Give me ONE reason...

[Moto]

on a side note your link to your bike doenst work, i was disapointed

It was a trout slap link before trout slap got censored here.

 

[Top Secret]

When it comes down to it, really, really, down to it, I don't like bush because:

He isn't for free health care
He isn't for stem cell research
And he canceled the ****ing comanche program!!!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

This is nothing against Christians. I have a problem with a man who says he makes decisions based off what some invisible being is telling him. I don't care who you are or what religious background you have. If you're making decisions, creating policy, or doing pretty much anything based off what voices in your head are saying, you need to be kicked the hell out office asap. Of course, Christians will disagree with me on this, because you all seem to believe god does actually speak to people, and don't have such trouble hearing George talk about how god told him who to attack, and about how he is gods chosen one. For me on the other hand, that's a load of psycho-babble, and quite frankly it scares me to hear it spewing from the mouth of the guy leading the country.

It's especially scary when church and state are supposed to remain seperate, yet the physical personification of state is also a self-professed personification of god's will.

And on top of that, he believes that god is telling him to remove the boundaries between church and state.

It's like the leprechaun that tells Ralph Wiggum to burn things.


So, please othello, give this question priority, for 150$ and the win:

What good secular reason exists to ban gay marriage?

And before you answer, you might want to read this link. And don't complain about "cut and paste" because I wrote most of what you'll find in there.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=40552

 

[othello]

Here's my biggest reason:

I will pay 150$ to anyone who can give a single valid secular reason to write anti-gay discrimination into the secular constitution.

So far, not even Bush himself deserves a penny of that prize.

fair enough... as ive said, if you have a valid reason for disliking bush, as stated above, more power to you. just dont let it be for all the ignorant reasons listed below

Also:

The war in Iraq should have been done as a co-ordinated and extensively planned effort after Al-Queda was obliterated.

But instead It was inept in almost every aspect. Rushed out the door, in what I can only see as a bid to gain the votes of the 70% of americans who, at the time, thought Saddam caused 9/11.

It has reduced focus on the true enemy, Al Queda, and has essentially backfired by convincing more and more moslems that America is a threat to them. A 'war on terror' that has caused a net gain in terrorist recruitment.

which is a bigger threat, the man who has already carried out his plan of attack and his running for his life? or the man who has still yet to, has his own army, and a fortune at his disposal. not to mention the fact that nearly the entire world claimed saddam had WMDs and was going to use them, coupled with the fact that, as of 1998, due to the Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by Bill Clinton, it is the policy of the USA to disarm/remove saddam and liberate the iraqi people.

as for your terror recruitment assessment, i disagree. think about it this way, if you were an islamic radical, would you want to give up your stomping grounds without a fight? dont you find it the least bit odd that al-qaeda fled to iraq? of course the resistance has increased, they know theyre losing and they dont like it.

Also:

Dick Clarke's book: Against All Enemies. If you are convinced that the Bush administration is infallible, you should at least read this. It basically agrees with everything I've ever said about Bush's war strategy, and it was written by the republican-appointed head of counterterrorism for the last 30 years.

i dont think bush, or his administration, is infallible by any means. however, revisionists history is a loser's game, and i just wish the liberals would stop playing. a selective memory is detrimental to the progress and pursuit of truth. i try to be fairly neutral in my research. obviously over time, and with experience, you form opinions and beliefes. but i will definitely check out the book, thanks for the recommendation... sounds interesting.

im currently reading America: The Book by jon stewart... highly recommended lmao...

Also:

He's lost every debate.

in your opinion. ill admit, i was impressed... kerry held his own a lot better than i thought he would. but with the amount of lies and distortions he was spewing out, it was hard to take him seriously. bush could barely keep a straight face lol. he did a lot of regurgitation of tiresome conspiracies and he was flip-flopping nearly every time it was his turn to speak. bush stuck it to him on his record (or lack thereof), his lack of leadership capabilities, and his ever-changing stance on national security, foreign policy (give nukes TO iran... WTF?!?!), etc...

Also:

Along with the gay marriage thing, he is letting his religious beliefs infringe on his secular duties in the realms of abortion rights, international policy, stem cell research, and god knows how many others.

Stem cell research could save lives. Bush's position: "give up because we only might save lives."

he doesnt believe that government should fund stem cell research, theres no law against private funding/research. im still reading up on this issue, but from what ive read... we have plenty of unused stem cells, and animal cells with the same qualities... why not use those first?

