transfer from Rumors Board - Stevie and Lindsey for Kerry

[CarneVaca]

Yeah, thank god for all those polka-dot, fuscia-with-hints-of-orange-and-burgundy-accents alerts.

[jwd]

Which brings me back to my original statement: "As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right."

[Sugar]

Originally posted by jwd
Which brings me back to my original statement: "As much as liberal America hates W., it's got me thinking, he has to be doing something right."

Hmmm...so I guess you feel the same way about Clinton too...I mean conservative America HATED him, so I guess you agree he must have been doing something right, too.

[jwd]

Hmmm...so I guess you feel the same way about Clinton too...I mean conservative America HATED him, so I guess you agree he must have been doing something right, too

Nooooo, that's how YOU would feel, not me.

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by Sugar
Hmmm...so I guess you feel the same way about Clinton too...I mean conservative America HATED him, so I guess you agree he must have been doing something right, too.

You know, I disliked Clinton when he was in office. He was immensely popular and it bugged the heck out of me. He had a Republican-controlled Congress, and they worked together for a middle-of-the-road approach IMO. But Clinton got all the credit and I couldn't stand it.

Although his morals left a lot to be desired, his politics didn't. And Bush has spent tons more than Clinton ever did, which really ticks me off at Bush.

So I guess Slick Willy wasn't so bad after all.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
And, OBL's family has had nothing to do with him for years and vice versa.

That's not the case. Bin Laden was at his nephew's wedding in July, right before the attacks.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Strong national defense to me means not having been attacked again like we were on 9/11.

As soon as we get rid of the Bush Crime Family, we'll be a lot safer.

[estranged4life]

I havent really decided who I want to waste my vote on as of yet...As usual I am stuck in the middle trying to decide.

Even if Stevie & Linds' endorse a candidate that couldnt sway me to vote for 'em...

Brian "Transferred reply to the post on the "Rumours" board" j.

[jwd]

gldstwmn:

As soon as we get rid of the Bush Crime Family, we'll be a lot safer.

Oh yea, back to the days of the terrorist attacks on the USS Cole in '00, the Khobar Towers in '96, and the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in '98. It'll be a much safer world.

[dissention]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Now Now let's not spin

We assume he was in the Tora Bora caves. No one can actually prove that.

And, OBL's family has had nothing to do with him for years and vice versa.

"Assume" is the word that's thrown around to cover up the fact that we lost him.

And do you honestly believe that OBL's family has nothing to do with him? I find that funny.

[dissention]

Originally posted by jwd
Strong national defense to me means not having been attacked again like we were on 9/11.

Using that logic, I guess you could say almost every President of this century was strong on defense.

Your rationale makes no sense, IMO.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
But that is just my point. What if four people want to "marry?" By the same logic, its their choice Thus, I conclude the state should in no way comment on or sanction the effects of marriage and marriage should be a purely religious thing.

But see, Jason, that's the same nonsensical and diversionary logic the Republican party is using, to drum up support for their desire to block gay marriages.

I do not see how allowing two people of the same gender to enter into marriage, suddenly opens the flood-gates for bigamists and polygamists.

They've used the bigamy-polygamy-incest argument to put a twisted spin on the whole thing, and to convince people that gay marriages are a bad idea.
It's the little "whisper in the ear" tactic... "You know, if we let gay people get married, we might also have to let these people get married... and surely a good American like you, would never agree to that, would you?"

Other countries recognize gay marriages, and that "worst case scenario" hasn't happened there.

All our government needs to do, is define marriage as a union between two people aged 18 or older, who are not related by blood, or currently married to someone else... and it's a done deal.
But they don't want to do that... so they're doing everything in their power to stop that from happening.

And I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate my relationship with someone, being compared to that of bigamists, polygamists, and incestuous relationships.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But see, Jason, that's the same nonsensical and diversionary logic the Republican party is using, to drum up support for their desire to block gay marriages.

I do not see how allowing two people of the same gender to enter into marriage, suddenly opens the flood-gates for bigamists and polygamists.

They've used the bigamy-polygamy-incest argument to put a twisted spin on the whole thing, and to convince people that gay marriages are a bad idea.
It's the little "whisper in the ear" tactic... "You know, if we let gay people get married, we might also have to let these people get married... and surely a good American like you, would never agree to that, would you?"

Other countries recognize gay marriages, and that "worst case scenario" hasn't happened there.

All our government needs to do, is define marriage as a union between two people aged 18 or older, who are not related by blood, or currently married to someone else... and it's a done deal.
But they don't want to do that... so they're doing everything in their power to stop that from happening.

And I don't know about you, but I don't appreciate my relationship with someone, being compared to that of bigamists, polygamists, and incestuous relationships.

I agree with you to the extent I do not care about polygamists. But, my point is what is to prevent polygamist from using the same argument that gay people are currently using. Why is it okay for gay people but not polygamists to tell the govt. not to discrimminate against them and redefine the meaning of marriage. I mean why shouldn't four consenting adults be allowed to commit? Moreover, why is it okay for the govt. to tell them their commited relationship is offensive or not recognizable, but gay and straight two person unions are? I submit it is rank hypocrisy (not by anyone just in general ) to say redine marriage only for gay people and no one else. Therefore, I conclude the govt. ought to stay the hell out it marriage altogether.

Note, I fully realize my utopia will never happen So I hypocritically, but practically, say let's have only two person gay/heterosexual civil unions/marriage/whatever and screw the polygamists, etc., even though I think they should have the same rights as everyone.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Yeah, thank god for all those polka-dot, fuscia-with-hints-of-orange-and-burgundy-accents alerts.

and

[Rob67]

Originally posted by CarneVaca
Our undoing will be our perpetual misunderstanding of the Muslim world and the extremist contingent that's causing most of our problems. We have the technology but they have the numbers. Look back at history and you will see that the most technically advanced societies invariably failed and got embroiled in conflicts in which they repeatedly underestimated their enemies.

Is it so hard to believe that it may be THEIR (the extremist Muslims) perpetual misunderstanding of the "free & Democratic" world that is causing most of our problems?

Rob