Explain this

[HappyFatChick]

The whole Canada terrorist arrest thing.

What did Canada do to the Islamonutjobs to deserve this? The left keeps saying it's all AMERICA'S fault.

Please help me understand this.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Okay, look:

No one is saying terrorism is good. No one is saying it's America's fault. (Link me to anything where a major liberal politician said that terrorism is America's fault.)

All Muslims are not terrorists. My family has been friends with an Islamic family for over four decades. You know what? Just like the rest of us, they eat their vegetables, have jobs, watch television, and have lives.

This is not an America vs. the Liberals and Terrorists thing.

Ideally, there'd be no terrorist attacks. But what's your point in spouting happy horseshit like this? To show the left likes terrorism?

[HappyFatChick]

The question is what did Canada do?

The liberals have been saying we deserved 911 (Ward Churchill), that we are the cause of terrorism, that we should just leave everyone else alone, that we should quit being peacemakers and just worry about our own country, that
we should have left Saddam alone and let him continue to butcher 1.5 million
of his own people,etc...

Some of the left who are really starting to look anti-American include Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Al Franken, the Clintons, Al Gore, George Soros, and too many more to name.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Note: Not even Ward Churchill takes Ward Churchill seriously. I said a politician, not a political activisit. Biiiiiiiiiiiiig difference.

I think you'll also agree there's a difference between being a peacemaker and killing schoolchildren. BTW, the Kurds are not considered Hussein's people. I don't think Saddam was an awesome guy, but we went there because we had "proof" there were WMD's. Where are they, baby cakes?

Disagreeing with the president does not make you American, BTW. If anything, the right and ability to disagree makes you MORE American.

[EtobicokeFA]

The question is what did Canada do?

The liberals have been saying we deserved 911 (Ward Churchill), that we are the cause of terrorism, that we should just leave everyone else alone, that we should quit being peacemakers and just worry about our own country, that
we should have left Saddam alone and let him continue to butcher 1.5 million
of his own people,etc...

Some of the left who are really starting to look anti-American include Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Al Franken, the Clintons, Al Gore, George Soros, and too many more to name.

Agin, you are misquoting! It wasn't that we deserved 9/11, it was that we shouldn't have been surprised, give the feelings the musliam nations have towards the states, for our activities in the region.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

The question is what did Canada do?

The liberals have been saying we deserved 911 (Ward Churchill), that we are the cause of terrorism, that we should just leave everyone else alone, that we should quit being peacemakers and just worry about our own country, that we should have left Saddam alone and let him continue to butcher 1.5 million
of his own people,etc...

Some of the left who are really starting to look anti-American include Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Al Franken, the Clintons, Al Gore, George Soros, and too many more to name.
And I wish you would get your facts right for a change, HFC.

1 - Ward Churchill speaks for no one but himself - even though most people (including liberals like me) disagreed with what he said about 9/11, the First Amendment says he had a right to say it. He just became an easy target for unthinking right-wingers to use when bashing liberals in general.

2 - We may not be the cause of terrorism per se, but our continued presense in Iraq is now fueling the insurgency that is killing our men and women every day.

3 - Being peacemakers is one thing - pre-emptive strikes and invasions of other sovereign countries that did nothing to us is another. That's why so many people maintain that this is an illegal war, and Bush is a war criminal.

4 - No one is saying that we should have left Saddam Hussein alone. We should have just followed another path that did not result in the deaths of over 2,400 American troops and countless Iraqis.

5 - As I see it, your heroes and those who speak for your side have done far more damage to this country - Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, - and the absolute lowest of the low, those who use religion to spread hate and/or for their own personal gain, like James Dobson, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Patr Robertson, D. James Kennedy, and Benny Hinn.

6 - With the exception of Ward Churchill (who has proven himseld to be indefensible), I would stand behind anyone on your list, HFC. They're not anti-American - they simply oppose the narrow-minded, hate-fiilled agenda being put forth by your side. And want to fix what your side has broken after years of misguided GOP rule.

