Strange thing about Iraq

[seinfeldrules]

there are far fewer liberal attacks on bush in these forums

Man you really are a comedian huh?

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

I actually meant SaL

although you do realize you'd have to throw in the right wing christian coalition into the fray, right? ...if that's the case, I'm in agreement

Oh great... What are we going to do now that we've found common ground? :E :cheers:

 

[CptStern]

Oh great... What are we going to do now that we've found common ground? :E :cheers:

errrr talk about Half-life 2?

 

[CptStern]

Man you really are a comedian huh?

bush supporters spit fire and venom ..brimstone being the afternoon snack :E

not all of course ..there are some here that are very reasonable and can actually have civil debates without resorting to spouting patriotic rhetoric:

anti-american
commie
hippy

etc

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

bush supporters spit fire and venom ..brimstone being the afternoon snack :E

not all of course ..there are some here that are very reasonable and can actually have civil debates without resorting to spouting patriotic rhetoric:

anti-american
commie
hippy

etc

I'm a Bush supporter... You might throw me into the camp of "Against Kerry" more than anything but Bush has qualities I like...

His stances on taxes for instance... When I get to the last day before payday and I'm out of money I don't demand my employeer give me more... I simply stop spending... I've appreciated the tax cuts and am strongly opposed to anyone running on a ticket that says taxes need to be raised.

 

[CptStern]

I'm a Bush supporter... You might throw me into the camp of "Against Kerry" more than anything but Bush has qualities I like...

His stances on taxes for instance... When I get to the last day before payday and I'm out of money I don't demand my employeer give me more... I simply stop spending... I've appreciated the tax cuts and am strongly opposed to anyone running on a ticket that says taxes need to be raised.

but surely you must concede that american lives overseas is far more important than tax cuts ...almost 1000 american soldiers have died because of bush and the neo-cons

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

but surely you must concede that american lives overseas is far more important than tax cuts ...almost 1000 american soldiers have died because of bush and the neo-cons

I can answer this from a standpoint you can't refute... I am an American Soldier and for me Iraq and Afghanistan are worth fighting for... At the risk of my own life.

And since Kerry was reinvented at the DNC to be a war supporter it comes down to the very few things that Kerry has taken a stance on.

On the issue of Gay Marriage... I can't stand it... Not from a religious stand point... (My dog tags say Religion: None) First and foremost I think it's sick... Secondly the financial benefits in marriage shouldn't, IMO, be applied to a pair that doesn't create a family...

Let em live together all they want... Let em do what ever sic and twisted thing it is that they do but lets not form a legal protective blanket around them.

 

[CptStern]

I can answer this from a standpoint you can't refute... I am an American Soldier and for me Iraq and Afghanistan worth fighting for...

meh, I wont change your mind, evidence to the contrary aside

On the issue of Gay Marriage... I can't stand it... Not from a religious stand point... (My dog tags say Religion: None) First and foremost I think it's sick...

not that it's any of your business what other people do, it's not like it affects you in any way

Secondly the financial benefits in marriage shouldn't, IMO, be applied to a pair that doesn't create a family...

since when is the purpose of marriage procreation, I have a few friends who are married and they either dont want/cant have children ...should their marriage be disolved?

Let em live together all they want... Let em do what ever sic and twisted thing it is that they do but lets not form a legal protective blanket around them.

sigh, there goes whatever credibility your argument had ...just because you think it's sick doesnt make it so ...I'm married and I have a family and I dont see anything wrong with it, they can even adopt for all I care ...it's none of my business.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

meh, I wont change your mind, evidence to the contrary aside






not that it's any of your business what other people do, it's not like it affects you in any way




since when is the purpose of marriage procreation, I have a few friends who are married and they either dont want/cant have children ...should their marriage be disolved?




sigh, there goes whatever credibility your argument had ...just because you think it's sick doesnt make it so ...I'm married and I have a family and I dont see anything wrong with it, they can even adopt for all I care ...it's none of my business.

Just because I think it's sic doesn't make it so. I agree... But what I think decides my vote. (Bush)

And it's none of my business until my tax dollars get shoved that way and I have the opportunity to vote for or against it... Than it's all about my business and my vote. (Bush)

 

[CptStern]

Just because I think it's sic doesn't make it so. I agree... But what I think decides my vote. (Bush)

And it's none of my business until my tax dollars get shoved that way and I have the opportunity to vote for or against it... Than it's all about my business and my vote. (Bush)

ya got me there ...you definately have the right to vote for who you want to ...as long as you dont preach it, I dont care

 

[Mechagodzilla]

On the issue of Gay Marriage... I can't stand it... Not from a religious stand point... (My dog tags say Religion: None) First and foremost I think it's sick... Secondly the financial benefits in marriage shouldn't, IMO, be applied to a pair that doesn't create a family...

