W approval rating continues to decline [Archive]

strandinthewind

10-17-2005, 07:34 PM

Bush's job rating continues to drop

Poll shows president's performance approval at low point

(CNN) -- President Bush's job approval rating continues to plummet, with 39 percent of Americans surveyed in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll supporting his performance, compared to 58 percent expressing disapproval.

The approval rating was lowest the poll has recorded during Bush's presidency, down from 45 percent in a survey taken September 26-28, and the disapproval rating was up from 50 percent.

The latest poll results, released Monday, were based on interviews with 1,012 adult Americans conducted by telephone October 13-16. In both surveys, the questions on approval ratings had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Bush has seen his approval rating steadily decline since he was sworn in for a second term in January, when 57 percent approved of his handling of the job and 40 percent disapproved.

The rating in the September 26-28 poll was an uptick that reflected the public's generally favorable view of the way Bush handled Hurricane Rita. (Full story)

His previous low of 40 percent came earlier in September and reflected the public's strongly negative view of his actions following Hurricane Katrina. (Full story)

Until then, pollsters attributed the president's poll slippage largely to perceptions of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq. (Full story)

In the latest poll, Bush's support appeared to have eroded even among suburban residents, who had been among his strongest backers, falling from 51 percent in last month's poll to 41 percent in the latest survey.

Among urban residents, his approval rating did not budge from 34 percent, and among rural residents it was almost the same, 44 percent versus 45 percent last month.

The sampling error for these and other questions that were broken down among groups was plus or minus 7 percentage points in both polls.

Base remains supportive
Bush's base appeared to remain largely supportive, with 62 percent of respondents who described themselves as conservative approving of his performance, down from 68 percent last month.

Support from moderates fell from 40 percent to 32 percent, and remained about the same for liberals, rising from 14 percent to 17 percent.

And the GOP faithful remained overwhelmingly steadfast in their support, with 84 percent voicing approval, versus 85 percent in last month's poll.

That was not the case among those who identified themselves as Democrats, whose support for Bush dropped from 15 percent to 8 percent.

It appeared that many Americans do not know what to make of the travails of top Bush political adviser Karl Rove, who was interviewed again last week by a grand jury regarding his possible role in leaking the name of a CIA operative.

Asked their opinion Rove, 22 percent of respondents said it was favorable, down from 25 percent in July, and 39 percent said it was unfavorable, up from 34 percent in July.

But 39 percent said they were unsure, down from 41 percent in July's poll. Both questions had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/17/poll.bush/index.html

David

10-17-2005, 07:53 PM

Bush's base appeared to remain largely supportive, with 62 percent of respondents who described themselves as conservativeWhat are they interested in conserving?

strandinthewind

10-17-2005, 07:57 PM

What are they interested in conserving?

Their ill gotten gains :shrug:

SteveMacD

10-17-2005, 07:59 PM

What are they interested in conserving?
Traditional American values. You know, the ones where we keep certain groups down. When the country was founded, that basically meant non-land owners, blacks, and women. These days, it's Muslims, blacks, and homosexuals.

Sorry. Weird day at the office.

ontheEdgeof17

10-17-2005, 08:03 PM

Traditional American values. You know, the ones where we keep certain groups down. When the country was founded, that basically meant non-land owners, blacks, and women. These days, it's Muslims, blacks, and homosexuals.

Sad, but kinda true.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-17-2005, 09:03 PM

ShangriLaTroubl

10-17-2005, 09:15 PM

Tell me lies tell me sweet little lies....

Oh yes you're right, those groups are CERTAINLY respected by our government, riighhhttt?

Chris

SteveMacD

10-17-2005, 09:30 PM

Oh yes you're right, those groups are CERTAINLY respected by our government, riighhhttt?

What do you expect. He has a pic in his sig of a guy who forgot he had a penis standing next to some twat who's never seen a penis, but really, REALLY needs to see a penis. If that's the best conservatives can come up with, this country is screwed!

gldstwmn

10-17-2005, 09:31 PM

I really don't know what to say about these reports anymore.:laugh:

Johnny Stew

10-17-2005, 10:42 PM

I really don't know what to say about these reports anymore.:laugh:Personally, I'm quite fond of "Neener-Neener-Neener!" :laugh:

gldstwmn

10-17-2005, 10:55 PM

Personally, I'm quite fond of "Neener-Neener-Neener!" :laugh:

I was saving that for the indictments.:laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-17-2005, 10:55 PM

Oh yes you're right, those groups are CERTAINLY respected by our government, riighhhttt?

Chris

If you want to believe that republicans really do hate blacks and minorities then you are free to do so...however we will just laugh at you! :laugh: ;)

Let's not forget that it was democrats saying horrible things about blacks in NOLA after Katrina, all for the sake of better attacking the president...From cannibalism to raping children...You name it the democrats will say it.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-17-2005, 10:58 PM

What do you expect. He has a pic in his sig of a guy who forgot he had a penis standing next to some twat who's never seen a penis, but really, REALLY needs to see a penis. If that's the best conservatives can come up with, this country is screwed!

Wow, liberals keep getting smarter and smarter!

When you don't have a credible argument (NEVER) you result to really bad jokes! Were we supposed to laugh at that?

Johnny Stew

10-17-2005, 11:08 PM

If you want to believe that republicans really do hate blacks and minorities then you are free to do so...however we will just laugh at you! :laugh: ;) Sweetheart, just check their voting records and it all becomes clear.

Johnny Stew

10-17-2005, 11:11 PM

Wow, liberals keep getting smarter and smarter!

When you don't have a credible argument (NEVER) you result to really bad jokes! Were we supposed to laugh at that?Yeah, good thing that Limbaugh and Coulter and Savage and all the rest never make jokes at the expense of liberals! ;)

Brwn_eyes0511

10-17-2005, 11:12 PM

Sweetheart, just check their voting records and it all becomes clear.

Well the liberal idea of being racist is to oppose affirmative action and denounce it AS racist...

Brwn_eyes0511

10-17-2005, 11:16 PM

Yeah, good thing that Limbaugh and Coulter and Savage and all the rest never make jokes at the expense of liberals! ;)

Yea, but their jokes are quite funny...especially Ann's jokes. And at least they are based in TRUTH. When you have someone like SteveMacD opening their trap about "Coulter never seeing a penis" it just becomes really sad. And above all it isn't funny. I will be the first to laugh at any joke if it is funny...I don't care if it is made by a liberal or conservative (why do you suppose I watch Bill Maher every week). But the fact is that most liberals wouldn't know a good joke if it hit them in the face.

Johnny Stew

10-17-2005, 11:24 PM

Well the liberal idea of being racist is to oppose affirmative action and denounce it AS racist...So denying minorities a law that will protect them from discrimination, and will help level the playing field for them, isn't racist?

Sounds like more twisted logic from the party that demands that our government forbids a woman from terminating a pregnancy because it's taking a life created by God, but condones capital punishment.
Apparently people in prison were not created by God?

By the way, blacks aren't the only minorities that the Republican Party constantly works to keep down. Check out how they vote regading Anti-Hate Crime bills.

I admire your loyalty to your party, but don't be fooled into thinking they're looking out for your best interests or mine.

Johnny Stew

10-17-2005, 11:34 PM

But the fact is that most liberals wouldn't know a good joke if it hit them in the face.There's another Ann Coulter/penis joke right there, but I'll be a good boy. :angel: :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-17-2005, 11:45 PM

So denying minorities a law that will protect them from discrimination, and will help level the playing field for them, isn't racist?

Affirmative action IS racist my friend. It sends a condescending message to minorities that they are not capable enough to be considered on their own merits.
Why don't you try researching it a little. Better yet, check out this wonderful organization called the Center for Individual Rights. www.cir-usa.org. They have worked at specifically dismantling affirmative action laws.

Sounds like more twisted logic from the party that demands that our government forbids a woman from terminating a pregnancy because it's taking a life created by God, but condones capital punishment.
Apparently people in prison were not created by God?

Taking the life of a convicted murderer, and taking the life of an innocent child...are you comparing the two?

Flip the switch...they deserve it!

By the way, blacks aren't the only minorities that the Republican Party constantly works to keep down. Check out how they vote regading Anti-Hate Crime bills.

What's your point? We will have to bring up the "Anti-Hate Crime bills" if you would like to discuss that. Maybe, just maybe, that "Anti-Hate Crime bills" aren't all they are cracked up to be?

I admire your loyalty to your party, but don't be fooled into thinking they're looking out for your best interests or mine.

I'm loyal to TRUE conservatives. I vote republican because conservatives just happen to be affiliated with that party.

So your party is perfect and does everything in it's power to protect our civil rights? Right....:rolleyes:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-17-2005, 11:46 PM

There's another Ann Coulter/penis joke right there, but I'll be a good boy. :angel: :laugh:

No by all means say it. If it is a good joke I will love it...even Ann would. But the one that was mentioned in the post above...was just down right ridiculous!.

heyjupiter678

10-18-2005, 12:05 AM

If you want to believe that republicans really do hate blacks and minorities then you are free to do so...however we will just laugh at you! :laugh: ;)
Not all of them, no. But most of the republicans I know personally do hate blacks and minorities. I could be wrong, but since you live pretty close to me, I'm willing to bet that many of the ones you know feel that way, too.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:15 AM

If you want to believe that republicans really do hate blacks and minorities then you are free to do so...however we will just laugh at you! :laugh: ;)

Let's not forget that it was democrats saying horrible things about blacks in NOLA after Katrina, all for the sake of better attacking the president...From cannibalism to raping children...You name it the democrats will say it.

Haha..No no you're right---the REPUBLICANS are the party of the black people---riiiiighhttt.

I don't 100% agree with affirmative action either, but I know if it's not there that racist bosses will have nothing to check them ,and will totally go crazy. I guess you believe racism doesn't exist anymore huh?

Chris

David

10-18-2005, 12:18 AM

Politics, politics, politics. . . .

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:18 AM

In light of your sig pic Brown Eyes I think I should add my rebuttal pic!

MY HEROES
<a href="http://www.stevienicks.de" target="_BLANK"><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y150/BlueCrystalMirror/Chris%20Miscellaneus/r_and_r_convention_2001_clinton.jpg" border="0" width="250" height="300"></a>

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 12:23 AM

Affirmative action IS racist my friend. It sends a condescending message to minorities that they are not capable enough to be considered on their own merits.
Why don't you try researching it a little. Better yet, check out this wonderful organization called the Center for Individual Rights. www.cir-usa.org. They have worked at specifically dismantling affirmative action laws.A couple of upper-class white guys fighting against Affirmative Action. Why am I not impressed (or surprised)?

I get a kick out of their belief that "Minorities can get into college without affirmative action by attending less competitive colleges."

Well, how generous of them! "Hey, you're poor and black -- what the hell do you need to go to a good college for? You should feel lucky to go to college at all!"

Instead of asking a couple of white boys what THEY think about Affirmative Action, maybe it's better to ask African Americans... and the NAACP certainly doesn't believe that Affirmative Action is racist.

Taking the life of a convicted murderer, and taking the life of an innocent child...are you comparing the two?

Flip the switch...they deserve it!A life that God created, is a life that God created. Pure and simple.
Why is it that Republicans think we should get to pick and choose which lives we should save and which we should spare?
It shouldn't be one or the other -- it should pertain to ALL lives. If we're REALLY going to follow "God's Laws," then we should know that it's not OUR place to take ANY life.

Maybe, just maybe, that "Anti-Hate Crime bills" aren't all they are cracked up to be?Yeah, because they protect gays and give them legal recourse if someone decides to go "fag bashing." And we wouldn't want to help them out. No, what we need to do is to protect Bubba and Jim-Bob, so they can keep working on eradicating the gay scourge.

I'm loyal to TRUE conservatives. I vote republican because conservatives just happen to be affiliated with that party.

So your party is perfect and does everything in it's power to protect our civil rights? Right....:rolleyes:The Democratic Party is FAR from perfect.

They back down far too often because they're afraid of alienating fence-sitting voters... but at least they don't do that whole yellow-bellied, two-faced, "I have no problems with gay people, in fact some of my best friends are gay -- but I'm certainly not EVER going to do anything to protect their civil rights" Republican spiel.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 12:23 AM

Haha..No no you're right---the REPUBLICANS are the party of the black people---riiiiighhttt.

I don't 100% agree with affirmative action either, but I know if it's not there that racist bosses will have nothing to check them ,and will totally go crazy. I guess you believe racism doesn't exist anymore huh?

