The New Official "Bush Won" Thread

[Maullus]

Greetings,

4 more years of Bush. I'd be interested to hear about Bush supporter's views on what policies they believe he will, or they hope he will, implement during his next term of office.

Let's try to keep this thread free of bi-partisan debate, as it is a place for Bush supporters to celebrate a bit, and I really am interested in the reasons for that celebration. (Not to imply that they don't have them, I'd just like to hear them first-hand.)

[Booms]

Do Republican celebrations usually involve bathing in babies' blood? 'Cause I've got some connections...

Okay, all kidding aside, I've got thing to say: I hope you're happy that civil liberties are being trampled, our president doesn't mind using the Constitution as a political tool, over a thousand of people have died in Iraq because Bush's lies, the deficit will continue to grow, the evironment is going to get shafted, our standing with the rest of the world will get even worse, and church and state will no longer be seperate. Did I forget anything?

[Hydro]

Do Republican celebrations usually involve bathing in babies' blood? 'Cause I've got some connections...

Okay, all kidding aside, I've got thing to say: I hope you're happy that civil liberties are being trampled, our president doesn't mind using the Constitution as a political tool, over a thousand of people have died in Iraq because Bush's lies, the deficit will continue to grow, the evironment is going to get shafted, our standing with the rest of the world will get even worse, and church and state will no longer be seperate. Did I forget anything?

He asked for a few positives, and I will try to come up with them as best I can.
Ok I am done.

But seriously, I think "morality" is the biggest plus for a lot of voters. Bush is a generally amiable guy (much as I dislike his policies), and I think his conviction appeals to a lot of voters as well. It will be interesting to see how he carries out his presidency without 9/11 breaking into the middle of his act.

[GaiaWombat]

Good job respecting Maullus' request, Booms. That definitely made you look intelligent. [/sarcasm]

I personally am interested to see how Iraq plays out. Will it end in one sudden, decisive movement or will be sitting here for the rest of the decade? I certainly hope it's not the latter, but I definitely wouldn't count it out.

I'm not sure how many people on this forum really fully supported Bush. I know there's Powermonger, but it seemed like there was a lot of "in the middle" people on this one who didn't like either candidate too much. This includes me. I was definitely more for Bush than Kerry, but here's hoping that '08 gives us some better choices.

[Hydro]

Good job respecting Maullus' request, Booms. That definitely made you look intelligent. [/sarcasm]

I personally am interested to see how Iraq plays out. Will it end in one sudden, decisive movement or will be sitting here for the rest of the decade? I certainly hope it's not the latter, but I definitely wouldn't count it out.

I'm not sure how many people on this forum really fully supported Bush. I know there's Powermonger, but it seemed like there was a lot of "in the middle" people on this one who didn't like either candidate too much. This includes me. I was definitely more for Bush than Kerry, but here's hoping that '08 gives us some better choices.

I think everyone can agree that neither Bush or Kerry would have been their first choices.

[Booms]

Good job respecting Maullus' request, Booms. That definitely made you look intelligent. [/sarcasm]

You expected me to be happy about this? Besides, powermongor has been celebrating ever since we invaded Iraq; I don't any reason to give him another opportunity.

If you would like to dispute any of my claims feel free.

What I posted was my take on what will happen now that Bush has been re-elected. This was, by far, the best thread to post it in.

[Hydro]

You expected me to be happy about this? Besides, powermongor has been celebrating ever since we invaded Iraq; I don't any reason to give him another opportunity.

If you would like to dispute any of my claims feel free.

What I posted was my take on what will happen now that Bush has been re-elected. This was, by far, the best thread to post it in.

Actually over 101,000 people have died in Iraq (including civilians).
I think the whole point of the thread was to find something positive out of Bush being president, we have all (myself included) beaten his negatives to death. Surely there is one issue you agree on him with?

[Andarcel]

You expected me to be happy about this? Besides, powermongor has been celebrating ever since we invaded Iraq; I don't any reason to give him another opportunity.

If you would like to dispute any of my claims feel free.

What I posted was my take on what will happen now that Bush has been re-elected. This was, by far, the best thread to post it in.
Leave be. They won the election, one unspoiled thread for mature celebration is not too much to grant.

[Booms]

Actually over 101,000 people have died in Iraq (including civilians).
I think the whole point of the thread was to find something positive out of Bush being president, we have all (myself included) beaten his negatives to death. Surely there is one issue you agree on him with?

Ummm, no?

I support the tax cut for people with a salary of less than $200,000 , but I don't support anything else about his economic policy. Besides, if we ever need to rollback some of the tax cuts (which we probably will), I wouldn't be surprised if Bush chose to rollback this one first.

[Booms]

Leave be. They won the election, one unspoiled thread for mature celebration is not too much to grant.

Okay, here's the deal. I won't post any more negative comments in this thread as long as powermongor does not touch it; he has used up all his celebration posts.

[Andarcel]

Okay, here's the deal. I won't post any more negative comments in this thread as long as powermongor does not touch it; he has used up all his celebration posts.
Powermonger has actually been very mature thus far, unlike some. I think feeling threatened is what brings out the worst in him.

[BrimSt0ne M0nkey]

Well, it was a damn close race. No one can deny Kerry of that. As for Bush, well, I think its a weird thing to have respect for the position but not the individual.

[Graav Wolfsong]

Positives ... positives ... :scratch: well, I support the republican views on gun control. I dont really even mind the over the counter sale of assault rifles. And the previously mentioned tax cuts.

Oh and the Bush girls will probably go out to celebrate their fathers win, wich means theyll get drunk, wich means theyll get naked. Wich is totally a positive. :lol:

[Maullus]

Greetings,

Lovely thread. Allow me to clarify:

I am not a Bush supporter. I am not a Kerry supporter. My personal beliefs or opinions had no bearing on this post. Since one thread was already locked for stepping outside the bounds of good taste, I was attempting to provide a single thread that managed to maintain a certain level of integrity. Apparently, that's not possible.

[Zarlan]

I am not a Bush supporter, but I will try to point out some good qualities that he may have.

First off, I think Bush has learned from many of the mistakes he has made thus far. His poor military decisions and tax cuts are something that have taught him a hard lesson, we can only hope. He has 4 years of experience, and that must have taught him something- probably a great deal.

Next, I would have to say the economy isn't all his fault, and things will probably get better. Right after he issued the $300 tax break to all Americans, 9-11 wreaked havok on our country's economy. There was no way he could have forseen that, though. Also, this war has drained alot of resources, but it is coming to an end.. hopefully. There won't be such a need for military funding in the near future, we can hope.

One thing that I see represented in Bush is a stronger moral dedication. He is opposed to, not for, free-choice abortion like Kerry, and I tend to believe he would be the last of those candidates to support a draft. If North Korea is a huge threat to us in the future, which it very well might be, then I think Bush would look to other alternatives longer than Kerry would. I am 100% against a draft, unless our country is in mortal danger, and I trust Bush to support my view on this, atleast.

The last would have to be leadership. Bush may not be the sharpest knife in the shed, but he has been through a rough time with us as president. He was there in 9-11, and was a source of confidence. I think people have a trust for him after that disaster which will not easily be thrown aside. I think people would feel safer in another crisis like that because they know how well Bush handled it... atleast until he started the war.

Anyway, I hope this leads to constructive discussion. Nice attempt at a decent thread, Maullus. :)

[powermongor]

I just got back from a school team meeting. There is so much to talk about in analyzing this election...

Don't flame this post, but try instead to offer constructive criticism.

I am not very surprised at what I have seen thus far from many posters. I got into a debate earlier today with a younger ex-roomate of mine, and he was making the same kinds of arguments, feeling that the world was now doomed, thinking that people here are stupid, etc.

I told him and his friends long ago that the "anybody but Bush" strategy was doomed to fail. I also told him that if they were going to do that, they needed someone who was at least more likeable than Bush. Kerry was not the right person to win this election.

Democrats would have fared better with, lets say Wesley Clark, than Kerry. Of course, many knew that Clark was Hillary's sacrificial lamb, and she probly had the dirt on him to ensure a Bush victory anyhow. Hillary is going to run in 08. Period.

Many of you are doubting this. Of course she is. Her whole life is a big production geared to further her political ambition. As long as people have believed her cheesy tactics, then she has been able to succeed.



I view this election in a greater context as a great victory, by the grace of God, against evil. This victory should be viewed as a sign that things are changing for the better IMHO, but it came too close for comfort.

It is funny, yet sad, how the media and liberals are wrapping their mind over the fact that morals won the election. They really just can't relate.

The people have spoken, and the President has effectively scored a mandate for traditional American and Family Values. We are tired of Hollywood and leftists intellectuals telling us that we are dumb for being Christian, while every other religion gets special treatment.

Now yes, if you do not like President Bush's morals, then you probably are not going to like living here for the next 4 years. The thing is, traditionalists outnumber non-traditionalists in this coutnry. We have been a silent majority. But Bush has inspired us to come forth and be heard.

The Supreme Court will most certainly be changing, favoring conservative judges. This was ultimately the most important result of the election, more important than the war on terror.

I honestly believe that we needed to take a different direction, and Bush has been the man to lead us.

But know that we will face a tremendous threat in 08 when Hillary runs. Kerry would have been a minor evil when compared to Hillary.

[Booms]

What the **** happened to Seperation of Church and State? WHERE DID IT GO?

Your religious beliefs should not be effecting government policy! When did America go insane!?!!

AHHHH.

---

Okay, now that I'm done with that, can anyone explain to me why Hillary Clinton is so horrible? I mean, besides the fact that she's a woman and that her place is in the kitchen.

[Sage the Mage]

I have the impression that Hillary is to extreme, feel free to correct me there.

[powermongor]

What the **** happened to Seperation of Church and State? WHERE DID IT GO?

Your religious beliefs should not be effecting government policy! When did America go insane!?!!

AHHHH.

---

Okay, now that I'm done with that, can anyone explain to me why Hillary Clinton is so horrible? I mean, besides the fact that she's a woman and that her place is in the kitchen.

Beyond the abortion issue, which really ought to be a no-brainer, there is only one more issue I feel strongly about which as a direct result of my Christian beliefs.

Why is Hillary so horrible? She is a consummate politician. Her whole adult life is a spectacle put on with her partner in politics, Bill. I cannot describe that as a marriage. She wanted a political career, and so did he. All Bill ever wanted from her for was to provide him with a child, campaign with him, and then let him have his women. This is allegedly their "deal". Bill already got his part of the deal fulfilled, now it is her time.

Supposedly, Hillary treats the Secret Service like garbage, and she cusses like a sailor in private.

All she cares about is her own political career. The people she serves are important only in that they elect her.

Many of you are too young to remember Whitewater and the death of Vince Foster. The Clinton's best friends went to prison rather than rat them out.

Hillary is going to run in 08, you can just go ahead and make that a given. If anything, she is probably angry that she didn't run in this election. She could have beat Bush over the last year, but going into the primaries long ago, Bush was too strong. Thank God that she didn't decide to run.

She has been Bill's sidekick for 30+ years... it's time for the payoff. She is running in 4 years, and she is probly kicking herself right now for not running this year.

[Booms]

Sounds like my type of president.

On the other hand, I doubt she'll win. I don't see any way that the uneducated male gun-owner is going to vote for, *gasp*, a woman. I hope that I'm wrong, but seriously, after this election, I don't have much faith in the American people.

[powermongor]

Sounds like my type of president.

On the other hand, I doubt she'll win. I don't see any way that the uneducated male gun-owner is going to vote for, *gasp*, a woman. I hope that I'm wrong, but seriously, after this election, I don't have much faith in the American people.

Booms, please promise me that you will somehow find a way single-handedly pick the next Democratic candidate.

please please please :thumbsup:

[GaiaWombat]

Booms, it is not because she is a woman. It is because she's liberal, and an extreme one at that. Right now, it looks to me like the majority of Americans are still pretty conservative. It's not the gender that matters, or the race; it's the ideas and viewpoints that go with these. Women and minorities as a whole generally lean further left. If race and gender are so important, why are Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell employed under the Bush administration? Because of their beliefs and political standings. You guys on the left just can't accept the fact that all Republicans are not genocidal bigots whose number one goal in life is to suppress the minorities. Get over it, please.

One last point; I don't think this an issue of separation of church and state at all. I think this is an issue of basic moral values which contribute to political views that are a result of being a religious person. This is what obviously appeals to a majority of America. We're not talking about the Consitutional party here, who I believe have stated that they want to put the 10 Commandments back in as law. Bush's politics are influenced by him being religious, but religion is not really a part of his policies. You don't see him making prayer mandatory in schools or anything, do you? My parents used to pray in school every day.

Now, please, stop making unsupported and foolish accusations. It only makes you look worse.

[Sage the Mage]

If race and gender are so important, why are Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell employed under the Bush administration? Because of their beliefs and political standings. You guys on the left just can't accept the fact that all Republicans are not genocidal bigots whose number one goal in life is to suppress the minorities. Get over it, please.
Tokenism comes into play somtimes, not so sure it happened here, (Powell is well respected but not liked much by the Bush admin, and Rice is apparently a good friend of the Bush family.) but I recall a hispanic judge for some reason.

One last point; I don't think this an issue of separation of church and state at all. I think this is an issue of basic moral values which contribute to political views that are a result of being a religious person. This is what obviously appeals to a majority of America. We're not talking about the Consitutional party here, who I believe have stated that they want to put the 10 Commandments back in as law. Bush's politics are influenced by him being religious, but religion is not really a part of his policies. You don't see him making prayer mandatory in schools or anything, do you? My parents used to pray in school every day.
You're right, Bush can't do too extreme things, but I wouldn't dare say that religion isn't a part of his policies. *** marriage makes it pretty clear that it is.

[Hydro]

Greetings,

Lovely thread. Allow me to clarify:

I am not a Bush supporter. I am not a Kerry supporter. My personal beliefs or opinions had no bearing on this post. Since one thread was already locked for stepping outside the bounds of good taste, I was attempting to provide a single thread that managed to maintain a certain level of integrity. Apparently, that's not possible.

Sigh. Me and Gaia have been trying!
We don't agree and haven't flamed each other once yet!

Also, people need to stop dissing on powermongor, he has been extremely mature post-election.

[SpiritWalker]

I still haven't heard 1 (positive) thing that Bush is supposedly going to do in his next 4 years.

Some of you guys say you've posted very maturely, no, you haven't, because all you've done is taunt with the fact why Bush got elected again; "He brings high moral", "It was a sign from God"(Yeah that's how you made it sound powermonger). All you've people done is rant on about what Bush has done right and why he got elected, you haven't met up to the demands of Maullus' thread in anyway.

Now here's mine, I can't think of 1 single thing Bush is going to do the next 4 years and the reason why is because in the US election you don't choose the person who has the best ideas for your country, you just pick the more popular guy. That's why the only thing those 2 have been doing was drag eachothers names through the mud.

So congratulations with getting your monkey elected again. :thumbsup:

Sorry Maullus, but some people in this thread came off way too righteous. Almost had to vomit when I read this. I view this election in a greater context as a great victory, by the grace of God, against evil. This victory should be viewed as a sign that things are changing for the better IMHO, but it came too close for comfort.

[Elevander]

I have the impression that Hillary is to extreme, feel free to correct me there. I am very much looking forward to seeing the male/female comparison graphs on THAT election... If she decides to run next term.

[ScytheNoire]

Beyond the abortion issue, which really ought to be a no-brainer, there is only one more issue I feel strongly about which as a direct result of my Christian beliefs.

right, it's a no-brainer, it is, and should always be, a woman's right to choose. well, glad we have that settled.

good news - Bush has no chance of winning in 2008
bad news - there might not be a free America around in 2008

hmmm... the fact that the Myan calendar ends in 2012 (i think it was 2012, no later than 2018) and that big things are suppose to happen by 2008 that lead to the end of mankind isn't making me feel any better.

[Elevander]

Oh man I learned about that calendar last year in High School. It's never been wrong, right?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hilary will run in 2008, after america believes it's finally "time for a change". Furthermore, Bush will be gone, and republicans will be forced to elect a new candidate that the public must grow accustomed to. One term isn't enough to bring about a full 180 regarding a change of government. If Hilary runs in 2008 as I predict, expect me to be alot more proactive on political threads if I'm still around. None of you will believe she's a viable choice :evil:.

[Elevander]

Hilary will run in 2008, after america believes it's finally "time for a change". Furthermore, Bush will be gone, and republicans will be forced to elect a new candidate that the public must grow accustomed to. One term isn't enough to bring about a full 180 regarding a change of government. If Hilary runs in 2008 as I predict, expect me to be alot more proactive on political threads if I'm still around. None of you will believe she's a viable choice :evil:.
Like I said, the Male/Female comparison charts for voting in that election will be facinating.

[Hydro]

Hilary will run in 2008, after america believes it's finally "time for a change". Furthermore, Bush will be gone, and republicans will be forced to elect a new candidate that the public must grow accustomed to. One term isn't enough to bring about a full 180 regarding a change of government. If Hilary runs in 2008 as I predict, expect me to be alot more proactive on political threads if I'm still around. None of you will believe she's a viable choice :evil:.

Hillary will carry a southern state when hell freezes over and Odin comes down from Valhalla to campaign for her.

She is far too liberal to every be a viable choice for the presidency, so I hope she doesn't win the primaries (which IS a possibility).

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Lol, if hollywood stars and wrestlers can occupy positions of power in America, what's next? It's a frikin popularity contest. Oprah will sanction it, and the sheep will vote in Hilary as some kind of new-age revolution. God bless the american heartland - that's all I've got to say.

[Booms]

Hillary in '08!

