W approval rating continues to decline - Page 14

dissention · #**196** 10-18-2005, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles...1/231228.shtml

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

Moony · #**197** 10-18-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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

Oh my god

dissention · #**198** 10-18-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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.

I say he should nominate his pal Jeff Gannon of Talon News.

Bottoms up!

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**199** 10-18-2005, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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 · #**200** 10-18-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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 · #**201** 10-18-2005, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**202** 10-18-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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 · #**203** 10-18-2005, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

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.

Shut up, heathen.

dissention · #**204** 10-18-2005, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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 · #**205** 10-18-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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 · #**206** 10-18-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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 · #**207** 10-18-2005, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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.

Brwn_eyes0511 · #**208** 10-18-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moony

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 · #**209** 10-18-2005, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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 · #**210** 10-18-2005, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dissention

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

Thank you!

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

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