Chris

Yes it does exist...and affirmative action doesn't help the cause.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 12:24 AM

Politics, politics, politics. . . .

We get so involved sometimes do we not?

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:26 AM

Yes it does exist...and affirmative action doesn't help the cause.

How so? Don't you think if college admissions were ONLY based on qualifications, that there would be NO blacks, women, or other minorities discriminated against?

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 12:26 AM

estranged4life

10-18-2005, 12:29 AM

Politics, politics, politics. . . .

music, music, music and/or sex, sex, sex over lame as dirt politics, politics, politics and those crooks, crooks, crooks who are involved with it, it, it

Brian, brian, brian "Sh*t, sh*t, sh*t" j. j. j.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:31 AM

Also it's important to add that affirmative action in recent history has moved away from using QUOTAS, which helps prevent hiring unqualified people.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:32 AM

Stevie had better watch herself with Bill "rock star" Clinton...

She looks great as usual. The pink tie...well I'm not going there.
Hey I wore a pink shirt today...whats wrong with pink? lol

Chris

estranged4life

10-18-2005, 12:34 AM

go to college for a 3rd time (Never say never) here in Oklahoma, I can check that I am "Native American" (Which I am, Since I am a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma rolls) and get an advantage over white/black/foreign/etc. students in the draw for acceptance.

Hell, if I wanted to, I could move to Fayetteville, Arkansas and attend UofA for next to nothing (I think it would only cost me about $4500 for 4 years) for being Cherokee.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:36 AM

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 12:36 AM

Hey I wore a pink shirt today...whats wrong with pink? lolApparently, wearing pink makes a guy look... :shocked:... gay.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:38 AM

Apparently, wearing pink makes a guy look... :shocked:... gay.

Well I think we all know Billy loves women right? :p

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 12:45 AM

A couple of upper-class white guys fighting against Affirmative Action. Why am I not impressed (or surprised)?

I get a kick out of their belief that "Minorities can get into college without affirmative action by attending less competitive colleges."

Well, how generous of them! "Hey, you're poor and black -- what the hell do you need to go to a good college for? You should feel lucky to go to college at all!"

Instead of asking a couple of white boys what THEY think about Affirmative Action, maybe it's better to ask African Americans... and the NAACP certainly doesn't believe that Affirmative Action is racist.

And the NAACP speaks for all black people? Thank GOD ten percent of black voters actually GET IT!

A life that God created, is a life that God created. Pure and simple.
Why is it that Republicans think we should get to pick and choose which lives we should save and which we should spare?
It shouldn't be one or the other -- it should pertain to ALL lives. If we're REALLY going to follow "God's Laws," then we should know that it's not OUR place to take ANY life.

Well firstly you should remember that not ALL Republicans are for capital punishment. But the fact that you still, in some way, believe that you can compare abortion to capital punishment is quite scary.

I have myself struggled with capital punishment, but after knowing all of the horrific crimes these people have committed, I just feel it is just punishment. And you and I both know that most of these convicted murderers will never be put to death anyway.

Yeah, because they protect gays and give them legal recourse if someone decides to go "fag bashing." And we wouldn't want to help them out. No, what we need to do is to protect Bubba and Jim-Bob, so they can keep working on eradicating the gay scourge.

And if this is what you think of the republican party and the conservative movement then you are misguided.

It makes me sick whenever liberals actually blame the death of victims like Matthew Shepard, who was brutally killed by thugs, on conservative Republicans.

"The Christian Right, per se, and some particular members on Capitol Hill, have helped inflame the air so that the air that these bad people breathed that night was filled, filled with the idea that somehow gays were different, and only are they different in that difference, they're bad and not only are they bad they are evil and therefore can be destroyed... I mentioned Trent Lott, Jesse Helms and Dick Armey particularly. The Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and the Concerned Women for America...'' -- Deborah Mathis

As our dear Ann observes in her book, "Slander", about the above quote...

"Mathis could remember the names of the destroyers with some precision, but the "three-step process" became rather vague between step one and step three. Without the second and third steps - the part where Republicans start hectoring the populace that gays "are evil and therefore can be destroyed" - the first "step" doesn't amount to much. Aren't gays "different"? Because if gays aren't different, then heterosexuals are different and Republicans have a lot more murders to answer for than Matthew Shepard's."

The Democratic Party is FAR from perfect.

Boy you're telling me. :xoxo:

They back down far too often because they're afraid of alienating fence-sitting voters... but at least they don't do that whole yellow-bellied, two-faced, "I have no problems with gay people, in fact some of my best friends are gay -- but I'm certainly not EVER going to do anything to protect their civil rights" Republican spiel.

You act as if gays have a seperate water fountain that they must drink out of!

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:48 AM

You act as if gays have a seperate water fountain that they must drink out of!

That was pretty low. I think denying gay people of their basic rights is comparable, don't you? Or do you think they don't deserve to marry who they love, or to be able to adopt kids because of their sexuality? Sure, they are treated so fairly, is that what you think?

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 12:49 AM

Apparently, wearing pink makes a guy look... :shocked:... gay.

Now, did I say that?

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:50 AM

I have myself struggled with capital punishment, but after knowing all of the horrific crimes these people have committed, I just feel it is just punishment. And you and I both know that most of these convicted murderers will never be put to death anyway.

You act as if gays have a seperate water fountain that they must drink out of!

Well the bible actually says in one part that life begins when the child takes its' first breath in no uncertain words.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.""

I think that says it. I for one although do believe that capital punishment is necessary in some very extreme instances, although not on a regular basis....

estranged4life

10-18-2005, 12:51 AM

Makes me WONDER why dont I get special treatment and my college paid for, for going to college in Calif since caucasions are now the minority in Calif...??

I will never leave Oklahoma for another state...The Cherokee Nation takes care of its own, No need to wait for the assclap US Government (Hey, I have 100% medical coverage through the Cherokee Nation...Something I'm sure in my lifetime the US government will never provide for its citizens.)

Btw, In Oklahoma the Native population is the Majority (I think I saw that stat at about 1.5 million of the 3.4 million here in the former end of the "Trail of Tears" known as the useless & barren "Indian Territory", UNTIL oil was discovered and yet again the so-called "US govt" decided to screw the native population. But ya know, what comes around goes around...Who has the $$$ in this state now? Sure aint other ethnic backgrounds except for the Native populations.)...Whites/Blacks/Everyone else are the minorities.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 12:51 AM

That was pretty low. I think denying gay people of their basic rights is comparable, don't you? Or do you think they don't deserve to marry who they love, or to be able to adopt kids because of their sexuality? Sure, they are treated so fairly, is that what you think?

Look I have gay friends and I do not have ANYTHING AGAINST GAY PEOPLE! But I'm sorry to say that there is no "right to gay marriage" (because let's be honest...that is what you are all talking about when you say "equal rights"). If you can find it in the constitution then you should be looking for Osama, because you can find anything.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 12:53 AM

Well the bible actually says in one part that life begins when the child takes its' first breath in no uncertain words.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.""

I think that says it. I for one although do believe that capital punishment is necessary in some very extreme instances, although not on a regular basis....

The bible also says that God knew each of us when we were in our mother’s womb, and breathed a soul into each of us before we were born.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:55 AM

Look I have gay friends and I do not have ANYTHING AGAINST GAY PEOPLE! But I'm sorry to say that there is no "right to gay marriage" (because let's be honest...that is what you are all talking about when you say "equal rights"). If you can find it in the constitution then you should be looking for Osama, because you can find anything.

Well I for one do not think the Constitution is some ruling document about peoples' rights. People were alive before the Constitution was written, does that mean those people deserved nothing because IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION?!?!?

And I have gay friends also, and I think it's quite sick that they are not allowed to pursue a marriage with the person they are in love with. In fact correct me if I'm wrong, but does the constitution say that a MAN and WOMAN have the right to be married? I don't think so.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 12:56 AM

The bible also says that God knew each of us when we were in our mother’s womb, and breathed a soul into each of us before we were born.

Well I guess he couldn't make up his mind then huh? So the bible thumpers take out the parts they like, and use it to act like that is the FINAL LAW.

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 12:58 AM

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:00 AM

Well the Massachusetts Supreme Court seems to disagree with you about that...

So again I say to you...If you can find a right to gay marriage in the constitution then you can find anything!

I think you're also sort of missing the point. It has to do with "traditional marriage" and conservative views of such a union.

Where in the constitution does it give me and a woman the right to be married? Nowhere, so that argument is dead.

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:00 AM

Well I guess he couldn't make up his mind then huh? So the bible thumpers take out the parts they like, and use it to act like that is the FINAL LAW.

Chris

No, not at all. I think that both statements are biblically true. And BTW...I think you should find the actual quote from the Bible before you go on a "bible thumpers are crazy" tirade.

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 01:00 AM

And the NAACP speaks for all black people? Thank GOD ten percent of black voters actually GET IT!So, the other 90% is, what, too uneducated to "get it"?

Well firstly you should remember that not ALL Republicans are for capital punishment. But the fact that you still, in some way, believe that you can compare abortion to capital punishment is quite scary.The comparison I'm making, and that you're ignoring, is that... if we're to follow God's Laws, as the Republicans say we should... then, in so much as that Christian beliefs dictate that ALL lives are created by God, therefore ALL lives should be respected.

It should not be a "pick and choose" situation.

And if this is what you think of the republican party and the conservative movement then you are misguided.

It makes me sick whenever liberals actually blame the death of victims like Matthew Shepard, who was brutally killed by thugs, on conservative Republicans.Certainly the entire Republican Party didn't beat and torture and leave Matthew Shepard for dead, but their determination to block Anti-Hate Crime laws... which would PROTECT gays and lesbians from such brutality... makes them complicit in his murder.

Any lawmaker who doesn't work to stop crime, might as well say they condone it.

You act as if gays have a seperate water fountain that they must drink out of!If guys like Rick Santorum (one of the Golden Boys of the Republican Party) had their way, we would be.

amber

10-18-2005, 01:01 AM

amber

10-18-2005, 01:02 AM

So, the other 90% is, what, too uneducated to "get it"?

The comparison I'm making, and that you're ignoring, is that... if we're to follow God's Laws, as the Republicans say we should... then, in so much as that Christian beliefs dictate that ALL lives are created by God, therefore ALL lives should be respected.

It should not be a "pick and choose" situation.

Certainly the entire Republican Party didn't beat and torture and leave Matthew Shepard for dead, but their determination to block Anti-Hate Crime laws... which would PROTECT gays and lesbians from such brutality... makes them complicit in his murder.

Any lawmaker who doesn't work to stop crime, might as well say they condone it.

If guys like Rick Santorum (one of the Golden Boys of the Republican Party) had their way, we would be.

Nice post, Stew, great logic. :xoxo:

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:05 AM

The pro lifers always use this biblical quote to make their claim of proof :

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works: and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them."

--Someone how they try to say that these lines PROVE that life begins at conception, when in fact they never say that. It basically says, God conceives us first, in kind of like a blueprint or book...before we are born God uses this to form our bodies. All that is described is the making of the human form. Nothing about having a SOUL when we are conceived.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:08 AM

And of course "Thou shall not kill" applies to abortion right???? No. There are many exceptions described in the bible to the "Thou shall not kill" commandment.. One being abortion, or a forced miscarriage (same thing!)

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:08 AM

So, the other 90% is, what, too uneducated to "get it"?

Well not so much "uneducated" as they are "misinformed" or "lied to". Not because they are black...but because they are democrats.

The comparison I'm making, and that you're ignoring, is that... if we're to follow God's Laws, as the Republicans say we should... then, in so much as that Christian beliefs dictate that ALL lives are created by God, therefore ALL lives should be respected.

It should not be a "pick and choose" situation.

I keep hearing so much about the right to life of the murderer, but what about the victim? Where was their "pick and choose" situation?

Certainly the entire Republican Party didn't beat and torture and leave Matthew Shepard for dead, but their determination to block Anti-Hate Crime laws... which would PROTECT gays and lesbians from such brutality... makes them complicit in his murder.

Any lawmaker who doesn't work to stop crime, might as well say they condone it.

And what makes you think that Republican law makers don't care about the brutal death of any person, regardless of whether they are gay or straight? The accused will be tried based upon the crime they are accused of committing. Why does there have to be "special" laws for gay and lesbian committed crimes? If we start prosecuting on the basis of these "Anti-hate crime" laws, then we can pretty much frivolously apply them to any criminal situation, right?