[fatlane]

Those charged were not members of al-Qaeda, but were "inspired" by that group, according to Canadian officials. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that. These may well have been people who would have been otherwise influenced by gangsta rap, heavy metal, Dungeons and Dragons, swing music, or pool halls in another day and age to do the exact same things.

Their beef with Canada? Although it does not sponsor forces in Iraq, it is a member of NATO, and NATO is taking on an increased role in Afghanistan. That might be connection enough for the violent radicals.

[Zandoz]

The whole Canada terrorist arrest thing.

What did Canada do to the Islamonutjobs to deserve this? The left keeps saying it's all AMERICA'S fault.

Please help me understand this.

Very simple...right or wrong...it's the flip side of the old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"...The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Or another justification that both ends of the political spectrum like to use when it fits their agenda. "If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem"...non euphanistically put, if you're not on my side, you're part of the problem.

Canada is the friend of their enemy (Us), and not opposing their enemy (Us), so they are the enemy and part of the problem.

Right? Definitely not. Their view of things? Pretty much.

[NFA]

The whole Canada terrorist arrest thing.

What did Canada do to the Islamonutjobs to deserve this? The left keeps saying it's all AMERICA'S fault.

Please help me understand this.

LIAR! LIAR!

Can you understand that you are LYING? No one can help you understand ANYTHING when you keep offering lies as factual statements that need explaining. "The left" hasn't said it was America's fault. "The left" is just an elaborate strawman you've created to justify your irrational hatred for people who disagree with you. Some have raised valid questions that deserve thoughtful consideration concerning ways that the actions of the United States over a period of decades may have contributed to the growing radicalism in muslim circles. If we are to understand this situation and how we can defeat it, we NEED to ask these questions. Your strategy of complete uncuriousness is profoundly dangerous. Sticking our head in the sand is no answer. And make no mistake, these tough questions are not just about what the US did with regards to arming Islamic militants in Afganistan or maintaining a military pressence in Saudi Arabia. Its also about the blind eye that had been turned to leaders in oil rich nation whose public schools are a breeding ground for terrorist ideology. Its not about blaming America. Its about approach the issue in a way which looks for answers to stopping this militancy and doing what we can to prevent further attacks anywhere in the world. If you could let go of your wild-eyed hatred for those who don't politically agree with you, you might be able to see that. Maybe you'd stop asking questions which only provide for the assumpsion that you are right and those you disagree with "hate America". But you aren't going to do that, are you? No. Much too happy thinking you're "defending America" by expousing hatred and condemnation to patriotic Americans.

[Rosie]

We elected a Bush wannabe :P

[Miss Vickie]

Please help me understand this.

I call bullshit. You have no interest in understanding anything but your narrowly confined point of view. If you DID, you'd read something besides FreeRepublic and watch something besides Fox news. You'd maybe, you know, read some of the posts that we've made with fact based information about why what's going on is so bad. You'd maybe do your own research about this war, about Islam, about our loss of civil liberties (Google. It's a beautiful thing. That's how I found out -- from a well respected medical journal -- that an estimated 100,000 Iraqis have been killed. By us. We did that. Aren't you proud?? Doesn't it make you fucking GLAD that our peace loving, freedom spreading country is so diligent?? Don't you just love the idea of the bodies of all those innocent children and mothers, and grandmothers stacked up like cordwood, dead at the hands of weapons your tax dollars paid for??)

That's what people do when they're curious about something, you know. They don't post hate-filled, invective-riddled nasty-ass posts that make a ridiculous, bald faced LIE and demand that we justify someone zealot's skewed perception of what we think. Just the very way you're mis-representing what many on the left think -- without even ASKING us -- makes it clear you don't give a rat's ass what liberals think.

