Should "I'm So Afraid" be Kerry's campaign song?

[CarneVaca]

Think about it: The man is so afraid to take a position, any position. Gay unions, but no marriages. Attack Iraq, but not really. Etc.

I slip and I fall and I die

Not trying to start a political discussion. But what songs do you think might fit? Another one that might work: "You Do or You Don't."

You either run or you hide
Now you slip now you slide
You say you will, but you won’t
You either do or you don’t

Or "What Makes You Think You're the One." OK, that would be more appropriate as my response to his campaign:

What makes you think I'm the one
Who'll be there when you're callin'?
What makes you think I'm the one
Who will catch you when you're fallin'?

Any suggestions?

[shackin'up]

:] :lol: :lol: :lol: :]

you are just born to be cynical.

:nod: :woohoo:

not to start a political debate..... :rolleyes:


I'm so afraid seems appropriate....as far I can judge from here.....

gerald

[Vianna]

I kind of liked the You Do or You Don't snippet best... :laugh:

I'm So Afraid would do well, too...

Vianna

[CarneVaca]

Of course, George could adopt "Trouble" as his theme song.

I think I'm in trouble/on the double

To Dick Cheney:

Come to me darling, hold me/Let your daddy keep you warm

[cliffdweller]

To Dick Cheney: (finding songs for him is too much fun)

"Not that Funny"

It's not that funny is it
When you don't know what it is (hmmm, where are those wmd's?)
But you can't get enough of it
It's not that funny is it?
Don't blame me!
Please, please, please!

It's not that funny is it
No one to turn you on
All your hope is gone
It's not that funny is it?
Don't blame me!
Please, please, please!
You're here cause I say so

[Tango]

Not trying to start a political discussion.

HA! YOU, apolitical? I think not. :laugh:

I'd guess this could be your personal song. "What's the World Coming To":

"EVERYONE'S gone to the moon . . . there's no truth . . . there's no light . . . there's only greed."

Am I close?

[CarneVaca]

HA! YOU, apolitical? I think not. :laugh:

I'd guess this could be your personal song. "What's the World Coming To":

"EVERYONE'S gone to the moon . . . there's no truth . . . there's no light . . . there's only greed."

Am I close?

Not bad at all.

[estranged4life]

Not trying to start a political discussion. But what songs do you think might fit? Another one that might work: "You Do or You Don't."

You either run or you hide
Now you slip now you slide
You say you will, but you won’t
You either do or you don’t



"You Do Or You Don't", Which is perfect...Nuff said :nod:

[GretaRhiannon]

Haha well I dont think any FM song should be a campaign song, but I like "I'm So Afraid" heh.

[dontlookdown]

Yuck. Sounds like Carne Vaca has swallowed what Bush has spoon-fed half of the nation.

I don't think Kerry has a thing to worry about. Even if he isn't elected, he has a lifelong career of respected public service to be proud of.

What does Bush have?

A failed presidency

Failed domestic and foreign policy

Cocaine and alcohol abuse

Two businesses that he drove into the ground

The list goes on....

Can you imagine waking up every morning and having to be Bush?

What a loser!

[Wild_Heart03]

If you're going to give Kerry a campaign song, why not make it Little Lies? :D

[shackin'up]

Okay, it's nothing more than a Mac-related artist, but The King of Cynical Lyrics:


What about "Even a dog can shake hands" by Warren Zevon?

[t.c.]

[QUOTE=dontlookdown]Yuck. Sounds like Carne Vaca has swallowed what Bush has spoon-fed half of the nation.



Why is it that every liberal and democrat thinks no independent or republican can think for themselves? We are all "brainwashed" and "spoonfed". Well I hate to tell you, but you on the other side also get fed a lot of propaganda too. Give me a break. I've never had one single liberal talk decent to me (and I'm not even a republican - I am sort of middle of the road, independent). I'm sick of the insults myself. If you want to make a difference, post sources from facts that back up your party and your opinions. That works better than just insulting someone and inferring they have no brain and don't know who to think for themselves.

There's an old saying: "If you aren't a democrat in your 20's, you have no heart. If you're not a republican in your 40's, you have no brain." If you don't just look at that quote at it's face value, but what it's really saying, you see that each party has some very strong points to it. And each part lacks some other essential key components. So we can't ever win, and can't ever have it all. Unfortunately.

Now I'm out of here before all those insults start flowing in which does nothing - does not prove any point, does not defend any view, and has no fact or real point behind it at all. Does nothing but start a fight - which, by the way, does not go over well coming from a group of people who supposedly are so pro-peace. If you can't be understanding and accepting of people right in your own life, and instead go out and create aggitation and fighting, there is no way peace on a *worldwide* scale is going to happen. It has to start with each individual and the way they live their life. And it take acceptance and respect. So just saying anyone here has been "spoonfed" is causing an insulting mood, which often leads to fighting. If you can't be understanding to someone here, how are we suppose to expect the whole country to be peaceful and understanding to another nation?

[tynan88]

Not trying to start a political discussion.

:lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol: :laugh:

That really happened ey

Tynan

[Sorceress]

God, yes. I'll vote for anyone who has a chance to beat Bush, but I'm just not happy with Kerry as a candidate. I can't believe he's the best the Party has to offer. :shrug:

[CarneVaca]

Yuck. Sounds like Carne Vaca has swallowed what Bush has spoon-fed half of the nation.

I don't think Kerry has a thing to worry about. Even if he isn't elected, he has a lifelong career of respected public service to be proud of.


Yuck. Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. You might learn a thing or two if you did a bit of reading up on the candidates rather than coming here and trying to push your Kerry views with tenuous links between the band and your candidate.

I don't get spoon-fed by the Bushers. If you think that you haven't been paying attention.

I don't get spoon-fed by the Democrats either. Can you say the same?

[dissention]

There's an old saying: "If you aren't a democrat in your 20's, you have no heart. If you're not a republican in your 40's, you have no brain." If you don't just look at that quote at it's face value, but what it's really saying, you see that each party has some very strong points to it. And each part lacks some other essential key components. So we can't ever win, and can't ever have it all. Unfortunately.

Yeah, and if you can tell us what the Republican party has for strong points, I'll buy you a soda. :wavey: The Republicans of today can't even be called true conservatives because true conservatives blush when they see what this abomination of an administration is doing.

If you aren't a liberal, you have no heart and are just out for yourself. Plain and simple.

[CarneVaca]

[QUOTE=dontlookdown]I've never had one single liberal talk decent to me (and I'm not even a republican - I am sort of middle of the road, independent). I'm sick of the insults myself. If you want to make a difference, post sources from facts that back up your party and your opinions. That works better than just insulting someone and inferring they have no brain and don't know who to think for themselves.

T.C., good for you for speaking up. Dontlookdown seems so out of touch that he doesn't even realize I am one of the most liberal members of this community. I am so liberal that I've had to drop out of the Democratic Party.

Your point is a good one. On either side of the spectrum, people become blinded by the dogma they are fed and too often refuse to research matters for themselves and reach their own conclusions. In 1995-96, I realized I could not longer be partisan when I saw the Bill Clinton debacle and concluded that both sides were full of dog doo. Hypocrisy reigns supreme.

So in the spirit of the original intent of this threat, may I offer a suggestion as a theme song for us independents directed at both parties:

"Go Your Own Way"

Or perhaps even more appropriate:

"Red Rover"

We've come, we've come, we've come to take you over

[CarneVaca]

If you aren't a liberal, you have no heart and are just out for yourself. Plain and simple.

Hold on there. I don't even believe that. Come on. Conservatism didn't have to have the adjective "compassionate" attached to it for it to represent some decent, compassionate views.

Just as "liberal" has been corrupted, so has "conservative."

Besides what passes for liberal these days -- Kerry and Edwards!!?? -- makes me laugh.

And if you think that a lot of so-called liberals aren't out for themselves either, you should go take a look at what happened to a lot of those 60s and 70s hippies.

[dissention]

Besides what passes for liberal these days -- Kerry and Edwards!!?? -- makes me laugh.

You know how I feel about the Kerry ticket, Carne. Wasn't it just a few days ago that I openly said that Kerry will be quite lucky if he gets my vote? Cobb looks better and better each day.

The Kerry ticket doesn't pass for liberal to people like you and I these days, but they do to people in middle America and the South. Kerry's voting record for the past four years reads like Bill Frist's. His attempts to distance himself from the lefties that gave him his career leaves an awful taste in my mouth, just as his inability to construct a point of view does. He's betraying the liberals of this country, there's no way to pussyfoot around it. A spade is a spade.*

Liberals are people like us, not people who will pander to every kind of person to get into office.

As for what I said about conservatives having no heart, I stand by it. No, I don't think that they are consciously heartless, I honestly believe that the majority of conservatives out there have their heart in the right place...no matter how ill-conceived and mean-spirited their policies and beliefs are. I don't believe that they see their beliefs as being heartless, they believe that they're doing good by their country. My comment was simply what I believe to be naive heartlessness on their part. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the conservative Republicans holding office at the present moment. They know that what they're passing and proposing is filth, but they go ahead with it anyways.

*But he's still better than Bush, no matter how miniscule the margin.

[larg]

I'm an 18 year old conservative... what can I say, I've read Brave New World. But I like to think that I have a heart... Sure, I believe a woman DOESN'T have the right to terminate a pregnancy, and many say that makes me heartless. Or that because the Taliban attacked our country and KILLED some of MY LOVED ONES and I wanted revenge on them, that I am heartless. Or that I wanted to see Hussein taken out of power because he was a merciless killer and oppressor, I am heartless. And because at only 18 years old and trying desperately just to pay my way through college and I don't agree with having money taken out of my hard-earned pay check to pay for a man in New York who is too damn lazy to get a job, I am heartless.

Well, maybe you idiots out there who are too ignorant to think before you call someone like me heartless ought to rethink some of YOUR views. YOU are not heartless, you are brainless.

Adam R.