Let em live together all they want... Let em do what ever sic and twisted thing it is that they do but lets not form a legal protective blanket around them.

Well, even you admit that they'll be having sex anyways, so who cares?

And many gays think straight sex is gross too. How would you like it if they were the majority and voted for you to never marry?

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Well, even you admit that they'll be having sex anyways, so who cares?

I didn't make it an election issue... What does make it an election issue is that Marriage is a legal state, not an opinion... Turn that question around why do they care about a legal marriage certificate? They've been marrying in religious and non-religious ceremonies for years without the certificate... So why do they care? I care when my tax dollars are spent on things that I don't want them spent on... I care because it's one of the very few things Kerry has taken a stance on and that I can base a decision on.

And many gays think straight sex is gross too. How would you like it if they were the majority and voted for you to never marry?

There's no sense in discussing "what if" fantasy's

 

[SaL]

In one of the threads someone advocated a holy war to rid the world of muslims ...it's hard to stay emotional detached from a debate when someone is advocating hate and prejudice

You are such a LIAR!!!

 

[Neutrino]

Its also hard to stay on topic when liberals feel that Bush is going to kill all the Iraqis for oil. Oh and cant forget the wonderful "Bush killed more Iraqis than Saddam" comment. Dont blame it all on "neo-conservatives".

I really don't get you, seinfeldrules. You somehow seem to think that by Cptstern not liking any of Bush's policies that makes him unfairly biased. Your argument is ridiculous. Take me for example. Bush is a strongly conservative born again Christian. If I had to label myself, I'd have to say I'm a strongly liberal atheist. Exactly where are we suppose to find middle ground? The liberal and conservative camps pretty much disagree on every major American policy, including both foreign and domestic affairs. Not to even mention the religious aspect of it. That leaves very little room for me to agree with him on something. Now I don't know where Stern lies in the political or religious spectrum, but as I've said it's very possible to disagree on pretty much everything Bush has done.

But to appease your question that was directed as Stern, I'm sure there are some small things he's done that I agree with. Let's see, off the top of my head I'd have to say I'm glad he is providing federal funding for 21 lines of stemcells, though I don't think that's nearly enough. Hmm, other than that I really can't think of anything at the moment. I'm sure there is probably a few small things, but for the most part they are pretty insignificant.

Also, come to think of it, I don't think I've ever heard you say something positive about Kerry either. I'm not saying you couldn't as I'm sure you could probably find a few small things just like I did with Bush. But it seems a bit hypocritical to expect Stern to confess his love for something Bush has done, when you haven't seemed very inclined to do the same for Kerry.

Disliking the policies of an administration has absolutely nothing to do with disliking America. It's a flawed argument.

That brings me to another point I wanted to raise. I'm sick of people (mostly conservatives) of accusing liberals of hating America. Do you actually have a logical reason for saying that, or are you just aping what the popular conservatives in the media are saying? Because, frankly, it's a purely emotional, gut response with no actual evidence to back it up that is meant solely to harm the image of liberals. As far as I can tell, conservatives just hope that if they repeat it people will begin to believe it, which sadly is not all that far from the truth in some cases. But liberal do not hate American. Even the most extreme liberals in politics does not hate America. There is a huge difference between hating our country and viewing it from an objective viewpoint and recognizing its faults. The refusal to look at a thing through rose colored glasses does not, in any rational way, indicate a dislike for the object we're examing.

I'll leave you with a quote that I think explains things pretty well:

If you listen to a lot of conservatives, They'll tell you that the difference between them and us is that conservatives love America and liberals hate America. That we "blame America first." That we're suspicious of patriotism and always think our country's in the wrong. As conservative radio and TV personality Sean Hannity says, we liberals "train our children to criticize America, not celebrate it."

They don't get it. We love America just as much as they do. But in a differnt way....love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad, and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world.

That's why we leberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well. We also want it to do good.

