Watch wild-eyed celebs pray to their god Obama

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by chiliD

What rock have you been under the past 8 years? That pretty much describes what has been happening in the "good ol' USofA" under this current administration.

In your opinion, you mean. I happen to just simply disagree. Historically, we've had much worse things happen and much more egregious violations of civil rights. For example, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-American citizens, Lincoln's deporting senators who disagreed with him, Bobby Kennedy trying to set up MLK by spying on him and trying to take him down politically, etc. Most of it makes Bush seem pretty darn mild in comparison.

I think Bush has done a basically okay job, not great, but okay. Unlike you, I don't blame the president for everything that goes wrong in the world. The president only has the ability to set up roadblocks or take them down, the rest is up to us. As a nation, we have a bad habit of blaming the president for our own collective actions. A perfect example is the economy. If you ask anyone on the street, they'd be shocked that the economy is nothing more than the sum of our financial behavior and the president doesn't "control it".

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

In your opinion, you mean. I happen to just simply disagree . . . .

Well, no. There is a difference in opinion and fact. The R's use of religion in a facist manner is a fact. There really is no disputing that.

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

. . . . I think Bush has done a basically okay job, not great, but okay . . . .

Come on - not even you can believe that. Name one good thing he's done?

[BombaySapphire3]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Come on - not even you can believe that. Name one good thing he's done?

The only thing iamnotafraid could come up with for the entire 8 miserable years that Smirky has occupied The White house was him muttering something about offshore drilling supposedly causing a drop in gas prices..impressive I must say!

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

The only thing iamnotafraid could come up with for the entire 8 miserable years that Smirky has occupied The White house was him muttering something about offshore drilling supposedly causing a drop in gas prices..impressive I must say!

That is actually true, because part of the price of crude oil is made up of futures market investments. If they believe supply will increase, the speculative market drops, hence the lowering of gas prices. In congress would do the same, we'd see prices falling like Obama's poll numbers.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

Well, no. There is a difference in opinion and fact. The R's use of religion in a facist manner is a fact. There really is no disputing that.





Come on - not even you can believe that. Name one good thing he's done?

Certainly I can dispute that the use of religion is fascist. No encroachment of civil rights has been made, only attempts to curtail the expansion of certain rights, IE gay marriage. You would be correct if gay marriage has been legal in the past and has been stopped, but that is not the case. They were trying to prevent it. That is freedom, my friend, not fascism. You might bring up blue laws, how many are actually enforced on a regular basis? Almost none, and only when the suspect is being investigated for something else and they need an excuse to hold him. IE that case you mentioned a month ago where the two gay guys were arrested on sodomy charges, however, you failed to mention that there was a gunfight of sorts and they were trying to keep them at bay while they investigated that. Basically, that argument is pathetic and isn't supported by the facts.

To answer your question, I think the fact that we haven't been attacked again is a great accomplishment. How many times were we attacked under Clinton? The first WTC attack, Khobar towers, several embassy bombings, McVeigh, etc. Also, his tax cuts were very successful. His tariff's on imported steel were also a good accomplishment. He has helped AIDS in Africa more than any other president in history. Basically, okay accomplishments, certainly not what one would expect over 8 years, 6 of which with a majority in congress and the senate.

On edit: It would be fascist for the Republicans to try to ban gary marriage through the courts, (as most leftist accomplishments in the last 30 years have been), however, they tried to send it through congress, the state legislatures, the governor's, etc. That is democracy and just because you don't like what they were trying to accomplish doesn't make it fascist. The fact of the matter is that congress is our representation against dictatorial regimes and sending anything through congress is exactly what should be happening. There is no fascism in submitting an unpopular or bad idea through the proper channels.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

No encroachment of civil rights has been made, only attempts to curtail the expansion of certain rights, IE gay marriage. You would be correct if gay marriage has been legal in the past and has been stopped, but that is not the case. They were trying to prevent it. That is freedom, my friend, not fascism.

"Freedom" is blocking someone from marrying the person they love? I thought the entire Republican party was supposed to be against intrusive government -- so why are they trying so desperately to intrude into my life and dictate to whom I can and cannot be married?

Oh, and AJ, you criticized "left-wingers" for not providing facts about hate and prejudice from the right, yet when I provided direct quotes from numerous Republican politicians (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showth...697#post768697), you never responded.

I found that odd.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

"Freedom" is blocking someone from marrying the person they love? I thought the entire Republican party was supposed to be against intrusive government -- so why are they trying so desperately to intrude into my life and dictate to whom I can and cannot be married?

Oh, and AJ, you criticized "left-wingers" for not providing facts about hate and prejudice from the right, yet when I provided direct quotes from numerous Republican politicians (http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showth...697#post768697), you never responded.