Also:

Extensive exploitation of 9/11 and terrorism as "threats for the vote". Saying that Al-Queda will kill you if you don't vote for his protection, and then attacking Saddam who had basically no ties to Al-Queda while letting countries with major Al-Queda ties do whatever.

basically is a shifty word there. and actually, we have captured or killed over 3000 al-qaeda in over 122 countries.

Also:

Complete denial that Iraq was in any way a failure. WMD evidence was outdated by about 3-5 years. WMD evidence was not suficiently proven. WMD evidence was discounted by the UN. UN inspectors weren't allowed to finish inspecting. etc, etc.

sure there were failures, theyve admitted that. going to iraq, in general, is not a failure... and yet thats what it seems most people want to hear.

Also:

Kerry is stronger in international alliances, as opposed to Bush's snubbing the UN repeatedly.

says who? if by 'snubbing the UN' you mean 'realizing they werent going to jack, like they havent in sudan, libya, etc, so he took whatever measures necessary to capture saddam, eliminate al-qaeda, and protect america'... then ya i agree.

Also:

The patriot act. 'Nuff said.

nowhere near enough said. do you even know what is contained in the patriot act, or what measures of prevention it enables?

 

[othello]

I would agree with mullinator there... Bush tends to make you look worse than say, Clinton did. (at least he was a bit of a diplomat, and had the rest of the world in his mind when he did things)

oh brother... no comment there.

 

[Revisedsoul]

It was a trout slap link before trout slap got censored here.

you sneaky bastard

 

[othello]

Oops, missed this thread.

Anyway, sure I'll give it a go in my own words:

Foreign Policy:

1) He basically ignored the threat of terrorism until 9/11/2001 when it suddenly became the most important part of his presidency.

agreed... so george bush deserves 8 months of blame. that being said, clinton deserves 8 years of blame.

2) He failed to catch the main terrorist responsible for that tragedy.

as ive said, whats more important, the man who has already carried out his plan of attack and his running for his life? or the man who, according to many many countries and democrats (including the last administration), has yet to?

3) Instead he took us to war with Iraq without trying all avenues of diplomacy. War should be a last resort, he did not use it as a last resort. If instead he had listened to the UN and continued with the inspections we would have found out that Iraq had no WMD program, the reason why he went to war with them.

as ive stated, the very tactics you are criticizing bush for not using, were given 10 years to work, following the end of the Gulf War. what happened? it led to millions slaughtered and tortured by saddam, and one of the worst acts of terrorism the world has ever seen.

considering WMDs have been found, as well as the capabilities to make them, this point is seemingly invalid.

4) This war, which was based on faulty justification, killed 1000 American soldiers, thousands of Iraqi civilians, and cost the US $120 billion dollars to date.[/quote]

we lost 1000 soldiers just training for D-Day. was that sacrifice worth it? sure, the extent of WMDs in iraq was a bit inflated, but is that bush's fault? not at all.

5) By going against the UN Bush undercut it's authority, a dangerous thing to do in today's international climate in my opinion. Furthermore, he deeply hurt support for the US internationally. This is made worse by the fact that after 9/11 we had practically the whole worlds sympathy and support. A couple years and a war later that sympathy and support is pracitically non-existent, thanks mostly to him.

dont forget poland! lol...

6) He won't admit he was wrong about the war, an incredibly dangerous attitude for a President to have I think. About the only current justification he can come up with is that Iraq might possibly come to have WMD's eventually, a claim that is not supported by the current intelligence reports. Question: were the lives of a thousand soldiers and the lives of several thousand Iraqi's worth losing over an unlikely possibility? Because that's what the President seems to think now. To sum it up, the Bush administration has no justification for why it went to war. Granted it was based on faulty intelligence, but to claim that the war was not a mistake is spitting in the face of reality and sets a bad prededent for similar future decisions. Pretty much every single time Bush or Cheney have tried to defend their postion on Iraq in the debates they have been caught lying by non-partisan fact checks.

like michael moore? i agree somewhat. i dont like the fact that bush, who is usually so candid and upfront, which i like, seems much more inhibited when justifying WMDs as a reason for invading iraq... something that, at the time, everyone agreed on. if he would just say something like, 'look, according to the intel we had at the time, and at the advice of several other countries and their respective intelligence agencies, we agreed to disarm saddam. sadly, we the intel has turned out to be faulty, and we have not found the extent of WMDs that we expected. removing saddam was not a mistake, but we are sorry if anyone feels like we intentionally misled anyone, as such was not our intention.' if he would do that, he would win this election by a landslide.