When liberals look back on history, we see things we're very proud of. And we also see some things, which might have seemed like good ideas at the time, but turned out to be mistakes. And some things we did, well, they were just bad. That doesn't keep us from loving our country - it's part of loving our country. It's called honesty. What do you think is more important to a loving relationship: honesty or lies? - Al Franken.

I'd just like to add that in no way do I mean this to be an attack on conservatives in general. I know there are quite a few here and I don't mean to be offensive to you. I am only singling out seinfeldrules and a few conservative extremists in the media that make these sorts of claims.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Your such a LIAR

You're right... He doesn't show any signs of being tired of debating.

 

[Neutrino]

I didn't make it an election issue... What does make it an election issue is that Marriage is a legal state, not an opinion... Turn that question around why do they care about a legal marriage certificate? They've been marrying in religious and non-religious ceremonies for years without the certificate... So why do they care? I care when my tax dollars are spent on things that I don't want them spent on... I care because it's one of the very few things Kerry has taken a stance on and that I can base a decision on.



There's no sense in discussing "what if" fantasy's

Why do gays care about legal marriage certificates? Are you joking? By making their union legal they get the same benefits of a normally married couple. This is incredibly important when it comes to things like health insurance, life insurance, wills, funerals, hospital visits (have to be family in some cases), tax deductions, and a million other things that a legally married couple are entitled to. I understand you don't like gays, but please think about things a bit from their point of view.

Also, do you not see the dangerous seperation of church and state in even considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage, regardless of whether you are for or against it?

Also, you say that you find gays "sick and twisted". I'm just curious, is this for both sexes, or does it just apply to gay males?

 

[CptStern]

You are such a LIAR!!!

huh? my pants arent on fire!

so where exactly am I lying?

That brings me to another point I wanted to raise. I'm sick of people (mostly conservatives) of accusing liberals of hating America. Do you actually have a logical reason for saying that, or are you just aping what the popular conservatives in the media are saying? Because, frankly, it's a purely emotional, gut response with no actual evidence to back it up that is meant solely to harm the image of liberals. As far as I can tell, conservatives just hope that if they repeat it people will begin to believe it, which sadly is not all that far from the truth in some cases. But liberal do not hate American. Even the most extreme liberals in politics does not hate America. There is a huge difference between hating our country and viewing it from an objective viewpoint and recognizing its faults. The refusal to look at a thing through rose colored glasses does not, in any rational way, indicate a dislike for the object we're examing.

very well put, and right on the money

 

[SaL]

huh? my pants arent on fire!

so where exactly am I lying?

Duh ...I quoted it

 

[dawdler]

I didn't make it an election issue... What does make it an election issue is that Marriage is a legal state, not an opinion... Turn that question around why do they care about a legal marriage certificate? They've been marrying in religious and non-religious ceremonies for years without the certificate... So why do they care? I care when my tax dollars are spent on things that I don't want them spent on... I care because it's one of the very few things Kerry has taken a stance on and that I can base a decision on.

Whatever tax dollars are spent extra on that issue dwindles in comparison to military funding, of which most you never even know what its used for. And lets not even talk about Nasa...

 

[CptStern]

In one of the threads someone advocated a holy war to rid the world of muslims ...it's hard to stay emotional detached from a debate when someone is advocating hate and prejudice

no lies here

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Why do gays care about legal marriage certificates? Are you joking? By making their union legal they get the same benefits of a normally married couple. This is incredibly important when it comes to things like health insurance, life insurance, wills, funerals, hospital visits (have to be family in some cases), tax deductions, and a million other things that a legally married couple are entitled to. I understand you don't like gays, but please think about things a bit from their point of view.

I know! That's what I've said... I don't like gays so I don't want my tax dollars going that way... Why should I vote from someone else's point of view? I'll vote from my own thank you.

Also, do you not see the dangerous seperation of church and state in even considering a constitutional ban on gay marriage, regardless of whether you are for or against it?

I'll have to ask you to clarify that for me... In other words. Huh?

Also, you say that you find gays "sick and twisted". I'm just curious, is this for both sexes, or does it just apply to gay males?

I don't want either getting my tax dollars... I'm opposed to most social handouts.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Whatever tax dollars are spent extra on that issue dwindles in comparison to military funding, of which most you never even know what its used for. And lets not even talk about Nasa...

I'm opposed to increased taxes here as well... Another reason I am voting for Bush. Kerry's said he wants to raise taxes... Bush lowered them.