Wanna understand the left's point of view? Don't be ignorant. Read what the left has to say. Don't take the lazy way out and take as gospel truth what a conservative "thinks" (and I use that term loosely in some of these cases) a liberal believes. Because I can guarantee you that -- like you -- they are dead wrong.

[loves2laugh]

Very simple...right or wrong...it's the flip side of the old saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"...The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

Or another justification that both ends of the political spectrum like to use when it fits their agenda. "If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem"...non euphanistically put, if you're not on my side, you're part of the problem.

Canada is the friend of their enemy (Us), and not opposing their enemy (Us), so they are the enemy and part of the problem.

Right? Definitely not. Their view of things? Pretty much.


i think you are right zan- i think the border with us is also an issue- i cant ever imagine what is going on in mexico

[kilo riley]

The question is what did Canada do?

The liberals have been saying we deserved 911 (Ward Churchill), that we are the cause of terrorism, that we should just leave everyone else alone, that we should quit being peacemakers and just worry about our own country, that
we should have left Saddam alone and let him continue to butcher 1.5 million
of his own people,etc...

Some of the left who are really starting to look anti-American include Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Al Franken, the Clintons, Al Gore, George Soros, and too many more to name.

now it's 1.5 million? your last post had 1.3 million...has saddam killed another 200,000 while in custody?

as usual you are short on facts. Liberals have never said that the US deserved 911. Ward Churchill is a kook and just red meat for the rabid right wing.

i'll bite on the "anti-american" crowd though (sans churchill..i do think he is anti-american). I'll just pick one name off your silly list. Al Franken...what makes him anti-american?

[Mini]

I'll just pick one name off your silly list. Al Franken...what makes him anti-american?

He's a liberal. Haven't you been following the discussion?:rolleyes:

[Miss Vickie]

Oh, and in case HFC is interested in truth, according to the US War Crimes Ambassador in a report presented to the National Press Club in 2000 -- a report, may I remind you, whose intent was to justify the war in Iraq --, so you know they're not going to minimize numbers.....

During the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein and his
forces used chemical weapons against Iran. According to official
Iranian sources, which we consider credible, approximately 5,000
Iranians were killed by chemical weapons between 1983 and 1988.

And....

In mid-March of 1988, Saddam Hussein and his cousin Ali
Hassan alMajid -- the infamous "Chemical Ali" -- ordered the dropping
of chemical weapons on the town of Halabja in northeastern Iraq. This
killed an estimated 5,000 civilians, and is a war crime and a crime
against humanity.

And....

Human Rights Watch estimated that between 50,000
and 100,000 Kurds were killed. Based on their review of captured Iraqi
documents, interviews with hundreds of eyewitnesses, and on-site
forensic investigations, they concluded that the Anfal campaign was
genocide. I challenge anyone to read the evidence cited in Iraq's
Crime of Genocide and come to any different conclusion.



The report can be found here: http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm. Notice how it's NOT a CNN report, and it's NOT on Air America, or any other liberal biased media source. As such, it's probably as close to factual (though not unbiased, given the author's intent) information as you can get. If you'll add up those numbers, it comes up to, at most, 110,000 people, 105,000 who were, in fact Saddam's own people. So, we're looking at 105,000 Iraqis. Not 1.3 million. Not 1.5 million. Not even 10% of either of the numbers that you pulled out of your happy fat ass. I'm not sure where you're getting your data from (though I can guess!), but clearly someone's exaggerating just a titch.

Now, may I direct you to a Lancet article outlining a survey done of the estimated number of Iraqis killed by coalition forces since our invasion in 2003. Now keep in mind that this is somewhat dated article, published in October of 2004, some 20 months (and untold casualties) ago.

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deathsfrom air strikes.

The study can be found, in its entirety (with study methods in case you're interested, because I know you're such a careful student), here: http://www.bluejayway.net/pdf/lancet_10-29-04_article_on_IRAQ_casualties.pdf

If you have actual, factual, footnoted data to argue those numbers, I'd dearly love to see them. But somehow I suspect you don't, and will either respond with a) invective, or b) poor poor me, why are you doing this to MEEEEEEEEEEE crucifixion remarks, or c) call me a traitor.