Seriously though, the fact that she's ambitious (women shouldn't have ambitions! I mean, it's okay if a man really wants to be president, but whatever happened to the Cult of True Womanhood?), cusses and is pro-abortion does not make me dislike her. And the fact that both power and AoA oppose her only makes her look better. I'm pretty sure Bhs doesn't like her, so maybe I'll just ask him online.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And the fact that both power and AoA oppose her only makes her look better

I sincerely hope you were joking. Then again, its no suprise that most would use that kind of criteria for voting. As I said - it's a popularity contest :lol:.

[Hydro]

I don't oppose her, I just don't think she would have a very good chance mainstream right now, so I wouldn't vote for her in the primaries. That's why I was sad when Kerry won, because I thought others (Clark, or even the Deaniac) could have done a much better job against Bush.

[Sage the Mage]

Hillary is going to run, but not get nominated.

Um maybe a good thing for you Bush people:
Cheney says they are interpreting this election as a mandate.
Powell is gonna leave, and it seems like Rice might too.

[Hydro]

Hillary is going to run, but not get nominated.

Um maybe a good thing for you Bush people:
Cheney says they are interpreting this election as a mandate.
Powell is gonna leave, and it seems like Rice might too.

Yay! Powell is leaving! I hated how level-headed and logical he was, and he was constantly *****ing about wanting more worldwide support, and he kept pushing for "peaceful measures". People like that are ridiculous, with their constant nagging for proof before pre-emption.

[SpiritWalker]

Yay! Powell is leaving! I hated how level-headed and logical he was, and he was constantly *****ing about wanting more worldwide support, and he kept pushing for "peaceful measures". People like that are ridiculous, with their constant nagging for proof before pre-emption.
I detect sarcasm..

[Hydro]

I detect sarcasm..

Sarcasm? Never! I want a secretary of state that shoots first and asks questions later, I want a secretary of state that says things like "Smoke em out", I want a secretary of state that carries a .45 on his hip and a big cigar in his mouth! I want a secretary of state that makes John Wayne and the Terminator look like girly man, and one that knows that diplomacy is for liberals alone. I think that Bush will placate me in my requests...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sarcasm? Never! I want a secretary of state that shoots first and asks questions later, I want a secretary of state that says things like "Smoke em out", I want a secretary of state that carries a .45 on his hip and a big cigar in his mouth! I want a secretary of state that makes John Wayne and the Terminator look like girly man, and one that knows that diplomacy is for liberals alone. I think that Bush will placate me in my requests...

You left out the white bull-terrier :p.

[powermongor]

Sorry Maullus, but some people in this thread came off way too righteous. Almost had to vomit when I read this.

And you wonder why your guy lost...

[Booms]

I completely agree with what Spirit said. I find it both disturbing and offensive that people would elect our president from a religious standpoint. (Or just an ignorant one, because anyone who has been paying attention knows that Bush gets a F when it comes to terrorism).

It's not that I hate all religious people. It's just that, well, who ever said that your religion was the right one? Nobody did, so keep your damn beliefs out of my government.

If Bush continues to incorporate Christianity into the government (and don't say he hasn't. Trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning *** marriage is purely religious.), I see the divide in this country growing. The split may not be even, but the gap between the free-thinkers and the ignorant who gobble up the GOP's propoganda will only continue to grow.

[SaroDarksbane]

I support Bush because of his pro-rights view on guns and his pro-life views on abortion, primarily. I think the economy will come back in these next 4 years. I like that fact that he sees terrorism as a war and not as a crime to be cleaned up after and policed (though he could use some focus about who our particular enemy is).

I think Bush is a strong president. Whether or not he is a great president is open to opinion and the eyes of history, but he is strong.

If he can balance the budget and pull Iraq out of its current state, he'll be golden. *crosses fingers*

[Eiger]

The only good thing about Bush winning is that he's going to wear all the crap he's created, instead of Kerry. Hehe.

I'm going to get a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Kerry" bumper sticker - pronto.

[Booms]

I hope that everyone realizes that if abortion is banned, all that will happen is women will get it done illegally and it will be a lot less safe. The government won't be able to regulate it, so all you're doing is putting the woman at at risk.

It's sorta the same as prostitution, which is banned purely for "moral" reasons. If it was legal it could be strictly regulated (the prostitute would have to get tested for STI's every week) and taxed; this would actually provide some additional income for the government and help prevent the spread of STI's.

EDIT: I'm going to get a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Kerry" bumper sticker - pronto.

Ooo, I wanna get me one of those.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If Bush continues to incorporate Christianity into the government (and don't say he hasn't. Trying to pass a constitutional amendment banning *** marriage is purely religious.),


A position against *** marriage could be argued eloquently without having to touch on religion. Go ahead and ask me - I'll reply after I get back from lunch.


I see the divide in this country growing. The split may not be even, but the gap between the free-thinkers and the ignorant who gobble up the GOP's propoganda will only continue to grow.

Are you calling yourself a "free thinker"? :lol:

[SaroDarksbane]

I hope that everyone realizes that if abortion is banned, all that will happen is women will get it done illegally and it will be a lot less safe. The government won't be able to regulate it, so all you're doing is putting the woman at at risk.
Not really. Sure, some will still choose to get it done illegally, but no where near the masses of killed children we have to deal with now. And since when does the fact that sometimes people break the law preclude the creation of said laws? That makes no sense.

[Hydro]

I hope that everyone realizes that if abortion is banned, all that will happen is women will get it done illegally and it will be a lot less safe. The government won't be able to regulate it, so all you're doing is putting the woman at at risk.

It's sorta the same as prostitution, which is banned purely for "moral" reasons. If it was legal it could be strictly regulated (the prostitute would have to get tested for STI's every week) and taxed; this would actually provide some additional income for the government and help prevent the spread of STI's.

EDIT:

Ooo, I wanna get me one of those.

I agree, another problem I have with banning abortion outright ( I disagree completely with abortion by the way) is that people that are getting abortions will not have access to psychological counseling before or after the procedure. It will be back alley and in no way regulated. I think the proper way reduce abortions in this country is more sexual education, bigger safe-sex campaigns, and the like. Even then we will never completely get rid of the problem, and it should always be the womans right to choose. I may disagree with it, but I don't have the right to oppose my morals on another person.

[Hydro]

A position against *** marriage could be argued eloquently without having to touch on religion. Go ahead and ask me - I'll reply after I get back from lunch.



Are you calling yourself a "free thinker"? :lol:

I disagree with *** marriage (Marriage has always been a religious institution, and religions have always seen it as man and woman), but I also disagree with the state poking its nose into a RELIGIOUS institutions practice. The state should provide homosexuals with the same rights as everyone else (economically), even if they do not formally recognize the union.

This gets into the debate about whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, and I think we need serious studies into a child's mental health over a period of time under such adoption conditions before we act in one way or another.

[Booms]

Not really. Sure, some will still choose to get it done illegally, but no where near the masses of killed children we have to deal with now. And since when does the fact that sometimes people break the law preclude the creation of said laws? That makes no sense.

They aren't killed children. They're unborn fetuses. It's not like I'm killing a little baby chicken when I eat an egg. The point is that this is a moral and more importantly religious issue, and it isn't your place to make the Bible a deciding authority.

It doesn't always make sense, and I'll admit a line has to be drawn somewhere. But for issues such as abortion, in which making it illegal would be very questionable, we are better off leaving it be and, as Hyrdo said, creating larger safe-sex campaigns.

[Booms]

A position against *** marriage could be argued eloquently without having to touch on religion. Go ahead and ask me - I'll reply after I get back from lunch.

Go ahead.

Are you calling yourself a "free thinker"? :lol:

Yes. If you would prefer, I can just go with well-educated and informed, but that would include you (well, I'm not sure about the informed part), so it doesn't work as well.

[Booms]

This gets into the debate about whether or not gays should be allowed to adopt, and I think we need serious studies into a child's mental health over a period of time under such adoption conditions before we act in one way or another.

There have been kids raised by *** parents, and they have turned out all right. The problem I see with looking into a child's mental health is that then we have to define different inclinations to be either "normal," (sexuality, etc.).

I'm not sure if you mean we should check to see if they have seriously learning disabilities or whatever, but that seems like a purely genetic thing. I mean, if it turns out kids raised by *** parents are 50% more likely to kill someone, then that can fit under mental health as well.

[SaroDarksbane]

They aren't killed children. They're unborn fetuses. It's not like I'm killing a little baby chicken when I eat an egg.
You mean if it's fertilized? Sure you are.
The point is that this is a moral and more importantly religious issue, and it isn't your place to make the Bible a deciding authority.
Who said anything about the Bible? Now you're putting words into my mouth.

[Booms]

Okay, I take back the Bible comment. The pro-life stance is heavily based upon religion, whether you like it or not, so I'll rephrase what I said: It isn't the place of the heavily religiously-inclined pro-life group to make the Bible a deciding authority.

EDIT:

Well, it depends on how far into the developmental stage the egg was. I don't know about the development of a chicken, so I'll let that be and go back to people. A human fetus in the very early stages (1st trimester) is not a human. I don't know what it's like during the 2nd trimester, so I won't comment on that.

[Hydro]

There have been kids raised by *** parents, and they have turned out all right. The problem I see with looking into a child's mental health is that then we have to define different inclinations to be either "normal," (sexuality, etc.).

I'm not sure if you mean we should check to see if they have seriously learning disabilities or whatever, but that seems like a purely genetic thing. I mean, if it turns out kids raised by *** parents are 50% more likely to kill someone, then that can fit under mental health as well.

I mean that being raised by *** parents can cause serious social and developmental problems. These problems can lead to a rise in rates of behaviors associated with molestation, ****, murder, increased rates of mental health problems, and learning disabilities. I want gays to have a chance to be parents, but you must also take into account how this will affect the child, and consequently, society as a whole.

"I mean, if it turns out kids raised by *** parents are 50% more likely to kill someone, then that can fit under mental health as well" - Which would prove that homosexuals should NOT raise kids. I severly doubt a study would find anything like this out though.

[SaroDarksbane]

Okay, I take back the Bible comment. The pro-life stance is heavily based upon religion, whether you like it or not, so I'll rephrase what I said: It isn't the place of the heavily religiously-inclined pro-life group to make the Bible a deciding authority.Which is why I only advocate public policy that I can support by some means other than my religous views.
Well, it depends on how far into the developmental stage the egg was. A human fetus in the very early stages (1st trimester) is not a human. I don't know what it's like during the 2nd trimester, so I won't comment on that.
See, we disagree. I believe life begins at implantation. Therefore, abortion is murder, and stopping murder is everyone's business.

No religous argument necesary.

[Booms]

I mean that being raised by *** parents can cause serious social and developmental problems. These problems can lead to a rise in rates of behaviors associated with molestation, ****, murder, increased rates of mental health problems, and learning disabilities. I want gays to have a chance to be parents, but you must also take into account how this will affect the child, and consequently, society as a whole.

"I mean, if it turns out kids raised by *** parents are 50% more likely to kill someone, then that can fit under mental health as well" - Which would prove that homosexuals should NOT raise kids. I severly doubt a study would find anything like this out though.

Yeah, I understand exactly what you mean, and I'm on your side. I'm pretty sure that studies so far have shown that they aren't different (they're probably more open to homosexuality though).

[powermongor]

Okay, I take back the Bible comment. The pro-life stance is heavily based upon religion, whether you like it or not, so I'll rephrase what I said: It isn't the place of the heavily religiously-inclined pro-life group to make the Bible a deciding authority.

EDIT:

Well, it depends on how far into the developmental stage the egg was. I don't know about the development of a chicken, so I'll let that be and go back to people. A human fetus in the very early stages (1st trimester) is not a human. I don't know what it's like during the 2nd trimester, so I won't comment on that.

Abortion should be decided upon where we think life begins. Life begins at conception. Period. You don't need to crack open a bible to know this.

[Booms]

Abortion should be decided upon where we think life begins. Life begins at conception. Period. You don't need to crack open a bible to know this.

Life doesn't begin at conception. Period.

EDIT: Let me clarify. Human life doesn't begin at conception. It's more like a parasite, and until it's illegal to kill a leech, it shouldn't be illegal to have an abortion.

[Ifrit18]

I have no problem with *** parents adopting children or raising children. I don't understand why some people dislike homosexual females/males.

Homosexual females/males just have a genetic flaw. They can still function fine in society.

[powermongor]

Life doesn't begin at conception. Period.

EDIT: Let me clarify. Human life doesn't begin at conception. It's more like a parasite, and until it's illegal to kill a leech, it shouldn't be illegal to have an abortion.

I'll say it again:

And you wonder why your guy lost the election...

[Maullus]

Greetings,

Lol, if hollywood stars and wrestlers can occupy positions of power in America, what's next? It's a frikin popularity contest. Oprah will sanction it, and the sheep will vote in Hilary as some kind of new-age revolution. God bless the american heartland - that's all I've got to say.

Yea, I agree. America should show a little bit more discretion then to elect an actor as the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html).

And I also agree that former Pro-wrestlers, even if they were Vietnam Veterans and Navy SEALs, should be disqualified from political service. After all, we expect more moral fiber from our politicians.

If I had the power, this thread, too, would be locked, since it is obvious that civil discussion on the subject is impossible. If the children can't play together nicely, they shouldn't play together at all.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Go ahead.


The first thing we can discuss is the definition of marriage. What is a marriage, and how is it different (if at all different) from a live-in relationship? This does not necessitate the topic of religion, as marriage is not an institution that was spawned by one religion in particular.


Yes. If you would prefer, I can just go with well-educated and informed, but that would include you (well, I'm not sure about the informed part), so it doesn't work as well.

Classes will resume..

[AgeOfAbnegation]

.

If I had the power, this thread, too, would be locked, since it is obvious that civil discussion on the subject is impossible. If the children can't play together nicely, they shouldn't play together at all.

Ok Maullus I'm going to set the record strait with you. Your posture on the OTF has always been of one attempting to be respectful and, as much as possible, avoiding conflict. You have done your best in trying to be an OTF police officer. Thankfully, you have no power to mod these forums. Discussion will continue of these topics, regardless of wether or not you believe it is "civil" or not. That's basically the same thing as asking X amount of posters to leave these forums - as that's who they are at this point. Discussion of controversial topics should not be banned - that in itself is intolerance. It's OK to have a disagreement, and its certainly OK to be passionate about a topic. It's not OK for someone to put a stranglehold on discussion because they think it only amounts to an "intellectual pissing contest". Frankly, I'm tired of the police activity. Take this up with the admins if you prefer, but these OTF have been going fine like this for as long as I've been here, and will continue to do so. Otherwise, these forums will become like the Chinese press.

Before you reply saying "I'm not discouraging discussion, I'm only asking for civility and "levity", you can keep in mind that passionate discussion means honest discussion. These boards are modded well enough to prevent a disaster, but should not be so to prevent any serious discussion altogether.

[Hydro]

I have no problem with *** parents adopting children or raising children. I don't understand why some people dislike homosexual females/males.

Homosexual females/males just have a genetic flaw. They can still function fine in society.

I have no problem with it either, and I will be completely open to it once the series of studies going on right now conclude that there will be no harm done to the psyche of a child raised in such a way.

[powermongor]

Notice how some OTF regulars have been conspicuously absent since the election?

[OneMadOgre]

These boards are modded well enough to prevent a disaster, but should not be so to prevent any serious discussion altogether.
I think you could make the argument that the abortion talk has become less than interesting. Can't argue a difference in premise. Crux of the argument predicated on when you believe it's human. Chinese used to have two different laws for murder. One for someone who was old enough to talk and one for someone who wasn't. They obviously believed that the age where one became "fully" human was around two years.

It can be an interesting topic if approached as adults with respect for differing opinions. If you want to do that, take it to a new thread. Further reponses here dealing with abortion will be deleted by me.

Thx.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Notice how some OTF regulars have been conspicuously absent since the election?

We're still either banging our heads against a wall or trying to get our citizenship in Canada in order.

You know, that, or we're tired of discussing something that now cannot be changed for another 4 years. Pre-election it served a purpose, now it is just tiring.

[Ifrit18]

We're still either banging our heads against a wall or trying to get our citizenship in Canada in order.

You know, that, or we're tired of discussing something that now cannot be changed for another 4 years. Pre-election it served a purpose, now it is just tiring.

Its something new each year. Marriage between a man and woman is being challenged where say 10-20 years ago, no one brought it up.

[Maullus]

Greetings,

Ok Maullus I'm going to set the record strait with you. Your posture on the OTF has always been of one attempting to be respectful and, as much as possible, avoiding conflict. You have done your best in trying to be an OTF police officer. Thankfully, you have no power to mod these forums. Discussion will continue of these topics, regardless of wether or not you believe it is "civil" or not. That's basically the same thing as asking X amount of posters to leave these forums - as that's who they are at this point. Discussion of controversial topics should not be banned - that in itself is intolerance. It's OK to have a disagreement, and its certainly OK to be passionate about a topic. It's not OK for someone to put a stranglehold on discussion because they think it only amounts to an "intellectual pissing contest". Frankly, I'm tired of the police activity. Take this up with the admins if you prefer, but these OTF have been going fine like this for as long as I've been here, and will continue to do so. Otherwise, these forums will become like the Chinese press.

Before you reply saying "I'm not discouraging discussion, I'm only asking for civility and "levity", you can keep in mind that passionate discussion means honest discussion. These boards are modded well enough to prevent a disaster, but should not be so to prevent any serious discussion altogether.

If your opinion mattered to me in the slightest I might respond to the personal, and insulting, nature of your comments. Since it doesn't, I'll confine my reply to the matter at hand.