 

[blahblahblah]

What is going on? We used to have a political debates with little arguing or flaming. I don't even recall many attempts at character assasinations. It sure doesn't seem that way now. A debate is only useful if people are wiling to consider facts from both side of an issue. We don't have that here right now.

 

[Razor]

Most of the people living in Iraq, and when i say most,i mean almost 100% of them, want nothing more then to live out their lives with as much freedom as people living in England and America have, but still being able to support Islam or any other religion they want. You have a few fundamentalists garning support for their extremist religious views, much like Sadame Hussein, and a lot of the other terrorists are payed merceneries from Syria, etc.

If you ask most Iraqi's what they care about, they will most probably turn around and say good hospitals, good schools, good infrastructure and a safe place to raise their families. Of course, if an Iraqi comes in here and disagrees with what i have said, i will withdraw my comments.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

What is going on? We used to have a political debates with little arguing or flaming. I don't even recall many attempts at character assasinations. It sure doesn't seem that way now. A debate is only useful if people are wiling to consider facts from both side of an issue. We don't have that here right now.

I hope your're not directing that at me... The last two pages have been mostly me stating why I intend to vote the way I do... None of which throws stones at others oppinions or attacks their charector.

 

[dawdler]

I'm opposed to increased taxes here as well... Another reason I am voting for Bush. Kerry's said he wants to raise taxes... Bush lowered them.

Yeah, he lowered it for the wealthy people.

Besides, you never know what your money goes into no matter which president you have. American black projects is a huge money sink overshadowing everything. You could always ask them what its for of course

 

[SaL]

What is going on? We used to have a political debates with little arguing or flaming. I don't even recall many attempts at character assasinations. It sure doesn't seem that way now. A debate is only useful if people are wiling to consider facts from both side of an issue. We don't have that here right now.

Go back and read your personal attacks and off-base assumptions in the wi-fi thread.

 

[CptStern]

excuse me? he's been nothing but civil ...you cant blame him for being outraged by some of your crazy notions of what should be done with muslims

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Yeah, he lowered it for the wealthy people.

Besides, you never know what your money goes into no matter which president you have. American black projects is a huge money sink overshadowing everything. You could always ask them what its for of course

Taxes were lowered for all tax brackets.... Someone who pays more taxes than you would have gotten more back but the fact remains taxes were lowered...

Kerry promises to raise taxes and in the same way will raise them for all... The wealthy will pay more.

I expect more from my Govt. with the taxes they are already getting. W needs to lower them more IMO. And deliver more.

 

[blahblahblah]

I hope your're not directing that at me... The last two pages have been mostly me stating why I intend to vote the way I do... None of which throws stones at others oppinions or attacks their charector.

Look, I am a very conservative Republican. On top of that, I am a Christian. Most political debate threads, I'm usually facing 5 or 6 different people debating my opinion.

I've learned that there are ways of debating your opinion and effectively getting your message across. Arguing it incessantly is not going to have the sky's part and have your oponents see day light.

Go back and read your personal attacks and off-base assumptions in the wi-fi thread.

I've asked for clarification numerous times. Yet, you won't simplify your argument for me. Your point maybe perfectly valid, but your argument is terribly complex. We could be misunderstanding your point.

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

Look, I am a very conservative Republican. On top of that, I am a Christian. Most political debate threads, I'm usually facing 5 or 6 different people debating my opinion.

I've learned that there are ways of debating your opinion and effectively getting your message across. Arguing it incessantly is not going to have the sky's part and have your oponents see day light.

I really have to disagree here... I have been for the most part simply stating my opinion and justifiying why I think the way I do... There's been little of me telling someone else they're wrong or argueing that they should think they way I do, if any...

I'm not throwing mud and don't see anyone attacking me... Just having fun seeing how my beliefs stack up to others opinions

 

[Sorze]

I wouldn't touch a debate on an internet forum with a 10 foot pole, but I just wanted to say this...

Taxes aren't automatically "sucky sucky long time"! I live in Sweden, we have maybe the highest (can't remember) taxes in the world, and some things about it are great.

Example:
Not paying shit to go to any university, assuming you have grades enough to get accepted ?

Not half bad.



Sorze out :E

 

[dawdler]

I wouldn't touch a debate on an internet forum with a 10 foot pole, but I just wanted to say this...

Taxes aren't automatically "sucky sucky long time"! I live in Sweden, we have maybe the highest (can't remember) taxes in the world, and some things about it are great.