Go ahead. Surprise me.

[Zandoz]

i think you are right zan

You sure you want to admit that in public? ;)

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Al Franken...what makes him anti-american?
Simple - Al's smarter, more educated, and far more informed on most issues than HFC - and she can't stand it.

:D

In HFC's world, anyone who doesn't agree with her and her short-sighted view of things is "anti-American".

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Oh, and in case HFC is interested in truth, according to the US War Crimes Ambassador in a report presented to the National Press Club in 2000 -- a report, may I remind you, whose intent was to justify the war in Iraq --, so you know they're not going to minimize numbers.....
Now, now, Vickie, HFC's mind has been made up, thanks to the steady diet of lies she's gotten from her so-called "news" sources. It isn't fair to present her with facts - it might make her head explode....

But then again, that may be fun to watch! :eat1:

[Miss Vickie]

Now, now, Vickie, HFC's mind has been made up, thanks to the steady diet of lies she's gotten from her so-called "news" sources. It isn't fair to present her with facts - it might make her head explode....

But then again, that may be fun to watch! :eat1:

:)

I just get so pissed with the passing on of blatant lies. Damn. I mean, what Saddam Hussein did was bad enough. There's no REASON to exaggerate. The guy is a dick, an embarrassment to the species, and a blight on humanity. All that being said, I believe -- in my heart of hearts -- that the Iraqi people are worse off now because we've been unable to control the insurgents in that area. Add to that the damage done by coalition forces and you have a people who are paying for freedom (freedom they may or may not want) at the end of the barrel of a gun. Sure, they can vote. But do the people they're voting for having any control?? It doesn't seem that way. So... the voting feels like a huge farce to me.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein has been neutered. But in his place are many would-be despots who are using the power vacuum in the area to vie for control. And who's paying the price? I think we know the answer to that.

[The Kid]

:)

I just get so pissed with the passing on of blatant lies. Damn. I mean, what Saddam Hussein did was bad enough. There's no REASON to exaggerate. The guy is a dick, an embarrassment to the species, and a blight on humanity. All that being said, I believe -- in my heart of hearts -- that the Iraqi people are worse off now because we've been unable to control the insurgents in that area. Add to that the damage done by coalition forces and you have a people who are paying for freedom (freedom they may or may not want) at the end of the barrel of a gun. Sure, they can vote. But do the people they're voting for having any control?? It doesn't seem that way. So... the voting feels like a huge farce to me.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein has been neutered. But in his place are many would-be despots who are using the power vacuum in the area to vie for control. And who's paying the price? I think we know the answer to that.

Exactly. Sure there'll be elections, and america will pull out of Iraq, and everything will be grand, and less than a year later there'll be another dicatorship.

We're planting the seeds for more and more countries to hate us. Eventually those seeds will sprout and with that will come our downfall. It's never good when you get more enemies than friends.

[Sandie_Zitkus]

Can I just make one point here?

HFC has proven herself(?) to be nothing more than a troll and some of you seem to fall into what she/he wants every time.

Don't answer her/his stupid posts and sooner or later *it* will go away.

But I do understand wanting to post the correct info - it's just useless. JMHO.

[dan]

OMG You really pissed them off now..They sound angry like Dashel,Reid,Gore,Press,Carval,Rockefeller,Schumer, and alot of other usual suspects. I believe Bush being dumb is much happier than these very crazed left wingers...I love it when HFC pushes the buttons..Grin ear to ear..It's Great!!!

[MisticalMisty]

OMG You really pissed them off now..They sound angry like Dashel,Reid,Gore,Press,Carval,Rockefeller,Schumer, and alot of other usual suspects. I believe Bush being dumb is much happier than these very crazed left wingers...I love it when HFC pushes the buttons..Grin ear to ear..It's Great!!!
I'm a liberal..and not a damn bit crazy...so instead of making rash generalizations..maybe just stick with the facts.

