Zell Miller = Funniest man in Amerrrca

[K e r b e r o s]

It was all a joke.

No, im the idiot. Dont worry about it--if it was a joke, let me say first, I was sorry.

Except for the Arnold statement, that one i really do find ironic.

Which ones? The one I said? Or the several he said...?

I don't care who you vote for, my intention is not to sway you to vote for john kerry

But, when we have a balance of members here each with their own opinion, I believe we educate ourselves better on the choices, reactions, and people to be prepared for. Were not all bad here, but with people like you, even if it is bad and debateable up until we launch nukes at each other...it does bring to bear a much clearer view on whats going on here.

I hate to seem that I come off as a democratic attack dog,

Sometimes two dogs barking is a good thing. Means something is wrong.

Dont worry about coming off as, "X" variable. Your fine, and I would'nt have my Innervision milkshake any different than it is now. ^^

Also, whats all this "where is Jesus", whats that supposed to mean?

I was referring to your joke. I may have overexclaimed the contexts though.

will you vote this time around ....are you old enough to vote?

October 25th, and I will be able to vote.

canada didnt join the coalition either, are canadians cowards?

Im totally fine with Canada. I told my family, "If noone joins the Coalition, its there [Free] choice to do so, or not."

I dont call Canadians cowards. I call them my Neighbors.

...by that logic you should discount everything he says because ..it might not be credible

I dont really think much is going to credible for this year. ...eh...

 

[^Ben]

Well it is one the closest elections at the moment.

The real battleground lies with the ethnic minorities.

 

[Sprafa]

Well it is one the closest elections at the moment.

The real battleground lies with the ethnic minorities.

I wonder who the Arab-americans will vote for....

 

[K e r b e r o s]

The real battleground lies with the ethnic minorities.

Notice how all of the Guns just turned to them...from the GOP...to the LAC (Los Angeles County)...everything just got real quiet.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I wonder who the Arab-americans will vote for....

Wild Gander=Al Sharpton. /sarcasm

 

[^Ben]

Now this could be taken really wrong what im about to say.

Most of the minorities I have spoken to from America view "Dubya" As some kind of redkneck.

And "redknecks" usually are viewed as a closeminded people.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

And "redknecks" usually are viewed as a closeminded people.

Depends. Some people view them as "blue collar".

 

[Korgoth]

Well kerberos, I gave you less credit than you deserved, your above statement about canada proves to me that you are more open minded about the situation than I first though. I say this because I had previously argued the state bush made "you are either with us or against us" with other republicans on this board, and it was their conclusion that there was no grey area here, but you have expressed what I was trying to with this statement:
"Im totally fine with Canada. I told my family, "If noone joins the Coalition, its there [Free] choice to do so, or not."

I dont call Canadians cowards. I call them my Neighbors"
Good man

Also I understand the confusion, it is very hard to relay sarcasm, and joking mannerisms (sp?) on an internet message board
And the arnold thing that I was talking about was what I had said in my first post, still just a little tongue in cheek here with the irony.

 

[Korgoth]

No... I was asking for the reason you think I'm afraid. Did I not just tell you I wasn't afraid, yet you keep saying that I am?

And to CptStern, I have no problem with people rebutting any views that I have. Debate is a great thing, I love debate. I think its more enjoyable when you attack people's views, and not their person though. If you wish I can go in the past and dig up all the 'personal insults' thrown my way just because I stated a view differing to others <chuckles>

I'm sure i've thrown a few out there myself, but its silly to do.

And I was ansering the reason why I thought you were affraid.. Because you said that you get ganged up on when you post your opinion, that is why I thought you were affraid to post.
That was my answer, it still is, please re-read my post until you understand it clearly. I never said you were affraid, I said why he thought you were affraid, because of what you had said previously, it gave the impression that you were affraid to post.
I honestly don't know how to be any more clear about this.

(edit: oooops i did it again sorry please no ban me)

 

[Raziaar]

Now this could be taken really wrong what im about to say.

Most of the minorities I have spoken to from America view "Dubya" As some kind of redkneck.

And "redknecks" usually are viewed as a closeminded people.

Unfortunately that's probably true. People need to understand that just because you are from the south doesn't make you a redneck.

Besides, most redneck's I know have openly admitted themselves as being one, though I haven't seen bush do so. Bush exudes none of the things that define a redneck.

 

[CptStern]

No, im the idiot. Dont worry about it--if it was a joke, let me say first, I was sorry.

sorry I'm not following you

Im totally fine with Canada. I told my family, "If noone joins the Coalition, its there [Free] choice to do so, or not."