You made a thread with an appropriate subject, but questionable content. It was locked; not for presentation, but delivery. It was, as OMO said, a valid subject. Therefore, this thread was made to provide people with a place to discuss that subject. I will be the first to admit and accept the dynamic nature of forum threads, and I understand that their focus evolves from one post to the next. This thread, however, was hijacked from the start. I don't even care that it was turned into yet another argument on abortion. It was not turned into a discussion, though. It was turned into a flame-bait and insults.

I appreciate that "passionate discussion means honest discussion." But unless "passionate" and "honest" are, in your vocabulary, euphemisms for "denigrating, insulting, and obnoxious" then I can't say that I feel this thread was either passionate or honest.

Real discussion involves attacking an argument, not the individual that presents it. I maintain that many people around here are incapable of making that distinction.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If your opinion mattered to me in the slightest I might respond to the personal, and insulting, nature of your comments. Since it doesn't, I'll confine my reply to the matter at hand.


For someone who believes it's important to heed the opinions of others and post respectfully, you're off to a good start. Apparently my opinion does matter to you however, as you've taken the time to reply in more detail. I won't however mistake that as pride on your part, in order to duly establish your position amid this small catastrophe.


You made a thread with an appropriate subject, but questionable content. It was locked; not for presentation, but delivery. It was, as OMO said, a valid subject. Therefore, this thread was made to provide people with a place to discuss that subject. I will be the first to admit and accept the dynamic nature of forum threads, and I understand that their focus evolves from one post to the next. This thread, however, was hijacked from the start. I don't even care that it was turned into yet another argument on abortion. It was not turned into a discussion, though. It was turned into a flame-bait and insults.


You're on an equally good footing in dealing with the content at hand. My last post on that thread stated it was "parody". If I was a regular advocate of such threads, I would consider that problematic. OMO understands it was "tongue-in-cheek".


I appreciate that "passionate discussion means honest discussion." But unless "passionate" and "honest" are, in your vocabulary, euphemisms for "denigrating, insulting, and obnoxious" then I can't say that I feel this thread was either passionate or honest.


Call me blind, but I've not seen many insults on this thread, of a personal nature. If you would find my reply to you insulting to your person, it's part of your own neurosis, not malice on my part. Further, I don't consider this OTF reflective of malice on the part of its posters.


Real discussion involves attacking an argument, not the individual that presents it. I maintain that many people around here are incapable of making that distinction.

THere's also the distinction of attacking a person's action. You however made the mistake of identifying your person with your position. Your loss if that's the case. :hanky:

[Ifrit18]

No offense but this thread is getting no where fast. As far as personal attacks, I won't say anything just yet.

If there is a problem with a post, use the ! alert moderator button and write a description of why the post is bad/flame/ugly.

Just trying to play peacekeeper here :thumbsup:. Tired of seeing good threads being locked.

[SpiritWalker]

And you wonder why your guy lost...
No, if it were me the whole last elections would be erased, the candidates banned for life from politics and the elections redone with politicians who present what they stand for decent and honest and don't try to discredit their opponent, but since that is just impossible in your country.. meh.

[powermongor]

No, if it were me the whole last elections would be erased, the candidates banned for life from politics and the elections redone with politicians who present what they stand for decent and honest and don't try to discredit their opponent, but since that is just impossible in your country.. meh.

Oh, so you don't even live here. That makes me feel even better than your guy didn't win.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

Its something new each year. Marriage between a man and woman is being challenged where say 10-20 years ago, no one brought it up.

The issues are still worth discussing, but thats not what powermonger was refering to. He was refering to the relative, I say relative as most threads are still "candidate oriented", disappearance of the old posters who discussed the election.

[Ifrit18]

The issues are still worth discussing, but thats not what powermonger was refering to. He was refering to the relative, I say relative as most threads are still "candidate oriented", disappearance of the old posters who discussed the election.

Thank you for posting this out :thumbsup:! I completely missed the point :xx: Any word on the missing posters who discussed the election?

[Maullus]

Greetings,

For someone who believes ... Your loss if that's the case. :hanky:

Ok.

No offense but this thread is getting no where fast.
That I can agree with.

Would anyone care to say something positive about George W. Bush's upcoming term as President of the USA?

Is it simply that people do feel secure in the way he handled 9/11? Is it that they feel he provides a strong moral backbone for the country? If you voted for Bush, share with us a brief summary of your motivation. I, at least, am interested to hear it. I've seen an awful lot of banner waving this election, but not many supporters in either camp that can justify their position beyond partisan bias.

[SpiritWalker]

Oh, so you don't even live here. That makes me feel even better than your guy didn't win.
That still doesn't mean it doesn't concern me. There are dutch soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraque too, you know why? Yes, that's right, because Bush wanted to play warlord. And I forsee that these next 4 years won't be any better than the last 4.

[Ifrit18]

Changing Presidents would be troublesome for the US troops.

I believe Bush handled the 9/11 incident well.

[Andarcel]

Changing Presidents would be troublesome for the US troops.

I believe Bush handled the 9/11 incident well.
What? Troublesome? What are you talking about?

[Ifrit18]

A good portion of US troops admited a change in command would not help the US troops.

[powermongor]

That still doesn't mean it doesn't concern me. There are dutch soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraque too, you know why? Yes, that's right, because Bush wanted to play warlord. And I forsee that these next 4 years won't be any better than the last 4.

Those soldiers are there b/c at least some people in your government realize the importance of the war on terrorism.

[Andarcel]

Those soldiers are there b/c at least some people in your government realize the importance of the war on terrorism.
Nope. Those soldiers are there because some people in my government couldn't care less about the War on Terror. If they gave a rat's *** about it, they wouldn't be helping the terrorists.

A good portion of US troops admited a change in command would not help the US troops. Support

[Hydro]

Maullus I tried to give a few reasons why Bush being elected wasn't completely bad earlier, even though I was EXTREMELY Pro-Kerry.

1. He handled 9/11 very well. You can argue all you wan't that his actions afterwards were horrible, but on the day we were attacked, he was compassionate and honest, and he comforted a great number of people. If something like that were to happen again, I don't think Kerry could do as good of a job. (again, in the moment, we aren't talking long term)

2. We are not changing leaders in a time of war. Most soldiers agree that neither Kerry or Bush would be able to change much that's going on in Iraq. Bush being re-elected does show that the United States will go through with plans to construct Iraq into a democracy.

3. There are a few more, I might post them later, but I feel like a traitor to myself... :)

[Ifrit18]

Another postive is I voted for Bush. Does that count? :)

[Hydro]

Another postive is I voted for Bush. Does that count? :)

No... thats a negative.




... ***.

[Hydro]

Just kidding by the way Ifrit, I figured you'd catch the sarcasm, but you never know nowadays... :)

[Oberon]

Here's my predictions for the next 4 years....

I. You will hear more about Iran's nuclear program. Bush will decide we must invade and that we can't wait for a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. A draft will be reinstated to provide for the additional troops necessary to launch such a large invasion.

II. Possible military action against Syria and, should Islamic fundamentalists overthrow the Saudi royal family, against Saudi Arabia as well.

III. Annual budget deficits of a trillion dollars or more.

IV. Social Security will be privitized.

V. School voucher programs will be expanded starving public schools of funding. Large numbers of students will be moved to Christian schools instead. Creationism will replace Evolution in public and private schools.

VI. Abortions and *** marriage will be made illegal in all states. Sodomy will be made a federal capital offense.

VII. The Justice Department, armed with an updated version of the Patriot Act, will start cracking down on Internet porn sites as well as sites which "provide aid to the enemy" - i.e. liberal sites.

VIII. Corporate taxes will be eliminated. Taxes on the top 10% will be halved or eliminated as well.

IX. The US will leave the UN and evict it from NYC.

X. The EPA, OSHA, the SEC and the Dept of Labor will be abolished.

XI. In addition to the pledge of allegiance, loyalty oaths like those required by people attending Bush rallies will become common if not mandatory.

XII. Three or four Supreme Court justices will retire and be replaced by far-right judges.

[BrimSt0ne M0nkey]

2 words, Marshall Law.

[billobob]

I. You will hear more about Iran's nuclear program. Bush will decide we must invade and that we can't wait for a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. A draft will be reinstated to provide for the additional troops necessary to launch such a large invasion.

Never going to happen. Bush is done with wars, just watch. Iraq was more a "family issue" than anything, and Bush just wanted to say that he fought a war.

II. Possible military action against Syria and, should Islamic fundamentalists overthrow the Saudi royal family, against Saudi Arabia as well.

See above.

III. Annual budget deficits of a trillion dollars or more.

A trillion dollars is rather extreme, but it will increase.

IV. Social Security will be privitized.

Not going to happen either, because Bush doesn't really want to bother with it. He hasn't really talked about it that much in recent years.

V. School voucher programs will be expanded starving public schools of funding. Large numbers of students will be moved to Christian schools instead. Creationism will replace Evolution in public and private schools.

Vouchers may be increased, and school funding may be cut regardless of vouchers, but the last two will never happen.

VI. Abortions and *** marriage will be made illegal in all states. Sodomy will be made a federal capital offense.

*** marraige will be banned in certain states, but Roe Vs. Wade will never be overturned due to the simple fact that it would be suicide to the Republicans who need the center vote. Nobody cares about sodomy, seeing as it isn't a buzzword, so there will be no action taken there.

VII. The Justice Department, armed with an updated version of the Patriot Act, will start cracking down on Internet porn sites as well as sites which "provide aid to the enemy" - i.e. liberal sites.

While the PATRIOT ACT is indeed a large threat, they will not extend its powers, only its duration (which is almost as bad). However, internet porn is too big of an industry now for politicians to tackle, and the Republicans won't do the latter for fear of massive backlash.

VIII. Corporate taxes will be eliminated. Taxes on the top 10% will be halved or eliminated as well.

Cut? Yes. Eliminated? You are talking out of your ***.

IX. The US will leave the UN and evict it from NYC.

No.

X. The EPA, OSHA, the SEC and the Dept of Labor will be abolished.

No.

XI. In addition to the pledge of allegiance, loyalty oaths like those required by people attending Bush rallies will become common if not mandatory.

...

XII. Three or four Supreme Court justices will retire and be replaced by far-right judges.

This will probably happen, but you have to remember most of the dying judges are far-right anyway, so there really won't be as much change as people thing (if Kerry had been elected there could have been change, but then again he probably wouldn't have been able to push justices through in the first place).

Being a libertarian I hate Bush for different reasons, but people overreacting to this extent is ludicrous. Do you also think that the Freemasons are going to kill everybody who opposes their new world order? Or that the Skull and Bones are hellbent on world domination on behalf of rich white boys everywhere?

[Andarcel]

Clearly there will be no Bush celebration here, so I'll just plow ahead.

1. He handled 9/11 very well. If I handle a crisis the way Bush handled 9/11, I have a court-martial to look forward to. Not only did he freeze for the seven minutes it took his staff to retrieve him, he spent the next hour composing a speech. Meanwhile, Cheney was trying to scramble pilots with orders to shoot down civlian aircraft in unauthorized zones - e.g., more hijacked planes. He had to break the chain of command to do this, because the CinC was busy working a speech. Because Cheney broke the CoC, those pilots weren't scrambled. America was left defenseless. It is only by the grace of God that they didn't have more planes to keep bombarding us.

[Sage the Mage]

I think Bush has already abandoned the whole working together with Democrats thing. It also seems like Ashcroft is gonna leave too from what I read.

This is absolutely my favorite thing:

"Moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter cautioned Wednesday that President Bush did not earn "a mandate" in his election victory and said the president should be "mindful" of potential confirmation problems should he have the opportunity to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court. ( Specter urges caution for Bush (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/specter.scotus.ap/index.html))"

[Oberon]

Never going to happen. Bush is done with wars, just watch. Iraq was more a "family issue" than anything, and Bush just wanted to say that he fought a war.

For which over 1100 American soldiers and $120,000,000,000 have been lost. Check out the Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) and you'll understand the neocons, who control Bush, have bigger plans than just Iraq.

A trillion dollars is rather extreme, but it will increase.

Bush's Medicare prescription plan will be implemented in 2006 which will add quite a bit to the Federal tab. Also war in Iran and elsewhere will cost enormously. Add that to the shrinking Middle Class and we'll be seeing shrinking revenues. Plus currently the government uses funds from Social Security to cover some of the costs making the deficit appear smaller than it really is. Currently it's over $600 billion but with Social Security funds the total is about 75% that. Nevermind that due to this practice there's a multi-trillion dollar IOU in the Social Security Trust Fund. Add to this the extra costs of the interest on the current record deficit plus past deficits and you're getting close to a trillion dollars.

Not going to happen either, because Bush doesn't really want to bother with it. He hasn't really talked about it that much in recent years.

Actually he has - just not as frequently as he's talked about Iraq and terrorism. In fact in his victory speech he specifically mentions Social Security (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3983415.stm). Remember his base is the "haves" and the "have mores" and they see Social Security as one big fat influx of capital into their stock market.

Vouchers may be increased, and school funding may be cut regardless of vouchers, but the last two will never happen.

It's already happening on a state level (creationism edging out evolution). With the federal government (especially the supreme court) firmly in the hands of the right there will be nothing to stop them.

*** marraige will be banned in certain states, but Roe Vs. Wade will never be overturned due to the simple fact that it would be suicide to the Republicans who need the center vote. Nobody cares about sodomy, seeing as it isn't a buzzword, so there will be no action taken there.

No, *** marriage will be banned nationwide via a Constitutional ammendment. Most if not all abortions will be banned when the Supreme Court, with its new right-wing members, overturns RvW. Since Supreme Court justices aren't elected the Republicans can claim they're not responsible (directly). Sodomy is a buzzword in the south where sodomy laws still exist and are enforces. In my own state of North Carolina, the Republican state convention debated about making sodomy offenses a capital offense in 1995 (capital offenses can be punishable by death). This isn't conspiracy theory wacko stuff I'm listing - much of it comes from the Republican party itself.

While the PATRIOT ACT is indeed a large threat, they will not extend its powers, only its duration (which is almost as bad). However, internet porn is too big of an industry now for politicians to tackle, and the Republicans won't do the latter for fear of massive backlash.

I think you overestimate the will of most people to *publically* fight in support of Internet porn.

IX. The US will leave the UN and evict it from NYC.

No.

X. The EPA, OSHA, the SEC and the Dept of Labor will be abolished.

No.

Take a look at the 2000 Texas Republican Party Platform (http://www.rlctx.org/RLCTX/Texas%20Republican%20Party%20Platform%202000.htm). It states "The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations. We support House Resolution 1146, 'The American Sovereignty Preservation Act' which would remove the United States entirely from the control of the U.N." It also states "The Party supports the downsizing of the federal government in order to reestablish states’ rights guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. We further support the abolition of federal agencies involved in activities not delegated to the federal government under the original intent of the Constitution including, but not limited to, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the position of Surgeon General, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor."

[Booms]

The first thing we can discuss is the definition of marriage. What is a marriage, and how is it different (if at all different) from a live-in relationship? This does not necessitate the topic of religion, as marriage is not an institution that was spawned by one religion in particular.

How about this: the state of being united to a person in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.

[billobob]

-Project for a New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/) and you'll understand the neocons, who control Bush, have bigger plans than just Iraq.

Right, and just because the neocons want to invade the rest of the earth doesn't mean Bush will carry through with it. You underestimate Bush's desire to have a legacy, and invading other countries would tilt many "middle of the road" conservatives out of favor with him. While the neocons would like the US to spread across the world, the neocon agenda is something that would take decades to take full effect, not a few years. They work on a much more gradual scale than people think, and doing anything rash which could disrupt Republican support would be detrimental to their plans.


-Bush's Medicare prescription plan will be implemented in 2006 which will add quite a bit to the Federal tab. Also war in Iran and elsewhere will cost enormously. Add that to the shrinking Middle Class and we'll be seeing shrinking revenues. Plus currently the government uses funds from Social Security to cover some of the costs making the deficit appear smaller than it really is. Currently it's over $600 billion but with Social Security funds the total is about 75% that. Nevermind that due to this practice there's a multi-trillion dollar IOU in the Social Security Trust Fund. Add to this the extra costs of the interest on the current record deficit plus past deficits and you're getting close to a trillion dollars.

Blah blah blah, site some numbers.


-Actually he has - just not as frequently as he's talked about Iraq and terrorism. Remember his base is the "haves" and the "have mores" and they see Social Security as one big fat influx of capital into their stock market.

He only talks about it when somebody brings it up. Privatizing social security is about the last thing on Bush's agenda, and doing so would upset the Republican's crucial center vote. It is something that they bring up to keep the conservatives faithful, but never pursue to keep the center as well.

-It's already happening on a state level (creationism edging out evolution). With the federal government (especially the supreme court) firmly in the hands of the right there will be nothing to stop them.

It happened in Kansas because Kansas is, well, Kansas. And as far as I know evolution was still being taught in the schools, not eliminated altogether. Again, this would upset the center vote of the Republcian party - Bush can't act by himself, he needs Congress on his side as well. If evolution was banned in, say, anywhere that's not the South or Midwest, there would be riots like you have never seen the likes of before.

- No, *** marriage will be banned nationwide via a Constitutional ammendment.

You do realize the amendment was ALREADY DEFEATED? It is very hard to pass an amendment in the first place, and Bush staying in the Presidency has almost no impact on the process. Do you understand how hard a constitutional amendemnt is to pass?

- Most if not all abortions will be banned when the Supreme Court, with its new right-wing members, overturns RvW. Since Supreme Court justices aren't elected the Republicans can claim they're not responsible (directly).