[Miss Vickie]

OMG You really pissed them off now..They sound angry like Dashel,Reid,Gore,Press,Carval,Rockefeller,Schumer, and alot of other usual suspects.

Thank you. I consider myself in good company. If sharing factual data -- rather than inflammatory bullshit -- means that I'm in the esteemed company of some well respected minds, then it's been worth it.

So, let's talk facts. Do you disagree with any of the statistics I quoted? Are you going to refute statistical analysis by a well-respected, peer-reviewed medical journal? Can you find fault with the numbers shared by an official on "your side", someone who wrote an entire piece to justify a war with Iraq and whose numbers are stil 10% lower than the lowest numbers that HFC quoted?

You think I'm angry? Damn skippy I am. People are dying, Dan. Maybe you don't care because it's just a bunch of "Islamonutjobs" to quote our ever-so-Christlike HFC, but to me a life is a life. And I'm LIVID that we're killing innocent people -- as you should be. If you're not, then you should be ashamed of yourself, because you're letting your ideology get in the way of human compassion.

When lives are on the line, Dan, a little anger is highly appropriate.

[dan]

I'm a liberal..and not a damn bit crazy...so instead of making rash generalizations..maybe just stick with the facts.
Misty you are a fair liberal..IMO there are some..But also IMO most of them appear very angry.Not all though.I like quite a few,like Congressman Ackerman, George Stephanopoulis,Geraldine Ferrero,Bloomberg...I guess defending alot of the liberal platform is hard to do, so some can't handle it without appearing angry and mean spirited. Just my observation over the years. Ex: how can any sane person defend partial birth abortion??or defend the invasion of our country.or legalized drugs,or free College for inmates? Methadone program? I know I would appear angry and frustrated trying to defend these insanities.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Many liberal people like myself are "angry" because of our treatment. We're "angry" because we're expected to pay the same in without getting the same rights and treatment. You can marry any woman you fall in love with. I can't. I couldn't legally adopt children if I had a same sex partner in most states. There are conservatives who think that if I'm raped, pregnant with a child that will kill me to birth, etc., I should give birth no matter what.

As a police officer, I am surprised you support the War on Drugs. It's crowding our prisons while real scumbags roam free. I've used recreational drugs, and I'm a nice person who drinks about every three months and has an okay job.

Some of us are angry because we have to suffer under an oppressive system everyday of our lives. I am NOT protected under the law as a bisexual woman. That's not fair that some people are protected, and some aren't. It's not fair that some citizens have more rights than others. The end.

[dan]

Thank you. I consider myself in good company. If sharing factual data -- rather than inflammatory bullshit -- means that I'm in the esteemed company of some well respected minds, then it's been worth it.

So, let's talk facts. Do you disagree with any of the statistics I quoted? Are you going to refute statistical analysis by a well-respected, peer-reviewed medical journal? Can you find fault with the numbers shared by an official on "your side", someone who wrote an entire piece to justify a war with Iraq and whose numbers are stil 10% lower than the lowest numbers that HFC quoted?

You think I'm angry? Damn skippy I am. People are dying, Dan. Maybe you don't care because it's just a bunch of "Islamonutjobs" to quote our ever-so-Christlike HFC, but to me a life is a life. And I'm LIVID that we're killing innocent people -- as you should be. If you're not, then you should be ashamed of yourself, because you're letting your ideology get in the way of human compassion.

When lives are on the line, Dan, a little anger is highly appropriate.I'm amazed...Do you believe innocent till proven guilty??Were you there Miss V to witness first hand? Can you convict without a shadow of a doubt..Like OJ Right!!.. THese men and women of the military have given you the right to continue live a free life. Do you know every American has a bullet with their names on them from very hostile nations all over this Earth. They really do keep us safe......If you want to keep playing games on your computer, remember it all comes with a price, and that's the hard factual truth.. If these men and women are found guilty maybe they need to be re-habilitated.