7) He supports reduction of nuclear arms throughout the world, yet doesn't do much about it at home. In fact he supported the idea of developing tactical nuclear missiles, which would made the use of nuclear weapons practical and lead to a greater temptation to use them in conflicts.

oddly enough, while im very uneasy about any foreign country having nukes, i am calm about the USA possessing them lol. this is another issue i am not too well-read on. but ill research it and take this reason into consideration.

8) He refuses to work with scientists and the international community on the issue of global warming.[/quotes]

something else i need to research a bit more, got any relevant links, btw?

Domestic Policy:

Economics:

1) We have reached record deficit levels under his administration. Granted, this is not entirely within his control by any means. However, it is not helped by the fact that he got us into a $120 billion war, offers tax cuts to the rich that is costing us billions, and refuses to veto any spending by congress.

the tax-cut issue has been covered. as has the 'he got us into the war' issue. i agree however, he could veto more spending by congress... hell even greenspan recommends it lol. what about national debt? our debt was $2 trillion when clinton entered office... by the time he left it was over $6 trillion. wheres your disdain for bill?

2) He offers tax cuts that mostly benefit the rich. 53% of those cuts went to the top 10% of individuals and families, while only 13% went to the bottom 60% of individuals and families. Just the tax cuts for those who make $200,000 and above alone will cost the US government $860 billion over ten years, during a time economists predict even higher deficits.

somewhat accurate, but not really true. ive covered this though.

3) He wants to privatize social security, which would cost somewhere between $1 trillion and $2 trillion over the next ten years according to the Bush administration. This is on top of the cost for his other programs of course.

he wants to give people the option to do what they want with their money... surely you arent against this?

4) He will be the first president in 72 years to preside over a job loss.

all the while claiming the fastest growing economy in 20 years, and one of the lowest unemployment rates in 30 years.

Other issues:

1) He supports an unconstitutional ban on gay marriage. This is a religiously, and probably politically, motivated move that goes againt the first amendment. In addition it would be the first time in US history the constitution would be amended in support of discrimination.

i support it.. as do the majority of americans.

2) He refuses to open up funding for all current lines of frozen embryos for use in stem cell research. Note that these embryos have no chance of ever developing. They will either remain frozen or be destroyed eventually. This also doesn't make sense in light of the fact that he already supports other lines. How does he justify supporting some but not others? It doesn't make sense.

ive been researching this stem cell issue for a few days... still forming my opinion on it.

3) He fully supports the Patriot Act and according to him in one debate the public shouldn't feel our rights are being infringed on by it. This is a scary position for him to take in my opinion when many many people disagree with this and think the Patriot act does indeed allow the government to infringe on our rights as citizens. It needs to be examined carefully in light of this and changed if need be. Bush doesn't seem to think so though. I personally would prefer the US president show a bit more concern for my rights.

it is very late for me, but i suggest you do a little more research into the patriot act. not 'omg they can search medical records' and think it is violating your civil liberties. the prevetion measures it enables are worth it alone, and have already proven themselves useful (thwarting attempt on the brooklyn bridge, etc). not only that, but it opens up the lines of communication between the FBI and the CIA, something that wasnt allowed before.

Well those were the one's I could think of off the top of my head. Hope it offers you some help.

very well done, thanks for not resorting to the typical 'bush lied, kids died!' ignorant dribble.

 

[othello]

err... Take a look at the massive protests in Europe

i didnt realize that europeans were apart of our country.

take a look at all the hate in the middle east.

yeah... totally inspired by bush. id never even heard of the word 'terror' until 9/11 happened. those jews and arabs must have been living in total peace until bush took office, right?

Take a look at the massive protests in the US. Take a look at how split the country is with polls. etc.

we are a pretty diverse country... most every election is spit somewhat down the middle, give or take 10%. besides, only half the nation participates in the voting process to begin with.

 

[Edge]

we are a pretty diverse country... most every election is spit somewhat down the middle, give or take 10%. besides, only half the nation participates in the voting process to begin with.

I am not big on stats but I remember reading Clinton smoked his opponent. It was definately not 10%

 

[othello]

Disregarding the tiny little fact that he had already "disarmed" 10 years before any of this happened. Kind of invalidates your use of "disarming" as a reason to go to war, doesn't it?

if you actually believe he disarmed. in a little fun-poking (yet semi-serious), considering an entire iraqi air force has been found buried under the sand, it makes you wonder what else he buried under there. a barrel of sarin gas is a bit smaller, wouldnt you say? if he actually DID disarm, why would europe, russia, and australia all claim saddam had WMDs and planned to use them in the months/years following 9/11? surely all those intelligence-gathering agencies (including the CIA) weren't completely wrong...