If the court wanted to overturn RvW it would have already done so. Lindquist himself is extremely right-wing, as are most of the justices who are questionable. Not to mention that the Supreme Court is EXTREMELY reluctant to overturn decisions of its predecessors, and needs a strong case to consider it being brought up to begin with. But let's say Roe vs Wade is overturned. In this case the anti-abortion laws in some states go into effect, but other states have laws which protection abortion rights and those become active. Overturning the case doesn't ban abortion completely.

- Sodomy is a buzzword in the south where sodomy laws still exist and are enforces. In my own state of North Carolina, the Republican state convention debated about making sodomy offenses a capital offense in 1995 (capital offenses can be punishable by death). This isn't conspiracy theory wacko stuff I'm listing - much of it comes from the Republican party itself.

I happen to live in North Carolina as well, and the sodomy debate never really reached serious levels. For that matter, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas sodomy law with a 6-3 vote (note that there are 5 justices on the Court considered to be conservatives, 4 of those strong conservatives).


- I think you overestimate the will of most people to *publically* fight in support of Internet porn.

The "people" don't matter one damn bit. It's a big business now, and the government doesn't want to bother with another Prohibition.

- Take a look at the 2000 Texas Republican Party Platform (http://www.rlctx.org/RLCTX/Texas%20Republican%20Party%20Platform%202000.htm). It states "The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations. We support House Resolution 1146, 'The American Sovereignty Preservation Act' which would remove the United States entirely from the control of the U.N." It also states "The Party supports the downsizing of the federal government in order to reestablish states’ rights guaranteed by the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. We further support the abolition of federal agencies involved in activities not delegated to the federal government under the original intent of the Constitution including, but not limited to, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the position of Surgeon General, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor."

That's all well and good, but it is the platform of the Texas Republican Party, not the Republican Party as a whole. The official Republican stance advocates none of these things, and off the top of my head I know for a fact they are not for abolishing the EPA in particular, as they want to use it as a front to push through their lackluster "Clear Skies" initiative.

[powermongor]

IX. The US will leave the UN and evict it from NYC.


Well, we can be hopeful *crosses fingers*.

[Hydro]

Clearly there will be no Bush celebration here, so I'll just plow ahead.

If I handle a crisis the way Bush handled 9/11, I have a court-martial to look forward to. Not only did he freeze for the seven minutes it took his staff to retrieve him, he spent the next hour composing a speech. Meanwhile, Cheney was trying to scramble pilots with orders to shoot down civlian aircraft in unauthorized zones - e.g., more hijacked planes. He had to break the chain of command to do this, because the CinC was busy working a speech. Because Cheney broke the CoC, those pilots weren't scrambled. America was left defenseless. It is only by the grace of God that they didn't have more planes to keep bombarding us.

I was grasping for staws, leave me alone :rant: !
I meant as a comforter to the nation, not how he handled it politcally.

[Ifrit18]

I knows its fine to bash Bush and criticize him. There is nothing wrong with sharing ideas long as its not aimed as a personal attack to anyone :thumbsup:.

One question though.

What advantage would Kerry hold over Bush as president? Kerry would do some stuff better than Bush obivously, but how do we know?

Discuss ;).

[Andarcel]

I knows its fine to bash Bush and criticize him. There is nothing wrong with sharing ideas long as its not aimed as a personal attack to anyone :thumbsup:.

One question though.

What advantage would Kerry hold over Bush as president? Kerry would do some stuff better than Bush obivously, but how do we know?

Discuss ;).
Quite simple. Kerry wouldn't do anything spectacularly stupid. For example he wouldn't entertain neocon fantasies of setting the Middle East on fire and building utopian democracies on the ashes, or privatize Social Security (thus violating the definitions of both "social" and "security").

That's really all there is to it. I like Kerry, I think he would make a fine president, but at the end of the day the real issue is that he couldn't do worse.

[Hydro]

I will now PWNZOR all arguments. Bow before this little piece...

Half the country wants George Bush gone, and the other half apparently doesn't know any better. Now obviously I'm biased because the last four years were far too silly for me to take seriously, and I know four years of Kerry will be just as lousy, but at least it would be a new flavor of lousy. If you buy one of those ridiculous Kool-Aid flavors like "Pugnacious Peach" and it makes you vomit, you don't buy it again. You try "Bituminous Berry" instead and hope for the best. Since it seems we've chosen to try the same lousy flavor again, I'm hoping America gets distracted by a fire truck for the next four years and doesn't do anything disastrous.
Because watching the election coverage on cable news networks is akin to having a ******ed boy throw toy racecars at you, I'm just going to pull all my election knowledge, commentary, and predictions out of the vast cavernous area I refer to as my "assbrain." This update, if you can call it that, will be a running mess of thoughts related to whatever the hell just happened on November 2, 2004. I'm pretty sure the giant blob of democracy rolled on by once more, absorbing us all in its alluring gelatinous mass of freedom.

America is known for having the most amazing form of democracy in the Milky Way Galaxy. This is true according to many experts, and the Bible as well. Like an autistic child overcoming obstacles, America's democratic process is slow and stupid, but inspiring when it pulls through and manages to do something vaguely coherent. Pretty soon Iraq will be inspiring people in the same way, provided that loveable country doesn't explode all over the place before then. To give you an example of how bad American democracy is, consider that the rather scary residents of Montana are allowed to vote. Montana is basically a scenic stretch of land sprinkled with the remains of an impoverished trailer park by some mammoth tornado. Every election, the camouflaged residents wander down from the hills or out of the woods and trade in their guns for ballots. This is all sanctioned and encouraged and a clear sign we have no standards.

If P-Diddy's proclamation of "vote or die" holds true, a lot of Americans will be dying soon from some kind of massive plague engineered by scientists in the hip hop community. We cannot forget that the Bible foretells of a tribulation in which a third of the world's population gets wiped out, possibly due to a lack of democratic participation. Could the "P" in "P-Diddy" stand for "Prophet"? One wonders.

I'm going to project that the world leans overwhelmingly towards Kerry. Unfortunately, because the rest of the world is full of dirty foreigners, they don't get to vote or utilize any veto power in our decision-making. And for trying to tinker with the rich tapestry we call democracy, they've all earned themselves a spot on the growing "Axis of Evil." The next four years should be pretty exciting in that regard. I think U.S. against the world would make for some pretty dramatic TV, especially if it involves total war. In a lot of ways, war is like a surprise birthday party where the presents last a lifetime. I like surprise birthday parties, so I'm looking forward to more war.

I'm projecting Alan Keyes the leader of the Illinois senate race with 100% of mental wards, friendly bears, and fire hydrants reporting. Barack Obama still wins on a technicality with 100% of humanity reporting. Because of the staggering nature of his victory, Barack Obama actually gained supernatural strength and is now over 100 feet tall and capable of shooting laser beams out of his ears. In a shocking affront to pro-life Alan Keyes supporters, those ear lasers hone in on developing fetuses and terminate them. Democracy works in mysterious ways.

This is a long shot, but I'm going to predict that, vying for extended power, Hawaii will annex South Dakota. Again, although there are few precincts reporting this, I have a hunch. When you think about it, no one is going to protest this move since it makes South Dakota actually kind of attractive instead of being a colossal waste of land. It also expands Hawaii's territory exponentially, as well as securing them a valuable corn palace for use as a center of government. This is going to wreck hell on our flag, but we'll pull through it with strong leadership.

The biggest winners in this election are the people that enjoy preventing *** people from having equal rights to marriage. Although it's still early, I'm going to project that this will be the last straw in the homosexual movement. Now that the straight people have spoken out against it, *** people will let go of this foolish phase and return to the land of heterosexual fanfare. Can homosexuals really fault us? We simply do not want them forcing *** marriage on us. Thanks but no thanks, *** people!

But then again, my opinions represent only one color in a rich rainbow of political views that strangle all the life out of society. In spite of this, I think we Americans (and the rest of the world as well) can come together and agree that whoever came up with the word "blogosphere" deserves some kind of horrific Marquis de Sade style torture. This is the worst word ever invented by mankind and even worse than "bling-bling." If it were possible for words to be murdered, I hope "blogosphere" gets beaten to hell and then hung with its own vowels.

[DwarvenHammer]

Nice read :thumbsup:.

I'm offically pwned :cheesy: .

Nice post! :buddies:

[Hydro]

Nice read :thumbsup:.

I'm offically pwned :cheesy: .

Nice post! :buddies:

I told you, no chance of not getting completely crushed by the awesomeness of that post.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I constantly hear the same stupid talking points from the radical left movement that have hijacked the Democratic party and keep causing them to lose elections.

1)Civil Liberties have not been trampled on. If you're from the ACLU, what makes you think you're so different from this by using your ultra legal liberal tyranny.

2)As far as the deficit is concerned, I would like to point out that the Bush administration inherited a recession from the previous administration, and we had the worst attack on our homeland EVER, AND it just happened to be on the World Trade Center. This hurt our economy badly. One million jobs alone were lost due to this. If you take out the the the war on terror, 9/11, recession, etc...we don't have a deficit. Bush hasn't been the most fiscally conservative president as I would like to see him, but don't make it seem like he caused this deficit single handedly.
I would like to point out these things:
-Unemployment rate is at 5.3 and falling (lower than any time
during the Clinton administration)
-1.6 million jobs gained during the last 12 months
-Home ownership higher than it's ever been
-GNP at 3.7---higher than any other industralized nation
The economy is not perfect, but it's getting ALOT better and it's due to the conservative philosophy of cutting taxes which grows small business and helps the consumer. (Please don't mention the phony argument of screwing the middle class and getting in bed with the rich. The government, both dems and reps, are somewhat of a proxy for corporations. However, about 1 million small businesses file their taxes in the so called "rich" tax bracket. Small business is the "American Dream" which rides on the wings of capitalism and free trade/economy. These things are what this country is based upon. Socialism nor Communism which walk hand in hand with radical Leftism will never be allowed to have power in the United States.

I will submit, Bush can do alot more for the environment. Whether Kerry would have put forth this environmental revolution is debatable.

I like Bush because he thinks of this country not only in terms of his own term. He thinks of 20-40 years in the future. Social Security, terrorism, ownership society, education and how it relates to economic prosperity and lower crime rates, and economic growth are all things he has ideas for, not only in his term but for generations as well.

Social Security is facing extinction. This is caused by a few factors. The main reason, in my mind, is simply that people are living longer and the tax for Social Security has not kept up longer life spans. Herein lies an insolvency problem. 7-10 years from now, this country will be paying more money to retirees and the disabled than what it is taking from taxpayers. The balance in redistribution will start to disappear, and in 30 years, Social Security will become extinct. This is exemplified due to the fact that the life span of people will only get larger as time goes along. We really cannot create a progressive tax for this program because this country is not a Socialist one. The president has offered the option of taking 2% of the tax taken for Social Security and putting it in private stock accounts. The fear of this is that people will think the government is gambling with their retirement and tax money. This is just NOT true. I work for the government, and the money that is taken out of my paycheck for retirement is invested just as the aforementioned plan would do. This retirement program is one of the best in the country. Also, it is also helpful to know that our stock market has NEVER had a net loss over any 20 year period...EVER. This seems like the best plan that would keep the program in tact, and best comply with our capitalist economy.


President Bush has explained many times why and how he plans to fight the war on terror. It's very obvious we cannot treat this as a nuisance. That kind of thinking is pure idiocy and.....amnesia like. So far we have brought 75% of Al Queda leadership to justice. We have frozen assets and broken their organization. Also, we have not had an attack on our country since. In the short term, we have to be aggressive in pursuing the terrorists and killing these animals. However, we will never truly find all of the terrorists. Thinking of the war on terror as a fast food culture would expectedly do, is a failed mentality. Terrorism is fueled by hate for western society, ideas, economy, etc. It is fueled by this idealogy of hate. The only way to truly to defeat idealogy, is with an idealogy of your own. Our idealogy just happens to consist of freedom and democracy. By taking Afghanistan and Iraq and toppling their dictatorships, we have now opened the doors for our idealogy. I don't accept the argument that you can actually FORCE freedom on someone. Freedom is every human's God-given right, no matter what or who your god is. Over a number of years, once there is a population turnover and their children aren't taught to hate our society, and are given better education, jobs, and opportunities, then this idealogy will die and terrorism with it. I think this is a brilliant strategy, yet a lofty one. Only time will tell if it will work, but at least he has the conviction to go through with it and does not falter under scrutiny. This quality in itself earns my admiration and respect.


Healthcare is one of, if not the most important aspect of our lives. Socializing this aspect of our lives, as John Kerry planned to do, is a stupid and dangerous idea. I live in South Dakota, and work for Social Services. Our socialized medical welfare program takes up HALF of this state's budget, and it only insures people within the poverty level. The fact is, half of the people in this state do NOT fall within the poverty level. Now, just think if we did this on a national level, with not only 100,000 people insured but 100,000 million people insured. There are two outcomes to this.
1) Now Kerry said this would be paid for by rolling back the tax cut for the highest tax bracket which would screw about 1 million small businesses. Now, lets just say he goes ahead and keeps with that promise(not). It would be underfunded, and would fail miserably as most ideas of Socialism do.
2) (the real situation) He would not only have to roll back the higher tax cut, but would have to raise taxes heavily on all tax brackets. In this country, we all enjoy very good healthcare with clean offices, knowledgeable doctors, and plenty of medicine on the shelves. Insurance companies would go under due to people not being able to afford their policies and thereby being forced onto his program---then the tax gets even higher. The quality of healthcare that we have now would crash and burn, and we would have a heavy progressive tax on our hands...almost into a full blown Socialist economy. We will always reject this proposition.

President Bush stands on the side of stopping greedy trial lawyers in their tracks. These lawyers constantly undertake frivolous lawsuits (i.e. oops, I cut my ear, lets go sue for 10 million). This makes every...EVERY healthcare provider have to purchase extremely expensive liability insurance policies, which, you guessed it, raises the cost of healthcare. Bush wants to cap these lawyers earnings which would limit their lawsuits and lower the cost of liablility insurance for providers...which, you guessed it, lowers the cost of healthcare.

Anyone wonder how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make all that money and act like they are in touch with the black community?? Weelllll, lemme tell ya!!
Jesse Jackson is a traitor to his fellow black community. Every major election, the DNC spreads the love among the caucuses to ensure their traditional vote. One of their strong areas of voting comes from the black community. Jesse Jackson goes to Kerry and says, "okay, I'm gonna get you the black vote this time, but what are you gonna give my people??? AND, what are you going to give ME to deliver the message???" Now you know why he is a filthy rich person who acts like he identifies with the inner city black communities. So he gets his money and delivers the message. The message is that Kerry and the democrats are going to deliver even more of the best socialized welfare benefits that you enjoy now. Jesse Jackson essentially works to keep the most of the black community on welfare and gets rich off it while reaping in votes for the Democrats. As I said, he is a traitor to his people. You're supposed to try and lift your people up out of welfare and into prosperity. He has no such plan.

When the question is posed to President Bush, "how do you plan to deal with gun violence, drugs, etc. that happen mostly in minorities that reside in urban inner city areas?" He answers in one word....Education. Again, he is looking past his term into the next 20-30 years. He wants to raise the standards of education and get rid of social promotion so that we don't have kids in high school that can't even read and really don't care because they are continuously promised better welfare by the democrats. If they are held to higher standards of education and their communities are given more money to improve education then more of them become......educated. This gives them an option to slinging drugs which in turn lowers gun violence. They have opportunities to get educated and obtain good jobs so that they don't have to stay under the tyranny of social welfare engineering that Jesse Jackson and the democrats impose.

Also, the president believes in the family. It's always better when a child has a balance in life....instead of just a Mom, a Mom and Dad. This is true in all species. More families mean less abortion, better education, lower crime, lower drug use, etc.. Tis the natural progression.

The only gap between our species and most others is that we employ choice in our decisions instead of instinct. This is why Socialism/Communism will never work with humanity. We are born with the ability to CHOOSE, therefore we are not perfect. Socialism/Communism argues for a Utopian/Perfect society and economy. However, a model of perfection can NEVER be employed by or dictated to an imperfect subject. The only way you can employ it and dicate it is how Stalin and the Moose did....kill anyone who disagrees with you. This is yet another reason we need Bush. He constantly stands against the throws of Socialism and stands for freedom of the indvidual which directly coincides with our natural right of choice. I don't argue that each lower social class is exploited(such a negative term) by the higher one. But the great thing about this country is that you can rise out of the proletariat and into the bourgesie.....because if you have the will and the drive....you certainly have the freedom to do it. And dont't tell me. I was born into terrible poverty. I chose to get educated and go to college. Now I make extremely good money helping people that were in my situation get on their feet so that they are able to strive for the same success I've had.

In conclusion, why do I choose Bush? Less power to the government, more freedom for the individual, medical liablity reform, better education, strong war on terror, support for small business, capitalism, open society, welfare reform, keeping Social Security safe and in tact for future generations, courage to make unpopular decisions, vision, judges that interpret the law and don't try to write it, partial birth abortion BANNED, support for the FAMILY....

Why shouldn't I choose Kerry?? Socialized welfare, more power to the government, less power to the individual, higher taxes, more welfare, rise of secularity, small business will hurt, socialism, judges that don't interpret the law but want to write it, all out abortion even for birth control, a crash in the quality of healthcare, more power to greedy trial lawyers, extinction of Social Security, failed menality, short-sightedness, political expedience, rise in single parent families, world government, answering to the UN before our own interests are taken into account, power to France, power to Germany, a retreat in the war on terror.........

My vote goes to President Bush

There was Socialism at the gates, just as the ****s came upon Stalingrad. And through a long hard battle, just as the ****s were defeated, so was John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Bill Maher, Brad Pitt, Bruce Springsteen, Barbara Streisand, Robert Redf...well the Hollywood idiots. Terry McAuliffe, Joel Lockhart, James Carville, Bob Schrum, John Edwards, and the rest of the radical left wing movement.
Viva Bush, Viva Cheney, Viva Capitalism, and Viva Freedom and Democracy!!