If guys like Rick Santorum (one of the Golden Boys of the Republican Party) had their way, we would be.

:lol:

:rolleyes:

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 01:08 AM

Just FYI, I learned in my Family Law class tonight that there are 1200 benefits that come with marriage that non married people don't have.That's exactly right, and thank you for pointing that out, Amber. :)

We're expected to console ourselves with Civil Unions... which don't even come CLOSE to affording us the rights and benefits of "marriage"... yet Republicans don't even want to allow those!!!

They refuse to throw us that measly little Civil Union crumb. In fact, they don't want us to have any rights at all, period.
Meanwhile, "some of (their) best friends are gay."

Well, excuse me, but I don't stab my best friends in the back.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:09 AM

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:11 AM

I keep hearing so much about the right to life of the murderer, but what about the victim? Where was their "pick and choose" situation?

:rolleyes:

A life is a life to God right? Or maybe not. THOU SHALL NOT KILL, come on buddy dont forget those great words..lol. seriously though, you are right a murderer does not deserve to live...but we are not God, and it's not up to us to determine who should live or die. Not mention the countless people who have been put to death, and who knows if they were REALLY guilty?

Chris

estranged4life

10-18-2005, 01:12 AM

Just FYI, I learned in my Family Law class tonight that there are 1200 benefits that come with marriage that non married people don't have.
Carry on, y'all know how I feel about what you are talking about.

But when the Bible Humpers here went to the polls to vote this past November on whether Oklahoma should recognize 'alternative lifestyle" marriages or outlaw 'em (Which was shot own, But y'all know how both Deb & myself voted) the Bible-militia forgot to read the whole law, Because when they thought they were making sure gay marriage would never happen they didnt check to see that the law also applies to "common law marriages"....Among others.

So all those folks who are "shacking up" and thinking they are technically legally married dont realized that they arent, Kinda ironic dontcha think that when they voted "Yes" to stop 'alternative lifestyle" marriages they actually stopped their own relationships moreso instead.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:12 AM

So when does God give us our soul? When we graduate from high school?

Well according to the man himself, when we breath our first breathe...

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:12 AM

[quote]They refuse to throw us that measly little Civil Union crumb. In fact, they don't want us to have any rights at all, period.
Meanwhile, "some of (their) best friends are gay."

That's right! Now remember to drink from your own fountain! :rolleyes:

amber

10-18-2005, 01:14 AM

And what makes you think that Republican law makers don't care about the brutal death of any person, regardless of whether they are gay or straight? The accused will be tried based upon the crime they are accused of committing. Why does there have to be "special" laws for gay and lesbian committed crimes? If we start prosecuting on the basis of these "Anti-hate crime" laws, then we can pretty much frivolously apply them to any criminal situation, right?

Because they spout anti gay rhetoric, and don't vote for laws to protect GLBT people.
There needs to be "special" laws, because, just like with minorities, people are "especially" prejudice, and will descriminate against GLBT people, just because of the nature of their sexuality (you know, just like "just because of the color of their skin" or "just because of their religious beliefs")
It's because some people are bigoted, is why some people need special protection.
It's appalling to me that you could not reach that conclusion by yourself, and says to me that you have little knowlege of history, law, or the real issues behind any civil rights.
And no, you can't apply them to any situation, because people are persecuted for the sole reason that they are GLBT. That's it. Just because of that. So you need laws in place to punish that.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:14 AM

A life is a life to God right? Or maybe not. THOU SHALL NOT KILL, come on buddy dont forget those great words..lol. seriously though, you are right a murderer does not deserve to live...but we are not God, and it's not up to us to determine who should live or die. Not mention the countless people who have been put to death, and who knows if they were REALLY guilty?

Chris

It's not like courts are handing out death sentences to speeders.

"See what happens when you go 60 in a 35"!

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:16 AM

Because they spout anti gay rhetoric, and don't vote for laws to protect GLBT people.
There needs to be "special" laws, because, just like with minorities, people are "especially" prejudice, and will descriminate against GLBT people, just because of the nature of their sexuality (you know, just like "just because of the color of their skin" or "just because of their religious beliefs")
It's because some people are bigoted, is why some people need special protection.
It's appalling to me that you could not reach that conclusion by yourself, and says to me that you have little knowlege of history, law, or the real issues behind any civil rights.
And no, you can't apply them to any situation, because people are persecuted for the sole reason that they are GLBT. That's it. Just because of that. So you need laws in place to punish that.

They will be prosecuted based upon THE CRIME THEY COMMITTED!

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:17 AM

It's not like courts are handing out death sentences to speeders.

"See what happens when you go 60 in a 35"!

So I guess you believe the courts HAVE NEVER convicted an innocent person? You take the extreme of every topic, I dont understand where you got out of my post that I think the courts are handing out death sentences to speeders, or even where I implied that their sentences were too harsh..That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about wrongful convictions, which we all know can happen--and SOMETIMES, although likely rare--innocent people die...is that ok?

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:19 AM

But when the Bible Humpers here went to the polls to vote this past November on whether Oklahoma should recognize 'alternative lifestyle" marriages or outlaw 'em (Which was shot own, But y'all know how both Deb & myself voted) the Bible-militia forgot to read the whole law, Because when they thought they were making sure gay marriage would never happen they didnt check to see that the law also applies to "common law marriages"....Among others.

So all those folks who are "shacking up" and thinking they are technically legally married dont realized that they arent, Kinda ironic dontcha think that when they voted "Yes" to stop 'alternative lifestyle" marriages they actually stopped their own relationships moreso instead.

Well you see that's just the thing. Liberals can't get anything passed the democratic way, by votes, so they turn to the courts...which isn't the courts' job.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:20 AM

They will be prosecuted based upon THE CRIME THEY COMMITTED!

Sure, if you do that then let's just make it where there are no EXTRA laws protecting children against violence. If you punch a child in the face, then HEY! you should get charged with misdemeanor assault right? Nothing more...everyone is the same.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:21 AM

Well you see that's just the thing. Liberals can't get anything passed the democratic way, by votes, so they turn to the courts...which isn't the courts' job.

I know right? Kind of like when Presidents get elected by the courts...Oh no wait thats different right?

Chris

heyjupiter678

10-18-2005, 01:21 AM

Sure, if you do that then let's just make it where there are no EXTRA laws protecting children against violence. If you punch a child in the face, then HEY! you should get charged with misdemeanor assault right? Nothing more...everyone is the same.
Excellent point. :nod:

amber

10-18-2005, 01:21 AM

They will be prosecuted based upon THE CRIME THEY COMMITTED!
no, they may not.
You obviously have little knowlege of how prejudice, coupled with our legal system, actually works.
I just remembered again why I try not to argue with you. It's because you seem to simultaneously have only very little information and incredibly prejudice views as the basis for your arguments.
See ya. :wavey:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:23 AM

So I guess you believe the courts HAVE NEVER convicted an innocent person? You take the extreme of every topic, I dont understand where you got out of my post that I think the courts are handing out death sentences to speeders, or even where I implied that their sentences were too harsh..That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about wrongful convictions, which we all know can happen--and SOMETIMES, although likely rare--innocent people die...is that ok?

Chris

Learn to laugh a little buddy. I NEVER said ANYWHERE in my post that I thought you thought the courts are "handing out death sentences to speeders". It was a little joke, but still there was a point behind it.

Wrongful convictions happen, yes. The judicial system is by no means perfect. However, the courts aren't handing down death sentences every hour. Like the point I was trying to make in my little joke above that you didn't get, obviously.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:23 AM

no, they may not.
You obviously have little knowlege of how prejudice, coupled with our legal system, actually works.
I just remembered again why I try not to argue with you. It's because you seem to simultaneously have only very little information and incredibly prejudice views as the basis for your arguments.
See ya. :wavey:

Yes and eventually once he feels completely outsmarted and out argued he will end it with a grand "Well there's not point in arguing about this because we're not going to change anyone's mind!" I think he has said that in like every political thread.

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:24 AM

estranged4life

10-18-2005, 01:24 AM

So when does God give us our soul? When we graduate from high school?

I didnt get my soul because I refused to participate in that stupid ass "commencement proceeding" walking across the stage for an EMPTY diploma holder...Maybe that dumb and EMPTY diploma holder was my soul?

Darn, Wonder if God still has it safely in storage???

Be right back...Gotta send a long distance collect call (Hell yeah let him pay for it...The Catholics collect that money for him right? I am sure he can afford to pay a few $$$ for the call!) to the big "G" guy.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:25 AM

Yes and eventually once he feels completely outsmarted and out argued he will end it with a grand "Well there's not point in arguing about this because we're not going to change anyone's mind!" I think he has said that in like every political thread.

Chris

Ok, now we are talking about me like I am not even here.

It seems to me that I'm not the one who is feeling "outsmarted" here. Lighten up a little.

And, btw...Why is it "wrong" to just say Well there's not point in arguing about this because we're not going to change anyone's mind!"? Do you not agree with that? I think once a discussion/argument continues in circles, it's pretty clear that no one is getting anywhere. I'm not the only ledgie to have made such a statement in the middle of a discussion.

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 01:26 AM

Well not so much "uneducated" as they are "misinformed" or "lied to". Not because they are black...but because they are democrats.Funny, I'm a pretty intelligent individual (pardon my momentary lapse of humility) and I completely see through the Republican malarky.
But then I've always been more concerned about fighting for someone else's rights, than I am about whether or not I'll have to pay higher taxes.

And what makes you think that Republican law makers don't care about the brutal death of any person, regardless of whether they are gay or straight? The accused will be tried based upon the crime they are accused of committing. Why does there have to be "special" laws for gay and lesbian committed crimes? If we start prosecuting on the basis of these "Anti-hate crime" laws, then we can pretty much frivolously apply them to any criminal situation, right?So you think that a guy who beats the crap out of another guy over some woman in a moronic barfight and a guy who beats and tortures someone because they're homosexual, should get the same sentencing?

Anti-Hate Crime laws are meant to insure that someone doesn't get a simple slap on the wrist and then sent back out on the streets in 12 months to bash another gay man's brains in.

It is the duty of those in power to protect those who cannot defend themselves.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:26 AM

Ok, now we are talking about me like I am not even here.

It seems to me that I'm not the one who is feeling "outsmarted" here. Lighten up a little.

No I do realize you are here. And believe me when I tell you a neo-conservative has NEVER made me feel outsmarted :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:30 AM

No I do realize you are here. And believe me when I tell you a neo-conservative has NEVER made me feel outsmarted :laugh:

So we can't be just conservatives?...We have to be "neocons" or "right-wing nuts" or the "religious right". But never just conservatives.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:31 AM

So we can't be just conservatives?...We have to be "neocons" or "right-wing nuts" or the "religious right". But never just conservatives.

No there is a difference, however I just do not meet too many plain "conservatives."

Chris

ragandbone

10-18-2005, 01:32 AM

I know right? Kind of like when Presidents get elected by the courts...Oh no wait thats different right?

Chris
Thank you!:nod:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:32 AM

No there is a difference, however I just do not meet too many plain "conservatives."

Chris

And you think a plain "conservative" would somehow differ from "mean ol' me"?

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 01:33 AM

So we can't be just conservatives?...We have to be "neocons" or "right-wing nuts" or the "religious right". But never just conservatives.I apologize on behalf of all the liberals here, Brandon.

We keep forgetting that you and Annie never stereotype us or make cracks about our intelligence.

estranged4life

10-18-2005, 01:36 AM

No there is a difference, however I just do not meet too many plain "conservatives."

Chris

but I grew tired of the BS fest, so I went towards the grey happy confines of the middle ground...I may have been a registered Repub, but I never thought like one or had the same beliefs (I am very open minded on most issues...except Network TV programming & lame US music trends, Then I am a total snob.)

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:36 AM

I apologize on behalf of all the liberals here, Brandon.

We keep forgetting that you and Annie never stereotype us or make cracks about our intelligence.

Yea but you are called liberals. I rarely hear "left wing nut" or "agnostic fanatics". Just liberals.

And don't forget about a sense of humor. If you are allowed to say vicious things about us and laugh, then why the hell can't we do the same? ;) :xoxo:

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:37 AM

And you think a plain "conservative" would somehow differ from "mean ol' me"?

Yes, they would strongly differ. True conservatives would never support a President who supports such "big government" as W. A president who has absolutely no problem throwing money into a big black economic hole, called Iraq.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:40 AM

Yes, they would strongly differ. True conservatives would never support a President who supports such "big government" as W. A president who has absolutely no problem throwing money into a big black economic hole, called Iraq.