I dont call Canadians cowards. I call them my Neighbors.

then why do you have no problem with calling the french cowards? ..canadians feel the same way as the french: we dont think the US should be there, that's why we didnt join the coalition. So if americans are calling french cowards they should also say the same about canadians, and anybody else who refused to join

 

[CptStern]

Bush exudes none of the things that define a redneck.

yes he does, he's made a few rascist remarks. He also isnt the brightest of people ...conjures up an image of Jethro from the Beverly hillbillys

 

[oliver]

are you smart like your friends i no rally funny i really like you your funny
what is your phone number i no you dont really no me but you can trust
me

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

C-O-N-Spiracy, are we thinking of the same speech? It's just the same rhetoric Bush has been pumping out the entire time. Didn't he promise a lot of this years ago and fail to deliver? Why is a bad track record better than a clean slate?

Also, as was concluded (repeatedly) in the last several political debates on these forums, Bush and Cheney each did about as much "flip-flopping" as John Kerry. On the surface everyone seems to vote inconsistently because of dirty tricks that both sides pull in Congress. For example, you could try to pass legislature that gives more support to veterans and their families while tacking on a little bit that says "anyone wearing red on a friday will be shot on sight" (well, not something that extreme, but something they will never support) Then, your opponent votes against it because of that and you bombard him in the media about how he voted against supporting the poor, old war veterans and their families. In that situation either way they vote, they lose (if you give it enough press... and you've got to admit, conservatives are definately more organized in distributing talking points rapidly throughout their media outlets). If someone's voting sounds suspicious and/or inconsistent you should probably look deeper for political trickery. So, for the last time, enough with the "flip-flopper" argument...

Well, as for the same rhetoric Bush has been pumping out the entire time, what were you expecting? This is where the guy stands and how he chooses to lead. Youre expecting President Bush to be a perfect president and if youre waiting for a perfect president then please, take a breath, because its not gonna happen. I think Bush oughta be able to explain his "rhetoric" as many times as he needs to.. atleast he's consistant. As for Bush "Flip-Flopping" on issues, i have yet to see that happen.. he even admitted and I agree that sometimes you change your mind on some issues.. that happens. But he doesnt blatently change sides of issues to suit the people who want you to tell them what they want to hear. You cant please everyone and Im glad Bush doesn't do that. He's focused and thats just one of the reasons why I like President Bush. Whether President Bush has failed at anything most certainly wasnt from a lack of trying. Everyone fails.. and id rather have a person for president who knows what he wants and fails to achieve it than someone as undecisive as Kerry.. that makes me nervous. Atleast we know what were getting with Bush being in office. Its hard to discern where we would be with Kerry's policies, if he even has any.

For the bit about trying to pass a law through congress with strings attached that would force them to pretty much vote out the law because of the "dirty trick", I cant see the logic in that, especially if its something that the president really wants to push through in hopes of it getting passed into law. So i seriously doubt they would waste time sending a bill through congress just to get turned down to use as ammunition against a political opponent. Im not saying its never happend.. it just doesnt make sense to me and I dont think Bush is the type of person to play games. Sorry, its cute but it doesnt fly.

Number of jobs lost in the private sector since Bush took office: 2,931,000
Average number of jobs created monthly under every President since Truman: 135,000
Average number of jobs created monthly under Bush: -79,189
Increase in the unemployment rate since Bush took office: 37 percent

Well, i know this is not the truth, i dont have the specific numbers of jobs lost to jobs created throughout his presidency, but i know that these numbers are not true.. 144,000 jobs have been created just in the month of August so i know that thats false...

Since Bush took office there is no way that the unemployment rate has risen to 37%.. hell the unenployment rate during the depression wasnt even that high.. it was only 29%. The unemployment rate as of today is 5.6% and has gone down .2 % in the past 4 months. So no, this is not correct.

The best thing Bush has done to help create jobs is simply lower taxes. This allows consumers to put more into the economy, businesses make more money and are able to afford hiring other employees.. this creates jobs. The new employees get a paycheck and with the more money they take home, the more they are likely to spend, contributing to economic growth and thus good for business and creating jobs.. its a cycle...

..other than lowering taxes, there is not much else a president can do to stimulate economic growth and thats a fact.

Bush's budget deficit for 2004 exceeds the highest budget deficit in history, which was (coincidentally?) posted in 1992 by his father. It's even more amazing considering the huge surplus he was given to start with.

Well, it seems to me youre trying conjure some conspiracy linking the deficit spending with his fathers.. thats just silly. And even if he did spend an outstanding amount of cash, he couldnt have done it without congress.