Besides, realllyyyy, would you really want that lunatic Heinz as the first lady of this great country?????

[Andarcel]

All the old wingnuts are crawling once more out of the woodwork. I should have been in bed two hours ago, so I'll just respond to the recession.

The recession was ridiculously weak. It was a blip on the American economic radar. By contrast, the recovery is the worst we've had since the Great Depression. Bush can farm out responsibility on the recession, but the stunningly craptastic recovery is his to own.

[Sage the Mage]

2)As far as the deficit is concerned, I would like to point out that the Bush administration inherited a recession from the previous administration, and we had the worst attack on our homeland EVER, AND it just happened to be on the World Trade Center. This hurt our economy badly. One million jobs alone were lost due to this. If you take out the the the war on terror, 9/11, recession, etc...we don't have a deficit. Bush hasn't been the most fiscally conservative president as I would like to see him, but don't make it seem like he caused this deficit single handedly. The slowing was caused by the .com burst I'd think. Dubya certainly hasn't helped control the deficit though.


I would like to point out these things:
-Unemployment rate is at 5.3 and falling (lower than any time
during the Clinton administration)
[quote]

Wrong.
[quote]During President Clinton's two terms in the White House, the country experienced unprecedented job growth, thanks in part to the booming high-tech, Internet and other service industries.

In time for the next election, the average unemployment rate had dropped from 6.1 percent in 1994 to 5.4 percent in 1996. Clinton won a second term, with exit polls suggesting the robust economy played a big role in his reelection.

By the time Mr. Clinton left office in January 2001, unemployment had dipped as low as 3.9 percent. But even as the final days of Mr. Clinton's term dwindled, economic problems appeared on the horizon. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/issues/issue_jobs.html



-1.6 million jobs gained during the last 12 months Government jobs I think, not private sector

-Home ownership higher than it's ever been Don't attribute this to Bush, attribute it to Greenspan and his interest rates.

-GNP at 3.7---higher than any other industralized nation Yes higher than any single nation, how about comparison to trading blocs? :)

However, about 1 million small businesses file their taxes in the so called "rich" tax bracket. Small business is the "American Dream" which rides on the wings of capitalism and free trade/economy. These things are what this country is based upon. Socialism nor Communism which walk hand in hand with radical Leftism will never be allowed to have power in the United States. Too late, you've already got a social security card, there's people on welfare, and there's medicare and all that stuff :)

[bobxii]

Thank God we've kept the guy who will keep us away from moral rot for 4 more years...

[Elevander]

Lol, if hollywood stars and wrestlers can occupy positions of power in America, what's next? It's a frikin popularity contest. Oprah will sanction it, and the sheep will vote in Hilary as some kind of new-age revolution. God bless the american heartland - that's all I've got to say.
Sean Hannity interviewed Arnold "insert austrian surname here" two days ago. Although he kept repeting himself, and was trying to boost popularity for an upcoming "Arnold weight lifting... athon..." he actually had some smart stuff to say.

[SpiritWalker]

Well, we can be hopeful *crosses fingers*.
I think you want other countries to hate America, don't you?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

How about this: the state of being united to a person in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law.


So basically its a live-in with a law slapped on it. What purpose does the law serve in terms of human relationships, other than a possible psychological security hang-up?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Sean Hannity interviewed Arnold "insert austrian surname here" two days ago. Although he kept repeting himself, and was trying to boost popularity for an upcoming "Arnold weight lifting... athon..." he actually had some smart stuff to say.

I'm sure most celebrities have enough savvy to succeed in their chosen profession, and have requisite intelligence to learn the political schema to an extent, some of whom could excel. What's at stake however is the paradigm as seen by the public. That's not to detract from a celeb politician, but does detract from a rather fickle social view of leadership.

[Andarcel]

So basically its a live-in with a law slapped on it. What purpose does the law serve in terms of human relationships, other than a possible psychological security hang-up?
The ability to dispose of property, have joint custody, and visitation rights.

[Maullus]

Greetings,

I'm sure most celebrities have enough savvy to succeed in their chosen profession, and have requisite intelligence to learn the political schema to an extent, some of whom could excel. What's at stake however is the paradigm as seen by the public. That's not to detract from a celeb politician, but does detract from a rather fickle social view of leadership.

I repeat:

"Yea, I agree. America should show a little bit more discretion then to elect an actor as the President. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html)

And I also agree that former Pro-wrestlers, even if they were Vietnam Veterans and Navy SEALs, should be disqualified from political service. After all, we expect more moral fiber from our politicians."

Obviously I'm being facetious.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The ability to dispose of property, have joint custody, and visitation rights.

That is true. What I want to get around to is the notion of monetary support for couples. Many *** people I know desire marriage for that sole reason. What would your thoughts be on that?

[SpiritWalker]

That is true. What I want to get around to is the notion of monetary support for couples. Many *** people I know desire marriage for that sole reason. What would your thoughts be on that?
Maybe because, believe it or not, *** people can believe in God? And they still want to be married in his eyes.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Greetings,



I repeat:

"Yea, I agree. America should show a little bit more discretion then to elect an actor as the President. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html)


lol, I was replying to Elevander, but w/e.


And I also agree that former Pro-wrestlers, even if they were Vietnam Veterans and Navy SEALs, should be disqualified from political service. After all, we expect more moral fiber from our politicians."

Obviously I'm being facetious.

Or looking for an argument.. :scratch:. Is that to say that people of aforementioned professions lack moral fiber? Doesn't sound like a typical Maullus comment to me..

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Maybe because, believe it or not, *** people can believe in God? And they still want to be married in his eyes.

A bit of a tangent. I know a few *** christians. They would not pursue a marriage option, as according to scripture, a component of marriage is openness to raising children. Marriage in scripture is between a man, and a woman.

[SpiritWalker]

A bit of a tangent. I know a few *** christians. They would not pursue a marriage option, as according to scripture, a component of marriage is openness to raising children. Marriage in scripture is between a man, and a woman.
Times change, the religious people have never backed out changing the bible so that it benefits themselves.. *looks at the exploiting done by the church back in the middleages*

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Times change, the religious people have never backed out changing the bible so that it benefits themselves.. *looks at the exploiting done by the church back in the middleages*

The original question posted was regarding government funding to couples. For what purpose should a taxpayer support them, other than raising children? You brought in religion all of a sudden. Care to start a new thread? A new thread probably would have to be created to deal with the tripe you asserted about mutating scripture and the topic of universal vs particular laws. I'll leave that up to you.

[SpiritWalker]

The original question was if you could name a few positive things Bush was going to do in his next 4 years. So if you would care to start a new thread about the government funding to *** couples.

That beside the point, are you meaning to say *** couples don't deserve a chance to raise children? And how do you plan on argumenting your opinion, because it hasn't been proven that children raised by *** couples will turn out *** themselves or will have social problems in their enviroment.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The original question was if you could name a few positive things Bush was going to do in his next 4 years. So if you would care to start a new thread about the government funding to *** couples.

THere is a difference between replying to the "flow" of a thread (my reply was to Booms), and simply walking around a question by posting an entirely new question.

[SpiritWalker]

THere is a difference between replying to the "flow" of a thread (my reply was to Booms), and simply walking around a question by posting an entirely new question.
The topic at hand consists of more than only the financial purpose behind marriage. So perhaps I 'flowed' in a different direction as you went?

[Maullus]

Greetings,

lol, I was replying to Elevander, but w/e.

Or looking for an argument.. :scratch:. Is that to say that people of aforementioned professions lack moral fiber? Doesn't sound like a typical Maullus comment to me..

Not looking for an argument; I posted that previously in response to your statement:
Lol, if hollywood stars and wrestlers can occupy positions of power in America, what's next? It's a frikin popularity contest. Oprah will sanction it, and the sheep will vote in Hilary as some kind of new-age revolution. God bless the american heartland - that's all I've got to say.
and you chose to respond only to the personal comment I made regarding this thread being way off base. Since it is, obviously, irrevocably off base, and the discussion regarding Actors, etc. holding office continued, I felt that my ignored comments were still relevant to the discussion.

And as I said, I was being facetious to emphasize my point; that being, your disparagement of "Hollywood stars and wrestlers" occupying "positions of power in America" was unfair and inaccurate. Rather then continue trying to illustrate a point through satire, I'll convey it in literal terms:

Ronald Reagan was an actor long before he became a politician. He was not nearly the flawless saint that his death has prompted many people to paint him as, but he was a capable and effective president, and certainly not the worst we've had.

So what's the problem with Arnold? Is it because he is Austrian? Is it because he is so astoundingly popular? It can't simply be that he is an actor...obviously that doesn't disqualify someone from being a leader and politician as well. If you think he is schmoozing just because he is an actor, then you might have a slightly overrated opinion of his acting ability. Shakespearean theater he is not.

Also, you laughed at the prospect of a former pro-wrestler being in office. Perhaps I would agree, if he did not have the credentials that speak volumes about his character, if not his capacity for administration. Jesse Ventura was in the Navy, served in Vietnam, and was a SEAL. I imagine that stands in his favor, slightly more then the fact that he was also a pro-wrestler and actor detracts from it.

Is it a popularity contest? Yes, but that's exactly what our typical bi-partisan politics have been for ages, actors and wrestlers notwithstanding. Being an actor or a wrestler prior to serving in office hardly makes them unviable candidates.

And you're right: It didn't sound like a "typical Maullus comment" because that is not what Maullus was saying.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

The topic at hand consists of more than only the financial purpose behind marriage. So perhaps I 'flowed' in a different direction as you went?

I'd call it more a grinding halt than a flow :p.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Is it a popularity contest? Yes, but that's exactly what our typical bi-partisan politics have been for ages, actors and wrestlers notwithstanding. Being an actor or a wrestler prior to serving in office hardly makes them unviable candidates.

And you're right: It didn't sound like a "typical Maullus comment" because that is not what Maullus was saying.

Fair enough, I cant argue against their validity as a candidate, that much is certain. I should have been more clear in what's truly at stake - the criteria for popularity and a voter's propensity to make the correct choices.

[Hydro]

First off, to The Jolly Roger, your argument had so many holes in it I could have used it as a collander. I won't bother to break it into little bits, as I am sure even you are aware of them.


The original question was if you could name a few positive things Bush was going to do in his next 4 years. So if you would care to start a new thread about the government funding to *** couples.

That beside the point, are you meaning to say *** couples don't deserve a chance to raise children? And how do you plan on argumenting your opinion, because it hasn't been proven that children raised by *** couples will turn out *** themselves or will have social problems in their enviroment.

I am all for *** couples getting the chance for raising children, but I also would like some more insight as to whether or not being raised by a *** couple causes social problems.

[Coltaine]

If the Taxcut for married couples is only for them beeing able to raise children, why not wait until they actualy have children?
There are without doubt many couple that don't want children because of them hindering their jobs and costing a small fortune.
SO why not track the taxcuts the couple would have received and then pay it out once the woman gets pragnant and also keeps the child.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I am all for *** couples getting the chance for raising children, but I also would like some more insight as to whether or not being raised by a *** couple causes social problems.

A good question Hydro. Posters could start off with putting a definition on what could be characterized as a "social problem". What's at stake is the question of an ideal development for a human being.

[SpiritWalker]

A good question Hydro. Posters could start off with putting a definition on what could be characterized as a "social problem". What's at stake is the question of an ideal development for a human being.
Being 1 of the reasons why you can't just write it off as "*** couples can't have children, because their children will have social problems", when this has never been proven and the fact that defining social problems on itself is hard enough these days.

[Hydro]

Being 1 of the reasons why you can't just write it off as "*** couples can't have children, because their children will have social problems", when this has never been proven and the fact that defining social problems on itself is hard enough these days.

Agreed, I would just want to know that their weren't serious social problems. To be quite honest, I know *** couples that would make WAY better parrents than a lot of heterosexual couples, but with *** parenting there are bound to arise a lot of new and unique issues, which I think should be looked into a little bit more.

[SpiritWalker]

Agreed, I would just want to know that their weren't serious social problems. To be quite honest, I know *** couples that would make WAY better parrents than a lot of heterosexual couples, but with *** parenting there are bound to arise a lot of new and unique issues, which I think should be looked into a little bit more.
Of course, but excluding those problems by banning *** marriage and the right for them to raise children as a whole is just not the way to go about it.

[Hydro]

Of course, but excluding those problems by banning *** marriage and the right for them to raise children as a whole is just not the way to go about it.

I agree with that as well. Sadder still is the fact that the only reason I think social problems would arise is because of Xenophobia towards gays, that the kids would invariably experience from young ages. You would get parents not allowing their children to come over, parents not allowing that child to go to their house, complaints at PTA meetings, etc. etc. Home schooling would be a viable option, except that the home schooling community is normally very Christian, and likely the child would end up being forced into a isolationist life.
In my ideal world homosexuals would be accepted as viable parents, and none of this would be an issue, but sadly I think Bush will create even more of a stigma against any sexuality that isn't hetero.
/sigh
There are never any easy answers.

[SpiritWalker]

I agree with that as well. Sadder still is the fact that the only reason I think social problems would arise is because of Xenophobia towards gays, that the kids would invariably experience from young ages. You would get parents not allowing their children to come over, parents not allowing that child to go to their house, complaints at PTA meetings, etc. etc. Home schooling would be a viable option, except that the home schooling community is normally very Christian, and likely the child would end up being forced into a isolationist life.
Yep, so true.

And then still it wouldn't be the *** parents' direct fault, because the people who are homophobe ruin it for them.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

except that the home schooling community is normally very Christian, and likely the child would end up being forced into a isolationist life.

Most people, including myself, attended public school. I know a few homeschooled people though, and they are some the best adjusted people I know.

Concerning "rights", if everything is a right, nothing is a right. Regarding *** parenting, you first have to touch on what the definition of an ideal upbringing entalils. If we cant sort this out, we can't really do much except air our opinions.

[Mastgrr]

1)Civil Liberties have not been trampled on. If you're from the ACLU, what makes you think you're so different from this by using your ultra legal liberal tyranny. The ACLU is not a liberal or a conservative organization. It's not liberal to want freedom and justice, it's a non-partisan issue.

Voting for *** marriage is like two wolves and a sheep voting what's for lunch. Tyranny by the majority.

[SpiritWalker]

Concerning "rights", if everything is a right, nothing is a right. Regarding *** parenting, you first have to touch on what the definition of an ideal upbringing entalils. If we cant sort this out, we can't really do much except air our opinions.
They are people, people in general have the right (or should have) to get married, people in general have the right (or should have) to have children.

How would you feel if this world viewed being a christian as evil and disgusting and you weren't allowed to marry and have children, because narrowminded people forbid you, because their narrowmindedness ruins it for you.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

They are people, people in general have the right (or should have) to get married, people in general have the right (or should have) to have children.

How would you feel if this world viewed being a christian as evil and disgusting and you weren't allowed to marry and have children, because narrowminded people forbid you, because their narrowmindedness ruins it for you.

Definitons are important. "Civil unions" could be one issue, while "Marriage" is another. Marriage is between one man, and one woman. Other living arrangements have simply different definitions. THe problem these days is that everyone wants to be everything. A *** marriage is not a marriage - its a living arrangement. THe reason people want the marriage label is to accrue benefits that were originally intended to aid in the raising of a family. And furthermore, they want the marriage label to further validate their relationship. If a relationship needs to be validated by a label, it's not a relationship - its a joke. If everything is a right, nothing is a right. On the same page, you could demand the right to be married to multiple people, or even married to animals. WHat people lack these days is understanding of natural laws we discover in the world, and exibit a propensity for artificing their own realities. Then they become obsessed with "rights", and demand everyone to support a lifestyle of their own creation.

[Hydro]

Concerning "rights", if everything is a right, nothing is a right. Regarding *** parenting, you first have to touch on what the definition of an ideal upbringing entalils. If we cant sort this out, we can't really do much except air our opinions.

I find these to pertain most to the issue at hand.
These are the Human Rights accepted by all countries, one of the most succesful and un-contestable documents in the world.



"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
"

[SpiritWalker]

Definitons are important. "Civil unions" could be one issue, while "Marriage" is another. Marriage is between one man, and one woman. Other living arrangements have simply different definitions. THe problem these days is that everyone wants to be everything. A *** marriage is not a marriage - its a living arrangement. THe reason people want the marriage label is to accrue benefits that were originally intended to aid in the raising of a family. And furthermore, they want the marriage label to further validate their relationship. If a relationship needs to be validated by a label, it's not a relationship - its a joke. If everything is a right, nothing is a right. On the same page, you could demand the right to be married to multiple people, or even married to animals. WHat people lack these days is understanding of natural laws we discover in the world, and exibit a propensity for artificing their own realities. Then they become obsessed with "rights", and demand everyone to support a lifestyle of their own creation.
And can you tell me where it says that marriage has to be between man and woman?

And I believe it's suffice to say that marrying animals can't be compared to *** marriage.

[Cripe]

Here's the reason I'm for *** marriages: It stops the lawsuits over who gets to inherit when one member dies. There have been many cases where one person in a civil-union dies, then the family of that member comes in and claims everything as theirs. Usually there is a lot of built-up hatred and they don't care if the surviving member gets to keep anything for the money, emotion, and years that they've invested in the relationship. Civil unions aren't recognized as making you "family", so courts will often grant family members preference for inheritences over a civil-union person. Yes, having a will should help prevent this, but people can certainly contest a will, and when they're unhappy with the life their dead relative led, they often will.

It's unjust, unfair, and morally unfounded.