[JudgeDredd425]

Many liberal people like myself are "angry" because of our treatment. We're "angry" because we're expected to pay the same in without getting the same rights and treatment....I am NOT protected under the law as a bisexual woman. That's not fair that some people are protected, and some aren't. It's not fair that some citizens have more rights than others. The end.

You have exactly the same rights as any other citizen under the law. Not more not less, and to claim otherwise is to lie. Your bisexuality or homosexuality as it may be have nothing to do with your Constitutional rights or their exercise by you. You can be angry all you want, but in point of fact it is special rights you want above and beyond what everyone else has to accommodate your choices and desired lifestyle.

[MisticalMisty]

Ex: how can any sane person defend partial birth abortion??or defend the invasion of our country.or legalized drugs,or free College for inmates? Methadone program? I know I would appear angry and frustrated trying to defend these insanities.
When you watch a person you love..eaten up with cancer, begging for the pain to end..YOU'LL be for the Legalization of drugs..

When you realize that these prisoners will be back on our streets in less time than 50 years ago..you'll be all for their education so that maybe..just MAYBE they can become productive members of society.

When your wife, sister, niece, daughter is fighting for either her life or the life of her unborn child...and she has a husband and 2 other kids at home..you'd be a supporter of partial birth abortions.

When you remember that over 300 years ago..a boat of pilgrims came to this country to escape religious persecution and started this country...and that the Native Americans suffered..then you'll be glad that immigrants are coming to this country to make sure that you have fruit and vegetables in your local grocery store so your family doesn't go hungry.

Yes, I would defend each and everyone of these issues..because they are real to me..so if that makes me insane..so be it..but I'd rather live in a free nation..than a police state anyday.

[NFA]

You have exactly the same rights as any other citizen under the law. Not more not less, and to claim otherwise is to lie. Your bisexuality or homosexuality as it may be have nothing to do with your Constitutional rights or their exercise by you. You can be angry all you want, but in point of fact it is special rights you want above and beyond what everyone else has to accommodate your choices and desired lifestyle.

No. A gay person does NOT have the same rights as any other person. They have the "right" to enter into a heterosexual marriage, but that is functionally no right at all. It simply underscores that our government has conferred special rights to certain lifestyles. What gay men and women are asking for is an equality of rights and its unfair to characterize it as anything else. In Ohio, a person in a homosexual relationship is not protected by domestic violence laws, while a person a heterosexual marriage is. This is a special right given to straight couples that is denied gay couples. Your concept of "same rights" is only valid if one ignores reality. Hetereosexual relationships enjoy special privlages that are denied to gay couples. To achieve equality, this needs to end. Either the government gives those rights to all couples willing to be legally recognized, or it gives them to none. As long as some get those rights but not others, they are simply special rights for privlaged classes.

[GWARrior]

In Ohio, a person in a homosexual relationship is not protected by domestic violence laws, while a person a heterosexual marriage is.

that is extremely fucked up!!!

[Miss Vickie]

I'm amazed...Do you believe innocent till proven guilty??Were you there Miss V to witness first hand? Can you convict without a shadow of a doubt..Like OJ Right!!.. THese men and women of the military have given you the right to continue live a free life. Do you know every American has a bullet with their names on them from very hostile nations all over this Earth. They really do keep us safe......If you want to keep playing games on your computer, remember it all comes with a price, and that's the hard factual truth.. If these men and women are found guilty maybe they need to be re-habilitated.

So basically? You got nothin'. Okay, that's what I thought. Nice dodge,though. Nice deflection, making this about how I hate the military. That's what people do when they can't actually argue the point.

But hey, whatever gets you through the night.

