Tonight - Bill O v. Bill M - Page 29

Rob67 · #**421** 01-15-2004, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
OMG - we all agree - ROB WHERE ARE YOU - a four way agreement might be cause for a cosmo

Sorry guys...I am trying to juggle a social and professional life and still have time for the boards!!! I will try to keep up!

Rob

strandinthewind · #**422** 01-15-2004, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
This makes me so f*cking mad that I see red. F*ck Bush and his beliefs, he shouldn't be pushing them on the whole country. The fact is that the country is split down the middle, fifty-fifty, so there is no majority. What he's trying to do is protect an institution that is abused beyond belief already and only keeping the people who love each other from having the right to marry. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the church, it has to do with the state. The state is the institution that grants the power to marry, not the church. The church only performs the ceremony. Why can't gay couples be married in town halls or by justice's of the peace? There is no reason why they shouldn't be granted that right. They are humans who want to marry the love of their life just as much as straight folks do. This whole proposal of ammending the Constitution is offensive, wrong, and utterly asinine. It's simply a way for some to force their religion and politics on others and it's SICKENING. Shrub can kiss my fat liberal ass and choke on another damn pretzel.

I'll do ya one better and say the state has no business in the marriage/civil union/whatever business

I say if you want to get married - go to your Church and do it- just do not expect ANY government entity to give you any benefits just because you exercised a religious ceremony that the govt. currently and IMO wrongly picks and chooses which marriages to sanction; why is it wrong for polygamists to marry just because Jerry Falwell does not like it?

When I say no rights for being married I mean NO rights for being married - no tax benefits, no automatic visitation, nothing. When you marry in your respective Church, let the Church provide you with the legal forms required to allow your spouse to care for you, a will, etc. Also, in my world there is only a, at the most, 20% fed. income tax and a similar state flat tax (10% perhaps); no estate (death) tax or donation of money tax exists.

How's that for liberal

Having said that, I fully realize my world will never happen essentially for two reasons. First, the mainstream religious organizations want to force their version of marriage on the populace in an apparently vain attempt to sustain the failing institution of marriage (I think it is sad marriage is a failing institution). In other words, they are scared that if the govt. does not sanction this event, it will die out and perhaps they will as well. Perhaps there is some truth in this, but many, many people get married because they love each other and for no other reason and they stay together, albeit that number appears to be dwindling.

Second, people (gay, straight, blue, pink, whatever) seem to look to various forms of government for validation. I mean it is almost like some, certainly not all, gay people think they will be "normal" (whatever that is) if the state says "we accept you and allow you to marry." I realize not all people have this view, but that is one of the big arguments supporting gay marriage - "let us be like you," etc. I don't get it because why do people care if the govt. validates their life in any way as long as they are not hurting someone and as long as they get the same rights, etc.

So, I think until society can get over these hurdles, I say let any consenting people marry. Unfortunately, the religious conservatives of the world will try never to let that happen because it is very, very easy to point at gay people, call them evil and the source of America's problems, and then ask for a donation to fight this "evil" that is going after your otherwise straight sons and daughters

Finally, currenty, the numbers to pass the Const. Amendment are not there by a fairly wide margin. While this could change, I do not see it as changing. Interestingly, I think the idea of the Const. Amendment was put out there solely to reelect Bush. They know they cannot get the Amendment through, but they know that they can pick up some of the 6 to 8% of the total swing votes out there by suggesting the Amendment. I mean if you are for gay marriage, the odds are you already are the type of person who has made up their mind not to vote for W and you did not vote for him last time. But, if you are on the fence about W and/or are a far right religious conservative who will not go to the polls because you are disgusted by W's free spending or his abandonment of what you view as his core base, W's appearance of being strong against gays could woo you to the voting booth next November. From that vantage point, it is a political "win win."

It is sickening to me that people have this much hate in their hearts and that they will use one group to further their agenda

strandinthewind · #**423** 01-15-2004, 07:19 AM

How about this article from Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108422,00.html

strandinthewind · #**424** 01-15-2004, 07:20 AM

And - apparently, the Pentagon is not happy with Halliburton

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108450,00.html

dissention · #**425** 01-15-2004, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Carol Moseley Braun is dropping out of the race and giving all of her support to Howard Dean!

Oh, Carol! I love you to death, but good lord. I'm quite disappointed.