Here's the reason why I don't think parenting is an issue: marriage does not equate to parenting. That's pretty straightforward as many heterosexual couples don't have kids, and they still have valid marriages.

Now if a *** couple wants to adopt a child, they need to prove that their home will be good for the child. That is where the whole "providing a good environment" comes in. If a *** couple wants to conceive a child through fertility clinics or some surrogate method, then how can we make it illegal? It is legal for a single person to use such methods, regardless of their sexual orientation. They could even be living the *** lifestyle and have a lifelong partner, but still be single. If that is true, then how can we condemn them for doing the same thing in a dedicated marriage? Seems like it would be more stable than if they did it in an actual marriage.

Maybe I'm blinded by something, but those are my views.

Edit: I meant that it (raising a kid with a dedicated *** marriage) would be more stable than raising a kid as a single parent regardless of sexual preference.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And can you tell me where it says that marriage has to be between man and woman?

And I believe it's suffice to say that marrying animals can't be compared to *** marriage.

haha priceless :p. Your two statements reveal your inconsistency. First you find it abhorrent that marriage must be understood in certain terms, then you flip over to saying there are limits. A thing is a thing, not "no-thing" by reference to multiple concepts. Your challenge is finding out where you got your criteria for the definition of marriage you assent to. Is it based on how you'd like the world to be? If so, where did that come from? Ultimately, there is one world, one reality, one method of coming to terms with language for description.

[Hydro]

Now if a *** couple wants to adopt a child, they need to prove that their home will be good for the child. That is where the whole "providing a good environment" comes in. If a *** couple wants to conceive a child through fertility clinics or some surrogate method, then how can we make it illegal? It is legal for a single person to use such methods, regardless of their sexual orientation. They could even be living the *** lifestyle and have a lifelong partner, but still be single. If that is true, then how can we condemn them for doing the same thing in a dedicated marriage? Seems like it would be more stable than if they did it in an actual marriage..

Good point, but, like I was saying earlier, the stigma against homosexuals is reaching a breaking point in this country. For years we were progressing more towards openess, and lately we have begun taking huge steps back.
It is hard enough to convince a court that a single person can raise a kid, almost impossible to convince them that a *** couple can.

[Sage the Mage]

Here's my problem with having both civil unions and marriage: You're just asking for discrimination with seperate terms. If I set it up, you'd get a Civil Union permit/thingy regardless of if you were married/in a civil union. That would entitle you to all those benefits, and name change I guess. It just needs to be the exact same thing in the eyes of the law. Make an amendment making them equal in the eyes of the law and defining marriage as man & woman if you make an amendment at all.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Here's my problem with having both civil unions and marriage: You're just asking for discrimination with seperate terms.


You're dead wrong. Is it descrimination against a person if they cannot be named every title available? Perhaps its discimination against you if I can't call you a woman (I'm assuming you're a guy). What clear and distinct definitions do is set limits for human understanding. A marriage is a marriage. Calling it any other way, or allowing for any other method of its application is not discrimination at all - its a detraction from its pure form as a concept and an institution. People of that persuasion are asking to be included into an institution that by its very nature cannot allow them to be. Their understanding of "rights" is an extreme form of intolerance in that they make war against a concept that is secure in its own definition and understanding, and seek to mutate it to their own ends. That is truly, utterly disguisting.

A "Civil union" status can offer legislation for legal requirements that are valid up to, and not including the tenets of a nuclear family scenario and its associated concerns. Anything more than that is robbery of the taxpayer, and robbery of reason.


If I set it up, you'd get a Civil Union permit/thingy regardless of if you were married/in a civil union. That would entitle you to all those benefits, and name change I guess. It just needs to be the exact same thing in the eyes of the law. Make an amendment making them equal in the eyes of the law and defining marriage as man & woman if you make an amendment at all.

A taxpayer should not have to pay for someone's fabricated reality. Fabricated realities are not rights - they are pie-in-the-sky dreams. Asking a taxpayer to finance that is abhorrent to the core.

[SpiritWalker]

haha priceless :p. Your two statements reveal your inconsistency. First you find it abhorrent that marriage must be understood in certain terms, then you flip over to saying there are limits. A thing is a thing, not "no-thing" by reference to multiple concepts. Your challenge is finding out where you got your criteria for the definition of marriage you assent to. Is it based on how you'd like the world to be? If so, where did that come from? Ultimately, there is one world, one reality, one method of coming to terms with language for description.
You haven't answered my question, and this argument you have here will be undone once you answer me where you get the idea that marriage has to between man and woman, and can't be between man and man or woman and woman.

And, again, no you can't compare animals to humans, AoA. Humans have other rights than animals, thus my so called inconsistency isn't. Humans have the right to get married, period. That's where the limit is. Animals don't have the right to get married, period. So comparing those 2 is inconsistent of you.

[Hydro]

Maybe you missed these earlier AOA.
These are rights afforded to ALL people.
Should gays be any different?


I find these to pertain most to the issue at hand.
These are the Human Rights accepted by all countries, one of the most succesful and un-contestable documents in the world.



"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

"(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
"

[AgeOfAbnegation]

You haven't answered my question, and this argument you have here will be undone once you answer me where you get the idea that marriage has to between man and woman, and can't be between man and man or woman and woman.


Marriage is an institution that follows the natural law, which is in accord with the proliferation of the human species. More can be drawn from my previous posts.


And, again, no you can't compare animals to humans, AoA. Humans have other rights than animals, thus my so called inconsistency isn't. Humans have the right to get married, period. That's where the limit is. Animals don't have the right to get married, period. So comparing those 2 is inconsistent of you.


I'm going to answer both Hydro and SW in one post, since it deals with the same thing. You guys hold to this idea of "rights". Where did this idea come from, and by what criteria was it judged? You people believe that because the notion of "rights" has been around for a few centuries and that they are well documented and clearly laid out that they are demonstrative of objective reality? 'Sif. That's called an "ad hominem" fallacy by means of reference to an established norm underwritten by humans. You must be more critical thinkers. What is a "right"? Is it something you, by your very nature, are entitled to? Is that a demand? Can we demand marriage? Can we demand to be treated peacibly? I believe I heard you a few months back arguing for equal rights for animals SW. Is this all arbitrary? I'll tell you what it is - its our way of making ends meet in life - its our method of trying to live without much trouble. Eventually however, all degenerates, all eventually die, and change is the name of the game. What "rights" are, is simply a list of norms to live by that allow our small time on this ball of mud to be as painless as possible - they have NOTHING to do with objective reality. Different ages have different rights - such as it was a right to have slaves in the ancient world, something people think to be abhorrent these days. There are no objective rights. Rights are a human artifice.

The most essential thing for a human being to do is to become a philosopher, and make an attempt to discover to the best of your ability what these objective, metaphysical laws are, and "discover" the best way to live your live, not foolishly create it like a child would create a sandcastle. What's the matter, can not everyone think properly? Than in that case, listen to those that can - it's the way, and destiny of the physical world. Are there so many ideas that the "truth" cannot be found? We have texts, both ancient and modern, that offer us a way of discovering more fully. Is this useless because we can't know everything anyway? No. The path taken is sometimes more important than the goal, but the beauty is that when living the path, you're knowing it. Hopefully this ramble will be intelligible, at least in part. In sum, we're coming from very different places and points of view on this, and that's fine. But what I will say is that there are educated voices that can offer commentary on the issue, not simply a general trend of thought that says "whatever foo, just let ppl do whateva".

[Hydro]

Marriage is an institution that follows the natural law, which is in accord with the proliferation of the human species. More can be drawn from my previous posts.




I'm going to answer both Hydro and SW in one post, since it deals with the same thing. You guys hold to this idea of "rights". Where did this idea come from, and by what criteria was it judged? You people believe that because the notion of "rights" has been around for a few centuries and that they are well documented and clearly laid out that they are demonstrative of objective reality? 'Sif. That's called an "ad hominem" fallacy by means of reference to an established norm underwritten by humans. You must be more critical thinkers. What is a "right"? Is it something you, by your very nature, are entitled to? Is that a demand? Can we demand marriage? Can we demand to be treated peacibly? I believe I heard you a few months back arguing for equal rights for animals SW. Is this all arbitrary? I'll tell you what it is - its our way of making ends meet in life - its our method of trying to live without much trouble. Eventually however, all degenerates, all eventually die, and change is the name of the game. What "rights" are, is simply a list of norms to live by that allow our small time on this ball of mud to be as painless as possible - they have NOTHING to do with objective reality. Different ages have different rights - such as it was a right to have slaves in the ancient world, something people think to be abhorrent these days. There are no objective rights. Rights are a human artifice.

The most essential thing for a human being to do is to become a philosopher, and make an attempt to discover to the best of your ability what these objective, metaphysical laws are, and "discover" the best way to live your live, not foolishly create it like a child would create a sandcastle. What's the matter, can not everyone think properly? Than in that case, listen to those that can - it's the way, and destiny of the physical world. Are there so many ideas that the "truth" cannot be found? We have texts, both ancient and modern, that offer us a way of discovering more fully. Is this useless because we can't know everything anyway? No. The path taken is sometimes more important than the goal, but the beauty is that when living the path, you're knowing it. Hopefully this ramble will be intelligible, at least in part. In sum, we're coming from very different places and points of view on this, and that's fine. But what I will say is that there are educated voices that can offer commentary on the issue, not simply a general trend of thought that says "whatever foo, just let ppl do whateva".

Humans have a RIGHT to certain things in life.
We are generally intelligent, and as such, have written laws that gurantee these rights for all people.
Why even bother arguing if Rights can be justified, when they are already a part of International Law?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Humans have a RIGHT to certain things in life.
We are generally intelligent, and as such, have written laws that gurantee these rights for all people.
Why even bother arguing if Rights can be justified, when they are already a part of International Law?

I know, rights are expressed in international law. But what I'm telling you is that they are CREATED by man, not DISCOVERED as part of the cosmos. There's a difference. The goal would be to discover immutable, universal rights, if such things exist.

[SpiritWalker]

I know, rights are expressed in international law. But what I'm telling you is that they are CREATED by man, not DISCOVERED as part of the cosmos. There's a difference. The goal would be to discover immutable, universal rights, if such things exist.
So man has at the moment a written document accepted by almost the whole world, including the US, in which it states that humans have the right to marry. It does however NOT say they can't marry the same sex.

[Ravashak]

I know, rights are expressed in international law. But what I'm telling you is that they are CREATED by man, not DISCOVERED as part of the cosmos. There's a difference. The goal would be to discover immutable, universal rights, if such things exist.
And since we can't hope to understand the cosmos, we have to make due with what we can do, thus we use these laws designed for humans, fabricated by humans.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

SW - Same sex marriage is another arbitrary doctrine that can be initiated by, or not sanctioned by a given government. Take note of the following..


And since we can't hope to understand the cosmos, we have to make due with what we can do, thus we use these laws designed for humans, fabricated by humans.

No, we do not have to settle for mediocrity like that. We don't pretend to understand things above us, but we CAN push our knowledge to its limits, in discovery. That way, we can arbitrate correct teaching of human ethics. We CAN know. Since we're a part of the cosmos, there is a great degree of knowedge we can have regarding it. From this knoweldge, we can come to terms with how we should be living. It doesn't have to be a guessing game.

[SpiritWalker]

So what you are saying is that *** marriage is incorrect ethics, may I ask why you'd think that to be so?

[Ravashak]

SW - Same sex marriage is another arbitrary doctrine that can be initiated by, or not sanctioned by a given government. Take note of the following..But as Hydro pointed out in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Humans, all men and women have the right to be married. And since every single nation accepted this, it's in a sense ratified in every single country.

No, we do not have to settle for mediocrity like that. We don't pretend to understand things above us, but we CAN push our knowledge to its limits, in discovery. That way, we can arbitrate correct teaching of human ethics. We CAN know. Since we're a part of the cosmos, there is a great degree of knowedge we can have regarding it. From this knoweldge, we can come to terms with how we should be living. It doesn't have to be a guessing game.And where did i say those laws we humans set up for ourselves can't be changed? But with our current stand, this is the best we can do, untill we can create better ones. Untill that time, you simply have to accept these.

[Valyinish]

Stop bashing AoA... only Horde may do that Rava and SW :rant:

[SpiritWalker]

Stop bashing AoA... only Horde may do that Rava and SW :rant:
On the contrary my dear Valy, just some healthy ol' discussion.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So what you are saying is that *** marriage is incorrect ethics, may I ask why you'd think that to be so?

I'll offer the notion that it takes a male and a female to produce a child. From that natural occurence, we could take it from there.

[Oberon]

Marriage is an institution that follows the natural law, which is in accord with the proliferation of the human species. More can be drawn from my previous posts.

Should marriage then be denied to heterosexuals who are past the age of procreation and/or where one of the partners is sterile? Many married heterosexual couples decide against having children. Should the state nullify their marriage?

I'm going to answer both Hydro and SW in one post, since it deals with the same thing. You guys hold to this idea of "rights". Where did this idea come from, and by what criteria was it judged? You people believe that because the notion of "rights" has been around for a few centuries and that they are well documented and clearly laid out that they are demonstrative of objective reality? 'Sif. That's called an "ad hominem" fallacy by means of reference to an established norm underwritten by humans. You must be more critical thinkers. What is a "right"? Is it something you, by your very nature, are entitled to? Is that a demand? Can we demand marriage? Can we demand to be treated peacibly? I believe I heard you a few months back arguing for equal rights for animals SW. Is this all arbitrary? I'll tell you what it is - its our way of making ends meet in life - its our method of trying to live without much trouble. Eventually however, all degenerates, all eventually die, and change is the name of the game. What "rights" are, is simply a list of norms to live by that allow our small time on this ball of mud to be as painless as possible - they have NOTHING to do with objective reality. Different ages have different rights - such as it was a right to have slaves in the ancient world, something people think to be abhorrent these days. There are no objective rights. Rights are a human artifice.

I agree with you here but I would like to add one caveat. Rights are a tool of the ruling elite to sedate the mob with the illusion of freedom and divide the mob into a majority and a minority so the majority mob can feel a sense of elitism over the minority. Whether it be blacks, gays, jews, palestinians, etc - giving some rights to the majority while denying them to a minority creates a sort of caste system so no matter how bad things get for the majority, at least they're better than the minority. It also creates a handy scapegoat to divert anger from the rulling elite to the mob minority.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Stop bashing AoA... only Horde may do that Rava and SW :rant:

They can only do that in War3 - we won't be on the same server in WoW, most likely :p.

[Sage the Mage]

You're dead wrong. Is it descrimination against a person if they cannot be named every title available? Perhaps its discimination against you if I can't call you a woman (I'm assuming you're a guy). What clear and distinct definitions do is set limits for human understanding. A marriage is a marriage. Calling it any other way, or allowing for any other method of its application is not discrimination at all - its a detraction from its pure form as a concept and an institution. People of that persuasion are asking to be included into an institution that by its very nature cannot allow them to be. Their understanding of "rights" is an extreme form of intolerance in that they make war against a concept that is secure in its own definition and understanding, and seek to mutate it to their own ends. That is truly, utterly disguisting.
We're not discussing religion here AoA, and quite frankly its useless in this discussion. I don't care if you're not allowed to get married in a church if you're ***. I do care that a same sex couple in a civil union do not get the same legal rights as a heterosexul couple in a marriage. Why shouldn't they? You cannot give a good reason.

Now when I talk about discrimination, have you ever heard of "seperate but equal"? That's about what would happen if a civil union and marriage are not treated as the same thing under the eyes of the law, and that's all I want. I could care less what the church thinks of it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

But as Hydro pointed out in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Humans, all men and women have the right to be married. And since every single nation accepted this, it's in a sense ratified in every single country.


I believe that natural law transcends the arbitrary laws of humans. International law may or may not be in accord.


And where did i say those laws we humans set up for ourselves can't be changed? But with our current stand, this is the best we can do, untill we can create better ones. Untill that time, you simply have to accept these.

I must indeed live by the laws of the land, but I'll say they aren't the best we can come up with. Rather, they are the best we want to come up with.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Should marriage then be denied to heterosexuals who are past the age of procreation and/or where one of the partners is sterile? Many married heterosexual couples decide against having children. Should the state nullify their marriage?


Age doesnt change things. A civil union definition is about as far as you could go.


I agree with you here but I would like to add one caveat. Rights are a tool of the ruling elite to sedate the mob with the illusion of freedom and divide the mob into a majority and a minority so the majority mob can feel a sense of elitism over the minority. Whether it be blacks, gays, jews, palestinians, etc - giving some rights to the majority while denying them to a minority creates a sort of caste system so no matter how bad things get for the majority, at least they're better than the minority. It also creates a handy scapegoat to divert anger from the rulling elite to the mob minority.

Most certainly.

[Valyinish]

AoA you sound like one of my language teachers on school. Waaaaay too much difficult words :scratch:

*looks stupid and stares at AoA*

[AgeOfAbnegation]

We're not discussing religion here AoA, and quite frankly its useless in this discussion.


Leave it to Sage to hijack one of my discussions. I'm not talking religion, in case you haven't read lol.


Now when I talk about discrimination, have you ever heard of "seperate but equal"? That's about what would happen if a civil union and marriage are not treated as the same thing under the eyes of the law, and that's all I want. I could care less what the church thinks of it.

Again, not discussing the church. I've outlined why a demarcation is necessary, and how it does not detract from one's dignity. All you've come up is just a repetition of what you said earlier. Well done. :thumbsup:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

AoA you sound like one of my language teachers on school. Waaaaay too much difficult words :scratch:

*looks stupid and stares at AoA*

Pop me an apple and we'll be cool :p.

