist, to limit the input of human irrationality into the treatment of those who are a segment of the society without/lacking access to power.
* Those of you who know me are probably relieved to know that I don't plan on having kids!
-
SpeedCricket
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: China
I will not mention this subject again, but I will leave you with this;
Anybody who accepts gay marriage because gays are equal to a man and woman won't have any difficult accepting future marriages between humans and their pets. Pets talk (http://www.globalpsychics.com/lp/Animal ... urabio.htm), and if they say that they are ready for matrimony, who is to deny them it? After all, women are now allowed to read.
Bush and his conservative friends need to get their heads out of their arses and add an extra item to that definition of marriage in their amendment ... "a human man and woman"... to avoid misunderstanding and to discriminate as carefully as possible.
Oh shit
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
Kerry is about as dynamic as a block of wood, so I think he's gotta pick a running mate who has at least 15 pieces of flair. And despite being labeled a lefty by the "conservatives," I think he has to pick someone who stands left of himself to prevent Nader erosion.SpeedCricket wrote:Who should Kerry run with?..... I think New Mex gov Richardson would be a hot ticket. I don't really think Edwards is up to it, nor do I like the idea of bringing in Graham, Gebhardt, or either Clinton.
Any thoughts?
I'm pretty worried about the election. Kerry is already getting shelled for flipflopping on the issues, and unfortunately, the republicans are absolutely right for calling him out. Kerry is a slimey polititian like they all are, but the problem is that his flipflopping was used against him within his own party....
I don't think Kerry alone has the ability to win those swing votes, but hopefully the disgust for Bush will be great enough to give him the win.
Is this really what we've come down to? This country is fuct!Kerry is a slimey polititian like they all are, but the problem is that his flipflopping was used against him within his own party....
I don't think Kerry alone has the ability to win those swing votes, but hopefully the disgust for Bush will be great enough to give him the win.
In my opinion, Edwards is our only hope.
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
I don't want it to sound like Kerry would be a bad choice over Bush. I was just more trying to point out the fact that the Dems didn't make the right choice... The big issue in the dem race was electability, but if you look at Kerry's career flip-flopping, he doesn't seem so "electable." Dean or maybe even Clark would, stand much stronger against Bush. In any event, America can't afford another 4 years of Bush and his neo-conservative nut case administration. So at this point, any candidate other than Bush is good.
-
mistasparkle*
- Hitching Post
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:31 am
- Location: monkeyball
Sorry... I don't mean to drag this back up again, but I just came across this:Ocean11 wrote:Anybody who accepts gay marriage because gays are equal to a man and woman won't have any difficult accepting future marriages between humans and their pets. Pets talk (http://www.globalpsychics.com/lp/Animal ... urabio.htm), and if they say that they are ready for matrimony, who is to deny them it? After all, women are now allowed to read.
-
SpeedCricket
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 11:51 pm
- Location: China
Pet psychics rule! I went and saw David Cross about a week or two ago and he read the funniest piece of news: When Texas was in the process of trying to ban sodomy (aka buttsex), they were also working a piece of legislation that would legalize human/animal sex!!! Fortunately, both pieces of idiocy failed.
Beeph, why do you like Edwards so much? His stand on the issues is just as wishy-washy as Kerry. I'll admit he does good camera work and has charisma, but it's hard to get to where he really stands on anything.... Let me know why you like him and I'll see if your reasons jive with the Edwards-lovers up here. Does anyone like Richardson....damn, anyone know who he is? Hispanic governor of NMex who was once ambassador to the UN.....
Didn't someone out there read "Rogue Nation" recently? Wanna give a quick rundown on it for me? It's one of 21 (yes, 21, and that is just for this one class, I have 2 others) books that are being covered on my political economy exam next week, and I haven't read it yet... I've read 17 of em, but am running out of time here and some help would be mucho appreciado...
Beeph, why do you like Edwards so much? His stand on the issues is just as wishy-washy as Kerry. I'll admit he does good camera work and has charisma, but it's hard to get to where he really stands on anything.... Let me know why you like him and I'll see if your reasons jive with the Edwards-lovers up here. Does anyone like Richardson....damn, anyone know who he is? Hispanic governor of NMex who was once ambassador to the UN.....
Didn't someone out there read "Rogue Nation" recently? Wanna give a quick rundown on it for me? It's one of 21 (yes, 21, and that is just for this one class, I have 2 others) books that are being covered on my political economy exam next week, and I haven't read it yet... I've read 17 of em, but am running out of time here and some help would be mucho appreciado...