[JudgeDredd425]

No. A gay person does NOT have the same rights as any other person. They have the "right" to enter into a heterosexual marriage, but that is functionally no right at all. It simply underscores that our government has conferred special rights to certain lifestyles. What gay men and women are asking for is an equality of rights and its unfair to characterize it as anything else. In Ohio, a person in a homosexual relationship is not protected by domestic violence laws, while a person a heterosexual marriage is. This is a special right given to straight couples that is denied gay couples. Your concept of "same rights" is only valid if one ignores reality. Hetereosexual relationships enjoy special privlages that are denied to gay couples. To achieve equality, this needs to end. Either the government gives those rights to all couples willing to be legally recognized, or it gives them to none. As long as some get those rights but not others, they are simply special rights for privlaged classes.

As Wayne Zitkus likes to say " I'm calling Bullshit." Please show a single example where one citizen was denied any Constitutional right over another due to their homosexuality.

Your quote "They (I'm assuming you mean heterosexuals) have the "right" to enter into a heterosexual marriage, but that is functionally no right at all." You just made my case with that last bit "that is functionally no right at all." Marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman, and a woman. That is nature of marriage. People don't have any "rights" to marry. If people do get married it is because they make the decision to do that. Homosexuals can act like they are married if they want to, but they have no "right" to expect legal acceptance of that as if they were man and woman. But they can make arrangements which provide functionally the same results (wills, power of attorneys, etc.) For Homosexuals to bitch about how they can't be married is like a man bitching he can't get pregnant. Both are somethings that were never meant to be.

As to the issue of domestic violence, the law is so written to protect what are suppose to be family members from other family members so if there is no blood relationship, no relation by marriage, and no possible relation by marriage (homosexual coupling) than DV law does not apply, but that is to the homosexuals advantage.

DV law (besides being unconstitutional) is badly written and punishes people found guilty of it unequally versus someone who assaults another who is not married or related by blood/marriage/shack up situation to their victim. Two different levels of punishment for what is the same crime makes no logical sense. Homosexuals involved in a DV like situation again are afforded protection under the law (the proper protection I will add) and can seek the same results under the law with a restraining order.

While you are complaining about so-called "special privileges" for married heterosexuals you might want to explain precisely what they are. Is it the privilege of paying more taxes to government because they are married versus two single people living together who pay less?

[fatgirlflyin]

You have exactly the same rights as any other citizen under the law. Not more not less, and to claim otherwise is to lie. Your bisexuality or homosexuality as it may be have nothing to do with your Constitutional rights or their exercise by you. You can be angry all you want, but in point of fact it is special rights you want above and beyond what everyone else has to accommodate your choices and desired lifestyle.

She (I) doesn't have the right to marry another woman if she (I) chose to. Straight people are free to marry who ever they choose.

A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury. Examples of civil rights are freedom of speech, press, assembly, the right to vote, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the right to equality in public places. Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class. Statutes have been enacted to prevent discrimination based on a persons race, sex, religion, age, previous condition of servitude, physical limitation, national origin and in some instances sexual preference.

[GWARrior]

Your quote "They (I'm assuming you mean heterosexuals) have the "right" to enter into a heterosexual marriage, but that is functionally no right at all." You just made my case with that last bit "that is functionally no right at all." Marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman, and a woman. That is nature of marriage. People don't have any "rights" to marry. If people do get married it is because they make the decision to do that. Homosexuals can act like they are married if they want to, but they have no "right" to expect legal acceptance of that as if they were man and woman. But they can make arrangements which provide functionally the same results (wills, power of attorneys, etc.) For Homosexuals to bitch about how they can't be married is like a man bitching he can't get pregnant. Both are somethings that were never meant to be.




WOW. What a real douchebag thing to say. Who are YOU to say what marriage is for everyone?

[NFA]

Marriage is between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman, and a woman. That is nature of marriage. People don't have any "rights" to marry. If people do get married it is because they make the decision to do that. Homosexuals can act like they are married if they want to, but they have no "right" to expect legal acceptance of that as if they were man and woman. But they can make arrangements which provide functionally the same results (wills, power of attorneys, etc.) For Homosexuals to bitch about how they can't be married is like a man bitching he can't get pregnant. Both are somethings that were never meant to be.