[Valyinish]

Hmmm, what does that mean? But oh well, why would u use sentences like 'pop me an apple' :scratch:

*runs to the fellow WWN Europe members to ask what it means*

EDIT :

Hmm they said i had to give u the apple since u cant catch it that way :cheesy:

[Sage the Mage]

Leave it to Sage to hijack one of my discussions. I'm not talking religion, in case you haven't read lol.
I obviously missread when you mentioned marriage as an institution then, and I repeated myself for clearer understanding on your part.

[Booms]

There is no reason to beat around the bush here. AoA, how would you define marriage?

I have a feeling you'll say that it has to be between a man and a woman because they can have children. So, my question for you is:

what about old people who get married after they've lost the ability to procreate?

Should infertile people not be allowed to get married?

Should people that don't want to have children, and, one way or another, will not have children, not be able to marry?

[Valyinish]

Man, take a break. Its only a few words... Yes I Do. Just let the people be happy and we're all happy :scratch:

[Hydro]

THe natural order of things is anarchy, but we all know that anarchy is a bad thing. With order comes law, with law comes rights.
There is no point in denying that if we were to all follow the Doctrine of Human Rights previously stated, the world would be an awesome place.

[Oberon]

THe natural order of things is anarchy, but we all know that anarchy is a bad thing. With order comes law, with law comes rights.
There is no point in denying that if we were to all follow the Doctrine of Human Rights previously stated, the world would be an awesome place.

I would disagree. Humans are social animals and evolution would quickly weed out any anarchial society as it would most likely be disfunctional (if you disagree please point out one single example of a long-term anarchial society). Law is simply a rulebook imposed by the ruling class on everyone else (but often not on themselves). It's basically a list of punishments for disobeying their edicts. Some of these edicts are for the good of society while others are meant to cement the rule of the elite. For most of human history, with law came NO rights. Hell is other people. So long as that perception holds true, the world will never be an awesome place. Need proof? Here it is...

http://img105.exs.cx/img105/3844/counties-2004.gif

[AgeOfAbnegation]

THe natural order of things is anarchy, but we all know that anarchy is a bad thing. With order comes law, with law comes rights.
There is no point in denying that if we were to all follow the Doctrine of Human Rights previously stated, the world would be an awesome place.

Note the highlighted. What do you mean by the natural order being anarchy. (it's funny that you place order and anarchy in the same sentance :p).

[AgeOfAbnegation]

There is no reason to beat around the bush here. AoA, how would you define marriage?

I have a feeling you'll say that it has to be between a man and a woman because they can have children. So, my question for you is:

what about old people who get married after they've lost the ability to procreate?

Should infertile people not be allowed to get married?

Should people that don't want to have children, and, one way or another, will not have children, not be able to marry?


Marriage is many things, each being an essential component. Unitive, procreative, etc. All aspects.

[Hydro]

I would disagree. Humans are social animals and evolution would quickly weed out any anarchial society as it would most likely be disfunctional (if you disagree please point out one single example of a long-term anarchial society). Law is simply a rulebook imposed by the ruling class on everyone else (but often not on themselves). It's basically a list of punishments for disobeying their edicts. Some of these edicts are for the good of society while others are meant to cement the rule of the elite. For most of human history, with law came NO rights. Hell is other people. So long as that perception holds true, the world will never be an awesome place. Need proof? Here it is...

http://img105.exs.cx/img105/3844/counties-2004.gif

Whoops, what I meant to say -

The natural order of things is not anarchy, and we all know that anarchy is a bad thing. With order comes law, with law comes rights.

So what do you suggest Oberon? No laws? Everyone here is railing against rights being rights or laws being good, but you have yet to give me a better alternative.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Whoops, what I meant to say -

The natural order of things is not anarchy, and we all know that anarchy is a bad thing. With order comes law, with law comes rights.


Yes, the natural order has laws - objective realities. Rights thus can be some description of who we are, and our relationship to nature. The term has undergone violent misuse since the enlightenment.

[Hydro]

Everyone here is railing against rights being rights or laws being good, but you have yet to give me a better alternative.

I repeat....

[Oberon]

So what do you suggest Oberon? No laws? Everyone here is railing against rights being rights or laws being good, but you have yet to give me a better alternative.

Entire philosophies have been built around this conundrum. IMO the #1 problem with any form of government and economics is the fact that power corrupts. It's why Fascism and Communism are always doomed to fail. It's why Libertarianism would also likewise fail if ever truly implemented (power removed from government would be quickly assimilated by corporations so in reality libertarianism leads to corporatism). I suggest the lesser of evils - constitutional republic - but it only works if the people are educated, informed and participate in politics. In this last election, 1/3 of voters still did not vote. A slight majority of those who did voted for Bush but it has been proven time and again that on average Republican voters are misinformed. They believe Saddam was directly linked to 9/11, that Iraq had operational WMD's, that world opinion was in favor of the invasion of Iraq, that the Iraqis were in favor of the invasion, etc. The fact that a large portion of the Republican base believes evolution and global warming are myths and instead believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis over science is very telling. In a nutshell, the US has a disfunctional electorate because 35% of voters are lazy and 34% are stupid. Given this situation, my suggestion is emmigration. I'm looking into it (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/index.html).

Yes, the natural order has laws - objective realities. Rights thus can be some description of who we are, and our relationship to nature. The term has undergone violent misuse since the enlightenment.

Laws, when refering to nature, are descriptions of how things function. Laws, when refering to human society, are descriptions of how things *should* function. The former is objective, the latter is subjective.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Laws, when refering to nature, are descriptions of how things function. Laws, when refering to human society, are descriptions of how things *should* function. The former is objective, the latter is subjective.

You mention "should", then mention subjective. If a "should" exists, than there is reference to an objective ideal.

[Oberon]

You mention "should", then mention subjective. If a "should" exists, than there is reference to an objective ideal.

Actually "should" is a reference to an opinion.

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." - Democritus

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Actually "should" is a reference to an opinion.

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." - Democritus

Ok, wanted to fish that out. So, you're a follower of the atomists?

[powermongor]

http://img105.exs.cx/img105/3844/counties-2004.gif

I have never seen such a beautiful sight : )

[Oberon]

Ok, wanted to fish that out. So, you're a follower of the atomists?

I guess so but I'm not familiar with that term "atomists". Is it similar to believing in naturalism?


I have never seen such a beautiful sight

Looks like terminal cancer to me.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

I guess so but I'm not familiar with that term "atomists". Is it similar to believing in naturalism?


Democritus was one of the "atomists". They believed that the universe was eternal, and that the physical world/life was "all there was". Very much like our own age. They were the supreme skeptics and dogmatists of their time. Their error was their rejection of metaphysics, as the physical world demands an "answer". The epicureans chose to reject this desire for an answer with the prolonging of pleasure, and the stoics chose to disregard this with the rejection of desire - much like buddhism.

[Sage the Mage]

I have never seen such a beautiful sight : )
Imagine that, places with cities voted for Democrats! I could have sworn that people with frequent contact with others would surely vote Republican! :)

[powermongor]

Imagine that, places with cities voted for Democrats! I could have sworn that people with frequent contact with others would surely vote Republican! :)

I will say it yet again:

And you wonder why your guy lost...

[Sage the Mage]

I will say it yet again:

And you wonder why your guy lost...
Because Kerry didn't look the part. That's about as simple as I can make it.

[Hydro]

I suggest the lesser of evils - constitutional republic - but it only works if the people are educated, informed and participate in politics.

Laws, when refering to nature, are descriptions of how things function. Laws, when refering to human society, are descriptions of how things *should* function. The former is objective, the latter is subjective.

I would agree, but the part about people needing to be educated proves my point. Laws would not be neccesary in an ideal society, just like gays could adopt children with no problems. Sadly, that ideal society will never exist, ever.

[Hydro]

20 years from now, when Texas is finally a supporter of Democratic candidates again, I will dance my happy dance that Democrats will always have a certain 140 electoral votes (Calif, NY, and TX)

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Oh geez, the ACLU isn't a liberal organization?? You tell me one member of the ACLU that voted for Bush and I'll give you a cookie.
Look, I could have swore the ACLU was the legal branch of the Communist Party. So you're right...maybe liberal is being to conservative, hehe if I can even word it that way.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

20 years from now, when Texas is finally a supporter of Democratic candidates again, I will dance my happy dance that Democrats will always have a certain 140 electoral votes (Calif, NY, and TX)

What makes you ever think that the good Conservative people of Texas would ever bow to Liberalism. Now, if the Democratic Party kicks all the radical liberals out of their party and returns itself to decent status...then hell, maybe I'll vote for a democrat. But, it's clear you don't understand why the Democrats keep losing just because you think, someday, that all of a sudden Texans are going to wake up one morning and abandon their values, property, individual freedom, and income.

You are all going to have to kick the radicals out and seriously rethink your position.

[Hydro]

What makes you ever think that the good Conservative people of Texas would ever bow to Liberalism. Now, if the Democratic Party kicks all the radical liberals out of their party and returns itself to decent status...then hell, maybe I'll vote for a democrat. But, it's clear you don't understand why the Democrats keep losing just because you think, someday, that all of a sudden Texans are going to wake up one morning and abandon their values, property, individual freedom, and income.

You are all going to have to kick the radicals out and seriously rethink your position.

It's called an influx of Hispanics.
Your going to need to learn a thing or two about history and demographics before you start making up asinine claims.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

It's called an influx of Hispanics.
Your going to need to learn a thing or two about history and demographics before you start making up asinine claims.


Oh yeah, except you forgot one thing. You're losing. As conservatives gain a mandate in this country, our sovereignty will only grow stronger. I know liberals want to throw our soveriegnty out the door, sacrfice our borders, and hijack our culture only to gain power. But like I said...you're losing.

[Hydro]

Oh yeah, except you forgot one thing. You're losing. As conservatives gain a mandate in this country, our sovereignty will only grow stronger. I know liberals want to throw our soveriegnty out the door, sacrfice our borders, and hijack our culture only to gain power. But like I said...you're losing.

You make less and less sense with every posting.
Learn the meanings of words before you try to use them in a sentence.
"Hijack our culture?"... WTF?
We won't be losing in 4 years when Bush can't hide behind 9/11 and a "War" on terror.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

You make less and less sense with every posting.
Learn the meanings of words before you try to use them in a sentence.
"Hijack our culture?"... WTF?
We won't be losing in 4 years when Bush can't hide behind 9/11 and a "War" on terror.


Ahhh I'm dealing with a rookie here. Yes, "hijack" our culture. Now, if you don't know what I mean by that, then you are a rather elementary fellow.

[Hydro]

Ahhh I'm dealing with a rookie here. Yes, "hijack" our culture. Now, if you don't know what I mean by that, then you are a rather elementary fellow.

I'm afraid you're way off base.
Please explain what you mean, so I can tell you how you are wrong.

[Booms]

Marriage is many things, each being an essential component. Unitive, procreative, etc. All aspects.

Okay. So why should the aformentioned types of couples be allowed to marry while *** people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Especially if the *** couple wants to adopt, because at least that way they are raising children compared to the married couple that does not want children.

[Father Jack]

Ahhh I'm dealing with a rookie here. Yes, "hijack" our culture. Now, if you don't know what I mean by that, then you are a rather elementary fellow.


I believe this is right wing code for the 'Culture War' that is coming. Pretend we don't listen to right wing talk radio.

[Hydro]

I believe this is right wing code for the 'Culture War' that is coming. Pretend we don't listen to right wing talk radio.

Ok, I thought he meant a culture war, but I didn't want to post without knowing exactly what I was dealing with.
Then again, I guess I could have and wouldn't have been out of place...

[powermongor]

I believe this is right wing code for the 'Culture War' that is coming. Pretend we don't listen to right wing talk radio.

Savage or Hannity? Or someone else?

I love talk radio. Did you listen b4 I posted that thread with the links or after?


I also troll www.democraticunderground.com. Man, that is a great site to find out what you guys are planning.

[Father Jack]

Ok, I thought he meant a culture war, but I didn't want to post without knowing exactly what I was dealing with.
Then again, I guess I could have and wouldn't have been out of place...


I'm not sure I'm kind of guessing. I also would like this to be clarified.

P.S. I don't think powermonger understood my post. For the record : I don't listen to right wing talk radio, that stuff makes you stupid. Serously though, it does there was a study.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Okay. So why should the aformentioned types of couples be allowed to marry while *** people shouldn't be allowed to marry? Especially if the *** couple wants to adopt, because at least that way they are raising children compared to the married couple that does not want children.

I've already told you. The definition of marriage is ordered to a certain expression - mainly, the unity and proliferation of a nuclear family. This may or may not include offspring, but it very open to the possibility thereof. Civil unions are another category.

[Hydro]

I've already told you. The definition of marriage is ordered to a certain expression - mainly, the unity and proliferation of a nuclear family. This may or may not include offspring, but it very open to the possibility thereof. Civil unions are another category.

Please change that to "YOUR definition of marriage".
That is the core problem with passing a law banning *** marriage.

[Booms]

I've already told you. The definition of marriage is ordered to a certain expression - mainly, the unity and proliferation of a nuclear family. This may or may not include offspring, but it very open to the possibility thereof. Civil unions are another category.

What makes the nuclear family so special?

[Oberon]

20 years from now, when Texas is finally a supporter of Democratic candidates again, I will dance my happy dance that Democrats will always have a certain 140 electoral votes (Calif, NY, and TX)

Here's a better solution....

http://img124.exs.cx/img124/6963/NewPlan.jpg

[Booms]

To everyone who reads these forums: Stop listening to talk radio! Surprisingly, I'm pretty sure it's the crazy conservatives who do; I wonder if that's why they seem dumber than everyone else...

Note: This post was laced with sarcasm. I'm sure all of you got that, except for power and jolly.roger.

[Booms]

Here's a better solution....

http://img124.exs.cx/img124/6963/NewPlan.jpg

That is the most beautiful thing I've ever seen. And once the liberals leave Jesusland, depriving it of 99% of its intelligent people, hopefully the entire country will fall into disrepair because of the neocons stupid, stupid policies.

[powermongor]

Here's a better solution....

http://img124.exs.cx/img124/6963/NewPlan.jpg

While I found the map to be mildly enteraining, the bigger picture still eludes many on this forum, which makes me very happy.

[Sage the Mage]

What? We don't get Nevada too?

[Father Jack]

Jesusland makes the best pecan logs.

[Sage the Mage]

Hrm remember when people started saying that there would be a major attack in Iraq after the election and the Bush admin denied it? Yeah.

[Booms]

While I found the map to be mildly enteraining, the bigger picture still eludes many on this forum, which makes me very happy.

Please explain. I have hard time trying to think at your (very low) level.

[Father Jack]

While I found the map to be mildly enteraining, the bigger picture still eludes many on this forum, which makes me very happy.

enlighten me .... this should be good.:teeth:

[Sage the Mage]

He's going to say that we're out of touch with the majority is my guess.

[Hydro]

While I found the map to be mildly enteraining, the bigger picture still eludes many on this forum, which makes me very happy.

I think I see the biggest picture, while most conservatives look at the 75 pixel by 75 pixel thumbnail of corporations and religious zealots in America, leaving the 14'X20' print of the rest of the world on the wayside.

Or, something like that.
What is powermongor's big picture that we are missing?

[Hydro]

Here's a better solution....

http://img124.exs.cx/img124/6963/NewPlan.jpg

I don't like that.
I'm right in the middle of Jesusland.
Anyone wanna carpool with me to the U.S. of C. ?

[powermongor]

enlighten me .... this should be good.:teeth:

You guys are framing things incorrectly. I hope you guys still think the same way in 08.

[Hydro]

You guys are framing things incorrectly. I hope you guys still think the same way in 08.

Framing what incorrectly?

[Oberon]

He's going to say that we're out of touch with the majority is my guess.

Yeah, some majority....
http://img117.exs.cx/img117/5968/piechart.jpg

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Please change that to "YOUR definition of marriage".
That is the core problem with passing a law banning *** marriage.

It is the definition I hold to because it is a definition that is most demonstrative of that relational dynamic known as marriage. Civil unions don't need benefits that would otherwise be given to families raising children, but it can include other legal benefits. That answer can suffice for booms as well.

[Booms]

It is the definition I hold to because it is a definition that is most demonstrative of that relational dynamic known as marriage. Civil unions don't need benefits that would otherwise be given to families raising children, but it can include other legal benefits. That answer can suffice for booms as well.

If the *** couple chooses to adopt, why shouldn't they be given benefits? And you STILL haven't said why it's fine for an old man and woman who CANNOT have children to marry. Same goes for infertile people.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If the *** couple chooses to adopt, why shouldn't they be given benefits?


They could be offered benefits, but not under the marriage label.


And you STILL haven't said why it's fine for an old man and woman who CANNOT have children to marry. Same goes for infertile people.

You're still asking for the traditional term to be compromized. Why must this be done? If the traditional term is compromized, the meaning that a given couple can take from it is also compromized. Another term can be used to characterize *** couples, live-ins, or other situations.

[Hydro]

It is the definition I hold to because it is a .

It is the definition that YOU hold to. Why should gays be forced to live by the morals or standards set by others? (In the case of marriage)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

It is the definition that YOU hold to. Why should gays be forced to live by the morals or standards set by others? (In the case of marriage)

Perhaps you can tell me what a legal label of a relationship has to do with how one chooses to live their life. To force a compromize of the traditional definition is to force a compromize in an adherent's understanding of it. A new label makes no detraction from human dignity, or morals for that matter. Let marriage be marriage.

[Hydro]

Perhaps you can tell me what a legal label of a relationship has to do with how one chooses to live their life. To force a compromize of the traditional definition is to force a compromize in an adherent's understanding of it. A new label makes no detraction from human dignity, or morals for that matter. Let marriage be marriage.