You show in the above statement that you know very little about me then. Because I'm not a big fan of the Bush administration, although I do believe that his administration has done good things. But I also am not going to go around and accuse him of ludicrous things, like liberals.

BTW. Tax cuts = greater revenue, as proven by Reagan. That is how you pay for a war.

But hey I'm not going to disagree with you much here. He has not been a very conservative president.

estranged4life

10-18-2005, 01:40 AM

Yes, they would strongly differ. True conservatives would never support a President who supports such "big government" as W. A president who has absolutely no problem throwing money into a big black economic hole, called Iraq.

it is big alright...a big steamin' pile of XXXX!!!!

Brian "The politics of America-AKA the big wet cowchip field...Careful where ya step y'all" j.

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 01:41 AM

Yea but you are called liberals. I rarely hear "left wing nut" or "agnostic fanatics". Just liberals.I guess "Communists" isn't a bad enough label. Or "Anti-Americans." :rolleyes:

And don't forget about a sense of humor. If you are allowed to say vicious things about us and laugh, then why the hell can't we do the same? ;) :xoxo:I never said you and other Republicans can't poke fun, but don't cry foul when the tables are turned. Makes you sound like babies.

But for the record, guys like Limbaugh and Savage are the ones who started with the name-calling and belittling of those who don't agree with them.
Quite a legacy to be proud of there!

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:42 AM

You show in the above statement that you know very little about me then. Because I'm not a big fan of the Bush administration, although I do believe that his administration has done good things. But I also am not going to go around and accuse him of ludicrous things, like liberals.

BTW. Tax cuts = greater revenue, as proven by Reagan. That is how you pay for a war.

But hey I'm not going to disagree with you much here. He has not been a very conservative president.

Well you support the administration nonetheless, and is my assumption correct that you voted for him? Therefore that means you support him.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:45 AM

I guess "Communists" isn't a bad enough label. Or "Anti-Americans." :rolleyes:

I never said you and other Republicans can't poke fun, but don't cry foul when the tables are turned. Makes you sound like babies.

But for the record, guys like Limbaugh and Savage are the ones who started with the name-calling and belittling of those who don't agree with them.
Quite a legacy to be proud of there!

Of course we have no problem with a little invective. However the things that conservatives say about liberals happen to be true! It sounds like slander to the average person, because the things that liberals have done are insane, and one can't help but to ask..."That can't be true...can it?"

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:48 AM

Of course we have no problem with a little invective. However the things that conservatives say about liberals happen to be true! It sounds like slander to the average person, because the things that liberals have done are insane, and one can't help but to ask..."That can't be true...can it?"

Well I know you predicted it, but what you guys say for the most part about liberals is in fact NOT true, and what we say about conservatives IS true. You should meet a Republican like my grandpa, who agrees with everything I have ever said about Republicans, and denies none of it--however the difference is he thinks these things that I bitch about conservatives and "Accuse" them of, are perfectly fine, and sees nothing wrong with them...for example He agrees Republicans are for the most part racist (sees nothing wrong with that, he hates blacks).

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:48 AM

Well you support the administration nonetheless, and is my assumption correct that you voted for him? Therefore that means you support him.

Well it's not like your party gave us any option. A man who lives off of his rich wives...What? We were supposed to vote for him?

No I voted for Bush because I had relatively no qualms during his first term. But lately he has been upsetting me a great deal. With the border control issues and of course the INSANE nomination of Harriet Miers...

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 01:49 AM

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:51 AM

Well it's not like your party gave us any option. A man who lives off of his rich wives...What? We were supposed to vote for him?

No I voted for Bush because I had relatively no qualms during his first term. But lately he has been upsetting me a great deal. With the border control issues and of course the INSANE nomination of Harriet Miers...

So you're only issue with Kerry was that his wife is rich, wow that's powerful! Of course not to mention that W has been living off his Daddy his whole life, but that doesn't count..lol...

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:52 AM

Well I know you predicted it, but what you guys say for the most part about liberals is in fact NOT true, and what we say about conservatives IS true.

:distress: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You should meet a Republican like my grandpa, who agrees with everything I have ever said about Republicans, and denies none of it--however the difference is he thinks these things that I bitch about conservatives and "Accuse" them of, are perfectly fine, and sees nothing wrong with them...for example He agrees Republicans are for the most part racist (sees nothing wrong with that, he hates blacks).

Oh there you go. Your grandpa now speaks for me and all of the other TRUE conservatives out there. We are all racist pigs! We take it all back...you were right.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:54 AM

:distress: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Oh there you go. Your grandpa now speaks for me and all of the other TRUE conservatives out there. We are all racist pigs! We take it all back...you were right.

No actually I didn't say that, but I did not expect you to actually READ what I wrote and try to understand it. What I was trying to explain is that it's not that we're just ACCUSING you guys of this stuff, plenty of Republicans agree with us...but the difference is they don't see anything wrong with it! Of course ALL republicans are not racist pigs...but I always say, all republicans are not racists, but I bet you would find that 99% of racists ARE republicans.

Chris

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:54 AM

So you're only issue with Kerry was that his wife is rich, wow that's powerful! Of course not to mention that W has been living off his Daddy his whole life, but that doesn't count..lol...

No that was not MY ONLY qualm about Kerry. I can't list them all, I don't want to bore you to tears. However "living off of your WIVES" is a good indication to me that this is a man you don't want running the country...especially during a war!

"I voted for the war before I voted against it"

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 01:56 AM

No that was not MY ONLY qualm about Kerry. I can't list them all, I don't want to bore you to tears. However "living off of your WIVES" is a good indication to me that this is a man you don't want running the country...especially during a war!

"I voted for the war before I voted against it"

I know God forbid, we had someone running a war who actually fought in one...Man that would just be DUMB! Oh yes, I forgot Kerry didn't REALLY fight in the Vietnam war, it was all MADE UP!

Chris

heyjupiter678

10-18-2005, 01:56 AM

Your grandpa now speaks for me and all of the other TRUE conservatives out there.
Aaaand "No True Scotsman" rears its ugly head . . . It was just a matter of time.

amber

10-18-2005, 01:58 AM

Insult and then leave...just like you amber! :wavey: :lol:
I don't like to leave an argument, but you honestly have so little true information, and your views are so bigoted, and you are so illogical, that there really is no true basis for any kind of productive argument. :shrug: It's like we're from two different solar systems.
Sad, but true. :wavey:
And, if you check my record, I'm actually not much of an "insulter than leave" type of person. Just saying. If there is any common basis, any common logic, I'll sit and argue till the cows come home, and I think others will attest to that. So, your feeble attempt at attacking my credibility is tenuous at best.
Okay, carry on, y'all!:wavey:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 01:58 AM

No actually I didn't say that, but I did not expect you to actually READ what I wrote and try to understand it. What I was trying to explain is that it's not that we're just ACCUSING you guys of this stuff, plenty of Republicans agree with us...but the difference is they don't see anything wrong with it! Of course ALL republicans are not racist pigs...but I always say, all republicans are not racists, but I bet you would find that 99% of racists ARE republicans.

Chris

Ok. I read it and then I read it again and again and then one last time just to make sure. And still I am somehow getting out of it that you are implying that most Republicans are racist but we just don't admit it. Am I wrong?

And I love your statistics. Where did you find them?

BTW...You are PROVING my point and thank you for that. Liberals will say the most hateful things about Conservatives and get away with it. "RACIST", "HOMOPHOBIC", "FASCIST"!

ragandbone

10-18-2005, 01:59 AM

BTW. Tax cuts = greater revenue, as proven by Reagan. That is how you pay for a war.

Ok, you mean like tax cuts for business, and then the businessmen help fund some covert operations using their business acumen, and some international "trade". So that's how Reagan saved so much money!

Oh but wait, the deficit grew under Reagan ($208 billion in 1983 fiscal year from $79 billion in the 1981 fiscal year)...now I am all confused.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:01 AM

And, if you check my record, I'm actually not much of an "insulter than leave" type of person.

You are right. I stand corrected. You are more of an insult, hang around and then insult some more...type of person. Come on, don't I at least garner that much attention from you? :confused: :o

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 02:03 AM

Ok. I read it and then I read it again and again and then one last time just to make sure. And still I am somehow getting out of it that you are implying that most Republicans are racist but we just don't admit it. Am I wrong?

And I love your statistics. Where did you find them?

BTW...You are PROVING my point and thank you for that. Liberals will say the most hateful things about Conservatives and get away with it. "RACIST", "HOMOPHOBIC", "FASCIST"!

Yes and your argument for that is it's OK for you guys to say equally as "mean" things about us because the difference is it is all "True." We all hate America (funny I love America!), We wanted to "offer therapy" to the terrorists..lol

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:03 AM

Ok, you mean like tax cuts for business, and then the businessmen help fund some covert operations using their business acumen, and some international "trade". So that's how Reagan saved so much money!

Oh but wait, the deficit grew under Reagan ($208 billion in 1983 fiscal year from $79 billion in the 1981 fiscal year)...now I am all confused.

Ok these numbers are from early in his administration. Who was President before him? Thank you...

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 02:06 AM

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:07 AM

Yes and your argument for that is it's OK for you guys to say equally as "mean" things about us because the difference is it is all "True." We all hate America (funny I love America!), We wanted to "offer therapy" to the terrorists..lol

I don't think you ALL HATE AMERICA. However, I do think you are associated with the party that always seems to take the side that will most undermine America.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:09 AM

I don't know if you are racist or not Brown Eyes, but I have read your jokes about fried chicken and watermelon, which I'm sure had no racial intention at all in them. We also saw you tell that you can't comprehend WHY it's inappropriate for white people to use the "n-word"

I don't remember saying anything about white people using the "n-word". I personally feel the word should be done away with all together. I don't think anyone should use it, regardless of their race.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 02:09 AM

I don't think you ALL HATE AMERICA. However, I do think you are associated with the party that always seems to take the side that will most undermine America.

The party who since 9/11 has wanted to dismantle the Al Qaeda terrorist network, and get rid of those who attacked our country on that day...and NOT the party of those who I guess felt it was too hard to catch Osama Bin Laden, and to take focus off of those failures decided to take us to war with a country that had never attacked America at all...and base the war on lies and faulty intelligence..Who's undermining America???

Chris

tynan88

10-18-2005, 02:10 AM

What is it about you guys.

In all serious it appears to me that every single political discussion in this place seems to resort to name calling, doube standards and illogical arguments on both sides.

Political discussion is important, however it is not very enlightening when both sides are so distinctly closed minded and set in interpreting the other in a particular way that will more effectively suit their needs.

I don't want to sound big, but it gets frustrating because this is not really a political discussion.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:10 AM

Aaaand "No True Scotsman" rears its ugly head . . . It was just a matter of time.

You do realize that that statement was intended with much sarcasm, right?

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 02:12 AM

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 02:12 AM

Ok these numbers are from early in his administration. Who was President before him? Thank you...Reagan was elected in November of 1980.
1983 was near the end of his first term.

Keeping in mind that those fiscal reports were issued in 1984, it seems illogical to believe that Carter could be responsible for a $129 billion dollar increase that happened while someone else was in the White House for a full three years.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:12 AM

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 02:13 AM

You are correct. It started out that way...but it now has segued into something else. Which I will be blamed for I'm sure.

Well I don't blame you for "IT" at all actually..because I don't think any wrongful discussion has taken place here this evening. I think all of us, for the most part ,have been somewhat civil here..

Chris

ragandbone

10-18-2005, 02:14 AM

Ok these numbers are from early in his administration. Who was President before him? Thank you...
The low deficit was from Carter. The deficit grew under Reagan as a result of tax cuts and military spending (defense contracts, not a war) and even Reagan's people were dismayed at the deficit. Then the spin was that deficits are not such a bad thing.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:14 AM

tynan88

10-18-2005, 02:14 AM

Well first off, most of what we have discussed is in fact POLITICAL. Of course not all of it is, sometimes we like to go off topic, as in most threads..and sometimes we like to have a little fun with "the other side."

Like I said I like political discussions but generally some based on a sense of objectivity. I am hardly conservative but I am often able to see the perspective of one, nor do I consider myself a liberal.

It seems that it is often it turns in to everything conservative is bad or everything liberal is bad.