Come on, he doesn't even try to logically back up that prediction. It's just a pure and simple case of using emotions and fear to attempt to control people that are easily influenced. Anyway, he's sure pissing off countries left and right. So, there are probably more angry potential terrorists... then they go on TV saying how bad our intelligence is? In my opinion, that's pretty much asking to be attacked.

You honestly think that by us showing weakness, it wouldnt make any difference if were going to be attacked are not? Weaknesses are what enemies look for in one another and try to exploit them to manipulate the other in order to succumb to the will of another. We are the most powerful country in the world at the time and if you think that the world wouldnt be in anymore danger by us not standing strong and defeating our enemies then youre so dead wrong.

How can you stand there and say that he's just spouting BS in order for us to fear him and for us to be controlled into thinking that terrorists are out to kill us.. what kind of nonsense is that?

Its not up to us whether or not other countries are angry at us.. and to tell you the truth, we really dont care. Would anyone else care if the US was mad at them? Anyway, thats beside the point. The point is, we have nearly 35 countries on our side especially on the issue of Iraq.. you act like we went in alone. So whats the problem? Are you saying that in order for us to legitimately take action we deem necessary when it comes to our national security, we have to have EVERY country in the world on our side? Think realistic man.. thatll never happen.

Well, if you think the terrorists will change their mind simply because were softer on our foreign policy, youre wrong once again. Why in the world you'd want the terrorists to have their way in the first place hurts my brain.. why would you want murderers to dictate to how we live and do things our way. I'll be damned if were gonna pass up our freedom because of some thugs. And trust me.. whatever pisses those damn terrorists off has got my backing.. and thats just one more reason to vote Bush in 04.

On the issue of intelligence, I think we need more humint or Human Intel and the 3 services need to work together, the FBI, CIA, NSA.. they need to work together to share information along with Homeland Security and thats what the President is trying to make happen through Intel Community Reforms.

I'm amazed at how he can say that with a straight (no pun intended) face while trying to write a ban on homosexual marriage into the Constitution. The United States of America was founded by a big mixed group of social/political/religious outcasts and, since the beginning, one of the most important aspects of this country has been its tolerance of all kinds of people... so long as their actions don't harm anyone else. Our laws were not copied from any specific religion. Our laws are based on ideas that were around long before the Bible. Sure, Christian laws may sound good from a Christian perspective but they are disrespectful to people of other religions (or people that lack religion). Homosexuality may not be right in my eyes, but I have no authority to impose my will upon people that do not share my beliefs. Whether or not they are allowed to marry has no tangible effect on my life, or that of anyone other than themselves. Now, if gay marriage involved human sacrifices or lynchings... that would be a different story.

The President is trying to protect the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage shouldnt be for homosexuals.. and it doesnt matter how much i debate this youre gonna say something like Homosexuality is natural and they have a right to get married and blah blah blah.. you ought to know where i stand on this. Gays do have a right to get married.. if its the person of the opposite sex.. so i dont see what the big deal is.. theyre not losing any more rights than we straight people have. And its not like gay marriage being banned is gonna keep people from being gay.. if you wanna be gay be gay but dont expect to get married. And if marriage doesnt mean anything enough to preserve it then why get married at all? Its not like Bush is trying to Ban all gays and if youre gay you go to jail.. no. Hes looking after preserving the union between a man and a woman only.

And no, the United States was founded on Protestant Christian Principles, otherwise we'd still be part of England. Our laws were pretty much founded on the 10 commandments of the Bible.. whether youre a christian or not. Not only that, theyre pretty much common sense. So how could those laws be offensive to everyone of different religions? What if their religious laws are offensive to us christians, should we not care? And now that ive said that i can easily say that everyone is treated equally regardless of religious beliefs.

Last I heard, the plans he proposed to help get us off of "foreign sources of energy" won't start to go into effect for 10-15 years. It's just an empty promise to seem more environmentally concerned. He just makes the promises while the later administrations will be left to sweat the details and do all of the dirty work.

Well last i checked the leftist environmentalists pitched a tantrum because he wanted to Drill in ANWR and elsewhere.

The government has the authority to tax because taxing is the only effective way the government can fund all of the necessary projects. We're in a huge deficit because Georgie kept spending money while cutting taxes and going to war. A lot of his projects are significantly underfunded... yet he wants to cut taxes even more? Right now, we can't just keep cutting taxes and expecting things to magically get better. We are spread too thin as it is. If we are going to stay in Iraq (or similar wars in the future) we need to at least temporarily increase taxes somewhat to pay for the war without cutting into money designated for use in education/healthcare/etc.