Example:
Not paying shit to go to any university, assuming you have grades enough to get accepted ?

Not half bad.



Sorze out :E

Yeah, but since everything else is so expensive, we spend twice the money just to live.

AND OMG THE COMPUTER PARTS PRICES!!!! WE ARE *DYING* OVER HERE!!! :x

 

[Neutrino]

I know! That's what I've said... I don't like gays so I don't want my tax dollars going that way... Why should I vote from someone else's point of view? I'll vote from my own thank you.

You know? Why did you ask why they cared about marriage certificate then? And how exactly will it cost tax dollars to merely give gay couples the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples? I'm not seeing a huge financial burden here.

I'll have to ask you to clarify that for me... In other words. Huh?

Alright, I'd be happy to do that. An ammendment to the constitution banning gay marriage is discrimination plain and simple. Now before disagreeing, I'll not even say that it's good or bad discrimination. But you can't deny the fact that selectively denying something to only a specific set of people is indeed discrimination by its very definition. So now one must examine the motive behind the ban. As far as I can tell, people are for the ban for two main reasons. Either they are uncomfortable with gays and feel dislike for the sex between two men or two women, or they are againt gays for religious reasons.

Now I realize the first reason is legitimate to many peoples eyes and I won't totally deny that. However, it cannot be used in this case as it's not sufficient grounds for making a law let alone creating an ammendment. You may disagree with this, but if you think about it how can a democratic country claim to be democratic if they create legistation based soley on some people's emotional reaction toward another group of people. Such a thing would be like turning the clock back a 150 years to the days of slavery. Just because some people don't like black people isn't reason enough to make any laws against them. Same thing goes for gays. Alright, so we can throw the first motivation behind the gay marriage ban out the door, atleast in the case of politics.

That leaves us with the religious motivation. This is the only real legitimate motivation that can reasonably be used to support the ban. In fact it is the reason being used by George Bush if you read his quotes on the subject. Another point that supports this is that they are trying to ban marriage between gays. They are not trying to ban civil unions, merely a legal document, they are trying to ban marriage, a religious ceremony for most intents and purposes. So what I'm saying is that the only legitimate reason the Bush adminstration has for banning gay marriage is because of religious views. Any other reason merely falls into the catagory of "I don't like you so you can't get married" which, while a legitimate feeling, cannot be used as the reason behind an ammendment in a country which supports the idea that all people are equal.

So you see what I'm saying? The Bush administration is proposing to create an ammendment to the US constitution based on religion reasons. Even if you agree with the ban and don't like gays, can you not see how dangerous such a thing would be to the policy of church and state seperation?

In the end, we're not just talking about a ban on gay marriage. We're in fact talking about something that would open the doors to religious interference not only with politics in general but with the documents that form the very basis of our government. In my eyes this would create an incredibly bad precedent that could possibly be used to support more legislation based soley on religious teachings. Now I'm not trying to say those teaching are necessarily wrong, but to use them to form laws would be to go against everything our country stands for. In a nation that supports religious tollerance you cannot have a single religion, no matter how popular it might be, dictating the actions of the people.

Now I realize I'm being a bit alarmist as the ban isn't likely to pass in the first place and even if it did I think there's a good chance it would be overruled by the supreme court. And even if it did pass I'll concede it is possible that nothing more would come of it. However, I don't think that should be used to diminish the seriousness of the situation. It's not necessarily the ban itself that poses the largest threat, it's the precedent it would set.

You may disagree with me on this, but I hope that explains what I meant.

(Just as a side point, let's also not forget that being against the ban doesn't mean you have to be for gay marriage. Just because the ban doesn't get passed doesn't mean that it's all of a sudden alright for gays to get married anywhere in the US. You can still be against the ammendment for other reasons and still maintain your position against gays in general.)

I don't want either getting my tax dollars... I'm opposed to most social handouts.

You kind of avoided my question. The reaon I asked, is that I find many men think that sex between two men is disgusting while having no problem with sex between two women. I find this to be an important point to consider. The case of bias toward gay men but not women is indicative of a purely emotional response soley toward the sexual act between two men. It shows that the dislike for gays is not based on principle, religion, or logic and in my opinion does not constitute a relavent or reasonable base on which to make a political decision. That's why I asked.

Also, how exactly is allowing gays to marry like the rest of us even remotely related to a "social handout"?