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 02:14 AM

I don't remember saying anything about white people using the "n-word". I personally feel the word should be done away with all together. I don't think anyone should use it, regardless of their race.To clarify... you never said that you don't understand why using the word is inappropriate. But you've certainly demonstrated that you lack that understanding.

And, without speaking for Chris, I think that's what he meant.

amber

10-18-2005, 02:16 AM

You are right. I stand corrected. You are more of an insult, hang around and then insult some more...type of person. Come on, don't I at least garner that much attention from you? :confused: :o
A) That's not actually true.
B) No, you don't warrant/garner that much attention.
C) You just think that because I always insult YOU. I'm not like that with normal people.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 02:16 AM

Like I said I like political discussions but generally some based on a sense of objectivity. I am hardly conservative but I am often able to see the perspective of one, nor do I consider myself a liberal.

It seems that it is often it turns in to everything conservative is bad or everything liberal is bad.

Well I think what you are leaving out is, there are people who are in fact ,not like you and hold VERY CONSERVATIVE ideals or VERY LIBERAL ideals..it's not always that the very liberal person AUTOMATICALLY thinks everything the very conservative person says is wrong just for the sake of causing an argument--often their beliefs are that far apart that they can sometimes not agree on anything. However in my case, I don't think everything conservative is bad, and believe it or not I'm more of a moderate.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:19 AM

A) That's not actually true.
B) No, you don't warrant/garner that much attention.
C) You just think that because I always insult YOU. I'm not like that with normal people.

And I'm not "normal" because I have a different opinion about how the country should be run!? Hmmm...well, whatever floats your boat I imagine. I suppose "tolerance" stops with conservative views.

Thank God I have other people on the ledge whose friendship I value.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 02:21 AM

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:24 AM

To clarify... you never said that you don't understand why using the word is inappropriate. But you've certainly demonstrated that you lack that understanding.

And, without speaking for Chris, I think that's what he meant.

I think the word is one of the most violent words in the english language and should be done away with! No one should use it...not blacks and, of course, not whites.

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 02:25 AM

I think the word is one of the most violent words in the english language and should be done away with! No one should use it...not blacks and, of course, not whites.

Well see we can all find SOMETHING we can agree on right? :blob2:

Chris

tynan88

10-18-2005, 02:26 AM

It's the personal nature of the conversation to a degree I don't stand as well, although it does help provide a background on the person, the seeming inability to recognise that in this argument really no one in what I have read has been able to back it up with anything substantial...I mean both opinions ae unsubstantiated...hell I don't even know what the opinions are on anymore, it has just become a slanging match :lol:

amber

10-18-2005, 02:28 AM

And I'm not "normal" because I have a different opinion about how the country should be run!? Hmmm...well, whatever floats your boat I imagine. I suppose "tolerance" stops with conservative views.

Thank God I have other people on the ledge whose friendship I value.
I think you are not normal because what you believe flies in the face of logic, science, and all the information we know about how the world works best.
I'm not blindly ideological, I'm blindly intellectual. What that means, is that I study all science, I study all history, I study all sociology, I study all biology, I study all physics, I study all economics, throughout history....
And then I form my opinion, based on all the information that is available to me.
The fact that you do not, is the great divide. It's not my intolerance, trust me. :woohoo:
It's merely your ignorance of all that you could know that presents the great divide. Good try, though!

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:28 AM

Reagan was elected in November of 1980.
1983 was near the end of his first term.

Keeping in mind that those fiscal reports were issued in 1984, it seems illogical to believe that Carter could be responsible for a $129 billion dollar increase that happened while someone else was in the White House for a full three years.

Reagan pushed through the Kemp-Roth tax cuts that slashed marginal rates 25 percent. Of course most liberals say that his tax cuts were "irresponsible" based on deficits. That is, of course, nuts. Federal tax revenues went up under Reagan's two terms, from $517 billion in fiscal 1980 to $909 billion in fiscal 1988. Hence, the massive Reagan deficits were due to spending that grew even faster than revenues.

side note...also the rate of inflation was higher in the Carter years than under Reagan

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:30 AM

I think you are not normal because what you believe flies in the face of logic, science, and all the information we know about how the world works best.
I'm not blindly ideological, I'm blindly intellectual. What that means, is that I study all science, I study all history, I study all sociology, I study all biology, I study all physics, I study all economics, throughout history....
And then I form my opinion, based on all the information that is available to me.
The fact that you do not, is the great divide. It's not my intolerance, trust me. :woohoo:
It's merely your ignorance of all that you could know that presents the great divide. Good try, though!

And of course I don't make opinions based on "all the information that is avaliable to me." Why would I go and do a silly thing like that. :rolleyes:

I thought you were leaving?

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:31 AM

Well see we can all find SOMETHING we can agree on right? :blob2:

Chris

Well, yea! :) :nod:

ShangriLaTroubl

10-18-2005, 02:32 AM

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:33 AM

Well I must go to bed now...I have to get up early and prepare a speech for my Comm class...and what do ya know, my speech is about the importance of politics in my life...Thanks BrownEyes, you have made me see EVEN more so how important it is by sharing your views, and me knowing how much I disagree with most of them...

Care if I quote u in my speech? Ha

Chris

Oh God. Well what are you going to say. Perhaps I can word it better...:lol: Well, if you do use me as an example I will probably come out looking like an idiot...so...

and btw...I didn't realize that we were the same age...lol

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 02:36 AM

Federal tax revenues went up under Reagan's two terms, from $517 billion in fiscal 1980 to $909 billion in fiscal 1988. Hence, the massive Reagan deficits were due to spending that grew even faster than revenues.That seems to be an about-face from:

these numbers are from early in his administration. Who was President before him? Thank you...

No?

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:39 AM

That seems to be an about-face from:

No?

Ehhh. Yea, I wasn't clear about the deficit situation. Sorry...:o

Moony

10-18-2005, 02:42 AM

ragandbone

10-18-2005, 02:42 AM

Which I will be blamed for I'm sure.
Do you think you are a scapegoat?
This is interesting, and can link back to the GLBT and hate crimes part of the discussion. There have been a lot of studies (not here at my finger tips) about scapegoating because it seems to foment violent acts, and many feel it is even at the root of genocide.
The reason it is important to prosecute "hate" crimes differently is that a hate crime, though it might be perpetrated by one violent individual, might also be seen as part of a larger and more dangerous wave- violence that incites violence - the violence of a mob.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:44 AM

Interesting article about the difference between Reagan and Bush deficits...

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/231228.shtml

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:46 AM

Thank you for reminding me why I despise you.

Sorry you feel that way. :o

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:47 AM

Do you think you are a scapegoat?

No, not generally.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:48 AM

also...

A study from the Cato Institute said:

Real economic growth averaged 3.2 percent during the Reagan years versus 2.8 percent during the Ford-Carter years and 2.1 percent during the Bush-Clinton years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 02:50 AM

Ehhh. Yea, I wasn't clear about the deficit situation. Sorry...:oAt least we were able to clarify that your initial comment was merely a knee-jerk attempt at blaming a Democrat former-president for the inadequacies of a Republican then-sitting president. ;)

So all is forgiven. :xoxo:

amber

10-18-2005, 02:50 AM

And of course I don't make opinions based on "all the information that is avaliable to me." Why would I go and do a silly thing like that. :rolleyes:

I thought you were leaving?
My point is that you don't actually seek out, or know, or whatever, all the information you could know.
I'm not saying you aren't basing your opinions on all the info you know, I'm saying you should know sooooo much more info. But you really don't seem to. It's like you haven't studied anything. It's kind of sad, really. :distress:

Note for Moony - TWYMF!!!!!! We're like, the logically intolerant twins! :lol: :xoxo:
If you weren't so emo, we'd totally be supertwins! lol.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:55 AM

At least we were able to clarify that your initial comment was merely a knee-jerk attempt at blaming a Democrat former-president for the inadequacies of a Republican then-sitting president. ;)

So all is forgiven. :xoxo:

Well...not REALLY. As I pointed out before, the rate of inflation was higher in the Carter years than under Reagan.

Moony

10-18-2005, 02:55 AM

Note for Moony - TWYMF!!!!!! We're like, the logically intolerant twins! :lol: :xoxo:
If you weren't so emo, we'd totally be supertwins! lol.
Ha! I'm not emo!!

:rolleyes: :lol:

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 02:57 AM

Sorry you feel that way. :oWhile I certainly don't despise you, I do understand where Moony is coming from.

It's not easy to befriend people who tell you to your face that they have no problems with gay people, but then turn around and vote to deny your civil rights.

Honorable people would support and fight for the things that would improve the quality of their friends' lives. Not actively shoot them down.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:58 AM

My point is that you don't actually seek out, or know, or whatever, all the information you could know.
I'm not saying you aren't basing your opinions on all the info you know, I'm saying you should know sooooo much more info. But you really don't seem to. It's like you haven't studied anything. It's kind of sad, really. :distress:

Sorry I don't live up to your lofty expectations. What exactly is it that you would like me to study? Say, why doesn’t Bush nominate you to the USSC? In all honesty you should be AT LEAST as qualified as Harriet "the cleaning lady" Miers.

oh where is Josh, I miss him so. lol

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 02:59 AM

While I certainly don't despise you, I do understand where Moony is coming from.

It's not easy to befriend people who tell you to your face that they have no problems with gay people, but then turn around and vote to deny your civil rights.

Honorable people would support and fight for the things that would improve the quality of their friends' lives. Not actively shoot them down.

Well that's where we disagree. I don't see it as a "civil rights" issue.

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 03:01 AM

Well...not REALLY. As I pointed out before, the rate of inflation was higher in the Carter years than under Reagan.Economic growth isn't the least bit impressive if the deficit is growing even faster.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn't work, and if someone tried to run a household like that, they'd end up bankrupt.

Moony

10-18-2005, 03:01 AM

oh where is Josh, I miss him so. lol
He'd be ripping you apart in this thread.

And thanks, Johnny :)

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 03:17 AM

Well that's where we disagree. I don't see it as a "civil rights" issue.Ok, ignoring the fact that, as a gay man, I am not allowed to adopt in many states, and the fact that I am unable to marry my boyfriend, and that in many places I have zero legal recourse if I am fired from my job simply because of my sexual orientation, and that if I had a mate of 20 years, I still wouldn't have the same benefits and rights as a heterosexual "common law" couple who were together for a shorter amount of time, and ignoring the fact that I can be denied housing and employment based SOLELY on my sexual orientation.... what would make it a "civil rights" issue in your mind?

Does it have to come down to us being ushered to the back of the bus or being made to drink out of a separate water fountain?

Are those the only signs that there is a "civil rights" issue?

If you do have gay friends, shouldn't you want what's best for them?
Shouldn't you want to see an improvement in the quality of their lives and in the opportunities that are afforded them?

Is that tiny little tax-break that Republicans promise you, so important that it's worth seeing your "friends" being treated like third-class citizens?

Or maybe behind your facade of friendship, you secretly believe that they are third-class citizens.

Food for thought.

amber

10-18-2005, 03:23 AM

Sorry I don't live up to your lofty expectations. What exactly is it that you would like me to study? Say, why doesn’t Bush nominate you to the USSC? In all honesty you should be AT LEAST as qualified as Harriet "the cleaning lady" Miers.

oh where is Josh, I miss him so. lol
What I wish is that you'd have studied is all the history, economics, sociology, science, etc. that I have studied. No big, just the stuff you learn in school. And by being aware, and reading.
Also you should have studied "world cultural history and sociology" which it seems you have not.
There are whoooole other ways of thinking, dude. Logical ways. Ways that benefit everyone, and are wholistically practical. You seem to have no, and I mean NO, knowlege of these theories/ways.
God, it's sooo sad! :distress: It's so sad that a bulk of the population does not know what you do not know!
Which reminds me of my point that:
Republicans don't cut educational spending on accident, or at random. They do it to produce people who know as little as you know, and who can therefore be fooled by simple, illogical rhetoric. It just breaks my heart.
I'm so sorry you've been a victim of the system this way.:wavey:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 03:24 AM

He'd be ripping you apart in this thread.

And thanks, Johnny :)
Yea but I actually am quite FOND of him. I may be wrong, but I see Josh as someone who is able to argue politics and separate it from how you view a person individually. I enjoy arguing/discussing with Josh...we both have a taste for the invective without taking it too far.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 03:34 AM

What I wish you'd have studied is all the history, economics, sociology, science, etc. that I have studied. No big, just the stuff you learn in school. Also you should have studied "world cultural history and sociology" which it seems you have not.