I found that odd.

No one was "blocking" you from marrying someone you love because you didn't have that right to begin with. Why not allow siblings to marry? I love my sister, why can't I marry her so she can have rights of survivorship? Why can't I marry my daughter so she can have spousal rights, or my son, etc? Gay marriage is exclusionary by it's nature. Why not take marriage out of the hands of government?! Heck, Obama even said he's anti gay marriage. It's not a Republican thing at all. Pay attention to your own candidate. He slapped the gay community in the face at Saddleback.

I agree with Santorum's position, in part, that if we allow gay marriage we should allow all of it. Why be exclusionary at all? I never held the position that the government should exclude gay marriage, so why are you attacking me on it? My position has always been that the government has no business sanctioning any relationship. I like to use the saying, if a church wants to marry three guys, a donkey and a porkchop, I say let 'em. I don't see why siblings can't marry, or whatever. To me, conservative economics are a much bigger issue. I can't really care much less about gay marriage, it's not even a blip on my radar screen. I say run it through the legislature and if they approve it, so be it.

As far as the politician quotes go, so what?! Politicians have opinions that you don't like. They've made it clear that they don't like gay marriage. Heck, a lot of gay Republicans don't like gay marriage. Let 'em all fight it out in the state legislatures. I think Kucinish did nothing but spew hate and prejudice, as well as fundamental ignorance last night. It's his right, I'm not trying to silence him. Obama came out against gay marriage, after he told gay crowds he was for it. It's the right of legislators to be as ignorant as they want to be also. It's fascist of you to want to limit their free speech.

[Tango]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

No one was "blocking" you from marrying someone you love because you didn't have that right to begin with. Why not allow siblings to marry? I love my sister, why can't I marry her so she can have rights of survivorship? Why can't I marry my daughter so she can have spousal rights, or my son, etc? Gay marriage is exclusionary by it's nature. Why not take marriage out of the hands of government?! Heck, Obama even said he's anti gay marriage. It's not a Republican thing at all. Pay attention to your own candidate. He slapped the gay community in the face at Saddleback.

I agree with Santorum's position, in part, that if we allow gay marriage we should allow all of it. Why be exclusionary at all? I never held the position that the government should exclude gay marriage, so why are you attacking me on it? My position has always been that the government has no business sanctioning any relationship. I like to use the saying, if a church wants to marry three guys, a donkey and a porkchop, I say let 'em. I don't see why siblings can't marry, or whatever. To me, conservative economics are a much bigger issue. I can't really care much less about gay marriage, it's not even a blip on my radar screen. I say run it through the legislature and if they approve it, so be it.

As far as the politician quotes go, so what?! Politicians have opinions that you don't like. They've made it clear that they don't like gay marriage. Heck, a lot of gay Republicans don't like gay marriage. Let 'em all fight it out in the state legislatures. I think Kucinish did nothing but spew hate and prejudice, as well as fundamental ignorance last night. It's his right, I'm not trying to silence him. Obama came out against gay marriage, after he told gay crowds he was for it. It's the right of legislators to be as ignorant as they want to be also. It's fascist of you to want to limit their free speech.

"we allow?" We the people allowed people to be slaves. We allowed them not to vote. We allowed them to not own land. We allowed to not let them use the same rest rooms or entry doors or sitting on the bus. Please tell me you don't think that was right.

Making things right in terms of civil rights for gays is not something Santorum or those of that ilk should be in charge of, for I fear he wouldn't have been much help to many pre- 1865 either.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Tango

"we allow?" We the people allowed people to be slaves. We allowed them not to vote. We allowed them to not own land. We allowed to not let them use the same rest rooms or entry doors or sitting on the bus. Please tell me you don't think that was right.

Making things right in terms of civil rights for gays is not something Santorum or those of that ilk should be in charge of, for I fear he wouldn't have been much help to many pre- 1865 either.

Typical liberal, playing the race card when I didn't say anything about race at all. Why not focus on the countries in the middle east that still practice slavery instead of bashing your own country. Fact is that we abolished slavery and I wish the African continent, parts of Asia and the Middle East would follow our example. I'm not a racist and I resent the accusation. I doubt Robert "Sheets" Bird was any help during the civil rights era either, as he was a Grand Cliegle (Recruiter) for the KKK and never repudiated it. It's reported he still uses racial slurs. Racism is not the sole property of Republicans. Don't forget that Bobby Kennedy illegally wiretapped Martin Luther King because he thought he was a threat.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

No one was "blocking" you from marrying someone you love because you didn't have that right to begin with. Why not allow siblings to marry? I love my sister, why can't I marry her so she can have rights of survivorship? Why can't I marry my daughter so she can have spousal rights, or my son, etc? Gay marriage is exclusionary by it's nature. Why not take marriage out of the hands of government?! Heck, Obama even said he's anti gay marriage. It's not a Republican thing at all. Pay attention to your own candidate. He slapped the gay community in the face at Saddleback.