Whoa, necessary? How in the world can you justify the war in Iraq as necessary? There were no credible links to Alquida and there were no WMD's. So tell me again how it was "necessary."

necessary.. yes. as i said, when the whole world says saddam has nukes and plans to use them, which seems like a bigger threat? him... or the guy who already attacked us and his now running for his life?

there were people like you in 1937 who protested the USA invading germany and preventing them from 're-bulding', stopping hitler from rising to power, etc... and in 1945 the wished to God they had done something in 1937, because of the incalculable loss. bush chose not to wait until 1945, because a '1945' today will be much, much worse.

i heard a related parable. i was walking into my cabin and i saw a nest of copperheads. copperheads are poisonous, theyll kill you. my children play around this cabin all the time, i have to protect them. i didnt form a comittee debating whether or not to kill them. i didnt follow 'unilateral' action... i took a shovel and cut their heads off. i think the same reasoning applies.

if 9/11 has taught us something, its that we cant wait until they attack us again. we have to be on the offensive, we have to remove their opportunity before it even manifests.

Congress did not send us to war. Congress voted on an authorization of force. Bush decided when to send us to war.

right... sorry if i didnt quite make the distinction. the fact remains, we wouldnt have gone to war if congress hadnt voted for its authorization.

 

[othello]

Othello I dont know why you started this thread without an open mind, as has already been stated, you seem to refuse to even conseider something may be wrong with the man, I know so many people like this "George is a perfect president". Everyday I hear this crap from people who watch Fox news for five minuets and belive they understand everything about politics.

There are those in each party who honestly belive that their way will better America, then there are those who belive what they are told to belive, while ironically beliving that they act through their own thoughts.
I am afraid that in my eyes you fall frimly into the second category, as you have given me no reason to think otherwise.

i did make a post explaining why i started this thread. i know very well that bush isnt perfect and i dont presume him to be. anyone who says so is stupid, imo.

i hear the same ignorant dribble that ive seen on this thread from people responding, all the time from people who watch F9//1 and think they know everything.

im sorry you feel that way about me. i dont want any news channel. i do lots and lots of independent research. everything from moveon.org, factcheck.org, salon.com, cnn... to foxnews, opinionjournal, drudge, newsmax, etc... and everything inbetween. my opinions and beliefs have been formed through years of education, experience, and research.

 

[othello]

Clinton was an awesome president when he kept it in his pants
imo

clinton's miserable failure as a president goes far beyond his 'oral adventures'.

 

[f|uke]

You watch way too much Fox News.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

fair enough... as ive said, if you have a valid reason for disliking bush, as stated above, more power to you. just dont let it be for all the ignorant reasons listed below

Your definition of ignorant is, well, confused. And you've already skipped over my biggest point.

which is a bigger threat, the man who has already carried out his plan of attack and his running for his life? or the man who has still yet to, has his own army, and a fortune at his disposal.

Oooh, trick question! The answer is Osama bin Laden. Because he has attacked, he has vowed to attack again, he is still at large, he has an army of followers (including new ones created by recruiting in war-torn Iraq) and he is extremely rich.

The only point there that doesn't apply to him is the "has yet to attack" one, because he already has.

Also, it's now common knowledge that Saddam was never going to do anything terroristic to anyone with anything remotey close to a WMD for all but indefinitely. All the evidence that exists isn't, well, evidence. Any fear of a Saddam attack is based soley on pure faith.

Not to mention the fact that nearly the entire world claimed saddam had WMDs and was going to use them, coupled with the fact that, as of 1998, due to the Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by Bill Clinton, it is the policy of the USA to disarm/remove saddam and liberate the iraqi people.

Yeah, the entire world. No wait, actually, it was really just Russia and Britain.

Unless you mean before 1992, when Saddam had removed all his weapons, or before 1998, when he gave up on ever getting more.

as for your terror recruitment assessment, i disagree. think about it this way, if you were an islamic radical, would you want to give up your stomping grounds without a fight? dont you find it the least bit odd that al-qaeda fled to iraq? of course the resistance has increased, they know theyre losing and they dont like it.

Iraq was hardly an "Al-Queda stomping ground". Compared to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, Iraq was basically insignifigant in terms of Al-Queda ties. Why didn't we attack any of them first?

I don't find it odd at all that Al-Queda is recruiting and fighting in Iraq now that the US is there. We have more than 3 9/11's worth of civilian casuaties there now. It would be utterly naive to think that Iraqis aren't going to be somewhat miffed.