Well actually I have. Now I did not attend a 4-year university, but I don't see how that would make me any less qualified to discuss current events.

There are whoooole other ways of thinking, dude. Logical ways. Ways that benefit everyone, and are wholistically practical. You seem to have no, and I mean NO, knowlege of these theories/ways.

I suppose you are talking about liberal ideas right?

God, it's sooo sad! :distress: It's so sad that a bulk of the population does not know what you do not know!
Which reminds me of my point that:
Republicans don't cut educational spending on accident, or at random. They do it to produce people who know as little as you know, and who can therefore be fooled by simple, illogical rhetoric. It just breaks my heart.
I'm so sorry you've been a victim of the system this way.:wavey:

That is ridiculous and down right hateful.

However, about cutting educational spending...we should do away with the department of education all together.

Oh and if you define Ann Coulter as a "victim" of the system then I am MORE THAN HAPPY to jump in the ship!

Moony

10-18-2005, 03:38 AM

That is ridiculous and down right hateful.

That's rich, coming from you.

Goodnight.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 03:47 AM

Ok, ignoring the fact that, as a gay man, I am not allowed to adopt in many states, and the fact that I am unable to marry my boyfriend, and that in many places I have zero legal recourse if I am fired from my job simply because of my sexual orientation, and that if I had a mate of 20 years, I still wouldn't have the same benefits and rights as a heterosexual "common law" couple who were together for a shorter amount of time, and ignoring the fact that I can be denied housing and employment based SOLELY on my sexual orientation.... what would make it a "civil rights" issue in your mind?

Does it have to come down to us being ushered to the back of the bus or being made to drink out of a separate water fountain?

Are those the only signs that there is a "civil rights" issue?

If you do have gay friends, shouldn't you want what's best for them?
Shouldn't you want to see an improvement in the quality of their lives and in the opportunities that are afforded them?

Is that tiny little tax-break that Republicans promise you, so important that it's worth seeing your "friends" being treated like third-class citizens?

Or maybe behind your facade of friendship, you secretly believe that they are third-class citizens.

Food for thought.

I don't believe that gays are "third class citizens". And I don't understand how you somehow pulled that out of what I said. I said, in a round about way, that I don't think that the supposed constitutional "right" to gay marriage is an infringement on civil rights.

Personally, I don't care who you live with or who you sleep with. "Gay Marriage" is not very high on my list of "the reasons why I'm a Republican." In other words, if it were to pass that gays could get married, it really wouldn't bother me at all. But the fact is, based on constitutional interpretation, there is no "hidden gay marriage clause". If gays are going to make an argument for a right to gay marriage, I think a different approach is going to be necessary.

A lot of the gay people that I have known in the past say that they could care less about gay marriage and it is not a major issue for them (I swear I am not making it up). And shockingly enough, I have actually known a gay republican or two. lol. I know it doesn't happen that often.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 03:50 AM

That's rich, coming from you.

Goodnight.

I'm not hateful. I can come off as a bit vitriolic at times, but what she said just struck me as rude and offensive. That somehow I'm not competent to be in a political argument because I lack education. My question is, did she not attend schooling at all? So would she not be a product of the same "system"?

amber

10-18-2005, 03:52 AM

Yea but I actually am quite FOND of him. I may be wrong, but I see Josh as someone who is able to argue politics and separate it from how you view a person individually. I enjoy arguing/discussing with Josh...we both have a taste for the invective without taking it too far.
Yeah, of course it's funner to talk with someone you have a crush on....:)
And you know he does take it as far as anyone else here has. The only reason you find it more acceptable is because of your crush.
Because everything everyone has said here has been way more mild than what Diss would have said.
But owing to your crush, you find it more acceptable when Diss says it.
ie, you are sooo transparent!!!:) :wavey:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 04:02 AM

Yeah, of course it's funner to talk with someone you have a crush on....:)
And you know he does take it as far as anyone else here has. The only reason you find it more acceptable is because of your crush.
Because everything everyone has said here has been way more mild than what Diss would have said.
But owing to your crush, you find it more acceptable when Diss says it.
ie, you are sooo transparent!!!:) :wavey:

And you are a little off, amber. But looking back...ehh...you are right. I usually don't get offended easily. Congratulations, you managed to do what most are unable to do! However, at the end of the day politics is simply politics and I don't have any hard feelings towards anyone here.

And I SOOOOOOO do no have a crush on him. I just enjoy his presence here on the ledge. But....If I had to go gay from somebody it would be for Josh! :lol: :lol: :lol:

sparky

10-18-2005, 04:34 AM

:lol:

:rolleyes:

Number one...why, Johnny are you arguing with an idiot ? Idiots never listen and cannot have a dialogue.

Number two...to the knee jerk, non thinking, black and white adhere to a party at all costs idiot...one your heroes is DEAD and I am glad he SUFFERED...and BTW I will dance on the other one's grave as well. Neither ever helped another human being in their lives. Thanks for making me gag and nearly vomit at the very sight of either one of those charlatans. I think I will block your myopic non thinking ass. It will make my life easier.

:xoxo: :xoxo:

Carry on !

P.S.

JS - Try bangin your head on a rock. It will listen better. It has more brains.

And BTW, gimme a strike for calling spade a spade.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 06:25 AM

So denying minorities a law that will protect them from discrimination, and will help level the playing field for them, isn't racist? . . . .

Affirmative Action in its present form does not meet that goal and the R's and D's know it. For example, why is it better the son of rich black person to get preference in acceptance to college because of something that did not happen to them, their parents, and perhaps their grandparents when there are kids from poverty stricken white parents who scored better and cannot get in that college. That is just BS and both parties know it. So, I conclude Affirmative Action based on race alone needs to be gotten rid of and poverty hould be the lynchpin for preferential treatment. That is a much fairer test and will help more in need as the poor have always been discrimminate against.

I always go back to my blond haired blue eyed friend who was the son of multi millionaire's who got into colleges he so could not have gotten into on his own because he had a trace of Indian blood in him that he did not even know about using until he applied. I mean come on - how is that addressing any wrong that allegedly occured to his really rich relative. Far more qualified people were excluded for that, which is rank BS.

Finally, before anyone jumps down my throat, I am not for getting rid of Affirmative Action. I just think the potential for its abuse is too great and the people it is helping are not all the people who need help and basing it on poverty will help many more people who truly need it, while helping exclude some of those who just abuse it.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 06:28 AM

Politics, politics, politics. . . .

" . . . The Roman Senate ! The best legislature . . . money can buy! . . . Kill Him!!" :cool:

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 06:36 AM

Well I for one do not think the Constitution is some ruling document about peoples' rights. People were alive before the Constitution was written, does that mean those people deserved nothing because IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION?!?!?

And I have gay friends also, and I think it's quite sick that they are not allowed to pursue a marriage with the person they are in love with. In fact correct me if I'm wrong, but does the constitution say that a MAN and WOMAN have the right to be married? I don't think so.

Therein lies the rub.

IMO - if you want to get married, the govt. should have no say at all in it. You should find a church to marry you.

The govt. should in no way sanction any form of marriage. There should be no automatic rights given to married people. The word married, husband, wife, spouse, etc. should appear in no law. No legal state should exist soley because of marriage. That way everyone is on the same page and the govt. is not sponsoring one religious form of marriage over another, which it currently does.

I mean the huge argument of the "God will strike us dead if dirty gays can marry" is that gay couples can easily use legal documents to obtain almost all of the same rights automatically granted heterosexual married couples. If that is so and it is so easy, then everyone who wants to get married in whatever form should have to do it :shrug:

In the end, it is not about the legal state of marriage. It is about religious freedom and the govt. not supporting one religion over another.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 06:46 AM

. . . So you think that a guy who beats the crap out of another guy over some woman in a moronic barfight and a guy who beats and tortures someone because they're homosexual, should get the same sentencing?

Anti-Hate Crime laws are meant to insure that someone doesn't get a simple slap on the wrist and then sent back out on the streets in 12 months to bash another gay man's brains in.

It is the duty of those in power to protect those who cannot defend themselves.

Well, that is a fine line to walk. Where do we stop the judgement. What if I do not like people with bad hair (which is true BTW :laugh: ) and I beat the crap out of someone for that and proudly delare it. Certainly that is a prejudice even though it is assinine :shrug: The point is who gets included in the definition of the groups who qualify for the extra protection of a hate crime. I cannot answer that and neither really can you except to say gay people :shrug: So, I am in general against them and see the calls for their passage as more of a political talking point sent to rally the troops on both sides. In sum, it is hard to legislate a punishment for thoughts.

Also, the person who got in the bar brawl likely will get into another. So, why should we let them out, etc.

In the end, if they would equally enforce the laws on the book, there would be no need for hate crimes.

Maybe the answer is to word it slightly differently and have a law that says that if the crime was particularly heinous and some with heightened motive, then additional time should be added to the sentence. That way all such crimes are covered.

Anyway - food for thought.

SuzeQuze

10-18-2005, 07:12 AM

And you are a little off, amber. But looking back...ehh...you are right. I usually don't get offended easily. Congratulations, you managed to do what most are unable to do! However, at the end of the day politics is simply politics and I don't have any hard feelings towards anyone here.

And I SOOOOOOO do no have a crush on him. I just enjoy his presence here on the ledge. But....If I had to go gay from somebody it would be for Josh! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Its cool that you like him so much because you probably pay attention to what he writes. Perhaps you actually have a crush on him that is subconscious? At any rate, I <3 Josh too, he is currently on his Franz excursion. :) I saw them on Sat and they were fantastic.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 10:23 AM

Number one...why, Johnny are you arguing with an idiot ? Idiots never listen and cannot have a dialogue.

Number two...to the knee jerk, non thinking, black and white adhere to a party at all costs idiot...one your heroes is DEAD and I am glad he SUFFERED...and BTW I will dance on the other one's grave as well. Neither ever helped another human being in their lives. Thanks for making me gag and nearly vomit at the very sight of either one of those charlatans. I think I will block your myopic non thinking ass. It will make my life easier.

:xoxo: :xoxo:

Carry on !

P.S.

JS - Try bangin your head on a rock. It will listen better. It has more brains.

And BTW, gimme a strike for calling spade a spade.

Considering you are unable to compose a decent sentence I would say it really wouldn't bother me all that much...

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 10:29 AM

Its cool that you like him so much because you probably pay attention to what he writes. Perhaps you actually have a crush on him that is subconscious? At any rate, I <3 Josh too, he is currently on his Franz excursion. :) I saw them on Sat and they were fantastic.

Oh come now, I pay attention to what you guys write too...that is why I have so much fun with you all! Although, judging by some of the more recent posts I have read, the fun is not shared by all. Politics is just what it is...politics!

Ohhh...I was wondering where he was at. That is pretty cool; I am glad that you enjoyed them...I really like the new album myself. I however am very "pee in my pants" excited about going to see Sara Groves this Thursday...AND THE FACT that I get to meet her before hand is even more wonderful!

dissention

10-18-2005, 10:52 AM

What a ****ing monster this thread is. Figures that the moment I go away, I miss the fun.

dissention

10-18-2005, 10:55 AM

I really don't know what to say about these reports anymore.:laugh:

They've become as common as jock itch in high school locker rooms.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 10:55 AM

What a ****ing monster this thread is. Figures that the moment I go away, I miss the fun.

Well, I certainly missed you :wavey:

dissention

10-18-2005, 10:58 AM

I was saving that for the indictments.:laugh:

Cheney is going DOWN. I can't contain my excitement. I told everyone in my building that when he gets indicted, I'm having a party because it's a day that needs celebrating.

And I am just in heaven knowing that because the right-wingers pushed for Paula Jones to sue Clinton, they opened the door for Plame and Wilson to sue the Bush administration in a civil suit. Happy days are here at last.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 10:59 AM

Cheney is going DOWN. I can't contain my excitement. I told everyone in my building that when he gets indicted, I'm having a party because it's a day that needs celebrating.

And I am just in heaven knowing that because the right-wingers pushed for Paula Jones to sue Clinton, they opened the door for Plame and Wilson to sue the Bush administration in a civil suit. Happy days are here at last.

I may fly up to Boston for that one LOL :blob2:

dissention

10-18-2005, 11:02 AM

If you want to believe that republicans really do hate blacks and minorities then you are free to do so...however we will just laugh at you! :laugh: ;)

With approval amongst blacks now at 2%, they really don't give a **** about them. And they didn't give a **** about them and their rights to vote back in 2000 when they passed out flyers that reminded minorities to remember to vote on November 3rd.