I agree with Santorum's position, in part, that if we allow gay marriage we should allow all of it. Why be exclusionary at all? I never held the position that the government should exclude gay marriage, so why are you attacking me on it? My position has always been that the government has no business sanctioning any relationship. I like to use the saying, if a church wants to marry three guys, a donkey and a porkchop, I say let 'em. I don't see why siblings can't marry, or whatever. To me, conservative economics are a much bigger issue. I can't really care much less about gay marriage, it's not even a blip on my radar screen. I say run it through the legislature and if they approve it, so be it.

As far as the politician quotes go, so what?! Politicians have opinions that you don't like. They've made it clear that they don't like gay marriage. Heck, a lot of gay Republicans don't like gay marriage. Let 'em all fight it out in the state legislatures. I think Kucinish did nothing but spew hate and prejudice, as well as fundamental ignorance last night. It's his right, I'm not trying to silence him. Obama came out against gay marriage, after he told gay crowds he was for it. It's the right of legislators to be as ignorant as they want to be also. It's fascist of you to want to limit their free speech.

I'd appreciate you not comparing my relationship to incest. For the record, we also don't have anything in common with polygamists, pedophiles or folks into bestiality. The claim that allowing gay marriage suddenly opens it up for every imaginable deviant is a straw man argument, and demonstrates that those who oppose it have absolutely no genuinely valid reasons.

Regarding Obama's stance on the issue -- he's always stated that he's pro-civil unions, but not gay marriage. He's never said anything to the contrary.

And nice try dismissing the quotes. You opined that left-wingers accuse right-wingers of hate and prejudice without backing those claims up with facts -- I provided facts, and now you say "so what," and ridiculously accuse me of fascism.

They have a right to say anything they please -- however, those statements illuminate the deep-seated prejudices in the party, and negate your claim that one "never hears this kind of anger and hate coming from the right wing."

But, hey, at least you finally responded.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I'd appreciate you not comparing my relationship to incest. For the record, we also don't have anything in common with polygamists, pedophiles or folks into bestiality. The claim that allowing gay marriage suddenly opens it up for every imaginable deviant is a straw man argument, and demonstrates that those who oppose it have absolutely no genuinely valid reasons.

Regarding Obama's stance on the issue -- he's always stated that he's pro-civil unions, but not gay marriage. He's never said anything to the contrary.

And nice try dismissing the quotes. You opined that left-wingers accuse right-wingers of hate and prejudice without backing those claims up with facts -- I provided facts, and now you say "so what," and ridiculously accuse me of fascism.

They have a right to say anything they please -- however, those statements illuminate the deep-seated prejudices in the party, and negate your claim that one "never hears this kind of anger and hate coming from the right wing."

But, hey, at least you finally responded.

I still stand that you don't hear the same kind of hatred coming from the right as from the left. No right-winger has made a rap song about killing a political commentators family in front of him or about "silencing" people once and for all, or that the opposition party nominee needs to be "paralized". The best you can come up with are a bunch of ignorant statements, but no one wants to kill anyone specifically or makes any threats to. I did back up the argument with several quotes previously.

Anyway, the problem with the gay marriage agenda is that it really isn't all about rights. If it were, then it would allow for close family members to give one another spousal rights. If I'm close to my brother, sister, daughter, son, mother, father, etc then under the logic supporting gay marriage, why can't I marry one of them? Even gay marriage advocates argue that I can't because it's incest. Well, to me, it would be all about rights and not sex. The basic problem is that gay marriage boils the argument down to sex. If I'm not having sex with any of the above relations, why should it matter? It brings the government into the bedroom, which is the last place it should be. Gay marriage, as is any state sanctioned marriage, is exclusionary by nature.....STILL! Why not allow free marriage with anyone, as it may be important to pass on spousal rights to someone else I could not currently legally marry? I mean, in France, you can actually marry dead people, and in Spain a 12 year old can marry. Having the state involved in such issues just leads to craziness.

[David]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

My position has always been that the government has no business sanctioning any relationship.

As long as that relationship rests on consent; otherwise, the matter becomes one of intentional tort & can -- & should -- be prosecuted accordingly.

Consent is the crux.

[strandinthewind]

^^^^^

AJM - yawn - please see the 1,000 other posts directly refuting this BS.