[CarneVaca]

The following things don't make you heartless. Misguided, perhaps, but not heartless:

I'm an 18 year old conservative... what can I say, I've read Brave New World. But I like to think that I have a heart... Sure, I believe a woman DOESN'T have the right to terminate a pregnancy, and many say that makes me heartless. Or that because the Taliban attacked our country and KILLED some of MY LOVED ONES and I wanted revenge on them, that I am heartless. Or that I wanted to see Hussein taken out of power because he was a merciless killer and oppressor, I am heartless.

This, however, comes close:

And because at only 18 years old and trying desperately just to pay my way through college and I don't agree with having money taken out of my hard-earned pay check to pay for a man in New York who is too damn lazy to get a job, I am heartless.

Check your anger, young man. Get off your ass and go find out exactly how much of this hard-earned money trickles down to that lazy bum you're talking about. How will you feel when you figure out that far more of that money goes to corporations than the needy, the abandoned and the sick?

[dissention]

I'm an 18 year old conservative... what can I say, I've read Brave New World. But I like to think that I have a heart... Sure, I believe a woman DOESN'T have the right to terminate a pregnancy, and many say that makes me heartless. Or that because the Taliban attacked our country and KILLED some of MY LOVED ONES and I wanted revenge on them, that I am heartless. Or that I wanted to see Hussein taken out of power because he was a merciless killer and oppressor, I am heartless.

To endorse an illegal war knowing that thousands of inncoent men, women, and children are going to be maimed and murdered is as heartless as anyone can get. Iraq never attacked us. Iraq cooperated with UN inspections and gave the inspectors free reign over the country in the many months leading up to the war. Bush illegally stole funds from the Afghanistan debacle to draft a war plan for Iraq, behind the backs of Congress. Iraq had no WMDs, something that Hans Blix had been saying before the war. We gave Iraq their weapons, AFTER he had gassed his own people. After he gassed the Kurds, we reestablished all dimplomatic relations with Hussein less than a year later.

If you want to get more in depth, why don't you ask why it took more than a full two months to invade Afghanistan after September 11th? That's why we haven't found bin-Laden or broken up al-Qaeda, because we gave them a two month running start. What has happened to al-Qaeda after September 11th? Nothing. They're more powerful than ever, boasting a shocking 800,000 members, MOST OF WHICH WERE RECRUITED IN IRAQ AFTER SADDAM WAS TOPPLED.

As for abortion, you should have no say in the matter, you're a man.

And because at only 18 years old and trying desperately just to pay my way through college and I don't agree with having money taken out of my hard-earned pay check to pay for a man in New York who is too damn lazy to get a job, I am heartless.

If you think that's how the welfare system works, you're sadly misinformed and should include yourself in the "ignorant" category. I suspect that you really have no clue how your tax dollars are being appropriated, but I'll let that slide because you're only 18 and have a lot of learning to do. ;) Personally, I'm barely able to sleep at night knowing that my tax dollars are being used by a hearltess president who wants to write hate into the Constitution, who likes to attack other countries without provocation, and who LIES to the American people about that very war. Look at the deficit, it's shockingly high and it makes no difference how up the economy is at this point, the deficit could take it down to its knees. Bush has spent billions in Iraq and our soldiers don't even have the proper body armor, they're wearing Vietnam-era flak jackets!

Well, maybe you idiots out there who are too ignorant to think before you call someone like me heartless ought to rethink some of YOUR views. YOU are not heartless, you are brainless.

Adam R.

People in glass houses should not throw stones. Find out how the welfare system works and then we'll talk.

[dissention]

Check your anger, young man. Get off your ass and go find out exactly how much of this hard-earned money trickles down to that lazy bum you're talking about. How will you feel when you figure out that far more of that money goes to corporations than the needy, the abandoned and the sick?

He'll probably say he feels the same, just to spite you. :xoxo:

That's how conservatism works, my dear.

[shackin'up]

Hey!

What about Even A Dog Can Shake Hands by Warren Zevon?????






:D

[stefan]

You know how I feel about the Kerry ticket, Carne. Wasn't it just a few days ago that I openly said that Kerry will be quite lucky if he gets my vote? Cobb looks better and better each day.

I'd like to add something to this topic. Every voice not going to Kerry goes to Bush. If he is re-elected, then probably because of that. No third one except of Bush and Kerry will get enough votes- every other vote is like thrown in the toilet- no matter how good the intentions may be.
As incredible as it seems that someone may consider to vote for that presidential caricature again- I`m willing to bet that he wins a second time and some postings here on the Ledge now and in the past back that impression up.
I don`t think that anyone who votes for a third candidate can later complain about the caricature and any of his actions because his voice would be part of the re-election even if it's meant in a totally different way.

[shackin'up]

I'd like to add something to this topic. Every voice not going to Kerry goes to Bush. If he is re-elected, then probably because of that. No third one except of Bush and Kerry will get enough votes- every other vote is like thrown in the toilet- no matter how good the intentions may be.
As incredible as it seems that someone may consider to vote for that presidential caricature again- I`m willing to bet that he wins a second time and some postings here on the Ledge now and in the past back that impression up.
I don`t think that anyone who votes for a third candidate can later complain about the caricature and any of his actions because his voice would be part of the re-election even if it's meant in a totally different way.

Thank you for saying what I'm refusing to say in this thread. What do you think about:

Even A Dog Can Shake Hands by Warren Zevon????

[dissention]

Hey!

What about Even A Dog Can Shake Hands by Warren Zevon????? :D

That's Bush, darling! :wavey:

[stefan]

Thank you for saying what I'm refusing to say in this thread. What do you think about:

Even A Dog Can Shake Hands by Warren Zevon????
Yeah. Or what about "On the wrong side" for the supporters of the caricature? :lol:

[shackin'up]

That's Bush, darling! :wavey:


No. That's Poor, Poor, Pityful Me.

:wavey:

[shackin'up]

Yeah. Or what about "On the wrong side" for the supporters of the caricature? :lol:

:laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup:

[dissention]

No. That's Poor, Poor, Pityful Me.

:wavey:

I thought it was Pour Me (Another One). ;)

[CarneVaca]

I'd like to add something to this topic. Every voice not going to Kerry goes to Bush.

Sorry, Stefan, you got that wrong. Every vote not going to a third party goes to Bush. Plain and simple.

--Kerry wants to perpetuate the conflict in Iraq, a conflict your country was deadset against if I remember correctly.
--Kerry wants to perpetuate the Bush roadmap for Palestine, a plan your country also opposes if I'm not mistaken.
--Kerry now claims he is a conservative and he is personally against abortion.

Would you vote for him?

No third one except of Bush and Kerry will get enough votes- every other vote is like thrown in the toilet- no matter how good the intentions may be.

You got it wrong again. Every vote going to Bush and Kerry is going down the toilet in the sense that both men want to perpetuate very, very wrongheaded policies. Besides, what is a wasted vote? Isn't every vote for a candidate that loses a wasted vote?

I don`t think that anyone who votes for a third candidate can later complain about the caricature and any of his actions because his voice would be part of the re-election even if it's meant in a totally different way.

Wrong again. We in this country have something called the First Amendment. Thank God. I spent the first seven years of my life in a place where you couldn't speak your mind. So I've lived it, though admittedly back then I didn't have much to say, except when's dinner and can I get a new Matchbox car? And regardless of how I vote, you may rest assured that I will continue to complain... if for nothing else, because I do it so well.

Remember, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[stefan]

Sorry, Stefan, you got that wrong. Every vote not going to a third party goes to Bush. Plain and simple.

--Kerry wants to perpetuate the conflict in Iraq, a conflict your country was deadset against if I remember correctly.
--Kerry wants to perpetuate the Bush roadmap for Palestine, a plan your country also opposes if I'm not mistaken.
--Kerry now claims he is a conservative and he is personally against abortion.

Would you vote for him?

I think we as the voters are often enough forced to vote for the less bad option instead of for the better one.
Kerry may say these things and I admit willingly not to know the man as detailed as it might be one day if he really gets elected one day- which I doubt. But look Carne, the american voters wouldn`t vote him if he said the complete opposite. Everything he says now regarding Iraq to me is said under tactical aspects. A lot of US people still believe the Iraq war was right, at least to remove Saddam from power. The question if the US was called for that or if it was an illegal act in confrontation to the UN is of no interest for a lot of people. In fact most of them don't know about the background facts and don't care for it either. My impression is that the mass medias over there were instrumentalized (does that word exist in english?) So imo GWB Jr. has proven to be a criminal cheater using his position of strength to suppress other countries. I don't claim that Kerry will be great but he still has to prove to be the criminal moron the current president is. Unless he does so every change is a good change in that position imo. And whoever runs for president as third option won`t make it to the White House finally. That only takes away votes that are needed to vote Dubya off.
Btw I doubt that any different president will walk over the UN like Godzilla the same way the caricature did. That is probably the greatest harm he did to the US. Your country is regarded in a very critical light over here since these incidents and a change would be a new beginning regarding that.
I don`t know the english term for Mehrheitswahlsystem. It`s the voting system you have, following the rule "the winner takes it all". If- let`s say 60 per cent of the people in one state want Bush to go and one part of them votes for Kerry and a minor part votes for Mr third guy the Bush minority will finally get the votes. I doubt that Dubya was president now instead of Gore if this other guy (I forgot the name) had not been there. And look what harm has been done because of that... If your system had a percentage aspect and two oppositional forces could go together and then have the majority of votes against a different party- then I absolutely would agree with you Carne.

though admittedly back then I didn't have much to say, except when's dinner and can I get a new Matchbox car? And regardless of how I vote, you may rest assured that I will continue to complain... if for nothing else, because I do it so well.

Well why- I think that`s a lot! :laugh: If you kept your Matchbox cars from your childhood (as I did) then you could give your collection now to your son like I plan to do one time. In fact I don't plan to give my cars to your son. I would give them to mine once I`m a father if that ever happens :thumbsup: :laugh:
And yes you are good in complaining. But it`s always a good read so keep on dude even if we're on different tracks concerning this election thing. At least we agree on two things:
1) Lindsey Buckingham is great
2) Dubya is an dumbass :wavey:

[CarneVaca]

I doubt that Dubya was president now instead of Gore if this other guy (I forgot the name) had not been there. And look what harm has been done because of that... If your system had a percentage aspect and two oppositional forces could go together and then have the majority of votes against a different party- then I absolutely would agree with you Carne.