And this war gives Al-Queda the perfect opportunity to show their ability to kill US soldiers.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq was crawling with Al-Queda forces just ready to spring in the numbers you suggest. There was basically no signifigant Al-Queda in Iraq before the war. Now they are everywhere in the country, killing troops and civilians.

But whatever invented threat helps you sleep, I guess.

i dont think bush, or his administration, is infallible by any means. however, revisionists history is a loser's game, and i just wish the liberals would stop playing. a selective memory is detrimental to the progress and pursuit of truth. i try to be fairly neutral in my research. obviously over time, and with experience, you form opinions and beliefes. but i will definitely check out the book, thanks for the recommendation... sounds interesting.

Revisionist history? It's happening now.
You should check it out though. In fact, everyone here should. It's cheap, educational, and an excellent read.

im currently reading America: The Book by jon stewart... highly recommended lmao...

I was thinking of picking that one up too.

in your opinion. ill admit, i was impressed... kerry held his own a lot better than i thought he would. but with the amount of lies and distortions he was spewing out, it was hard to take him seriously. bush could barely keep a straight face lol. he did a lot of regurgitation of tiresome conspiracies and he was flip-flopping nearly every time it was his turn to speak. bush stuck it to him on his record (or lack thereof), his lack of leadership capabilities, and his ever-changing stance on national security, foreign policy (give nukes TO iran... WTF?!?!), etc...

Tiresome conspiracies? Like the one where Bush owns a small buisiness? That one was true. Got some wood?
Or do you mean some other?

Also, flip-flopping is a non-issue, really. Both candidates do it a lot. I see it as a sign that the man is responsible enough to admit failings. Sadly, Bush's are more to cover up his mistakes, IMO.

he doesnt believe that government should fund stem cell research, theres no law against private funding/research. im still reading up on this issue, but from what ive read... we have plenty of unused stem cells, and animal cells with the same qualities... why not use those first?

Because Bush put limits on using them, except for the lowest quality ones.

basically is a shifty word there. and actually, we have captured or killed over 3000 al-qaeda in over 122 countries.

The basically is there to be factual. Saddam did have Al-Queda ties, but they were insignifigant, and highly exaggerated by the white house.

And, well, I guess over 10000 civilians in one country in exchange for 3000 Al-Queda in different countries (plural) is fair. :|

sure there were failures, theyve admitted that. going to iraq, in general, is not a failure... and yet thats what it seems most people want to hear.

I certainly would not want to hear that Iraq failed completely. But it is failing, a lot. Believe me or not, Al-Queda is gaining soldiers, and gaining victories via the US's attack. Al-Queda was founded on the idea that the US was trying to take over the middle-east, and westernize it.

Now, the US has taken over a chunk of the middle-east and is attempting to westernise it. In the eyes of many moslem people, everything bin Laden preached is becoming a reality.

says who? if by 'snubbing the UN' you mean 'realizing they werent going to jack, like they havent in sudan, libya, etc, so he took whatever measures necessary to capture saddam, eliminate al-qaeda, and protect america'... then ya i agree.

Except the UN knew that Saddam was no threat to America, and that there was not enough evidence to legally go to war. Bush said, essentially, "screw the geneva convention and the UN, I'm going to war based on these 3-10 year old documents."

Then , when the UN turned out to be rotally right, Bush still is boasting that ignoring them was the right idea.

nowhere near enough said. do you even know what is contained in the patriot act, or what measures of prevention it enables?

I know that it is a valuable document, but in desperate need of extensive revision. Too many points go too far in thier reversal of civil rights. Indefinite prison sentences based on assumption of guilt? Yeah, that's great.

 

[othello]

I'll tell you why, he sent thousands to their deaths (and to hell if your christian) based on a lie,

a lie... where?

he puts religion before government,

more like he believes that religion is an important aspect of a man and his decisions... even if they are a government official.

hes trying to take away civil liberties,

how... the patriot act? you're gonna have to do better than that.

he broke the geneva convention,

well that didnt take long lol... good point. however, i dont see this necessarily as negative. he took whatever steps necessary to ensure our safety and to disarm/remove saddam.

He RUINED the economy,

lol... wake up, stop drinking the kool-aid. its because of bush that we have the fastest growing economy in 20 years. we had a higher average GDP over the last year than we did over the entire course of the clinton administration.

Homeland security is basically dead as well..

yeah... it does leave a bit to be desired, doesnt it?

He pushed away most of our allies, .. and ill give your the fact, that the war IS going on.

dont forget poland! lmao... we have plenty of allies, still.

Bush - i like him as a family man, but not as the leader of our country..

we are, essentially, one large family... are we not?