She was just on New England Cable News last night talking baout how she's in it to win. I knew she never should have gone on Hannity and Colmes; they got to her!!

dissention · #**426** 01-15-2004, 09:13 AM

Hey Carne--

I guess you were right about Carol having a place in the Dean administration if he's elected.

Who knows, maybe he'll appoint her VP.

I'd support them if they got the nomination.

strandinthewind · #**427** 01-15-2004, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
Hey Carne--

I guess you were right about Carol having a place in the Dean administration if he's elected. Who knows, maybe he'll appoint her VP. I'd support them if they got the nomination.

Speaking of VP's, Tim Russert was on Leno last night and they were talking about how W could select Condoleeza Rice (sp.?) as the VP if Cheney backs out for heath reasons. Now, that is an interesting choice and it would be historical if they win.

Also, I liked Carol and am sorry to see her go.

dissention · #**428** 01-15-2004, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Speaking of VP's, Tim Russert was on Leno last night and they were talking about how W could select Condoleeza Rice (sp.?) as the VP if Cheney backs out for heath reasons. Now, that is an interesting choice and it would be historical if they win.

Also, I liked Carol and am sorry to see her go.

Bush won't be re-elected, so we don't have to worry about anything.

*think positive, dammit*

I am rather disappointed that Carol decided to pack it in. I rallied behind her because I believed in her and her integrity, but the minute things get rough, she walks out. She could've at least waited until after the caucus. But, I firmly believe that her and Dean struck a deal, maybe for VP. I'd bet money on it. Either way, her career is back in full swing and she's now a household name. She's been the most successful and recognizable female candidate in history, so she did fantastic, even if she did give up.

strandinthewind · #**429** 01-15-2004, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
Bush won't be re-elected, so we don't have to worry about anything.

*think positive, dammit*

I am rather disappointed that Carol decided to pack it in. I rallied behind her because I believed in her and her integrity, but the minute things get rough, she walks out. She could've at least waited until after the caucus. But, I firmly believe that her and Dean struck a deal, maybe for VP. I'd bet money on it. Either way, her career is back in full swing and she's now a household name. She's been the most successful and recognizable female candidate in history, so she did fantastic, even if she did give up.

I agree - she was and is. I think she just saw the handwriting on the wall and perhaps was running low on cash. Her as a VP to anyone would be great IMO!!!!!

dissention · #**430** 01-15-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I agree - she was and is. I think she just saw the handwriting on the wall and perhaps was running low on cash. Her as a VP to anyone would be great IMO!!!!!

Oh, she was going bankrupt! She was in so much debt. She missed the deadline to file for government assistance and it had a terrible effect on her. Unfortunate, because I love her.

dissention · #**431** 01-15-2004, 11:30 AM

John McEnroe is getting his very own liberal talk show on CNBC.

It starts in February, I believe, and will air right after Dennis Miller's show.

gldstwmn · #**432** 01-15-2004, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
Bush won't be re-elected, so we don't have to worry about anything.

*think positive, dammit*

I am rather disappointed that Carol decided to pack it in. I rallied behind her because I believed in her and her integrity, but the minute things get rough, she walks out. She could've at least waited until after the caucus. But, I firmly believe that her and Dean struck a deal, maybe for VP. I'd bet money on it. Either way, her career is back in full swing and she's now a household name. She's been the most successful and recognizable female candidate in history, so she did fantastic, even if she did give up.

I was thinking cabinet position, although VP would be a brilliant move. The 'Pubs are probably having a coronary over the thought of this.

dissention · #**433** 01-15-2004, 11:42 AM

Does anyone know whether or not they found Saddam's money that we were saying he had? ChimpCo claimed that he had a cache of cash, but I've heard nothing about it. Kind of funny that if they did find it, they couldn't have anything to do with it.

gldstwmn · #**434** 01-15-2004, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
Does anyone know whether or not they found Saddam's money that we were saying he had? ChimpCo claimed that he had a cache of cash, but I've heard nothing about it. Kind of funny that if they did find it, they couldn't have anything to do with it.

As far as I know, the money hasn't been found. It's probably in Switzerland somewhere.

dissention · #**435** 01-15-2004, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by gldstwmn
As far as I know, the money hasn't been found. It's probably in Switzerland somewhere.

Well, even if they do find it, it's still Saddam's money.

Under article 60 of the Geneva Convention, at least.

PS: Why do you suppose that the Right Wing made a fuss over MoveOn.org and their Hitler ads, yet made no mention of this from the Free Republic?

http://democrats.com/scrub/freep-dean-hitler/