THis brings me back to my earlier point. Youre right, the taxes are used to fund government programs and projects.. but it doesnt matter if its 10% or 100% the government isnt going to get any more money than it would if taxes were cut. I can source this too.. but i have to find the site i read earlier.. dont worry its not fox news.. its not really even a news source but anyway.. Like i said, Bush isnt the only one to contribute to massive spending, congress has to approve of this spending.

 

[Sprafa]

I'm gay and I want to get married. :burp:

 

[CptStern]

are you smart like your friends i no rally funny i really like you your funny
what is your phone number i no you dont really no me but you can trust
me

I'd give you my phone number but I dont think you'd know how to spell it :E

fore - won - sicks ...ummm

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I accidentally hit "back" halfway through my first draft of this post, so I'll save time rewriting and focus on the ultra-dumb Anti-gay marriage part.

The President is trying to protect the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

Congratulations, that's religious discrimination!

Marriage shouldnt be for homosexuals.. and it doesnt matter how much i debate this youre gonna say something like Homosexuality is natural and they have a right to get married and blah blah blah.. you ought to know where i stand on this.

Okay, let's check it out then.

Gays do have a right to get married.. if its the person of the opposite sex.. so i dont see what the big deal is..

"We're not outlawing inter-racial marriage. They're perfectly allowed to marry. BUT ONLY IF BOTH PEOPLE ARE WHITE!!!"

Such a statement sounds like it ought to be punctuated by a long, evil-sounding cackle.

It's discrimination to stop two people from having the same rights as two other people just because you say so.

theyre not losing any more rights than we straight people have. And its not like gay marriage being banned is gonna keep people from being gay.. if you wanna be gay be gay but dont expect to get married.

Like before, just replace "Gay" in that quote with "Jewish" and you sound like a terrible person.

And if marriage doesnt mean anything enough to preserve it then why get married at all?

If by "preserve", you mean "keep it away from other people because my religious beliefs are more valid than those of people who think Gays are no worse than anyone else", you're still being discriminatory.

Its not like Bush is trying to Ban all gays and if youre gay you go to jail.. no. Hes looking after preserving the union between a man and a woman only.

Don't you see that this sets a precedent? He's amending the constitution to say that a particular type of religious belief is not allowed. Namely, the belief that GAys are just as right to marry than anyone else.
If I interpret the bible to mean Gays can marry, BAM, I'm a second-class citizen now. Goodbye freedom.

DISCRIMINATION IS BAD.

And no, the United States was founded on Protestant Christian Principles, otherwise we'd still be part of England. Our laws were pretty much founded on the 10 commandments of the Bible.. whether youre a christian or not. Not only that, theyre pretty much common sense. So how could those laws be offensive to everyone of different religions? What if their religious laws are offensive to us christians, should we not care? And now that ive said that i can easily say that everyone is treated equally regardless of religious beliefs.

The constitution is markedly devoid of religious bias, even though it was written by christians. That set a precedent for separating church and state which lasted for 200 years. Bush plans to tear that up and spit on it. Separation of Church and State is there to stop discrimination. Once it's gone, we might as well just call it 1930 and start over.

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

Congratulations, that's religious discrimination!

How the F*** is that religious discrimination??! Its the way its been for EONS and now all of a sudden its an issue.

Oh im so sorry lil islamic guy, i want to marry a woman not a man.. did i offend you? im so so so sorry!

Oh im so sorry lil Jewish guy, i want to marry a woman not a man.. did i offend you? im so so so sorry!

Oh im so sorry lil Jubbabubbanewreligionineverheardof guy, i want to marry a woman not a man.. did i offend you? im so so so sorry!

ahh F*** that!

Okay, let's check it out then.

Homosexuality is not natural.. think about it man, s*** comes out that hole. Anyway.. why make the opposite sex if it was all so natural.. hmm? we could have all been men or we could have all been women and just have sex with the same gender.. but for some reason we have a man ... and a woman.. (this is not hard folks...) and that reason is for the man and the woman to get together, fall in love, get married, have a family and live happily ever after. Until you can do all of that with the same sex then i will always stand firm on this issue. Im not talking about adopting a baby in order to have a family, im talking about a strong natural nuclear family.. cant happen, sorry.

"We're not outlawing inter-racial marriage. They're perfectly allowed to marry. BUT ONLY IF BOTH PEOPLE ARE WHITE!!!"
Such a statement sounds like it ought to be punctuated by a long, evil-sounding cackle.