Stefan, I've done the math too. In fact, I've done enough of the math to conclude that too many people who should have voted were denied the vote in Florida. That's the real reason Gore lost that particular state. Those people would have been denied the voted regardless of whether Nader was in the running. And a lot of people who voted for Nader wouldn't have bothered to vote if he hadn't run.

But is mathematics all there is to it? Sure, it all comes down to numbers. But before the numbers, there's this: There's putting up a viable candidate who stirs the passions of the voters. Gore didn't do that. And from what I can see, neither is Kerry. The Democrats need to grow a spine and put up candidates that stand for something. Ironically, now Gore is coming across as having more conviction than he ever did as a vice president and as a presidential candidate. Go figure.

And yes you are good in complaining. But it`s always a good read so keep on dude even if we're on different tracks concerning this election thing. At least we agree on two things:
1) Lindsey Buckingham is great
2) Dubya is an dumbass :wavey:

Hear hear.

[larg]

I never said I agree with the way things have happened... but ideally, I have certain opinions that I stick to. I feel the Iraq war has worked poorly... and its been poorly managed equally.

Wellfare, also, I think is a terrible idea. I agree, the money does trickle down to major corporations; alas, I still like the idea of earning what you get. Saying that my hard-earned money goes more to the major corporations than the lazy bum in NY only further proves my argument that extensive taxation and wellfare are bad ideas.

Abortions I believe are wrong. My sister's had six, and she'd probably have another one. They are birth-control, and that's it. Which I think is wrong and evil.

I'm saying that I find it offensive when republicans are considered heartless and ignorant. Maybe I am somewhat uninformed in many ways, but I still stand to what I believe. Sorry.

Adam R.

[amber]

Abortions I believe are wrong. My sister's had six, and she'd probably have another one. They are birth-control, and that's it. Which I think is wrong and evil..

Uh, they're not birth control AND THAT'S IT. And if you don't like your money going to people on welfare, believe me, a lot more of it would be going there if there were no abortions. Your logic, uh, confounds me.
Also, did you know the percentage of taxes that go to Welfare are about 1/10 of 1%? But your tax dollars that go to the defense budget, are about 25% (It could be more or a bit less, but it's waaaaay more than welfare even comes close to being)

I'm saying that I find it offensive when republicans are considered heartless and ignorant. Maybe I am somewhat uninformed in many ways, but I still stand to what I believe. Sorry.

Adam R.
To me, the person who will be most wrong, and most unhappy, is the person who does not acknowledge that it's possible for them, OR ANYONE, to be wrong. And to not be able to change your ideas, ON PRINCIPLE, no matter what information you acquire? To be forced by your own self to be that rigid as to never change your opinion no matter what the circumstance or evidence? :( :(
Amber

[Vianna]

The problem is that Kerry is not different enough from Bush to present a real choice. Too many people will say why change the status quo when we're not going to get anything different. I personally also don't like the way Kerry has switched sides so to speak regarding the war. It looks like he has no convictions that he is willing to stand up for, even if they are unpopular.

That's why I liked

"now you slip, now you slide"......hehe

We need Bush out of there!!I don't think Kerry can win and I am so bummed!

[dissention]

Wellfare, also, I think is a terrible idea. I agree, the money does trickle down to major corporations; alas, I still like the idea of earning what you get. Saying that my hard-earned money goes more to the major corporations than the lazy bum in NY only further proves my argument that extensive taxation and wellfare are bad ideas.

And what about the people who have lost their jobs due to Bush's mismanagement of the economy? What if those people were single mothers with three kids and a dead husband? Or no husband? Should they just crawl under a rock and die because you don't want to help them by giving a few bucks out of your paycheck each week? Is that the American way? How are they to afford health insurance? How will they pay bills and put food in their mouths? The actions of the few who abuse the system are not enough to ever warrant the dismantling of the entire welfare system. To say that it's a bad idea or that you just don't like it is rather ignorant and selfish. I dare you to go down to your local welfare office and tell someone less fortunate than you are that you don't give a **** and that you just want all the money for yourself. Give them a step ladder and a piece of rope while you're at it, they just might die quicker.

Abortions I believe are wrong. My sister's had six, and she'd probably have another one. They are birth-control, and that's it. Which I think is wrong and evil.

Abortions are not birth control, condoms and diaphragms are. The people who abuse abortions should learn how to use them properly. However, just because they abuse their right to have an abortion, it does not mean that abortions are wrong or that they should be banned. Tell it to someone who was raped by their father and is now pregnant with his child. Or to a woman who has just found out that not only is she she pregnant, but that she has AIDs, too. How about a crack addict or an alcoholic who suddenly becomes pregnant? Or how about a woman with breast cancer who has suddenly become pregnant? While we're at it, how about the women who get pregnant but cannot possibly raise a child because they don't have the financial means to do so? Put the kid up for adoption? Run the risk of the child being adopted by a child abuser, a drug addict, or a child molester?

I'm saying that I find it offensive when republicans are considered heartless and ignorant. Maybe I am somewhat uninformed in many ways, but I still stand to what I believe. Sorry.

Adam R.

Yes, but if what you believe is based on half-truths, misinformation, and flat-out lies, those beliefs have no relevance. The policies put forth by conservatives and Republicans are heartless and cruel, that's what I believe and I have the facts to prove it. :wavey:

[dissention]

For the record, I am pro-choice. But I still find it troubling that if a woman decides she doesn't want to have a baby, she can terminate her pregnancy, but a man is required to pay child support, whether he wants the child or not. I know, old argument, but I've yet to hear a good rebuttal.

It's her body, end of story. He's not the one who is supporting a baby in his stomach for nine months. If he isn't responsible enough to use a condom and the mother wants to keep the child, he's going to pay for his irresponsibility. If a woman accidentally gets pregnant and does not have the means to take care of a child, it's her decision what to do. It's not the man it's happening to, it's the woman.

[GypsySorcerer]

It's her body, end of story. He's not the one who is supporting a baby in his stomach for nine months. If he isn't responsible enough to use a condom and the mother wants to keep the child, he's going to pay for his irresponsibility. If a woman accidentally gets pregnant and does not have the means to take care of a child, it's her decision what to do. It's not the man it's happening to, it's the woman.

I disagree. :laugh: I think women are just as responsible for birth control as men are. I can certainly understand the circumstances in which birth control fails, and a woman is not ready to care for a child, that she should have the right to end that pregnancy. But I'm sorry -- irresponsibility on the woman's part is no excuse, IMVHO.

[dissention]

I disagree. :laugh: I think women are just as responsible for birth control as men are. I can certainly understand the circumstances in which birth control fails, and a woman is not ready to care for a child, that she should have the right to end that pregnancy. But I'm sorry -- irresponsibility on the woman's part is no excuse, IMVHO.

Disagree all you want, it's not his body. Irresponsible or not, it's her body, her decision. :wavey:

[Gwillaker]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[gldstwmn]

For the record, I am pro-choice. But I still find it troubling that if a woman decides she doesn't want to have a baby, she can terminate her pregnancy, but a man is required to pay child support, whether he wants the child or not.

17 years and I've never received a dime. I know lots of others in the same boat.

[dissention]

17 years and I've never received a dime. I know lots of others in the same boat.

My mother, too. :wavey: My father is actually on the list of Top 100 Deadbeat Dads in MA. :laugh: It's been six years since I've turned 18, but he's still on it.

[GypsySorcerer]

17 years and I've never received a dime. I know lots of others in the same boat.

You are indeed right about that. One of my relatives has an 11-year-old son, and she has considered taking his father to court over child support, but has decided that it would be a waste of time and money. I guess she feels like it wouldn't do any good.

[dissention]

You are indeed right about that. One of my relatives has an 11-year-old son, and she has considered taking his father to court over child support, but has decided that it would be a waste of time and money. I guess she feels like it wouldn't do any good.

Tell her she doesn't have to pay a dime to take the bastard to court. :wavey: First thing she should do is contact the child support offices, if the boys father has any substantial property (a house, etc.), they'll threaten to put a lien on it. If all else fails, she can claim what she isn't getting in child support on her taxes.

[GypsySorcerer]

My mother, too. :wavey: My father is actually on the list of Top 100 Deadbeat Dads in MA. :laugh: It's been six years since I've turned 18, but he's still on it.

My grandfather wasn't a part of my mother's life past her second birthday. Her cousin (my grandfather's only relative besides my mom and me) was the beneficiary of his assets. Her cousin didn't want it and decided to turn it over to my mother. Turns out my grandfather and my grandma never officially divorced, even though my grandma remarried much later in life. She had to sign off for my mom to receive the money. Mom says she entitled to it because her dad never gave her a damn thing and he deserved something from him. I hope you and your mom will be blessed for what you have gone through. :wavey:

[dissention]

My grandfather wasn't a part of my mother's life past her second birthday. Her cousin (my grandfather's only relative besides my mom and me) was the beneficiary of his assets. Her cousin didn't want it and decided to turn it over to my mother. Turns out my grandfather and my grandma never officially divorced, even though my grandma remarried much later in life. She had to sign off for my mom to receive the money. Mom says she entitled to it because her dad never gave her a damn thing and she deserved something from him. I hope you and your mom will be blessed for what you have gone through. :wavey:

Oh, I love her to death, she's the only parent I need. :p

My grandfather died in '99 and left everything to my father. My father then robbed 10 convenient stores to support his heroin habit and was caught after he ran out of one store and accidentally stabbed hisself. :laugh: He got out last summer and because he owes tens of thousands in child support, he hasn't put my grandfathers house in his name yet. The minute he does, it's going to be seized. That house is as good as mine, too, I'll fight the bastard so hard for it that he'll be pan-handling at a turnpike exit. ;) I've never really had contact with the guy because he wasn't the type of person I wanted to associate with, so it's no skin off my ass.