I'm opposed to increased taxes here as well... Another reason I am voting for Bush. Kerry's said he wants to raise taxes... Bush lowered them.

Well, that's of course your perogitive to be for tax cuts rather than against. However, lets not forget that Bush also spent close to a couple hundred billion on a war too. So even though he's promising tax cuts, that money is going to have to come from somewhere. Just food for thought.

(Oh, and please don't take anything I say as a personal attack on you by any means. I just wanted to provide a different point of view. I may be a bit blunt at times, but please don't take offense.)

 

[JimmehH]

Neutrino makes some damn fine points.

I hadn't realised what a dangerous precedent this (the gay marriage thing) would set...

 

[Champ]

Wasn't his army wiped out?

No. His army was not wiped out. Most of his brigades surrendered. The more elite forces had to be exterminated though, but a fair chunk of his army surrendered and probably later released. (POw's are different than terrorists.)

 

[Sgt_Shellback]

You know? Why did you ask why they cared about marriage certificate then? And how exactly will it cost tax dollars to merely give gay couples the same legal rights as hetrosexual couples? I'm not seeing a huge financial burden here.

You missunderstood me.... "I know" As in "Yes I agree with you"... No matter how well you argue that it wont cost much you wont sway me in thinking I should help them get the financial breaks they are looking for. My single vote is precious to me.

Alright, I'd be happy to do that. An ammendment to the constitution banning gay marriage is discrimination plain and simple. Now before disagreeing, I'll not even say that it's good or bad discrimination. But you can't deny the fact that selectively denying something to only a specific set of people is indeed discrimination by its very definition. So now one must examine the motive behind the ban. As far as I can tell, people are for the ban for two main reasons. Either they are uncomfortable with gays and feel dislike for the sex between two men or two women, or they are againt gays for religious reasons.

Now I realize the first reason is legitimate to many peoples eyes and I won't totally deny that. However, it cannot be used in this case as it's not sufficient grounds for making a law let alone creating an ammendment. You may disagree with this, but if you think about it how can a democratic country claim to be democratic if they create legistation based soley on some people's emotional reaction toward another group of people. Such a thing would be like turning the clock back a 150 years to the days of slavery. Just because some people don't like black people isn't reason enough to make any laws against them. Same thing goes for gays. Alright, so we can throw the first motivation behind the gay marriage ban out the door, atleast in the case of politics.

That leaves us with the religious motivation. This is the only real legitimate motivation that can reasonably be used to support the ban.

Poppycock... Tax dollars, health care dollars, Insurance premiums are all at stake. Religion is not the only thing at issue here.. My hard earned money, however little or easy you think it will be for me to part with is a great motivator.

In fact it is the reason being used by George Bush if you read his quotes on the subject.

I agree with you that the Pres is courting the religious voters on this issue. Politicians do that...

Another point that supports this is that they are trying to ban marriage between gays. They are not trying to ban civil unions, merely a legal document, they are trying to ban marriage, a religious ceremony for most intents and purposes. So what I'm saying is that the only legitimate reason the Bush adminstration has for banning gay marriage is because of religious views. Any other reason merely falls into the catagory of "I don't like you so you can't get married" which, while a legitimate feeling, cannot be used as the reason behind an ammendment in a country which supports the idea that all people are equal.

So you see what I'm saying? The Bush administration is proposing to create an ammendment to the US constitution based on religion reasons. Even if you agree with the ban and don't like gays, can you not see how dangerous such a thing would be to the policy of church and state seperation?

I personally don't think a constitutional amendment is necessary... This can be done much easier using Websters.

In the end, we're not just talking about a ban on gay marriage. We're in fact talking about something that would open the doors to religious interference not only with politics in general but with the documents that form the very basis of our government. In my eyes this would create an incredibly bad precedent that could possibly be used to support more legislation based soley on religious teachings. Now I'm not trying to say those teaching are necessarily wrong, but to use them to form laws would be to go against everything our country stands for. In a nation that supports religious tollerance you cannot have a single religion, no matter how popular it might be, dictating the actions of the people.

Now I realize I'm being a bit alarmist as the ban isn't likely to pass in the first place and even if it did I think there's a good chance it would be overruled by the supreme court. And even if it did pass I'll concede it is possible that nothing more would come of it. However, I don't think that should be used to diminish the seriousness of the situation. It's not necessarily the ban itself that poses the largest threat, it's the precedent it would set.