This is homosexuality.. homosexuality isnt a race. lets put it this way:

Different breeds of dogs can have offspring as can different races of humans.. (im not comparing dogs to humans because humans are dogs, were both animals, its just an example. Dont take this out of context.)

Same genders of dogs cannot have offspring.

Now im not saying getting married is all about having kids and im not even saying that the only reason gays are messed up in the head is because they cant have children.. its just not natural.
Youre wanting to talk about 2 different issues. Same sex or different races.. thats not the same issue. I for one have no problem with interracial dating/marriage.. hell, my g/f is Korean. If you cant distinguish the difference between gender and race.. please go back to school.

It's discrimination to stop two people from having the same rights as two other people just because you say so.

damn, the world is just chocked full of discrimination.. lemme count how many times ive been discriminated against.. to me, its discrimination to allow gay people to get married.. i guess both discriminations cancel themselves out.

.. rediculous.

Like i said, gays have a right to get married.. just not the same sex.. if i dont have the right to marry a person of the same sex and you dont have the right to marry a person of the same sex, then i guess were equal, so whats the problem? and same goes for marriage of the opposite sex.

Like before, just replace "Gay" in that quote with "Jewish" and you sound like a terrible person.

What'd i say? homosexuality is not a race.

If by "preserve", you mean "keep it away from other people because my religious beliefs are more valid than those of people who think Gays are no worse than anyone else", you're still being discriminatory.

I dunno how many times i have to repeat myself.. youre discriminaring me because you dont think my beliefs should be valid at all.. i guess were even once again.

Don't you see that this sets a precedent? He's amending the constitution to say that a particular type of religious (or non-religious in the case of atheists is not allowed.
If I interpret the bible to mean Gays can marry, BAM, I'm a second-class citizen now.

DISCRIMINATION IS BAD.

Athiests have a right to be athiests but dont force us not to enforce our beliefs simply because you dont believe yourself..
Athiesm isnt even a religion so i dont know why everyone with an actual belief has to step aside from the people who dont. Oh well.
You have a right to not have a religion but you will obey the law regardless if you believe in it or not.

The constitution is markedly devoid of religious bias, even though it was written by christians. That set a precedent for separating church and state which lasted for 200 years. Bush plans to tear that up and spit on it. Separation of Church and State is there to stop discrimination. Once it's gone, we might as well just call it 1930 and start over.

Seperation of Church and State means you cant have a centralized theological society (i.e. most middle eastern countries). This does not mean freedom from religion. If gay marriage were simply just an issue among christians then maybe this would be a Church and State debate, but its not. There are other religions that respect the marriage of a man and a woman.

 

[Prince of China]

What was this thread originally about? Oh, that's right, Zell Miller. Now, I didn't actually see the video of the convention, but I was watching Jay Leno and they showed a clip and it was fun.
And why must so many political debates/threads grow to involve religion?

 

[C-O-N-Spiracy]

Jay Leno didnt even show the whole conversation between Senator Miller and Chris Matthews.

 

[Razor]

When people can't choose between Bush or Kerry, you have to go with Arnold.

It is the only logical step.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

How the F*** is that religious discrimination??! Its the way its been for EONS and now all of a sudden its an issue.

Pop quiz, hotshot:
Does the law force Christian gays not to marry, even if thier religious belief tells them they should?

Does it force atheists to follow a Christian teaching?

If the answer to either of those is yes, then it's discrimination.

Oh im so sorry lil islamic guy, i want to marry a woman not a man.. did i offend you? im so so so sorry!

Oh im so sorry lil Jewish guy, i want to marry a woman not a man.. did i offend you? im so so so sorry!

Oh im so sorry lil Jubbabubbanewreligionineverheardof guy, i want to marry a woman not a man.. did i offend you? im so so so sorry!

ahh F*** that!

What the hell? Who cares what you want? It's what other people want. If gay marriage is legalised, no-one is going to force you to be gay. In fact, it could be allowed right now, and you'd never even realise it until you saw CNN.

And yes, you are offending people by saying that you should disregard every other religion's opinion as worthless.

Homosexuality is not natural.. think about it man, s*** comes out that hole. Anyway.. why make the opposite sex if it was all so natural.. hmm? we could have all been men or we could have all been women and just have sex with the same gender.. but for some reason we have a man ... and a woman.. (this is not hard folks...) and that reason is for the man and the woman to get together, fall in love, get married, have a family and live happily ever after.