[GypsySorcerer]

Tell her she doesn't have to pay a dime to take the bastard to court. :wavey: First thing she should do is contact the child support offices, if the boys father has any substantial property (a house, etc.), they'll threaten to put a lien on it. If all else fails, she can claim what she isn't getting in child support on her taxes.

I don't think she's considered claiming on her taxes. I'll ask her to make sure. The thing is, her son's father has a good job, but is still a deadbeat. :distress:

[dissention]

I don't think she's considered claiming on her taxes. I'll ask her to make sure. The thing is, her son's father has a good job, but is still a deadbeat. :distress:

There are so many things she could do to get him where it hurts that she'll be laughing herself to the bank. Like I said, tell her to contact the child support department ASAP. Make sure she has all of his work information, too. Hell, get the kid to lift one of his pay stubs. :lol: j/k

[sparky]

I've never really had contact with the guy because he wasn't the type of person I wanted to associate with, so it's no skin off my ass.

Don't you mean no skin off your bleached ass ? :wavey:

[dissention]

Don't you mean no skin off your bleached ass ? :wavey:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

No, I told Jake to lay off the darned Clorox after my ass began to resemble Jacko. :wavey:

[dissention]

Your mom must be very proud of you. :)

Eh..... :laugh: She can be the biggest asshole in the world. I can only take her in small doses. Cats and dogs, my friend.

[sparky]

For the record, I am pro-choice. But I still find it troubling that if a woman decides she doesn't want to have a baby, she can terminate her pregnancy, but a man is required to pay child support, whether he wants the child or not. I know, old argument, but I've yet to hear a good rebuttal.

I am pro-choice in theory. I don't have a womb, however, so my opinion is pretty much moot.

On the other hand, I have heard very little in my lifetime about the issue of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY regarding the issue of unwanted pregnancy. Obviously, once the egg is fertilized, it's a waste of breath, but it generally takes two idiots to create an unwanted child (excluding rapes). Why are men not a little more responsible with their sperm ? Are the mechanics of pregnancy that difficult to understand ? Why do women have sex with men who are losers and dirtbags ? These issues BAFFLE me. If I had a dollar for every sob story about "the broken condom", "the slipped diaphragm", "she said she was on the pill", "we thought we were in LOVE", and all those other lame assed excuses, I could fund a study to find out why people are so cavalier with their reproductive systems - yet are on point sticklers about blaming someone else and whining when all of a sudden there is an infant that no one wanted in the first place.

If you're doing it with a member of the opposite sex and don't want a kid - prevent it. It isn't rocket science.

[dontlookdown]

uh, yeah.

where were we?


Anyway - as a lifelong resident of Mass. I can tell you that Kerry will make a VERY good president. He's honest and has the best interest of the ENTIRE country in mind. As a bonus...he has no ties to oil or any business relationships with the Bin Laden family. Now there's a few things you Can't say about that asshole in the White House!

[gldstwmn]

You are indeed right about that. One of my relatives has an 11-year-old son, and she has considered taking his father to court over child support, but has decided that it would be a waste of time and money. I guess she feels like it wouldn't do any good.

They change jobs, leave the state, don't pay, hide their income, etc. It's pretty pathetic.

[gldstwmn]

Tell her she doesn't have to pay a dime to take the bastard to court. :wavey: First thing she should do is contact the child support offices, if the boys father has any substantial property (a house, etc.), they'll threaten to put a lien on it. If all else fails, she can claim what she isn't getting in child support on her taxes.

In Colorado, they actually wanted me to fill out forms detailing my sexual history in order for me to be eligible for any child support. I never did it becuase I know that I'll never get the money anyway.

[CarneVaca]

Anyway - as a lifelong resident of Mass. I can tell you that Kerry will make a VERY good president. He's honest and has the best interest of the ENTIRE country in mind. As a bonus...he has no ties to oil or any business relationships with the Bin Laden family. Now there's a few things you Can't say about that asshole in the White House!

Honest!?

"Sen. Kerry, what about that SUV you own?"

"Uh... well, it's my wife's SUV."

"Sen. Kerry, did you go too far when you said our country committed atrocities in Vietnam?"

"Yeah, well, I shouldn't have said that."

One day he's pro-choice, the next day he's personally against abortion. He says he's a conservative at heart. He voted for the Iraq war but has taken every singe opportunity to decry it. Say, John, why not just apologize for your wrongheaded vote and promise to pull out if you win?

I can't stop shaking my head at the people who are supporting this guy, well-meaning people who would not tolerate this kind of thing from a Republican. Kerry voted on the Iraq resolution without reading a pros-and-cons report on it, yet people who support him lambast Bush for not reading it either but not Kerry.

Why the double standard? Does it all come down to partisanship?

I am going to laugh, sadly, but laugh, when Kerry loses. And then all you guys will be up in arms about it. But do you think you will come around to admitting Kerry has made a lot of ****ty decisions? That he was the wrong candidate at the wrong time? That the mass of people in that gray middle area of politics just don't see enough of a difference between him and Bush? Think about it, all they see is a guy who has nothing to offer but complaints about the current administration. You and I can agree he's right on Bush. But why not stand for something and declare it? The great politicians, Huey Long and Bobby and Tip O'Neill and Paul Wellstone, stood for something. And they weren't afraid to say what it was. Kerry is a failure. He deserves to lose.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for Bush.

[dissention]

In Colorado, they actually wanted me to fill out forms detailing my sexual history in order for me to be eligible for any child support. I never did it becuase I know that I'll never get the money anyway.

I would have sued and said it was an invasion of privacy. That's sickening. :(

[dissention]

I am going to laugh, sadly, but laugh, when Kerry loses. And then all you guys will be up in arms about it. But do you think you will come around to admitting Kerry has made a lot of ****ty decisions? That he was the wrong candidate at the wrong time? That the mass of people in that gray middle area of politics just don't see enough of a difference between him and Bush? Think about it, all they see is a guy who has nothing to offer but complaints about the current administration. You and I can agree he's right on Bush. But why not stand for something and declare it? The great politicians, Huey Long and Bobby and Tip O'Neill and Paul Wellstone, stood for something. And they weren't afraid to say what it was. Kerry is a failure. He deserves to lose.

I don't think you'll be laughing very much because the guy is going to win the election. Mark my words. But he has made very ****ty decisions and his campaign has turned me off big time. His desperation to go as far to the right as possible is pathetic. However, underneath all of it, I get the feeling that he truly is a good guy at heart and wants the best for all of us. Unfortunately, he's not going about it the right way and it's making him look like the grandest of fools.

[Vianna]

I couldn't let that one about no atrocities in Vietnam go-what do you call Mylai?

[estranged4life]

using Motorhead's "Ace Of Spades"....But...

<img src="http://www.wdeck.com/Spades.jpg">

[dontlookdown]

Carne -

I think without realizing it, you have swallowed what Bush has been spoon-feeding. The way the administration spins Kerry's speeches (and the way Fox News does) is exactly the sentiment you share.

Flip-flopping is what people who always think in black and white call statements that are made out of intellectual curiosity and progressive thought.

Kerry supported an Iraq invasion only with the support of the U.N. He had no idea how badly Bush would go on to f*ck it up (his words).
He never flip-flopped on that. He took the intelligence to heart and believed with the support of the UN and the rest of the western world, that it was a smart thing to do. He has never flip flopped from that idea.

His Vietnam experience was the same as every college-educated forward-thinking American at the time. It turned out to be a wrong war - so he protested. But he believed that he should serve his country so that's what he did.
What highly educated person wouldn't protest the Vietnam War? This is not a suburban kid who has never traveled. Kerry is bright.

And we've all gotten so used to a President who only looks at issues and the world in black and white. He is unable to form complex sentences because he can't think in a complex way (maybe it was all the booze and cocaine).

Kerry thinks through issues and he changes his mind. He will continue to do that. That is how Massachusetts has become one of the most progressive states in the nation. People like Kerry have put education and the environment and the economy first - above everything else.

No matter what you think of the man, to not vote for him is to endorse the sickening immoral environmental roll-backs that Bush has done. Roll backs that are now allowing coal-burning factories to spew more mercury into the air we breathe and the water we drink. These are the kind of roll backs that are making it next to impossible for the average American to NOT be able to afford a piece of fish at the market that isn't loaded with PCB's and mercury.

I say vote for the man who governs not for himself or his own wallet, but one who can make legislation that achieves the best balance for everyone. The only weapon of mass-destruction I know of is the guy that occupies the White House.

[gldstwmn]

Nice post, dontlookdown. Thank you. :angel:

[amber]

Carne -

I think without realizing it, you have swallowed what Bush has been spoon-feeding. The way the administration spins Kerry's speeches (and the way Fox News does) is exactly the sentiment you share.

Flip-flopping is what people who always think in black and white call statements that are made out of intellectual curiosity and progressive thought.

Kerry supported an Iraq invasion only with the support of the U.N. He had no idea how badly Bush would go on to f*ck it up (his words).
He never flip-flopped on that. He took the intelligence to heart and believed with the support of the UN and the rest of the western world, that it was a smart thing to do. He has never flip flopped from that idea.

His Vietnam experience was the same as every college-educated forward-thinking American at the time. It turned out to be a wrong war - so he protested. But he believed that he should serve his country so that's what he did.
What highly educated person wouldn't protest the Vietnam War? This is not a suburban kid who has never traveled. Kerry is bright.

And we've all gotten so used to a President who only looks at issues and the world in black and white. He is unable to form complex sentences because he can't think in a complex way (maybe it was all the booze and cocaine).

Kerry thinks through issues and he changes his mind. He will continue to do that. That is how Massachusetts has become one of the most progressive states in the nation. People like Kerry have put education and the environment and the economy first - above everything else.

No matter what you think of the man, to not vote for him is to endorse the sickening immoral environmental roll-backs that Bush has done. Roll backs that are now allowing coal-burning factories to spew more mercury into the air we breathe and the water we drink. These are the kind of roll backs that are making it next to impossible for the average American to NOT be able to afford a piece of fish at the market that isn't loaded with PCB's and mercury.

I say vote for the man who governs not for himself or his own wallet, but one who can make legislation that achieves the best balance for everyone. The only weapon of mass-destruction I know of is the guy that occupies the White House.
these are good points, i think
amber

[blinker12]

I am going to laugh, sadly, but laugh, when Kerry loses.