Let's not forget that it was democrats saying horrible things about blacks in NOLA after Katrina, all for the sake of better attacking the president...From cannibalism to raping children...You name it the democrats will say it.

The rape claims have been substantiated by rape clinics in Louisiana.

dissention

10-18-2005, 11:03 AM

Yeah, good thing that Limbaugh and Coulter and Savage and all the rest never make jokes at the expense of liberals! ;)

Wasn't it Coulter who called Helen Thomas a "little Arab" and then implied that because of her descent, she was a security risk to the White House and was lucky to have gotten a press pass? You can bet your ass.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 11:05 AM

The rape claims have been substantiated by rape clinics in Louisiana.
HE'S BACK! How we missed you...Of course as you read through this thread you will discover that I have some sort of subconscious love for you...:laugh:

About the rapes...There may have been substantial claims of rape but to the extent that was rumored? I mean really...

and btw...you are really behind...catch up already!

dissention

10-18-2005, 11:06 AM

Hey I wore a pink shirt today...whats wrong with pink? lol

Chris

Real men wear pink.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 11:06 AM

Wasn't it Coulter who called Helen Thomas a "little Arab" and then implied that because of her descent, she was a security risk to the White House and was lucky to have gotten a press pass? You can bet your ass.

Yea - poor Helen T. - she should have had no experience but have a penis, which she was willing to photograph while hard and then put those photos in an advertisement for gay hooker services on the net for a hundred or so an hour, which apparently is the requirement for this adminstration :rolleyes:

dissention

10-18-2005, 11:09 AM

Yea - poor Helen T. - she should have had no experience but have a penis, which she was willing to photograph while hard and then put those photos in an advertisement for gay hooker services on the net for a hundred or so an hour, which apparently is the requirement for this adminstration :rolleyes:

Go read the actual logs of his visits to the White House. He practically lived there. Someone in the White House is a flaming queer who likes bald 50 year olds with tiny appendages.

dissention

10-18-2005, 11:13 AM

HE'S BACK! How we missed you...Of course as you read through this thread you will discover that I have some sort of subconscious love for you...:laugh:

Doesn't everyone?

About the rapes...There may have been substantial claims of rape but to the extent that was rumored? I mean really...

Yes, to the extent that was rumoured. You need to keep in mind that rape is not like other crimes; many people don't report them until days or weeks later, some don't report them at all. All that considered, the amount of people who have actually been to rape clinics to report being raped or seeing someone raped is alarming when statistics are taken into consideration.

Unlike murder, rape is not something that can be easily proved (especially days after it happens), so I don't particularly care for the mindset that because so and so didn't report it, it didn't happen to the extent people were saying it did.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 11:16 AM

Doesn't everyone?

[quote]Yes, to the extent that was rumoured. You need to keep in mind that rape is not like other crimes; many people don't report them until days or weeks later, some don't report them at all. All that considered, the amount of people who have actually been to rape clinics to report being raped or seeing someone raped is alarming when statistics are taken into consideration.

Unlike murder, rape is not something that can be easily proved (especially days after it happens), so I don't particularly care for the mindset that because so and so didn't report it, it didn't happen to the extent people were saying it did.

Ehhh. My point was that democrats will say any thing about blacks, as proven by NOLA and the 2000 election, just to better attack either the president or the Republican party in general. Regardless of whether rapes were happening or not, I mean they were saying they were raping two year olds and eating each other to survive and just the EXTREME of everything to make it appear worse than it was.

dissention

10-18-2005, 11:24 AM

Ehhh. My point was that democrats will say any thing about blacks, as proven by NOLA and the 2000 election, just to better attack either the president or the Republican party in general. Regardless of whether rapes were happening or not, I mean they were saying they were raping two year olds and eating each other to survive and just the EXTREME of everything to make it appear worse than it was.

Ehhh, it was a poor point. Your main problem is that you lump everyone into the category of "Democrat" in order to make the Democratic party look bad. Liberals and Democrats are two very different things. I am a liberal, I am not a Democrat. There were no Democrats out there saying that cannibalism was occurring. Instead, there was a blogger on Huffington Post who posted that it had occurred, and then it was picked up nationally right before it was removed for not having any facts to back it up.

As for two year olds being raped, are you insinuating that Democrats made that up to make Bush look bad? His inaction alone made him look bad. The claims of babies being raped were made by the people in the Superdome and the Convention Center, not Democrats.

You're stretching quite a bit when you use those "examples" to prove that Democrats are "racist." It's quite laughable and a sign of true desperation now that your party is imploding and the prospects of staying in control are dwindling with each passing hour.

estranged4life

10-18-2005, 11:36 AM

Real men wear pink.

not ALL of us do.

Brian "Pink blows!" j.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 11:51 AM

Ehhh, it was a poor point. Your main problem is that you lump everyone into the category of "Democrat" in order to make the Democratic party look bad. Liberals and Democrats are two very different things. I am a liberal, I am not a Democrat. There were no Democrats out there saying that cannibalism was occurring. Instead, there was a blogger on Huffington Post who posted that it had occurred, and then it was picked up nationally right before it was removed for not having any facts to back it up.

As for two year olds being raped, are you insinuating that Democrats made that up to make Bush look bad? His inaction alone made him look bad. The claims of babies being raped were made by the people in the Superdome and the Convention Center, not Democrats.

You're stretching quite a bit when you use those "examples" to prove that Democrats are "racist." It's quite laughable and a sign of true desperation now that your party is imploding and the prospects of staying in control are dwindling with each passing hour.

The fact that Democrats (Ok. Liberals!) can pull the race card at anytime to better fuel their objectives is proof enough for me of the complete and utter racism. And again, any party that supports affirmative action...well you know.

And I really don't like to be associated with partisan politics. Although I do identify myself with the Republicans and vote for the Republicans I much prefer the title of "Conservative". If not for their socially liberal views I would be a libertarian.

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 03:32 PM

Number one...why, Johnny are you arguing with an idiot ? Idiots never listen and cannot have a dialogue.I think sometimes that I'm actually the idiot in these arguments, because I'm wasting my time!

One of these days I'll learn to not waste my time on lost causes.

JS - Try bangin your head on a rock. It will listen better. It has more brains.

And BTW, gimme a strike for calling spade a spade.You told it as you see it, but you haven't violated any of our guidelines... so there's no call for a strike in this case.

Carry on, my brother!

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 03:35 PM

I think sometimes that I'm actually the idiot in these arguments, because I'm wasting my time!

One of these days I'll learn to not waste my time on lost causes.

You told it as you see it, but you haven't violated any of our guidelines... so there's no call for a strike in this case.

Carry on, my brother!
I agree. I didn't see any reason for a strike there. He was just saying what he felt. However around here, it seems simply posting someone else's opinion can warrant a strike...so...who knows?

dissention

10-18-2005, 03:56 PM

And you think a plain "conservative" would somehow differ from "mean ol' me"?

Abso-****ing-lutely, sweets. You really don't seem to know what a real conservative is. Those running the Republican party at the moment aren't true conservatives. Evangelical fundamentalists are not true conservatives. Extremists such as yourself are not true conservatives, they're "neocons"; a term that was coined with the rise of Reagan Republicanism.

dissention

10-18-2005, 04:00 PM

BTW. Tax cuts = greater revenue, as proven by Reagan. That is how you pay for a war.

Yeah, he proved that when he left us with an unprecedented growth of debt during his presidency.

dissention

10-18-2005, 04:01 PM

I guess "Communists" isn't a bad enough label. Or "Anti-Americans." :rolleyes:

Or "treasonists." That's my particular favorite.

dissention

10-18-2005, 04:04 PM

Ok these numbers are from early in his administration. Who was President before him? Thank you...

Are you insane? The deficit grew and grew and grew throughout Reagan's presidency. Both terms. Trickle-down economics did not work.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 04:07 PM

Are you insane? The deficit grew and grew and grew throughout Reagan's presidency. Both terms. Trickle-down economics did not work.

Well, the tax cuts in theory added to the the nations' spending and produced additional tax rev., which is what they were desinged to do. The problem with RR as with W is the deficit spending is so out of hand that any growth produced by the tax cut spark is stifled.

SuzeQuze

10-18-2005, 04:08 PM

Are you insane? The deficit grew and grew and grew throughout Reagan's presidency. Both terms. Trickle-down economics did not work.

I submit that he is, in fact, insane. :laugh:

dissention

10-18-2005, 04:08 PM

I submit that he is, in fact, insane. :laugh:

Well, he idolizes a president who supported apartheid in South Africa. :shrug:

SuzeQuze

10-18-2005, 04:12 PM

Well, he idolizes a president who supported apartheid in South Africa. :shrug:

I can't get my head around it, I have given up on him, he's lost to us Diss. :( Poor boy.

estranged4life

10-18-2005, 04:16 PM

when I was in 5th grade he was shot by that Fruit-loop assclown whose name escapes me, And every single student in Mrs.Clift class stood on their feet an openly applauded....

Wonder who the ring leader of that classroom was???...Hmmm..."Things that make you go mmmmm" :nod:

dissention

10-18-2005, 04:22 PM

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 05:00 PM

Abso-****ing-lutely, sweets. You really don't seem to know what a real conservative is. Those running the Republican party at the moment aren't true conservatives. Evangelical fundamentalists are not true conservatives. Extremists such as yourself are not true conservatives, they're "neocons"; a term that was coined with the rise of Reagan Republicanism.

Well I definitely associate myself with Reagan and his government philosophy.

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:00 PM

Interesting article about the difference between Reagan and Bush deficits...

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/11/231228.shtml

The day you link to a respectable source is the day that I deep throat Delay and like it.

Moony

10-18-2005, 05:02 PM

The day you link to a respectable source is the day that I deep throat Delay and like it.
Oh my god :laugh:

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:03 PM

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 05:04 PM

I can't get my head around it, I have given up on him, he's lost to us Diss. :( Poor boy.

Oh you guys have no idea. Just calling myself a Republican doesn't really clerify exactly my economic positions. Let's start by: eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax.

After that is complete then we can talk...

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 05:05 PM

The day you link to a respectable source is the day that I deep throat Delay and like it.

I have linked to lots of news stories from Reuters and such...

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:08 PM

Well that's where we disagree. I don't see it as a "civil rights" issue.

If I want to marry a guy, I should have every right to do so. But if the neocons had their way, my respective partner and I would have to jump over a broomstick to make it official like the poor negroes in the good ole days down in Miss'ppi. A little jump, a swig of moonshine, and we'd be married in the Lord's eyes. :rolleyes:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 05:09 PM

If I want to marry a guy, I should have every right to do so.

Says the constitution? Cause I'm not seeing it.

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:09 PM

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:12 PM

Says the constitution? Cause I'm not seeing it.

That's because no marriage of any kind is mentioned in the Constitution, so there goes that argument.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 05:17 PM

That's because no marriage of any kind is mentioned in the Constitution, so there goes that argument.

Exactly. If Liberals are going to fight for a "right to gay marriage" then they are going to have to come at it from a different angle. It seems that liberals can't get what they want the democratic way...voting...so they turn to the courts and make it a constitutional issue, which is just ridiculous. And the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges are the only ones who have seem to stumble across this "hidden gay marriage clause” in their constitution.

Again...I'm not anti-gay...and even gay marriage was to be passed and allowed tomorrow it would not bother me at all. But I have yet to see a credible argument.

Moony

10-18-2005, 05:17 PM

That's because no marriage of any kind is mentioned in the Constitution, so there goes that argument.
A point that has been brought up earlier in this thread, which he chose to ignore.

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:17 PM

eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax.

The other things you mentioned are just insane, but this one particular thing really puts you over the edge. You should be proud. :laugh:

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 05:18 PM

A point that has been brought up earlier in this thread, which he chose to ignore.

Which if you read the above post...I discuss in detail.

Moony

10-18-2005, 05:19 PM

Exactly. If Liberals are going to fight for a "right to gay marriage" then they are going to have to come at it from a different angle. It seems that liberals can't get what they want the democratic way...voting...so they turn to the courts and make it a constitutional issue, which is just ridiculous. And the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges are the only ones who have seem to stumble across this "hidden gay marriage clause” in their constitution.