1: You're confusing anal sex with homosexuality. Fact is, many straight people love it too. Are they not allowed to marry?
2: Who cares if it's not natural? It doesn't harm you, and our entire culture is based around artifice. Cars aren't natural. Neither are sports. Or your house. Or everything you own.
3: Childless marriages are common and valid. Are you saying that people who can't or won't have children can never marry?
4: Gay people can love each other too, you know. It's not impossible. They can also adopt children, have a family and live happily even without your interference. Why stop at marriage.

Oh yeah, because christianity says so.

Until you can do all of that with the same sex then i will always stand firm on this issue. Im not talking about adopting a baby in order to have a family, im talking about a strong natural nuclear family.. cant happen, sorry.

Right, because all adopted babies die or something. Prove that these people aren't as qualified as you or I.

Same genders of dogs cannot have offspring.

Like I said, procreation is not at issue here. Unless there's a law that says that every married couple must have one child or their relationship is invalidated.

Youre wanting to talk about 2 different issues. Same sex or different races.. thats not the same issue. I for one have no problem with interracial dating/marriage.. hell, my g/f is Korean. If you cant distinguish the difference between gender and race.. please go back to school.

However, I can tell the difference between one person's interpretation of the Bible from anothers.
If I interpret the Bible to say that gays should marry, this law is automatically discriminating against my religious beliefs.

And discrimination based on religion is just as bad as that based on race.

You need a better reason than "it's not natural."

Lots of thing aren't natural.
Unless something is specifically created to harm innocent people either physically or mentally, you cannot make a law to stop it.

damn, the world is just chocked full of discrimination.. lemme count how many times ive been discriminated against.. to me, its discrimination to allow gay people to get married.. i guess both discriminations cancel themselves out.

How so? It's not discrimination for someone to have different religious beliefs than you.

Like i said, gays have a right to get married.. just not the same sex.. if i dont have the right to marry a person of the same sex and you dont have the right to marry a person of the same sex, then i guess were equal, so whats the problem? and same goes for marriage of the opposite sex.

Well, I don't have a Korean girlfriend, so let's pass a law that says men can't enter into relationships Korean people.

See, I'm equal to you. We both can't have Korean girlfriends.
Don't you see a problem there????

I dunno how many times i have to repeat myself.. youre discriminaring me because you dont think my beliefs should be valid at all.. i guess were even once again.

Wrong. I'm not against your beliefs. I'm against you making your beliefs into a law which all other religions in america must follow.
So, no. We're not even at all.

Athiests have a right to be athiests but dont force us not to enforce our beliefs simply because you dont believe yourself..

What?

Athiesm isnt even a religion so i dont know why everyone with an actual belief has to step aside from the people who dont. Oh well.
You have a right to not have a religion but you will obey the law regardless if you believe in it or not.

Reality check: Atheism is a religion. People who don't believe in god have a religious belief: no god. You have to treat them equally. Being part of a religion doesn't automatically make you better.

And yes, they should behave the law. But you can't make them obey christian law. Otherwise, it's discrimination.

Seperation of Church and State means you cant have a centralized theological society (i.e. most middle eastern countries). This does not mean freedom from religion. If gay marriage were simply just an issue among christians then maybe this would be a Church and State debate, but its not. There are other religions that respect the marriage of a man and a woman.

Separation of Church and State is not just referring to the Christian church. It means ALL churches.

If you outlaw something harmless just because any religion says so, that is discrimination.

Okay, I'm going to be as blatant as possible here.

Even if Bob's religious belief is that Bible burns cleaner than propane, you can't send a SWAT team to his barbecue.

Unless he is specifically acting that way to harass you or if he's burning your Bible, he's not hurting anyone.

And, no matter how much you hate him, if you have absolutely no secular reason to make him stop you can't make him stop.

Y'see not everyone believes that the bible is anything more than a chunk of paper. But they can't make you stop believing in it anymore than you can stop them. Unless you're somehow causing harm to someone else, you can't and shouldn't be stopped. That's the entire point of freedom.

People came to America to avoid religious persecution. Now they are trying to commit persecution against non-religious people and people with slightly different beliefs.

If you really believe that Gay marriage is so horrible, the ONLY thing you can do is not have one yourself. Just be a good christian under your special definition and be happy with your belief that everyone who isn't acting like you will all eventually go to hell. That's called tolerance.

Don't force me and everyone in america to go to your heaven and worship your god. Don't outlaw gay marriage, because that's the first step there.