How can you say that? If you were really a liberal, the very prospect of Bush winning re-election would be enough to start you applying for Canadian citizenship.

[Johnny Stew]

That is one of the best posts I've read in all of these political debates, dontlookdown.
Thank you for that. :nod: :)

[dissention]

Flip-flopping is what people who always think in black and white call statements that are made out of intellectual curiosity and progressive thought.

I think the flip-flopping argument that the right makes is among the most ludicrous and desperate at this point. Arianna Huffington wrote a fantastic article the other day about how absurd it is for them to make the argument when Bush's entire administration is the chief flip-flopper. She talks about how he promised to give $15 billion towards the fight against AIDs and he hasn't. He promised to give $3 billion to fight AIDs to South Africa, but he's only given $200 million. He pushes bills thorugh and then fails to fund them, etc. He said he was against nation building, now he's doing that very same thing. I think you can find the article at http://www.ariannahuffington.com . It's a long read, but it's fantastic. I love Arianna!

Kerry supported an Iraq invasion only with the support of the U.N. He had no idea how badly Bush would go on to f*ck it up (his words).
He never flip-flopped on that. He took the intelligence to heart and believed with the support of the UN and the rest of the western world, that it was a smart thing to do. He has never flip flopped from that idea.

Sorry, but this is where I begin to disagree. :laugh: Regardless of what intel he was given or shown (and it's now confirmed even by other Senators that some of the stuff they were shown was totally fabricated), he should have voted no. This war was illegal and morally reprehensible from the get-go and Kerry is smart enough to know that if it smells like BS, it's probably BS. His state of Massachusetts, the state that elected him to represent them, did not agree with going to war. Our state was opposed to it, yet he still voted in favor of it. Now, I knew that Iraq had no weapons, I'd known that since the mid-nineties. Why didn't Kerry know? I think he wanted to believe that there were weapons, honestly. The first red flag that the intel was bull**** was when the government flat-out refused to divulge any information about where they obtained the intel. That smells fishy to begin with. Now, he still supports going into Iraq and refuses to call it a mistake and he refuses to say that his vote was a mistake. If anything, that is what is going to cost him the election. His inability to admit that what happened in going to war was wrong will kill him. I always loved Kerry and I still do to a certain extent, but his vote to go to war continues to pain me to no end.

His Vietnam experience was the same as every college-educated forward-thinking American at the time. It turned out to be a wrong war - so he protested. But he believed that he should serve his country so that's what he did.
What highly educated person wouldn't protest the Vietnam War? This is not a suburban kid who has never traveled. Kerry is bright.

MIght I add, Kerry VOLUNTEERED to serve in Vietnam. He was not drafted, he volunteered to serve there. Once there, I can imagine his shock at the atrocities being committed; atrocities that some veterans still refuse to admit occurred. If anything, he was being most patriotic when he returned and spread the word about the crimes against humanity that were happening over there. The veterans who begrudge him for his actions in that arena have lost a bit of my respect. He wasn't accusing any particular people, he was making a general statement about the crimes being committed by our men. And those crimes were committed and will forever be a stain on our flag.

And we've all gotten so used to a President who only looks at issues and the world in black and white. He is unable to form complex sentences because he can't think in a complex way (maybe it was all the booze and cocaine).

The world is black and white to his base and those are the only people he caters to, to hell with the rest of the country. As for his inability to form sentences, I've suspected for ages that he is afflicted with a combination of mental retardation and dyslexia.

Kerry thinks through issues and he changes his mind. He will continue to do that. That is how Massachusetts has become one of the most progressive states in the nation. People like Kerry have put education and the environment and the economy first - above everything else.

I agree 100%. His record on the environment is stellar, though I'm a bit dismayed that he would not even touch the Kyoto Protocol if elected, even though his running mate supports it. And, unfortunately, he voted in favor of No Child Left Behind. Funded or unfunded, the entire thing is ****, just the MCAS in Mass. :laugh: I want him to beat that bastard Bush, but it's an uphill battle, especially when you take into consideration the fact that he's voted with Bush almost every time since 2000.

No matter what you think of the man, to not vote for him is to endorse the sickening immoral environmental roll-backs that Bush has done. Roll backs that are now allowing coal-burning factories to spew more mercury into the air we breathe and the water we drink. These are the kind of roll backs that are making it next to impossible for the average American to NOT be able to afford a piece of fish at the market that isn't loaded with PCB's and mercury.

Very good points. :wavey:

I say vote for the man who governs not for himself or his own wallet, but one who can make legislation that achieves the best balance for everyone. The only weapon of mass-destruction I know of is the guy that occupies the White House.

:nod: Kerry's not perfect, let's face it. He isn't to going to please me or anyone else all the time. But he's a god next to Bush the anti-Christ.

[gldstwmn]

How can you say that? If you were really a liberal, the very prospect of Bush winning re-election would be enough to start you applying for Canadian citizenship.

:nod: :nod: :nod:

[MikeVielhaber]

Yuck. Sounds like Carne Vaca has swallowed what Bush has spoon-fed half of the nation.

I don't think Kerry has a thing to worry about. Even if he isn't elected, he has a lifelong career of respected public service to be proud of.

What does Bush have?

A failed presidency

Failed domestic and foreign policy

Cocaine and alcohol abuse

Two businesses that he drove into the ground

The list goes on....

Can you imagine waking up every morning and having to be Bush?

What a loser!
so of course....you hating bush and all....bush has only bad things to look forward to....but kerry has a very optimistic future

[dissention]

so of course....you hating bush and all....bush has only bad things to look forward to....but kerry has a very optimistic future

Of course. Bush's jig is up, darling, he will no longer be able to lie to the American people and kill their brothers and sisters. It's all over for him in January.

[MikeVielhaber]

:nod: Kerry's not perfect, let's face it. He isn't to going to please me or anyone else all the time. But he's a god next to Bush the anti-Christ.

well now...if we're gonna bring Christ into this....Atleast Bush sticks by his faith and his religion. Kerry claims to be catholic (which I am too) but then stands against so many things his supposed church teaches. i have a lot more respect for Bush in that aspect.

[estranged4life]

Of course. Bush's jig is up, darling, he will no longer be able to lie to the American people and kill their brothers and sisters. It's all over for him in January.

I'll miss making fun of Shrub's Coke+Drunk+Texan=Ass

[gldstwmn]

so of course....you hating bush and all....bush has only bad things to look forward to....but kerry has a very optimistic future

Where in his post does he say anything about "hate"? Why do you find it necessary to bring "hate" into it?

[gldstwmn]

well now...if we're gonna bring Christ into this....Atleast Bush sticks by his faith and his religion.

You mean like when he got his girlfriend the abortion 30 some odd years ago? Or his drug use? Or his lying about WMD's in Iraq and costing countless thousands their lives? Yeah, that's pious of him. Theres' more, if you like.

[estranged4life]

Where in his post does he say anything about "hate"? Why do you find it necessary to bring "hate" into it?



I hate you
You hate me
We hate each other so easily...

With a stab in the back
A gun shot to the head
I hate you so much
I will be glad when yer dead-George Bush (Thinking he's Barney the Purple annoying dinosaur)

[gldstwmn]

I hate you
You hate me
We hate each other so easily...

With a stab in the back
A gun shot to the head
I hate you so much
I will be glad when yer dead-George Bush (Thinking he's Barney the Purple annoying dinosaur)

Can you do that with My Pet Goat? :wavey: :lol:

[estranged4life]

Can you do that with My Pet Goat? :wavey: :lol:

do that to Stevie...Oops, I mean the Stevie-goat???!!!!

[amber]

You mean like when he got his girlfriend the abortion 30 some odd years ago? Or his drug use? Or his lying about WMD's in Iraq and costing countless thousands their lives? Yeah, that's pious of him. Theres' more, if you like.
Yeah, i don't think the phrase WWJD? is on the top of Bush's mind, ever. His constitutional ammendment idea to ban gay marriage wasn't really "christ-like" either. Nothing he does is.
Amber

[estranged4life]

Yeah, i don't think the phrase WWJD? is on the top of Bush's mind, ever. His constitutional ammendment idea to ban gay marriage wasn't really "christ-like" either. Nothing he does is.
Amber

Shrub would have the following on his shirt:

WWG(WIATB)D

What
Would
God
(Which
I
Assume
To
Be)
Do

[MikeVielhaber]

You mean like when he got his girlfriend the abortion 30 some odd years ago? Or his drug use? Or his lying about WMD's in Iraq and costing countless thousands their lives? Yeah, that's pious of him. Theres' more, if you like.

i do believe he became very devoted to his faith when he got married to laura....which is less than 30 years ago..i couldnt care less about what he did before then if thats what changed him towards Christ. he went on what the intellegence gave him .....very dishonest of him i agree

[MikeVielhaber]

Yeah, i don't think the phrase WWJD? is on the top of Bush's mind, ever. His constitutional ammendment idea to ban gay marriage wasn't really "christ-like" either. Nothing he does is.
Amber

I believe, by faith, and he probably does too...that marriage is sacred....and marriage is the eternal bond between a man and a woman...no different...and shoukd not be corrupted. the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. whether his proposed amendment is constitutional or not his stance was definitely faith-driven

[dissention]

well now...if we're gonna bring Christ into this....Atleast Bush sticks by his faith and his religion. Kerry claims to be catholic (which I am too) but then stands against so many things his supposed church teaches. i have a lot more respect for Bush in that aspect.

Bush claims to be a religious man, yet everyhting he stands for and does is contradictory to his religion. Gimme a f*cking break. I have no respect for a mna who uses religion to get votes and then does everyhting possible to go against the Book of the Lord.

[gldstwmn]

i do believe he became very devoted to his faith when he got married to laura....which is less than 30 years ago..i couldnt care less about what he did before then if thats what changed him towards Christ. he went on what the intellegence gave him .....very dishonest of him i agree

He knew it was a sham. He'd been looking for a way into Iraq since he was elected. Both Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill and many others have said as much in their books and i beleive Clarke said so in his testimony before the 9/11 commission.