He cant even hold himself in debate, he is very tempermental and unprofessional .. interupting during debates with anger.

yeah he did do a few things unprofessionally in the debates, i was a bit disappointed. bush is a very good debator, and i think he handled himself rather well, considering the inordinant amount of distortion and lies kerry was spewing. bush did his own exagerrating as well, but kerry took the cake here.

I dont like kerry either ok?

thank god... we're getting somewhere...

but i think he would do a better job than bush, if only slightly.

*sigh*... why would we want our most incompetent and inactive senator as our 'commander in chief'.

bush flip flops more than a fish out of water.. current example. Bush said on record " I dont care where Osama is.. now during the debates in his fumbling attemps at speaking he says we are still going after him..

he claimed in the debates that that quote is exaggerated and taken out of context... which it is. before i quote it, i want to note that we never stopped chasing OBL. as i have explained many times in this thread already, saddam was just simply the larger thread. anyway, here is that quote, in its entirety (sp?)... the referenced part is bolded:

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --

THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.

Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.

So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you.(more or less, this IS the quote Kerry referenced in the debate.) I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.

And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

All politicians lie, all politicians flip flop, its what they do to try to sway america .... Also very discomforting to know that bush didnt raise anti-terrorism funding but lowered it after being warned about possible terrorist attacks to america (not from farenheit 9/11).. He also thinks that everyones moral's should be the same as his .. his religious morals (fake christian if i ever saw one btw) like trying to ban gay marriage, and abortions.. I am for gay marriage, and i am pro choice because thats what America is all about.. Though i am pro-choice , i am against the decision of abortion.. Not everyones morals are the same, people should stop trying to control everyones lives.. its sad. Theres a time when you got to let people live their lives and you live your own, your morals and ideals are not necesarrily the same as your neighbor, and your morals and ideals should NOT control their life.. There is a seperation of church and state and bush has been crossing that line into what i said above.. thats why i think you shouldnt vote for bush...
nothing was copy and pasted.. thanks

~jordan

thanks for sharing... honestly. as ive said, if you have legitimate reasons for not liking bush... formed, valid opinions, than more power to you. im just trying to clear up what i can.

 

[othello]

You watch way too much Fox News.

actually i dont watch it all. is there anything else you know absolutely nothing about?

 

[OCybrManO]

right... sorry if i didnt quite make the distinction. the fact remains, we wouldnt have gone to war if congress hadnt voted for its authorization.

Yep, because all of the fights we have ever gotten in were formally-declared wars... the president never calls them "police actions" or some other euphemism to use a loophole to send troops to overthrow another country's entire government without congressional approval. I mean, what would the citizens of the United States of America think of that?

NOTE: Actually, Congress did not declare war against Iraq or Afghanistan. The last time we formally-declared war was in December of 1941 (against Japan on the 8th and against Germany the very next day) during World War II.

... just wanted to clear that up. They authorized the use of force for the purpose of persuasion. They didn't vote to "go to war."

 

[f|uke]

actually i dont watch it all. is there anything else you know absolutely nothing about?

There is a lot I know nothing about. I can admit this. Can you?

 

[othello]

and whats the point of this thread? you've been given dozens upon dozens of reasons all of which you avoided and dodged with skill equalling that of bush himself. obviously your opinion isn't going to change.

what are you talking about? ive replied to nearly everyones post! in fact im just now on page 7 and i got 5 to go just to catch up! i am specifically NOT avoiding and dodging issues. my opinion of bush has changed just within the last week. you know nothing about me. please keep your ill-contrived opinions to yourself if they are of no benefit to the progress of the thread.

 

[f|uke]

Its ok, guys. Give it up.

This whole thing is a farce.

We dont need Othello's vote anyways.

Theres plenty of narrow minded arrogant Americans. He's just another one. Nothin special, no one important.
So who cares what he thinks?

 

[qckbeam]

This was one crazy thread......actually it was rather civil. So I guess it's my job to bring it crashing down....

GLOGLEBAG GLOGLEBAG GLOGLEBAG

KITTENS! DONUTS! MONEY! JIM! WINDOWS! FACE!

Bring it down fellow forumites. It's dead. It isn't moving. Bring it down with spam before it's consumed by flame!

 

[OCybrManO]

and whats the point of this thread? you've been given dozens upon dozens of reasons all of which you avoided and dodged with skill equalling that of bush himself. obviously your opinion isn't going to change.

what are you talking about? ive replied to nearly everyones post! in fact im just now on page 7 and i got 5 to go just to catch up! i am specifically NOT avoiding and dodging issues. my opinion of bush has changed just within the last week. you know nothing about me. please keep your ill-contrived opinions to yourself if they are of no benefit to the progress of the thread.