Again...I'm not anti-gay...and even gay marriage was to be passed and allowed tomorrow it would not bother me at all. But I have yet to see a credible argument.
Again, ignoring the actual point. They didn't find a "hidden gay marriage clause." They found it unconstitutional to ban homosexuals from marrying. Quite different.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 05:20 PM

The other things you mentioned are just insane, but this one particular thing really puts you over the edge. You should be proud. :laugh:

Thank you! :xoxo:

I told you I would be a Libertarian if not for their liberal social views!

The less government involved in my life...the better!

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:20 PM

Exactly. If Liberals are going to fight for a "right to gay marriage" then they are going to have to come at it from a different angle. It seems that liberals can't get what they want the democratic way...voting...so they turn to the courts and make it a constitutional issue, which is just ridiculous. And the Massachusetts Supreme Court judges are the only ones who have seem to stumble across this "hidden gay marriage clause” in their constitution.

Methinks you need to read the actual decision from the MSC.

Again...I'm not anti-gay...and even gay marriage was to be passed and allowed tomorrow it would not bother me at all. But I have yet to see a credible argument.

Then you've yet to see a credible argument regarding marriage period. It's not mentioned in the Constitution, so what makes it a right for heterosexuals and not homosexuals?

SuzeQuze

10-18-2005, 05:21 PM

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 05:21 PM

I'm going out tonight guys (WOOHOO! I haven't been out with friends in weeks)...I'll be back later on tonight.:wavey:

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:21 PM

A point that has been brought up earlier in this thread, which he chose to ignore.

Well, he completely disregarded my point about Reagan supporting apartheid, so I'm not surprised.

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:22 PM

Omigod, I'm married and I didn't even know it! ;)

I'm a bigamist and I didn't even know it. Just one kiss and I'll jump over a broom with anyone.

dissention

10-18-2005, 05:24 PM

Well I definitely associate myself with Reagan and his government philosophy.

Then you're a neocon, not a conservative. A conservative is someone like Olympia Snowe, not Ronald Reagan.

SuzeQuze

10-18-2005, 05:26 PM

Thank you! :xoxo:

I told you I would be a Libertarian if not for their liberal social views!

The less government involved in my life...the better!

I didn't realize they had liberal social views. :confused: David Brudnoy was Libertarian (I believe) and he said that people brought up by bad parents were basically useless, something to that effect. I thought it was awful and never listened to him the same way again. I still admired his intellect and enjoyed his autobiography but I just thought that was COLD.

SuzeQuze

10-18-2005, 05:28 PM

I'm a bigamist and I didn't even know it. Just one kiss and I'll jump over a broom with anyone.

Yeah but you had to be hit with the broom before you would touch that moonshine.

Sugar

10-18-2005, 05:28 PM

Then you've yet to see a credible argument regarding marriage period. It's not mentioned in the Constitution, so what makes it a right for heterosexuals and not homosexuals?

This is the thing that drives me crazy. The law describes marriage as being "between two people." So judges find that by definition this does not exclude two people of the same sex. Seems like a very literal interpretation to me. But the right flips out and accuses judges of "making new law." :shrug:

I sure hope things are going as badly as they seem to be for them...

Sugar

10-18-2005, 05:30 PM

I didn't realize they had liberal social views. :confused: David Brudnoy was Libertarian (I believe) and he said that people brought up by bad parents were basically useless, something to that effect. I thought it was awful and never listened to him the same way again. I still admired his intellect and enjoyed his autobiography but I just thought that was COLD.

Libertarians basically believe the less government the better. Including staying out of who should marry who and whether people smoke pot or not. I'm guessing that's what he's referring to.

SteveMacD

10-18-2005, 05:30 PM

(why do you suppose I watch Bill Maher every week).
Could it be because your favorite pin-up girl is on there every once in a while???

SuzeQuze

10-18-2005, 05:34 PM

Libertarians basically believe the less government the better. Including staying out of who should marry who and whether people smoke pot or not. I'm guessing that's what he's referring to.

Oh I see. How "liberal". :confused:

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 05:38 PM

The less government involved in my life...the better!Then I suggest a shack in Montana somewhere. I hear Ted Kaczynski's is free.

SteveMacD

10-18-2005, 05:39 PM

Good lord. All of this over one tiny, little dick joke. Well, the joke was tiny and little, not the...Oh, you know what I mean.

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 05:40 PM

Just one kiss and I'll jump over a broom with anyone.I'm a little bit worried, because I think I'm actually married to the broom!

Sugar

10-18-2005, 05:42 PM

Oh I see. How "liberal". :confused:

Like I said, I'm guessing that's what he meant. But of course he got backed into a corner so it was time to go. ;)

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 05:43 PM

Good lord. All of this over one tiny, little dick joke. Well, the joke was tiny and little, not the...Oh, you know what I mean.Could this thread be viewed as further evidence that penises are the root of all evil? :laugh:

Jyqm

10-18-2005, 06:21 PM

The less government involved in my life...the better!

It's a good thing you believe so strongly in god, because you should feel very blessed that you have all your basic needs provided for or are able to provide them for yourself. Everyone should be so lucky.

But a rather dangerous blanket ideology in an age of terrorism, isn't it?

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 07:10 PM

The day you link to a respectable source is the day that I deep throat Delay and like it.

that implies Delay has a penis long enough to deep throat, which I submit is an impossibility at 1 1/2 inches - in other words, he thought he had a hair until he peed out of it ;)

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 07:12 PM

Like I said, I'm guessing that's what he meant. But of course he got backed into a corner so it was time to go. ;)

What I meant was that socially libertarians are liberal but economically they are very conservative. They hate government...just like I do! But they seem to concentrate more on gaining rights to legally smoke pot, rather than doing away with frivolous departments like the national endowment of the arts.

They feel that people should be able to do as they wish with their own bodies even if it ruins their lives. We don't live in a perfect libertarian country, so that isn't true. We live in a country that will not allow people to live with their own decisions. BRANDON has to pay for their stupid decisions; JOSH has to pay for their stupid decisions, etc...We would have to support people who freely choose to "shoot up" and then become incapable of holding jobs, obtaining housing, and taking care of their children. So the libertarian argument that "drugs hurt no one but the user" is not true, at least until we've repealed the welfare state.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 07:12 PM

If I want to marry a guy, I should have every right to do so. But if the neocons had their way, my respective partner and I would have to jump over a broomstick to make it official like the poor negroes in the good ole days down in Miss'ppi. A little jump, a swig of moonshine, and we'd be married in the Lord's eyes. :rolleyes:

What I do not get is why is the govt. in the marriage defning business in the first place. Why are rights assigned to married people? That is BS and it needs to stop - then everyone is on equal footing as gay people can marry in every state in the union right now - the states just do not recognize that religion as opposed to traditional marriage.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 07:14 PM

I'm a bigamist and I didn't even know it. Just one kiss and I'll jump over a broom with anyone.

Well, you've flown my broom dear :wavey:

BTW - flat tax for anyone making over $30,000 a year and no tax for those under it is the way to go you pinko commie :mad:

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 07:16 PM

I'm a little bit worried, because I think I'm actually married to the broom!

That - dear - is a different battery operated object - just because you name it does not make it a person :p

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 07:16 PM

It's a good thing you believe so strongly in god, because you should feel very blessed that you have all your basic needs provided for or are able to provide them for yourself. Everyone should be so lucky.

But a rather dangerous blanket ideology in an age of terrorism, isn't it?

I didn't say that there should be NO government in our lives. Just a very limited amount. Libertarianism’s political philosophy strongly advocates individual rights, private property and free market capitalism. Libertarian views of government functions tend to be limited to protecting civil liberties and the free market through a police force, a military, and the courts.

dissention

10-18-2005, 07:16 PM

Well, you've flown my broom dear :wavey:

BTW - flat tax for anyone making over $30,000 a year and no tax for those under it is the way to go you pinko commie :mad:

I would up that to $50,000, personally.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 07:18 PM

I would up that to $50,000, personally.

Me too - that works for me.

and - no deductions of any kind (kids mortgage - nothing) and a 15% rate. Few people realize how rich the govt. would be with that in place.

Johnny Stew

10-18-2005, 09:22 PM

That - dear - is a different battery operated object - just because you name it does not make it a person :pWait... are you saying that Hank doesn't count as a person? :distress:

SuzeQuze

10-18-2005, 10:41 PM

Me too - that works for me.

and - no deductions of any kind (kids mortgage - nothing) and a 15% rate. Few people realize how rich the govt. would be with that in place.

Right, because the people with money find all the loopholes and funky deductions which they couldn't do under this type of tax. Plus, I wouldn't be taxed at all. :laugh: Strand, you are a genius. :xoxo: :lol:

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 10:54 PM

Right, because the people with money find all the loopholes and funky deductions which they couldn't do under this type of tax. Plus, I wouldn't be taxed at all. :laugh: Strand, you are a genius. :xoxo: :lol:

$50,000 is a little high as many consider that to be a very very good living. I would put the cap at $30,000 as that is more reasonable to me. Of corse Diss. would tax no one making less than $100,000 and then at 50% or more because he hates the so called rich :laugh:

As for me being a genius, well its nothing that I didn't know :wavey:

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 10:55 PM

Wait... are you saying that Hank doesn't count as a person? :distress:

Well, maybe DEEP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT YOU KNOW WHAT HE SOUNDS LIKE - YOU KNOW WHAT HE SOUNDS LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKKKKEEEE!!!!!!

dissention

10-18-2005, 10:56 PM

Of corse Diss. would tax no one making less than $100,000 and then at 50% or more because he hates the so called rich :laugh:

Most definitely.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 10:59 PM

Most definitely.

:rolleyes: Oh good Lord, what am I going to do with you? :xoxo:

BTW...Did you have fun in NY and at the show?

dissention

10-18-2005, 11:02 PM

:rolleyes: Oh good Lord, what am I going to do with you? :xoxo:

You've already stated that you want to tax everyone via regressive taxation by instituting a flat tax, so you've lost credibility. I still remember the hearty laugh I had when Bush expressed the same thing last August, only he wanted to do away with income tax altogether and enforce a flat federal sales tax. What a ****ing dolt.

BTW...Did you have fun in NY and at the show?

I had a blast. None of my pictures came out, though, so I'm quite peeved. I was about to unload them to put on my livejournal and they're all sucky and blurry.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 11:08 PM

You've already stated that you want to tax everyone via regressive taxation by instituting a flat tax, so you've lost credibility. I still remember the hearty laugh I had when Bush expressed the same thing last August, only he wanted to do away with income tax altogether and enforce a flat federal sales tax. What a ****ing dolt . . . .

By the same token, you lose credibility when you suggest that the rich do not pay more taxes when they do under any percentage scheme I have ever heard of. I mean and with respect, you seem to think that all rich people should pay over 50% of their income, all estates should be taxed at 95%, etc. That is just punitive :shrug: No one should ever have to pay more than 20% of their income to anyone.

dissention

10-18-2005, 11:10 PM

By the same token, you lose credibility when you suggest that the rich do not pay more taxes when they do under any percentage scheme I have ever heard of. I mean and with respect, you seem to think that all rich people should pay over 50% of their income, all estates should be taxed at 95%, etc. That is just punitive :shrug: No one should ever have to pay more than 20% of their income to anyone.

Meh, I'm not getting into it with you tonight, babe. I've no desire to hear how ****ing fabulous the rich are because of their private donations.

strandinthewind

10-18-2005, 11:13 PM

Meh, I'm not getting into it with you tonight, babe. I've no desire to hear how ****ing fabulous the rich are because of their private donations.

I am not talking about donations. I am talking about more than half of what you earn going to pad some BS politician's pocket or that of their cronies. In the end, a flat tax is the only way to assure that that event happens as least often as possible, which is what I think should be onbe of the mail goals rather than punishing the "rich" with a 50% plus tax.

dissention

10-18-2005, 11:16 PM

I am not talking about donations.

It's only a matter of time.

Brwn_eyes0511

10-18-2005, 11:18 PM

You've already stated that you want to tax everyone via regressive taxation by instituting a flat tax, so you've lost credibility. I still remember the hearty laugh I had when Bush expressed the same thing last August, only he wanted to do away with income tax altogether and enforce a flat federal sales tax. What a ****ing dolt.

I agree a flat tax would be great...

I had a blast. None of my pictures came out, though, so I'm quite peeved. I was about to unload them to put on my livejournal and they're all sucky and blurry.

That always sucks! One good thing about liking small independent artists is that they usually play small places where you can get GREAT photos! Thursday I am going to see Sara Groves in Wilmington and I actually get to meet her before hand...WOOHOO!