[dissention]

i do believe he became very devoted to his faith when he got married to laura....which is less than 30 years ago..i couldnt care less about what he did before then if thats what changed him towards Christ. he went on what the intellegence gave him .....very dishonest of him i agree

Yeah, going to war for no reason is very Christ-like. He's a joke, just like his faith. He doesn't even know the meaning of separation between church and state.

[dissention]

I believe, by faith, and he probably does too...that marriage is sacred....and marriage is the eternal bond between a man and a woman...no different...and shoukd not be corrupted. the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. whether his proposed amendment is constitutional or not his stance was definitely faith-driven

He doesn't agree with abortion, but supports the death penalty. How Christ-like is that?

The bible also teaches that no one should judge another person and that everyone is welcome, no matter what their sexuality is or what their crime is. His faith should not drive federal policies, that's against the Constitution. But no one ever accused Bush of being smart.

But you're from Texas, so...

[MikeVielhaber]

Yeah, going to war for no reason is very Christ-like. He's a joke, just like his faith. He doesn't even know the meaning of separation between church and state.

i see you buy into all the michael moore BS

[dissention]

i do believe he became very devoted to his faith when he got married to laura

Did you know that Laura killed her ex-boyfriend when she was younger? How very Christ-like.

[dissention]

i see you buy into all the michael moore BS

No, I buy into the truth. There was no reason whatsoever to go to war and murder innocents. Got any facts to refute that other than the lies of this administration? You don't because all they do is lie.

[estranged4life]

he went on what the intellegence gave him...

I think is that Shrub's "Intelligence" watched the South Park movie and the "Osama Bin Laden Has Farty Pants" episode and got their info from both that Osama & Saddam were conspiring together :lol: :lol:

Those intelligent putz couldnt find their balls with both hands.

[MikeVielhaber]

He doesn't agree with abortion, but supports the death penalty. How Christ-like is that?

The bible also teaches that no one should judge another person and that everyone is welcome, no matter what their sexuality is or what their crime is. His faith should not drive federal policies, that's against the Constitution. But no one ever accused Bush of being smart.

But you're from Texas, so...

it does teach that it is wrong.....but you're right .....God will judge them when its their time.....but the i still believe in the protection of the sanctity of marriage. and texas is a great state man......except for the weather but other wise it is a fine fine state and i'm actually FROM ohio but i do live in texas.

[MikeVielhaber]

Did you know that Laura killed her ex-boyfriend when she was younger? How very Christ-like.

right....she killed her ex....gotcha....

[dissention]

right....she killed her ex....gotcha....

You didn't know that? She killed her ex-boyfriend when she was in her late teens. Go do some research, you'll find all the gory details.

[dissention]

it does teach that it is wrong.....but you're right .....God will judge them when its their time.....but the i still believe in the protection of the sanctity of marriage. and texas is a great state man......except for the weather but other wise it is a fine fine state and i'm actually FROM ohio but i do live in texas.

The Texans must've warped your mind. Any state that would give Bush his political career is on my **** list of places I'll never visit. You can believe in the "sanctity of marriage" (whatever that is, marriage in this country has been a joke for over fifty years already) all you want, but you also have to understand that other people believe that marriage is simply a vow from one person to another to love them forever. Why should YOUR views or the conservatives or George W. Bush's dictate to the rest of the country what marriage should be? Last tiem I checked, marriage was a legal matter, NOT a religious matter. :wavey:

Thank the lord I'm from Massachusetts.

[dissention]

Those intelligent putz couldnt find their balls with both hands.

Oh, Brian! How gay and un-Christ-like! :laugh:

[estranged4life]

Oh, Brian! How gay and un-Christ-like! :laugh:

****, "Im going to burn in hell...Boo-frikkedy-hoo"

Please hold me folkz, "I'm So Afraid" of hell as much as my fear of Rev.Jerry "Money...Mu-mu-mu-money" Falwell & that soon to be extinct "Stevie-goat".

Like I said, God loves a good joke...Thus my sole reason for existence!!!!

[MikeVielhaber]

just found this article...thought it was on topic somewhat here

Hillary, Top Dems Still Would Have Voted for War
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Last week Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said, "We in Congress would not have authorized that war – we would not have authorized that war with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."

ABC’s Ted Koppel, host of "Nightline," decided to put the words of the senior Democratic member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to the test.
Koppel’s findings, which aired on ABC Radio late Friday night, directly counter Rockefeller’s suggestion that the Senate would not have strongly endorsed the war against Iraq.


Koppel reported: "We wanted to see whether the conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee would have made any difference to the other senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called them.

"Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have changed their minds had they known then 'what they know now.'

"Among those who say they would not have changed their minds, a number of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Tom Daschle."


Despite the media buzz last week that suggested the U.S. Congress may have been hoodwinked by the Bush administration and a politicized CIA into voting for the Iraq war, many leading Democrats apparently do not see it that way.


The 511-page report released last week by the Senate Intelligence Committee debunked much of what American intelligence had reported about Iraq.


As summarized by Republican senator and chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Pat Roberts:


"Here are some examples of statements from the key judgments. Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear program. Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle, a UAV, probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents."


But the explosive committee report that lambasted U.S. intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, has not changed the mind of President Bush, who steadfastly maintained, "I chose to defend the country, and it’s exactly what I would do again."

Bush has consistently argued that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the United States.

But John Kerry’s position on Iraq has vacillated – and may have put him at odds with Senate Democrats who told ABC News they still would have voted for the war.

Kerry, along with his running mate, John Edwards, voted for the war.

But during the Demcratic primaries, Kerry began distancing himself from his war vote and claimed the Bush administration had lied to Congress.

Appearing on "60 Minutes" last weekend, Kerry told Leslie Stahl: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war. I am against the war – the way the president went to war was wrong."

At the same time, Kerry said he voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war "as a last resort." He added, "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote."

But Kerry did not say, as Koppel asked knowing "what we know now," if he would still have voted for the war.

Kerry again claimed to Stahl that "the way [President Bush] went to war was a mistake."

But if the war is such a mistake, the question remains whether Kerry would have changed his vote.

Already the Bush administration has seized on Kerry’s equivocating.

In a speech Monday, Vice President dip Cheney chided Kerry for "simply trying to rewrite history for his own political purposes."

"When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted yes," Cheney said. "Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia."

[dissention]

Like I said, God loves a good joke...Thus my sole reason for existence!!!!

Or Bush's existence. :laugh: :wavey:

[dissention]

just found this article...thought it was on topic somewhat here

Hillary, Top Dems Still Would Have Voted for War
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, July 13, 2004

But John Kerry’s position on Iraq has vacillated – and may have put him at odds with Senate Democrats who told ABC News they still would have voted for the war.

Kerry, along with his running mate, John Edwards, voted for the war.

But during the Demcratic primaries, Kerry began distancing himself from his war vote and claimed the Bush administration had lied to Congress.

Appearing on "60 Minutes" last weekend, Kerry told Leslie Stahl: "I think the president made a mistake in the way he took us to war. I am against the war – the way the president went to war was wrong."

At the same time, Kerry said he voted to give Bush the authorization to go to war "as a last resort." He added, "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote."

But Kerry did not say, as Koppel asked knowing "what we know now," if he would still have voted for the war.

Kerry again claimed to Stahl that "the way [President Bush] went to war was a mistake."

But if the war is such a mistake, the question remains whether Kerry would have changed his vote.

Already the Bush administration has seized on Kerry’s equivocating.

In a speech Monday, Vice President dip Cheney chided Kerry for "simply trying to rewrite history for his own political purposes."

"When Congress voted to authorize force against Saddam Hussein, Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards both voted yes," Cheney said. "Now it seems they've both developed a convenient case of campaign amnesia."

He was on Larry King a week and a half ago saying that had he known what he knows now about the sources of the intel, he wouldn't have voted. How did Koppel miss that, it was an hour-long interview? :confused:

[gldstwmn]

just found this article...thought it was on topic somewhat here

Hillary, Top Dems Still Would Have Voted for War
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com


FYI, NewsMax is linked to white supremacy groups. :o

[gldstwmn]

i see you buy into all the michael moore BS

No, just the Constitution.

[estranged4life]

Or Bush's existence. :laugh: :wavey:

God had that day off when Shrub was created...Thus he blamed Jesus and punished him by sending him to earth to die for his bad quality control practices, Thus making sure Mel Gibson scares folkz with "The Passion"!!!!

[gldstwmn]

it does teach that it is wrong.....but you're right .....God will judge them when its their time.....but the i still believe in the protection of the sanctity of marriage.

How about stem cell research?

[gldstwmn]

right....she killed her ex....gotcha....

On the same day they broke up. :nod:

[gldstwmn]

Silencio? :confused: We've done it again, d. :lol:

[gldstwmn]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1698.htm

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Details in a 1963 accident report say that Laura Bush, then 17, ran a stop sign in the Texas crash that killed a friend in another car. The report, adding information to previous reports of the crash, was released to The Associated Press on Wednesday.

Mrs. Bush now is the wife of Republican presidential nominee-to-be George W. Bush, the Texas governor.

''It was a very tragic accident that deeply affected the families and was very painful for all involved, including the community at large,'' said Mrs. Bush's spokesman, Andrew Malcolm. ''To this day, Mrs. Bush remains unable to talk about it.''

She did say in March, when asked at a campaign stop about the crash, ''I know this as an adult, and even more as a parent, it was crushing ... for the family involved and for me as well.''

There had been published accounts of the accident, but city officials had declined to release the records because those involved were under 18. The police report was released Wednesday in response to an open-records request that was submitted to Midland officials in March.

According to the two-page accident report, Laura Welch was driving her Chevrolet sedan on a clear night shortly after 8 p.m. on Nov. 6, 1963, when she drove into an intersection and struck a Corvair sedan driven by 17-year-old Michael Douglas.

Although previous news accounts have reported Douglas was thrown from the car and broke his neck, those details were not in the report.

The speed of Laura Bush's car was illegible on the report. The speed limit for the road was 55.