You may disagree with me on this, but I hope that explains what I meant.

I understand where you're coming from... I agree the constituion doesn't need to be tinkered with but disagree that gays should be given Marriage status with the laws that are already in place... I can't claim a tax deduction for my sons friends who eat me out of house and home because they don't qualify, according to the definition of dependent... Nor, IMO do two people of the same sex qualify as being 'Married'

You kind of avoided my question. The reaon I asked, is that I find many men think that sex between two men is disgusting while having no problem with sex between two women. The reason I asked is it's an important point to consider. The case of bias toward gay men but not women is indicative of a purely emotional response soley toward the sexual act between two men. It shows that the dislike for gays is not based on principle, religion, or logic and in my opinion does not constitute a relavent or reasonable base on which to make a political decision. That's why I asked.

Again I wont answer you here... The question and answer has no bearing on why I am against it.

Also, how exactly is allowing gays to marry like the rest of us even remotely related to a "social handout"?

Well, that's of course your perogitive to be for tax cuts rather than against. However, lets not forget that Bush also spent close to a couple hundred billion on a war too. So even though he's promising tax cuts, that money is going to have to come from somewhere. Just food for thought.

(Oh, and please don't take anything I say as a personal attack on you by any means. I just wanted to provide a different point of view. I may be a bit blunt at time, but please don't take offense.)

Nope... It's all good.

 

[blahblahblah]

I can't claim a tax deduction for my sons friends who eat me out of house and home because they don't qualify, according to the definition of dependent...

Good Lord you have no idea how complicated the word "dependent" is in the tax code.

There are five basic requirements

1) The person must have a familial relationship with the taxpayer (lineal ancestor, descendant, sibling, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, or in-law or reside in the taxpayer's home for the entire year
2) The taxpayer must provide over half the financial support of the person for the year. IIRC, this can be spread out over relatives (ie each sibling pays 25% of financial support).
3) The person's gross income for the year must be less than the perosnal exemption. This requirement is waived for a child under age 19 or a child who is a full-time student under age 24. A full-time student refers to any program of study that is recognized by the USA. This is not limited to Universities, colleges, community colleges, trade school, vocational schools, etc
4) The person must not file a joint return with a spouse.
5) The perrson must be a US citizen or a resident of the United States, Mexico, or Canada.

Of course it gets more complicated then that when you actually get down to the nitty gritty. :x

Anyways, my post is off-topic. I just wanted you to feel a bit of my misery when I read the word "dependent".

 

[Mr.Headcrab]

god damnit how do i attach a pic?

 

[seinfeldrules]

I've ever heard you say something positive about Kerry either. I'm not saying you couldn't as I'm sure you could probably find a few small things just like I did with Bush.

I really do respect him going to Vietnam and fighting for our country. I hope one day that I can have that same courage if needed. I question if it is appropriate to make that the centerpiece of your campaign and not expect it to be attack, however. I never said this before because I was never asked. If he had posed the same question to me I would of responed with the above answer.

Why did I ask stern that? Simple. I have been labled close minded throughout this entire debate. I was merely proving that I am no more close minded than people on the other side. Call it ridiculous, but it proved my point.

I'm sick of people (mostly conservatives) of accusing liberals of hating America.

I accuse him of this because every debate I have been involved with Stern in, he has been on the opposing (Anti-American) side. This was over a period of months. Look at the WiFi debate for a recent example.

There is a huge difference between hating our country and viewing it from an objective viewpoint and recognizing its faults

The same can be said for many liberals. Why should we come to any other conclusion when all they do is harp against America. If I called you names for an hour, would you not come to the conclusion that I hated you?

On Al Franken/Michael Moore:

Why does Hannity accuse these men of hating America? Sure you may say bashing Bush isnt bashing America, but when you go oversees and claim that you are "disgusted" to be an American because of him- you are taking it too far. In a time of war these people are only trying to divide rather than unite. Keeping the debate civil isnt their strong suit. Moore would rather report half truths and lies in his 'documentaries' than the truth. That is why Shaun Hannity says the things he does. Some of what Franken and Moore say are really disturbing and outrageous.

almost 1000 american soldiers have died because of bush and the neo-cons

How about Kerry and almost all the other liberals who voted for the war? See, this is why I get upset. Ignorant statements like these hold no place in a debate.

You also mentioned some words you dont like being used. Here are some from me

Neo-conservatives
close minded
warmonger
idiot