Ahhh... something we can agree on. Indeed, try to stay away from gross character generalizations. Just because someone sees things in a different way doesn't mean that they are the ignorant one. For all anyone here knows, we (the people that aren't exactly in favor of Bush) could be in the wrong. Keep it civil, if for nothing other than to avoid looking like an ass if you get proven wrong...

 

[othello]

Also, although Kerry's healthcare plan is a large expense I think it is worth it for two reasons. First, because it would be offset by the repealing of those taxes and second, because it would result in healthcare for over half of the 45 million people who do not currently have it. But that's another tangent entirely.

you do realize that repealling bush's tax cuts will cost nearly 165 billion dollars... if not more? here is a very interesting article outlying bush's AND kerry's economic plans (a little technical btw).

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Its ok, guys. Give it up.

This whole thing is a farce.

We dont need Othello's vote anyways.

Theres plenty of narrow minded arrogant Americans. He's just another one. Nothin special, no one important.
So who cares what he thinks?

Yeah, My 150$ thing all but proves it. He can't rebuke that one point in the "give me one point" thread, so the thread ends.

That's just one good reason out of the hundreds presented that is clearly impossible to disprove. 150$ to anyone who can show otherwise.

Everyone here has done excellently (kudos go to Neutrino, for best post), but this thread is done.

 

[othello]

Its ok, guys. Give it up.

This whole thing is a farce.

We dont need Othello's vote anyways.

Theres plenty of narrow minded arrogant Americans. He's just another one. Nothin special, no one important.
So who cares what he thinks?

quite a correlation there. please feel free to stop replying on this thread if that is how you feel. i dont know where i came off as arrogant. i called a few reasons ignorant, as they are... ingorance isnt always bad. do you know the migration patterns of an african swallow? no? well then you are ignorant to that information... as am i. and where am i narrow-minded? i could say the same thing for you... you ignore my rebuttals and then call me narrow-minded? what was your devastating reply... 'you watch too much fox news'?

take your mendacious pseudo-intellectualism elsewhere.

 

[othello]

Yeah, My 150$ thing all but proves it. He can't rebuke that one point in the "give me one point" thread, so the thread ends.

That's just one good reason out of the hundreds presented that is clearly impossible to disprove. 150$ to anyone who can show otherwise.

Everyone here has done excellently (kudos go to Neutrino, for best post), but this thread is done.

i believe i responded to your $150 point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mechagodzilla
Here's my biggest reason:

I will pay 150$ to anyone who can give a single valid secular reason to write anti-gay discrimination into the secular constitution.

So far, not even Bush himself deserves a penny of that prize.

fair enough... as ive said, if you have a valid reason for disliking bush, as stated above, more power to you.

 

[qckbeam]

What if peanut butter tasted like jelly, and jelly tasted like peanut butter?! :O

 

[othello]

I was responding to your statement that Saddamn's actions towards the people of iraq were 'terrorist' actions. sorry if i was off, but if saddam commits genocide in his own country, thats not a 'terrorist' act. (well, its a fox news 'terrorist act' lol)

lol... no i was describing 2 different events. saddam's acts against is own people, and the horrific act of terror on 9/11.

 

[othello]

farenheit is quite patriotic as a documentary, i have only watched it recently.. everything that was in there i had already heard spouted from other people.. aside from a few things

patriotic? you describe that confused movie of lies, deceit, fabrications, clever editing, and manipulative wordplay as patriotic? the movie is filled with exaspiratedly refuted conspiracy theories and deluded attempts to connect some sort of invented dots. patritotic? you want patriotic... go watch this wonderful and inspirational documentary... as well as the truthful counter to moore's proven work of deception and fabrication.

 

[othello]

I voted for

Spoiler

Kerry

Reason:

Spoiler

I was watching the last debate and he mentioned that the U.S. is the last industrialized country in the world to not have universal health care. That was the last straw in my opinion. He better come through on that.

he wont... universal health care is an ideological fallicy. take canada, they are often cited as an example for socialist health care. what you usually dont hear is that you receive generic health care administered by the lowest bidder. this is another issue im steadily researching, and i have a few friends in canada, so thats all im gonna say about it.

imo, universal health care will never be realized in the USA. whether thats bad or good... im still not sure lol

 

[OCybrManO]

you do realize that repealling bush's tax cuts will cost nearly 165 billion dollars... if not more?