 

[CptStern]

check and mate

 

[OCybrManO]

Well, as for the same rhetoric Bush has been pumping out the entire time, what were you expecting? This is where the guy stands and how he chooses to lead. Youre expecting President Bush to be a perfect president and if youre waiting for a perfect president then please, take a breath, because its not gonna happen. I think Bush oughta be able to explain his "rhetoric" as many times as he needs to.. atleast he's consistant. As for Bush "Flip-Flopping" on issues, i have yet to see that happen.. he even admitted and I agree that sometimes you change your mind on some issues.. that happens. But he doesnt blatently change sides of issues to suit the people who want you to tell them what they want to hear. You cant please everyone and Im glad Bush doesn't do that. He's focused and thats just one of the reasons why I like President Bush. Whether President Bush has failed at anything most certainly wasnt from a lack of trying. Everyone fails.. and id rather have a person for president who knows what he wants and fails to achieve it than someone as undecisive as Kerry.. that makes me nervous. Atleast we know what were getting with Bush being in office. Its hard to discern where we would be with Kerry's policies, if he even has any.

John Kerry makes his policies as clear as Bush. He states them in speeches and he outlines all of them on his web site. The only difference is that Bush actually has a history of being the President.

For the bit about trying to pass a law through congress with strings attached that would force them to pretty much vote out the law because of the "dirty trick", I cant see the logic in that, especially if its something that the president really wants to push through in hopes of it getting passed into law. So i seriously doubt they would waste time sending a bill through congress just to get turned down to use as ammunition against a political opponent. Im not saying its never happend.. it just doesnt make sense to me and I dont think Bush is the type of person to play games. Sorry, its cute but it doesnt fly.

I'm honestly sorry to say this, but it most certainly does happen. Politicians often pass laws that need to be passed with additional, usually somewhat related, legislature that their opponent disagrees with. It's a win-win situation for them. If the bill fails they can blame their opponents and try again. If the bill passes they get some party-specific legislature passed and they can later claim their opponents flip-flopped by citing their vote on the part that piggy-backed in on the main legislature.

Well, i know this is not the truth, i dont have the specific numbers of jobs lost to jobs created throughout his presidency, but i know that these numbers are not true.. 144,000 jobs have been created just in the month of August so i know that thats false...

It was the net job creation rate. You take the jobs created and subtract the jobs lost. If it's negative we have lost more jobs than we have created.

Since Bush took office there is no way that the unemployment rate has risen to 37%.. hell the unenployment rate during the depression wasnt even that high.. it was only 29%. The unemployment rate as of today is 5.6% and has gone down .2 % in the past 4 months. So no, this is not correct.

It went up 37% (not up to 37%) from when Bush entered the office.

The best thing Bush has done to help create jobs is simply lower taxes. This allows consumers to put more into the economy, businesses make more money and are able to afford hiring other employees.. this creates jobs. The new employees get a paycheck and with the more money they take home, the more they are likely to spend, contributing to economic growth and thus good for business and creating jobs.. its a cycle...

The problem is that most of his tax relief goes to the upper 1/3... or even 1/4. Sure, if you give money to someone that needs more money they are going to spend more money... but it doesn't work that way when the people that get the extra money already have more money than they can spend. That money won't get fed back into the government through more spending... and it won't create jobs. You're thinking of an ideal situation where everyone spends everything you give them. Only poor people are like that. Rich people don't change their spending if you give them another million dollars. That money goes no where.

Well, it seems to me youre trying conjure some conspiracy linking the deficit spending with his fathers.. thats just silly. And even if he did spend an outstanding amount of cash, he couldnt have done it without congress.

Republicans control congress. Bush controls the Republicans. It's also a pretty big coincidence that Georgie turned the largest surplus in history into the largest deficit in history in a single term... only rivaled by the one created by his father.

You honestly think that by us showing weakness, it wouldnt make any difference if were going to be attacked are not? Weaknesses are what enemies look for in one another and try to exploit them to manipulate the other in order to succumb to the will of another. We are the most powerful country in the world at the time and if you think that the world wouldnt be in anymore danger by us not standing strong and defeating our enemies then youre so dead wrong.

I'm confused. Didn't you just say enemies exploit weaknesses?

How can you stand there and say that he's just spouting BS in order for us to fear him and for us to be controlled into thinking that terrorists are out to kill us.. what kind of nonsense is that?

He's not just saying that terrorists are after us. He's trying to say something like "Terrorists are after us... and I'm the only one that can save us. Vote Kerry if you want to kill American citizens." He does not offer a single argument to back up this section of the speech. That is a telltale sign of purely emotional appeals.