Laura Bush and her passenger, Judy Dykes, also 17, were taken to a hospital and treated for minor injuries, according to an accident account printed at the time in the Midland Reporter-Telegram.

The police report indicates no charges were filed. That section of the report was left blank.

''As far as we know, no charges were filed,'' said Midland city attorney Keith Stretcher. ''I don't think it's unusual that charges weren't filed.''


Isn't it funny how records concerning the Bush family are always "illegible", blank, lost or destroyed?

[dissention]

Silencio? :confused: We've done it again, d. :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm telling you, people:

If you are not well-versed on politics and the issues, don't chime into the discussion. It's a waste of our time and waste of your time that you could be using to research these things.

[dissention]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/e1698.htm

Isn't it funny how records concerning the Bush family are always "illegible", blank, lost or destroyed?

It's hysterical. :lol:

[dissention]

FYI, NewsMax is linked to white supremacy groups. :o

They were also linked to a group that tried to bomb an abortion clinic. :wavey:

[estranged4life]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm telling you, people:

If you are not well-versed on politics and the issues, don't chime into the discussion. It's a waste of our time and waste of your time that you could be using to research these things.

guess I'm ****outtaluck :nod: :lol: :laugh:

[dissention]

guess I'm ****outtaluck :nod: :lol: :laugh:

:laugh: No, you know your ****. Much moreso than the people who come in here singing Bush praises but knowing nothing about his administration.

[estranged4life]

Bush's compassion for his fellow American makes me feel like <img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Throw-Up.gif"> and then <img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/ROTFLMAO.gif"> because that is the funniest crap I have ever heard.

[dissention]

Bush's compassion for his fellow American makes me feel like <img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/Throw-Up.gif"> and then <img src="http://www.angelfire.com/music3/rhiannon/ROTFLMAO.gif"> because that is the funniest crap I have ever heard.

:lol:

Voters For Bush.

Roaches For Raid.

[Johnny Stew]

I believe, by faith, and he probably does too...that marriage is sacred....and marriage is the eternal bond between a man and a woman...no different...and shoukd not be corrupted. the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong. whether his proposed amendment is constitutional or not his stance was definitely faith-driven

Let me just say this... I may be homosexual, but I've never done cocaine (or ANY other illegal drug), I've never abused alcohol (I have an alcoholic beverage on about three or four occasions, per year), I do not engage in casual sex, and I've never forced anyone to have an abortion.

Oh, and I also believe in God, and I follow the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

So don't tell me that anyone is "better" than me, simply because they're heterosexual, and don't tell me that if I want to commit to someone I love who happens to be of the same gender, that it's somehow going to ruin the "sanctity" of marriage. Most especially when heterosexuals are divorcing and remarrying on a daily basis. And that includes folks who claim to be religious and follow Christ's teachings.
If religious folks are afraid that marriage is being corrupted, then they need look no further than the fickle heterosexual couples who are causing that corruption.

Also, as has been said many, many times... one can always find some passage in the bible to support their stance against something. It's easy to twist vague wordings to suit your needs.

And if one chooses to be nit-picky, then even those church-going, God-fearing, bible-quoting people are going against something in the bible (check out Leviticus sometime, and let me know if you follow everything there to the letter).

In MY bible, God tells us to love each other, as we love Him... He doesn't tell us to do everything in our power to discriminate against others or to denigrate them for not living their lives in the same manner that we do.

So, no one... not George W. Bush, not Pat Robertson, not Jerry Falwell, and certainly not Fred Phelps... has any business telling me what's "moral," and how I should be living my life.

[MikeVielhaber]

Let me just say this... I may be homosexual, but I've never done cocaine (or ANY other illegal drug), I've never abused alcohol (I have an alcoholic beverage on about three or four occasions, per year), I do not engage in casual sex, and I've never forced anyone to have an abortion.

Oh, and I also believe in God, and I follow the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

So don't tell me that anyone is "better" than me, simply because they're heterosexual, and don't tell me that if I want to commit to someone I love who happens to be of the same gender, that it's somehow going to ruin the "sanctity" of marriage. Most especially when heterosexuals are divorcing and remarrying on a daily basis. And that includes folks who claim to be religious and follow Christ's teachings.
If religious folks are afraid that marriage is being corrupted, then they need look no further than the fickle heterosexual couples who are causing that corruption.

Also, as has been said many, many times... one can always find some passage in the bible to support their stance against something. It's easy to twist vague wordings to suit your needs.

And if one chooses to be nit-picky, then even those church-going, God-fearing, bible-quoting people are going against something in the bible (check out Leviticus sometime, and let me know if you follow everything there to the letter).

In MY bible, God tells us to love each other, as we love Him... He doesn't tell us to do everything in our power to discriminate against others or to denigrate them for not living their lives in the same manner that we do.

So, no one... not George W. Bush, not Pat Robertson, not Jerry Falwell, and certainly not Fred Phelps... has any business telling me what's "moral," and how I should be living my life.

whatever you do and the way you choose to live is not my business sir. do what you gotta do.

[Johnny Stew]

whatever you do and the way you choose to live is not my business sir. do what you gotta do.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Way ahead of you on that.

But hey, if I get to the Pearly Gates and St. Peter pulls the lever and sends me down to hell just for being gay, then I owe ya one. ;)

[estranged4life]

How about stem cell research?

the current "South Park" episode, I will NEVER look at stem cell research again...

:lol:

[BrokenWing]

Let me just say this... I may be homosexual, but I've never done cocaine (or ANY other illegal drug), I've never abused alcohol (I have an alcoholic beverage on about three or four occasions, per year), I do not engage in casual sex, and I've never forced anyone to have an abortion.

Oh, and I also believe in God, and I follow the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule.

So don't tell me that anyone is "better" than me, simply because they're heterosexual, and don't tell me that if I want to commit to someone I love who happens to be of the same gender, that it's somehow going to ruin the "sanctity" of marriage. Most especially when heterosexuals are divorcing and remarrying on a daily basis. And that includes folks who claim to be religious and follow Christ's teachings.
If religious folks are afraid that marriage is being corrupted, then they need look no further than the fickle heterosexual couples who are causing that corruption.

Also, as has been said many, many times... one can always find some passage in the bible to support their stance against something. It's easy to twist vague wordings to suit your needs.

And if one chooses to be nit-picky, then even those church-going, God-fearing, bible-quoting people are going against something in the bible (check out Leviticus sometime, and let me know if you follow everything there to the letter).

In MY bible, God tells us to love each other, as we love Him... He doesn't tell us to do everything in our power to discriminate against others or to denigrate them for not living their lives in the same manner that we do.

So, no one... not George W. Bush, not Pat Robertson, not Jerry Falwell, and certainly not Fred Phelps... has any business telling me what's "moral," and how I should be living my life.

Johnny, I just wanted to say thank you for saying so eloquently what I have trouble saying without resorting to shouting and name-calling and smoke pouring out my ears.

I too have never done drugs, don't engage in casual sex and would do everything in my power to ensure that no pregnant woman who wants her baby feels compelled to have an abortion. I do drink socially, but I don't get behind the wheel of a car or otherwise put myself and others in danger when I'm drinking. I've been in a monogamous relationship for three and a half years, and I've been completely faithful to my partner--which is more than can be said for many married hetero couples. And that despite it being a long-distance relationship in which we often go a month or more without seeing each other. One day in the not-too-distant future, we will probably be living together and depending on each other financially, especially since in the present economy, neither of us is making enough money to survive for long on our own. But her health is not the best, and I'm terrified that something might happen to her that would leave me stranded, with no access to the benefits she has paid into Social Security just the same as any heterosexual spouse has, not even the right to make her funeral arrangements, and possibly not even the right to say goodbye to her in the hospital.

Is that what Christian values stand for? Treating a person who has lost or is about to lose his or her partner as if their relationship somehow doesn't count or isn't real because they happen to have the wrong combination of genitalia? Somehow, I think Jesus would be very displeased.

Eileen

[blinker12]

Let me just say this... I may be homosexual, but I've never done cocaine (or ANY other illegal drug), I've never abused alcohol (I have an alcoholic beverage on about three or four occasions, per year), I do not engage in casual sex, and I've never forced anyone to have an abortion.

Johnny, we don't have to apologize or for being gay. Being gay is not a moral weakness that needs to "compensated for" through other virtues! :)

[BrokenWing]

Mark Rosenfelder at Zompist.com had some interesting comments about the gay marriage issue back around the time Dubya first started squawking about a constitutional amendment:

http://www.zompist.com/rants04.html#4

24 Feb 2004: Here comes the bride... Here comes the other bride

Oh, those "judicial activists". I don't recall Bush complaining about judicial activists declaring him President; but he's all in a tizzy over them possibly maybe bringing us gay marriage.

This issue is like an onion; to understand it we have to peel it back layer by layer.

1. Why do we need a constitutional amendment-- the first since Prohibition (and what a fine idea that was) to restrict people's rights? No state can force another to recognize gay marriages; there's a federal law against that. That law is not even being challenged; if it were, it'd be decided by the Supreme Court-- which is under the Republicans' thumb.

2. The issue, however, is the perfect sop to throw to the religious right-- and my undercover agent (hi, Harry) tells me that they are extremely agitated over this. (Bottom line: they feel that once you countenance indecency like that, God will punish you. This is very likely the meaning of the "serious consequences" in Bush's speech.) It's great politics: Bush gets the credit with his base whether it passes or not-- without descending into actual oppression; you can't really take away a right that people don't yet have.

3. But why has the religious right convinced itself that this is the bottom line-- that the creator of the universe doesn't care about feeding the hungry, shrugs at the worship of Mammon, countenances hypocrisy and adultery, but draws the line at two men playing tonsil hockey?

The quick answer is "Because it's in the Bible." However, that's not really an answer. For one thing, it's not; there's not one word about gay marriage in the Bible. There's not one word of Jesus about gays or lesbians. The denunciations of Isaiah and Jeremiah pass them over. Ezekiel 16:49 does mention the sin of Sodom-- but it's not sodomy; it's ignoring the needy. There's not one word anywhere, in fact, about lesbians (the closest is Rom. 1:26, which talks about women acting parÃ* fúsin 'against nature', which could mean many things).