Am I reading something wrong? The way I understand it, that specific link is saying the Kerry rollback will generate some money... but that it won't be nearly enough to erase the deficit. I don't see anything in that link about the rollback actually costing the government money. It was just saying that if one were to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts it would only generate 164 billion dollars... which is not enough to balance the budget (and, thus, won't give them much room to increase gov't spending... as Kerry would like to do in several areas).

When all is said and done, repealing all of the major Bush tax cuts would raise $164 billion in "new" tax revenues, roughly one-third of what is needed to erase the deficit.

 

[Tr0n]

Wow this thread grew fast....Bush still sucks by the way.

 

[othello]

Sorry Sammy, but we don't discriminate against the infertile, now do we? that would be unconstitutional!

Also, marriage and children have very little to do with one-another nowadays, as the level of teen pregnancies would indicate.

Next! :burp:

Come on othello, give 'er a shot! You asked for one good reason, and you got one.

alright ill try. if homosexuality were natural, we would have civilizations of homosexuals throughout history. homosexuals would be able to reproduce on their own.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

i believe i responded to your $150 point.

fair enough... as ive said, if you have a valid reason for disliking bush, as stated above, more power to you.

So then what's the point of this thread now? You asked for a valid reason, and you got it.

 

[othello]

Am I reading something wrong? The way I understand it, that specific link is saying the Kerry rollback will generate some money... but that it won't be nearly enough to erase the deficit. I don't see anything in that link about the rollback actually costing the government money. It was just saying that if one were to repeal all of Bush's tax cuts it would only generate 164 billion dollars... which is not enough to balance the budget (and, thus, won't give them much room to increase gov't spending... as Kerry would like to do in several areas).

ya sorry its like 3:30 am and im trying to get to everyones post... even though it already appears like ive been labeled as some right-wing nut who dodges the issues or whatever.... typical.

i re-read that link and it appears you are right. but if such is true, why would you repeal the tax-cuts that are benefitting our economy, while the tax burden falls on the shoulders of the more affluent? makes no sense at all.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

alright ill try. if homosexuality were natural, we would have civilizations of homosexuals throughout history. homosexuals would be able to reproduce on their own.

Huh? That is in absolutely no way a reason to ban gay marriage.

First of all, something doesn't need to be directly linked to reproduction in order to be natural. Look at rocks, for one of infinite examples.

As a an equal but opposite counter-point, you can't just ban things just because you say they aren't natural. Your computer is unnatural. And certainly can't reproduce on it's own.

Second, homosexuals have existed in every civilation I know of. Sometime there wwere more accepted than others, but they definitely did exist.

Third, if reproduction were an issue, then the infertility point still stands.

 

[othello]

So then what's the point of this thread now? You asked for a valid reason, and you got it.

well i just gave it a shot a few posts back... this thread wasnt 'give me one reason and ill shutup'... it was just give me one reason. you did. good for you. as ive said, if you have a legitimate reason for not liking bush, then more power to you.

im here to do my part in rectifying the incessant amount of lies floating around concerning iraq, the saudis. war for oil, etc... ive been so active on political forums and michaelmoore forums debating and arguing such topics, i totally forgot about the moral issues (abortion, gay rights, etc...) lmao. :angel:

essentially i just enjoy debating politics and current events.

 

[othello]

Huh? That is in absolutely no way a reason to ban gay marriage.

First of all, something doesn't need to be directly linked to reproduction in order to be natural. Look at rocks, for one of infinite examples.

rocks? are rocks human? do they have sexual organs?

As a an equal but opposite counter-point, you can't just ban things just because you say they aren't natural. Your computer is unnatural. And certainly can't reproduce on it's own.

a computer isnt essential to the furthering of human existence. a heterosexual (two actually) human, is.

Second, homosexuals have existed in every civilation I know of. Sometime there wwere more accepted than others, but they definitely did exist.

i never said they didnt exist. i said that we would have, at least one, civilizations of homosexuals... if it were, indeed, natural.

Third, if reproduction were an issue, then the infertility point still stands.

and what is that point exactly? that if homosexuals are to be banned from marriage because they cant reproduce, then so should the infertile? well i dont agree with that, you can control infertility. homosexuality is a choice.

 

[Varsity]

How did I possibly know what this thread was going to be about?

 

[othello]

Don't feel bad. He's skipped Stern's and Neutrino's points too, and they are some of the best here.

From what I see, he's kinda just focusing on the easy ones.

Edit: Yup, he's definitely focusing on the easy ones. :stare:

not at all... im trying to get to everyones post, ironically enough, so that i wont be dismissed for ignoring the 'important' responses.