Its not up to us whether or not other countries are angry at us.. and to tell you the truth, we really dont care. Would anyone else care if the US was mad at them? Anyway, thats beside the point. The point is, we have nearly 35 countries on our side especially on the issue of Iraq.. you act like we went in alone. So whats the problem? Are you saying that in order for us to legitimately take action we deem necessary when it comes to our national security, we have to have EVERY country in the world on our side? Think realistic man.. thatll never happen.

The main reason the "coalition" (basically America and Britain with some little countries sending like 50 guys a piece) supported us is because Bush made it sound like he was threatening anyone that didn't support us (through his "either with us or against us" speeches). He turned his back on the UN when they wanted to try to be peaceful and investigate first because they didn't believe the WMD crap (on which they were correct). His foreign policy is to make us look arrogant by essentially saying no one else's opinion matters because we are the center of the universe. He takes the John Wayne approach to foreign issues. He wants to solve everything by going in guns blazing.

Well, if you think the terrorists will change their mind simply because were softer on our foreign policy, youre wrong once again. Why in the world you'd want the terrorists to have their way in the first place hurts my brain.. why would you want murderers to dictate to how we live and do things our way. I'll be damned if were gonna pass up our freedom because of some thugs. And trust me.. whatever pisses those damn terrorists off has got my backing.. and thats just one more reason to vote Bush in 04.

I'm all for fighting terrorists... but we're not fighting terrorists anymore. Compare the size of the forces used to find Osama against the forces used to find Saddam. The troops in Iraq vastly outnumber the forces ever used in Afghanistan. What? You mean the person that killed thousands of American citizens was brushed aside to start another war with a nation that was not a threat to us? That's right.

And no, the United States was founded on Protestant Christian Principles, otherwise we'd still be part of England. Our laws were pretty much founded on the 10 commandments of the Bible.. whether youre a christian or not. Not only that, theyre pretty much common sense. So how could those laws be offensive to everyone of different religions? What if their religious laws are offensive to us christians, should we not care? And now that ive said that i can easily say that everyone is treated equally regardless of religious beliefs.

The people that made the government might have been Protestants, but the laws were not copied out of the Bible. Are you contending that no one, in the history of time, ever came to the conclusion that it is wrong to kill other people before the Bible was written? The morals that our society, and any mature society live by are common sense practices without which we could not live together in peace. The basic laws of society: do not kill, do not steal, do not lie, etc. have been around for as long as people have lived in communities. Buddhists were living by these laws long before Christianity existed. Also, if we were going by Christian laws we sure did leave a lot of things out...

Here's a quick example: Adultery is not illegal. It may be grounds for divorce, but it is not illegal.

Well last i checked the leftist environmentalists pitched a tantrum because he wanted to Drill in ANWR and elsewhere.

I was referring to his speech on the importance of alternate energy sources, not just alternate oil sources. We need to start seriously researching alternate forms of fuel and ways to produce energy while we still have oil reserves.

 

[Wraith]

im a little late but www.lp.org/issues

fu*k these other assholes

 

[Mechagodzilla]

im a little late but www.lp.org/issues

Wow, I like these guys.

 

[DarkStar]

I was going to say I have seen many angry hate filled Democrats but you grossly generalizing a party pretty much proves the point for me.

Do you care to add any blanket generalizations about Jews or minorities while you are at it?

You misunderstood me. I wasn't saying that Republicans are angry and hate-filled, I was say that Zell Miller is angry and hate-filled. I said he should change parties because he obviously doesn't believe in the vision the Democrats have for America.

 

[Letters]

Ahhh man, I wanted a thread about funny people, not political people.

And DarkStar stole my signature color.

 

[Thadius Dean]

*after reading last three pages*

ah, dont you just love politics?

 

[ShadowFox]

Ahhh man, I wanted a thread about funny people, not political people.

And DarkStar stole my signature color.

I mean't for it to be funny.. but certain people just couldn't contain their agendas.

 

[seinfeldrules]

I mean't for it to be funny.. but certain people just couldn't contain their agendas.

It was a video clip of a very highly debated person after a very highly debated speech. What did you expect?

 

[DarkStar]

I mean't for it to be funny.. but certain people just couldn't contain their agendas.

His speech wasn't funny. It was venomous.

 

[ShadowFox]

His speech wasn't funny. It was venomous.

No, but him stickin it to Chris Matthews was.

And yes, I anticipated this, but it wasn't my intent.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

then why do you have no problem with calling the french cowards?

I never called the French cowards. I think the only person who ever mentioned it that way was, our friend, Zell Miller. I dont call the French "cowards". Heck, its like I tell my friends: You try to defend the Marne!