If it is just a meaningless label, then why not let the gays have it?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

If it is just a meaningless label, then why not let the gays have it?

Well I tried to mention that it's not meaningless at all. Labels educate culture. These days, alot of couples live together before deciding on marriage. They shack up for 4 or 5 years or more, then get married. What has changed? Namely, it's an insurance policy in terms of psychology, and finance. In short, marriage means more to people if it is clearly defined.

[Oberon]

Well I tried to mention that it's not meaningless at all. Labels educate culture. These days, alot of couples live together before deciding on marriage. They shack up for 4 or 5 years or more, then get married. What has changed? Namely, it's an insurance policy in terms of psychology, and finance. In short, marriage means more to people if it is clearly defined.

And what of the meaning of marriage of *** couples? It matters to us too. Should we sacrifice equality and freedom to a minority simply because *some* of the majority are bigots? This is all about hate. Knowing what this issue means to the *** community, and know that banning *** marriage essentially reduces us to second-class citizens, knowing this - the only reason someone can be for such a ban is out of hatred of homosexuals. Gays don't go around trying to ban Christian fundamentalists from getting married. We're not enforcing laws making sex between Bible-thumpers a crime. It the fundamentalists had their way gays would be rounded up and slaughtered and they wouldn't feel a drop of guilt because "it's in the Bible".

[Coltaine]

Well I tried to mention that it's not meaningless at all. Labels educate culture. These days, alot of couples live together before deciding on marriage. They shack up for 4 or 5 years or more, then get married. What has changed? Namely, it's an insurance policy in terms of psychology, and finance. In short, marriage means more to people if it is clearly defined.

If that is the issue, then name it esturan.
an esturan has the same has the same rights and dutys as marriage. The only difference being that it is between a woman and a woman or a man and a man.
Problem solved?

[Coltaine]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
Should marriage then be denied to heterosexuals who are past the age of procreation and/or where one of the partners is sterile? Many married heterosexual couples decide against having children. Should the state nullify their marriage?

Quote:AOA
"Age doesnt change things. A civil union definition is about as far as you could go."

So you responded. But only to the age part. Could you please tell us if partners that are steril should be allowed to marry? And how doesn't age change things? If a young tree is called a sapling as far as i know. A grown tree is called a tree.
A house that ages and begins to fall apart is called a ruin. I would say a ruin is and old house, that lost its ability to fulfil its purpose. housing ppl.

If marriage is about the potential of raising childre (including adoption). Then a steril couple (meaning steril all their life) of the age of 60 should no longer be allowed to be married. They wont even be allowed to adopt a child anymore. They have no grandchildren that will come to them if their parents died.

Would you be comfortable with the civil union for gays if they would not gain any monetary advantages but only the legal advantages.
(but it would be hard to seperate them since beeing married also gives you an advantage when dealing with banks. What i mean no advanteges the taxpayer would have to cover.)

[Booms]

They could be offered benefits, but not under the marriage label.

You're still asking for the traditional term to be compromized. Why must this be done? If the traditional term is compromized, the meaning that a given couple can take from it is also compromized. Another term can be used to characterize *** couples, live-ins, or other situations.

So your argument is that we shouldn't let gays marry because that would change the definition of marriage.

[Oberon]

Here's a look (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/) at Bush's "mandate"...

[Backdoor Bandit]

A good portion of US troops admited a change in command would not help the US troops.

What do they know? They dont even what is going on, or what exactly they are doing down there. I have spoken to an english guy that was in Iraq who could only stress to me that the US soldiers were a bunch of lunatics that had watched too many Rambo movies. I think at the moment they really dont know whats best for them because they get their asses handed to them regularly.

[Andarcel]

What do they know? They dont even what is going on, or what exactly they are doing down there. I have spoken to an english guy that was in Iraq who could only stress to me that the US soldiers were a bunch of lunatics that had watched too many Rambo movies. I think at the moment they really dont know whats best for them because they get their asses handed to them regularly.
Your English guy was, just possibly, biased.

And we win practically every engagement. Our casualties are far lower than insurgents. So no crap about "having our asses handed to us."

[Sage the Mage]

Norfolk, VA voted for Kerry. It would be interesting to figure out who places with army/navy bases voted for maybe.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

So your argument is that we shouldn't let gays marry because that would change the definition of marriage.

Nothing could really change the definition of marriage, but its understanding could be altered in the minds of some. Its important to people that they are presented with a solid concept that will help them "keep things together". I can't make an argument against *** marriage on the basis of reason, but I can say that the preservation of the traditional definition for the sake of its adherents would be advisible. To do otherwise would by persecution against the traditionalists. The *** lobby feels they are persecuted, but do not see the other side of the coin.

Oberon - I understand the pain you feel, do you live in "Jesusland"? It's amazing how many *** people think that way, but I know many who do not (canada is a *** man's paradise). I'll ask you this however, does one's intrinsic dignity depend on an arbitrary label? What's wrong with a "civil union" definition?

[Oberon]

Oberon - I understand the pain you feel, do you live in "Jesusland"? It's amazing how many *** people think that way, but I know many who do not (canada is a *** man's paradise). I'll ask you this however, does one's intrinsic dignity depend on an arbitrary label? What's wrong with a "civil union" definition?

I live just outside of Raleigh, North Carolina - well within Jesusland.

If the government allowed "civil unions" with the same rights as marriage, then that will be fine with me. I'm not a fanatic about labels so long as the actual meaning behind is equal.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

I live just outside of Raleigh, North Carolina - well within Jesusland.

If the government allowed "civil unions" with the same rights as marriage, then that will be fine with me. I'm not a fanatic about labels so long as the actual meaning behind is equal.


I don't think the actual meaning behind civil unions and marriage would be the same. Not to be contrarian here, but, that's the point of the whole argument isn't it?
Anyway, I support civil unions as well, but I do support a constitutional amendment protecting marriage as defined between a man and a woman. I have a very good *** friend, so I am not *** bashing here. I support it because of exactly the reason Bush said he supports it....I don't want liberal activist judges writing the law.

[Oberon]

The Constitution should be ammended only when absolutely necessary and for a damn good reason. Changing this great document just so the homos can't get married is a great big slap in the face to our founding fathers. While you're at it why don't you add an ammendment defining life as begining at conception and another banning flag-burning, and yet another "protecting" the pledge of allegiance from anyone wanting to revert it back to it's pre-1950's form sans "under God"? Wait - Republicans do want such ammendments.....

[powermongor]

why don't you add an ammendment defining life as begining at conception and another banning flag-burning, and yet another "protecting" the pledge of allegiance from anyone wanting to revert it back to it's pre-1950's form sans "under God"? Wait - Republicans do want such ammendments.....

Wow Oberon, you are a treasure trove of great ideas!!!



I'll say it yet again:

And you wonder why your guy lost...

[willamop flipflop]

if an amendment has an actual possibility of being passed, i'd be more worried that he could repeal the 22nd amendment and get a 3rd term

[Sage the Mage]

Repealing the 22nd leads to the possibility of Clinton running again, so HA!

[Booms]

Nothing could really change the definition of marriage, but its understanding could be altered in the minds of some. Its important to people that they are presented with a solid concept that will help them "keep things together". I can't make an argument against *** marriage on the basis of reason, but I can say that the preservation of the traditional definition for the sake of its adherents would be advisible. To do otherwise would by persecution against the traditionalists. The *** lobby feels they are persecuted, but do not see the other side of the coin.

Oberon - I understand the pain you feel, do you live in "Jesusland"? It's amazing how many *** people think that way, but I know many who do not (canada is a *** man's paradise). I'll ask you this however, does one's intrinsic dignity depend on an arbitrary label? What's wrong with a "civil union" definition?

This has been said before, but the "traditional" label of marriage used to exclude interracial marriages. Our country survived the "drastic" change in the traditional meaning of marriage, I'm sure it would be able to survive another.

Okay, so now that that's settled, I must say that I do see a problem between civil unions and marriage (not that I'm against civil unions, but I would much rather prefer the term marriage be used). Going along with the whole seperate-but-equal idea, the difference in names only serves to further seperate the "other" people (gays) from everyone else, which goes against everything our country (should) stand for.

[Oberon]

Wow Oberon, you are a treasure trove of great ideas!!!

I'll say it yet again:

And you wonder why your guy lost...

As I stated these are Republican ideas.

We lost because most Americans are dumbasses.

[Hydro]

Repealing the 22nd leads to the possibility of Clinton running again, so HA!

And he would win.
Handily.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

And he would win.
Handily.


Because he is not a left wing radical liberal.

[The.Jolly.Roger]

Sorry, this was posted in the other thread, but I thought it belonged in this thread moreso than the other.


The Liberal Mentality and Why it is A Failed One
Yeah, this is such a baaaddd place to live. It's such an evil place. It's not the terrorists fault they attacked our country, it's our fault. We perpetrate attacks on ourselves because we are soooooo evil.
Oh, and Bush just invaded Iraq purely to create a client state that will serve our energy purposes in the future.

Above is the Chomsky/Moore mentality. This mentality has co-opted the Democratic Party and creates a simple correlation: As the extreme leftist movement grows within the party, the power and influence of this party declines throughout this country. Personally, I hope they turn over the reigns to these people and let them run, because this would cause the end of the Democratic Party as we know it and reduce it to the status of the Liberatarian, Constitution, Green, and Reform Parties.

Some of the reasons for this are:
1. The mentality stated in the 1st paragraph.
2. Strong movement towards secularity in a non-secular society.
3. Moderate movement towards Socialist/Communist idealogy.
4. Suggestion of world government.
5. Ban on guns
6. Support for partial birth abortion
7. Socialized healthcare
etc. etc.

I really do not understand why President Bush is attacked for being a Christian. He hasn't referenced this any more than President Clinton did during his term. Also, he has repeatedly stated that his spiritual beliefs are a personal matter to him, and would never impose his beliefs on anyone. He has also stated many times that one of the lasting, great principles in this country is that we all have the right to worship how we choose, or not to worship at all. President Clinton invoked spirituality many, many times during his administration and was hardly questioned for it. Why? Because liberals only tend to accept spirituality when it's convenient for them to do so. When their heroes talk about it, they are seen as admirable for not being afraid to stand up for their beliefs. When President Bush invokes anything having to do with spirituality, he is seen as a religous tyrant that wants to impose a theocracy. This is just another example of liberal hypocrisy.

Does anyone wonder why terrorists see this nation as the center of evil in the world? One of the reasons is our media and entertainment business. They see murder, sex, promiscuity, sensationalized murder trials, pornography, and graphic violence. They not only see these things, but they also observe that these things are glorified in parts of our culture. In other words, they observe the absence of values in our society. They don't see the farmer that wakes up at 4 in the morning to milk the cows and harvest the fields. They don't see the factory worker that works 13 hours a day to make a living and feed his family. They don't see the single mom with 3 children, working a full time job and going to school full time to educate herself so that she can provide a better life for her children. They don't see the true majority in this country. They only see the elite culture at work in this country.
It's funny to me that the same Hollywood idiots and propaganda artists that preach about how this country is seen as such an evil place, are the same people that are causing it. Then, if you stand up and object to the vulgar nature of their creations, they invoke the constitution, call you a bible slammer, and accuse you of wanting to impose your religion on them. This, is yet another liberal hypocrisy. When this is pointed out to liberals, they just deny it, even though they can't. This is just another example of how liberalism is a mental disorder, and I'm not saying that as an insult....I'm very serious when I make that statement.

The above is one symptom of liberalism--denial. The fact that they don't understand that a far left liberal will never be president of this country is another symptom---insanity. McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry are all examples of this. Carter was only president due to the Nixon scandal, but he was promptly removed as soon as possible. The true definition of insanity is exactly this. They keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results, while getting the same result every time---failure. And we cannot say that President Clinton was a true leftist. He was a moderate democrat. Another example of being in denial, or being ignorant is that radical liberals refuse to admit, or just do not know that they advocate for Communist ideas. Lets investigate:

Communist ideas as stated in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

1. Heavy Progressive Tax
2. Social Equality
3. Secularity

It just so happens that these ideas are some of the strongest ideas of Communism and some of the strongest ideas of Liberalism.
A good example of a liberal who fits this description is Hydro. He's a bit young, but he seems like an intelligent fellow. The other night he just couldn't understand why I kept invoking Communism as being associated with Liberalism. So, I decided to take a different route. I asked him if he supported the ideas above (without mentioning the C word), and he heavily supported them. If he heavily supports these ideas, then why can't he admit that he heavily supports Communism? Maybe he didn't know the principles of Communism, which would be ignorance. Or, maybe he did know, which would be denial. And, if he did know, he would know that Communism/Socialism are, by historical precedent, at best mediocre models, and are very commonly failed models of economy and society.....which would be insanity as it is defined above. So basically liberals are insane, in denial, and ignorant. Therefore, liberalism is a mental disorder.

Now, my idealogy, which lies in that of the "right" wing is one of lucidity. I believe in freedom of the individual. I believe that it is immoral to kill a fully formed child so brutally just because liberals think their rights are being stepped on. I believe in personal responsiblity. I believe that a lazy or stupid person shouldn't be socially equal to someone who hard working and intelligent. I believe that spiritual faith is a good thing.
I believe that this country is the greatest nation in the history of the world, as well as the most generous. I do realize that there is some poison in our history, but the fact that this nation has always manifested it's own antidote for this poison, strongly outweighs that there was poison to begin with.
For example, slavery and segregation once existed in our country. But, through people such as Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., we evicted these travesties from our culture. I believe the fact that we did abolish these things outweighs the fact that they were there to start with.

Some people in our country are less fortunate, sometimes by their own fault, and sometimes not. Do we throw these people out on the streets? No. We have many social programs in this country that people can participate in if they fall within the poverty guidelines. If they are not able bodied, then they will most likely always be able to participate in these programs. However, if they are able bodied adults, then they will NOT nor should they be allowed to always participate in government assistance. Every state has social programs that provide food and medical benefits. Each state also has programs...I mean whole offices(divisions) that are dedicated to helping able bodied adults get off of government assistance and work. This was enacted by non other than President Clinton. Every person in this country, if they are able bodied, has a chance to gain prosperity. Not everyone begins in the most fortunate situation, but they still have a chance. I was born into extreme poverty. However, I still finished high school, college, and now work for Social Services. I'm not rich, but I consider myself prosperous. The main thing is that I'm content, and I don't feel the need to be rich. This is another problem with liberalism. The liberal mentality is that of, power to the proletariat. My mentality is that of, the proletariat should get off their *** and get a job, and if you already have a job that you think is sh#tty, then go get educated and get a better one. And, if you think that it's impossible because you are poor to start with, then you are talking to the wrong person.
I paid for my college with a couple scholarships, pell grants, stafford loans, and worked part-time in the college library on top of working part-time at Papa Johns Pizza. It's been six years, and my loans will be paid off this summer. Every poor person that wants to go to college has every opportunity to do so. So, when asked how to deal with poverty and the violence that spawns from it, I believe in the same thing President Bush does. Not more welfare, but more education.

You know why this country is the greatest nation in history? Because throughout history, most of it's people have had the drive and motivation to educate themselves and work hard to give to their country, not to take from it. This country has never been secular, and never will be. Most people have always practiced some faith or another, which has taught them moral principles and to help others. This country has always had the courage and ability to fight when it's freedom is threatened. This country does have some poison in it's history, but it has always manifested it's own way to heal itself. Not everyone in this country, or any other country will be content and prosperous. But everyone in this country will always have the freedom to obtain prosperity. This country is great because it has not abandoned and will never abandon the great principles that bind it. That is why President Bush was elected.

[Oberon]

What a load of B.S.

[Hydro]

Some of the reasons for this are:
1. The mentality stated in the 1st paragraph.
2. Strong movement towards secularity in a non-secular society.
3. Moderate movement towards Socialist/Communist idealogy.
4. Suggestion of world government.
5. Ban on guns
6. Support for partial birth abortion
7. Socialized healthcare
etc. etc.

I really do not understand why President Bush is attacked for being a Christian. He hasn't referenced this any more than President Clinton did during his term. Also, he has repeatedly stated that his spiritual beliefs are a personal matter to him, and would never impose his beliefs on anyone. .

I like 3-7 :)
Bush not imposing his beliefs?
We all know that's just silly...

[Hydro]

1. Heavy Progressive Tax
2. Social Equality
3. Secularity

It just so happens that these ideas are some of the strongest ideas of Communism and some of the strongest ideas of Liberalism.
A good example of a liberal who fits this description is Hydro. He's a bit young, but he seems like an intelligent fellow. The other night he just couldn't understand why I kept invoking Communism as being associated with Liberalism. So, I decided to take a different route. I asked him if he supported the ideas above (without mentioning the C word), and he heavily supported them. If he heavily supports these ideas, then why can't he admit that he heavily supports Communism? Maybe he didn't know the principles of Communism, which would be ignorance. Or, maybe he did know, which would be denial. And, if he did know, he would know that Communism/Socialism are, by historical precedent, at best mediocre models, and are very commonly failed models of economy and society.....which would be insanity as it is defined above. So basically liberals are insane, in denial, and ignorant. Therefore, liberalism is a mental disorder.
.

Who says I don't support communism?
Drink up comrades, :buddies: !

[Oberon]

http://img130.exs.cx/img130/1089/iq.jpg

[Andarcel]

I have a really, really hard time believing that people in Mississipi have an average IQ of 85. It's probably a confound with cultural knowledge.

[xXxDraGoNxXx1123]

I have a really, really hard time believing that people in Mississipi have an average IQ of 85. It's probably a confound with cultural knowledge.

Being born in Ohio, I don't see an average IQ of 99 there. I don't know, 40... 50 tops.