Only someone already obsessed with the subject could read the Bible and believe that homosexuality was an overwhelming concern of the writers, or of God. Yes, it's mentioned in Leviticus and in 1 Corinthians-- so is adultery, which is mentioned first and with the same penalties. But we don't find Christians urging death for adulterers, or wanting to build monuments to vigilante killers of adulterers, or writing constitutional amendments to deny them rights.

It's also not because homosexuality is unnatural; as Bruce Bagemihl has documented, homosexual behavior has been observed in over 450 species of animals.

And it's not that gay marriage somehow threatens straight marriage. Any harm that's been done to the institution of marriage has been done by straights. Gays can't hurt it; they weren't allowed in. No one's going to be any less married, or any less happily married, if gays and lesbians they don't even know are allowed to enjoy the tax benefits of marriage.

4. So what is it? My best guess is that it's a combination of two things. First, our culture's historical condemnation of homosexuality. Cultural taboos can certainly feel powerful and universal, but they're not. Western culture thinks it's wrong for men to have sex with men just as it thinks it's wrong to eat dogs. Other cultures have thought differently, and ultimately we'll probably get over it, just as we've gotten over the idea that women are corrupting lesser creatures, or that human beings can be owned.

The other component: homosexuality is the one sin that 95% of the population can easily pass up. Though too many Christians have forgotten Jesus's command "Do not judge, lest you be judged", they can't quite read Paul's collection of sinners-- "fornicators, adulterers, thieves, the covetous, drunkards, swindlers"-- without some worry that it might apply to them, or someone they know... except when it comes to homosexuals. Those, the vast majority can easily reject-- and thus single out for special condemnation.

When C.S. Lewis was asked why he spent little time addressing homosexuality and gambling, he explained that it was because those were the sins that he himself wasn't tempted to. That's true spiritual wisdom, fully responding to Jesus's warning that our standard of judgment will be applied to us. Those who follow Jesus ignore this teaching at their peril. Concern yourselves with your own sins; that will give you plenty to keep busy with.

Eileen

[Johnny Stew]

Johnny, I just wanted to say thank you for saying so eloquently what I have trouble saying without resorting to shouting and name-calling and smoke pouring out my ears.

Thanks, Eileen... I really appreciate that. :o :xoxo:
I have to admit that I sometimes have to fan away the smoke that's pouring out of my ears, but I try not to let my emotions get the better of me when trying to make a point.

Is that what Christian values stand for? Treating a person who has lost or is about to lose his or her partner as if their relationship somehow doesn't count or isn't real because they happen to have the wrong combination of genitalia? Somehow, I think Jesus would be very displeased.

I think you're right. I can't imagine someone who preached love and acceptance, being thrilled about what is done in His name.

[Johnny Stew]

Johnny, we don't have to apologize for being gay. Being gay is not a moral weakness that needs to "compensated for" through other virtues! :)

Don't get me wrong... I don't think my homosexuality is something I need to compensate for, or that I need to apologize for. I am VERY proud of who I am. :)
I was just raised to believe that you should live your life as decently and morally as possible.
I am FAR from perfect, and that's not even something I try to be... so I seriously hope I didn't sound "Holier Than Thou," or anything like that... it's just that I do try to avoid as many "bad habits" as I can.

And the only reason I brought up all those things, is because it's often implied (and often downright stated) that homosexuals have "weak morals," etc.
So I just wanted to illustrate that that's simply an ugly stereotype, and that even the President of the United States... who seems to think he has his finger on the pulse of all that is good and moral... has engaged in some less-than-honorable behaviour.
Therefore he has no business telling homosexuals that their relationships have the potential to damage the moral fabric of society. :nod:

[Johnny Stew]

Mark Rosenfelder at Zompist.com had some interesting comments about the gay marriage issue back around the time Dubya first started squawking about a constitutional amendment:

http://www.zompist.com/rants04.html#4

Thank you for posting that, Eileen. That was so well-written... my hat's off to Mark Rosenfelder! :D

[amber]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm telling you, people:

If you are not well-versed on politics and the issues, don't chime into the discussion. It's a waste of our time and waste of your time that you could be using to research these things.
Uh, at the risk of angering you, thought this was a bit...well, lemme just say...YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF US!!! Is this an expert's (or those who think they're an expert?) opinion board only? :shrug: You could just not answer people when you don't want...happens to me all the time! :D Blessings,
Amber

[amber]

Shrub would have the following on his shirt:

WWG(WIATB)D

What
Would
God
(Which
I
Assume
To
Be)
Do

:nod: :lol:
I also thought he might be thinking:
WWJFO
Who
Would
Jesus
F***
Over ?
or
WWGSD?
Who
Would
God
Smack
Down?

[dissention]

Uh, at the risk of angering you, thought this was a bit...well, lemme just say...YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF US!!! Is this an expert's (or those who think they're an expert?) opinion board only? :shrug: You could just not answer people when you don't want...happens to me all the time! :D Blessings,
Amber

I was only joking, doll. ;)

Of course people can post about what they think about the issues we discuss, this is a message board after all. I just think that if someone is going to join in on the discussion, they should at least have some knowledge of what they're talking about and have some facts or links to back it up. A lot of people don't.

[amber]

I was only joking, doll. ;)

Of course people can post about what they think about the issues we discuss, this is a message board after all. I just think that if someone is going to join in on the discussion, they should at least have some knowledge of what they're talking about and have some facts or links to back it up. A lot of people don't.

OH, I Couldn't tell, how odd. I'm only forgiving you cause you called me "doll" :laugh: Yeah, in a perfect world people would be like that. That's why i try not to talk to anyone. :thumbsup: I certainly don't know what you know about politics, that's for sure. You're capacity for sorrow and bull**** must be gargantuan! :wavey: Good for you!
Amber

[dissention]

OH, I Couldn't tell, how odd. I'm only forgiving you cause you called me "doll" :laugh: Yeah, in a perfect world people would be like that. That's why i try not to talk to anyone. :thumbsup: I certainly don't know what you know about politics, that's for sure. You're capacity for sorrow and bull**** must be gargantuan! :wavey: Good for you!
Amber

Well, in a perfect world we wouldn't have Dumbya in office. :wavey:

[amber]

Well, in a perfect world we wouldn't have Dumbya in office. :wavey:
yeah...but can you remember the last clean, good, president, not counting Jimmy C? I don't think there ever was one. Even Abe had some issues. I don't think there can be one, cause of the sneaky politicking and money grubbing that is an intrinsic part of the system. But who that works within the system will work to completely change it? That person would never get elected! (apparently). That's why Jimmy C. couldn't get anything done... :distress:
Amber

[dissention]

yeah...but can you remember the last clean, good, president, not counting Jimmy C? I don't think there ever was one. Even Abe had some issues. I don't think there can be one, cause of the sneaky politicking and money grubbing that is an intrinsic part of the system. But who that works within the system will work to completely change it? That person would never get elected! (apparently). That's why Jimmy C. couldn't get anything done... :distress:
Amber

As much as it pains me to say it, Gerald Ford was a very decent and caring man. He f*cked up big time by pardoning Nixon, but he was still a good man with no agenda and he truly loved this country and its people.

[GypsySorcerer]

yeah...but can you remember the last clean, good, president, not counting Jimmy C? I don't think there ever was one. Even Abe had some issues. I don't think there can be one, cause of the sneaky politicking and money grubbing that is an intrinsic part of the system. But who that works within the system will work to completely change it? That person would never get elected! (apparently). That's why Jimmy C. couldn't get anything done... :distress:
Amber

I think Ford was (is) an upstanding, honest man.

[amber]

As much as it pains me to say it, Gerald Ford was a very decent and caring man. He f*cked up big time by pardoning Nixon, but he was still a good man with no agenda and he truly loved this country and its people.
But, if he had an agenda, wouldn't it be a repub one? regardless if he was a nice person, his policies, etc....
Amber

[dissention]

But, if he had an agenda, wouldn't it be a repub one? regardless if he was a nice person, his policies, etc....
Amber

He was a Rethug, but he wasn't in office long enough to really do anything; he was only there for two years. And from what I know of him, he's not a hardcore Rethug, he's a moderate. And he hates Bush. :lol:

[amber]

He was a Rethug, but he wasn't in office long enough to really do anything; he was only there for two years. And from what I know of him, he's not a hardcore Rethug, he's a moderate. And he hates Bush. :lol:
Yeah, that's pretty good, but given time, he might have f-ed something up, so i'm not gonna count him, mmmkay?
Amber

[gldstwmn]

But, if he had an agenda, wouldn't it be a repub one? regardless if he was a nice person, his policies, etc....
Amber

The only agenda that was left during the Ford administration was to keep the republic from going down the toilet. He had to pardon Nixon, IMO.

[GypsySorcerer]

The only agenda that was left during the Ford administration was to keep the republic from going down the toilet. He had to pardon Nixon, IMO.

I completely agree. What little chance Ford had of being re-elected went to pot after he pardoned Nixon. I sincerely believe he was thinking of this country first.

[Moony]

but then I won't be able to eat all the chico babies.

Microphones are fun, usually in the sun while eating a jam bun.

Oh well, must be off, time to jump up and down on my bed. It's been nice talking to you all.

I hope you had a nice fall. That's a really nice stall. You really shouldn't crawl. Do you like my fake southern drawl?

[Schmoopy]

No she isn't. She can't even wash her own hair.

[Moony]

No she isn't. She can't even wash her own hair.
Is that why she smells like a dumpster?

[shackin'up]

Is that why she smells like a dumpster?

no she smells like a thread of Carne after a year of rotting.

[DavidMn]

"You Do Or You Don't", Which is perfect...Nuff said :nod:
I think that picture you have there is Christopher Walken. This is just a dumb question but do you know what movie he said "If somebosy wants to hold my dick, they can buy me a drink first." I've always wondered what movie that came from

[sodascouts]

no she smells like a thread of Carne after a year of rotting.

LOL! Now this is an example of clever wit.