Oh! So special rights and privlages are okay, so long as you like them. Well, that's a clear and consistant standard.

Explain to me, though, how a civil and legal recognition is like a biological restriction? Oh, right! Because you say so. You declare the equal rights were "never meant to be" so they magically be "special" rights. Meanwhile, the special rights now conferred to a prefered class because equal rights through more magic I suppose. Do you have a top hat that you pull these legal mutiliations out of, or do you pull them out of something else?

Oh, and by the way, a lot of states are forbiding gay couples from entering into legal agreements meant to replicate marriage rights. Besides that, we already have a nice tidy legal package prepared to set up all of those rights plus more that cannot be granted through a private contract. Why not allow those couples the same access to that civil agreement as straight couples enjoy?

Oh, right. MAGIC!

[Miss Vickie]

I think until gay people can marry each other, we can't really say that they have the same rights as straight people. Why is it special rights for them to have what we have? Does it follow then that fat people demanding equality are also demanding "special rights" because we want chairs and medical equipment to accommodate us?

I'm just curious why one is okay and not the other. It seems to me that all people should be entitled to live in dignity, and to have the same legal and financial opportunities regardless of whether their partner is male or female. I personally don't find the sanctity of my marriage threatened at all by a lesbian couple.

[JudgeDredd425]

Oh! So special rights and privlages are okay, so long as you like them. Well, that's a clear and consistant standard.

Explain to me, though, how a civil and legal recognition is like a biological restriction? Oh, right! Because you say so. You declare the equal rights were "never meant to be" so they magically be "special" rights. Meanwhile, the special rights now conferred to a prefered class because equal rights through more magic I suppose. Do you have a top hat that you pull these legal mutiliations out of, or do you pull them out of something else?

Oh, and by the way, a lot of states are forbiding gay couples from entering into legal agreements meant to replicate marriage rights. Besides that, we already have a nice tidy legal package prepared to set up all of those rights plus more that cannot be granted through a private contract. Why not allow those couples the same access to that civil agreement as straight couples enjoy?

Oh, right. MAGIC!

Things are as they are. It is a fact that homosexuals can work around the issues of not being legally recognized as man and woman to obtain the same end result. There is no magic. Setting aside the issue of marriage for homosexuals, what real right under the law have you been denied? The answer is none. You have the same Constitution and the same Bill of Rights in it.

The point of marriage is to produce offspring and to raise them. This cannot happen for biological reasons between homosexuals. And for homosexuals to demand they be treated as if they were something that they are not is a matter of denying them the same rights, it is to not deny the reality of the situation that they are in fact something else entirely.

No matter what the law happens to say about marriage, two homosexuals can get together and pretty much do as they please. Please provide any example of a "marriage benefit" that cannot be achieve by any other means except for an actual marriage that is denied to homosexuals.

[GWARrior]

Things are as they are. It is a fact that homosexuals can work around the issues of not being legally recognized as man and woman to obtain the same end result. There is no magic. Setting aside the issue of marriage for homosexuals, what real right under the law have you been denied? The answer is none. You have the same Constitution and the same Bill of Rights in it.

The point of marriage is to produce offspring and to raise them. This cannot happen for biological reasons between homosexuals. And for homosexuals to demand they be treated as if they were something that they are not is a matter of denying them the same rights, it is to not deny the reality of the situation that they are in fact something else entirely.

No matter what the law happens to say about marriage, two homosexuals can get together and pretty much do as they please. Please provide any example of a "marriage benefit" that cannot be achieve by any other means except for an actual marriage that is denied to homosexuals.

THE POINT OF MARRIAGE IS NOT TO PRODUCE OFFSPRING AND RAISE THEM. Not now, in the 21st century. There are PLENTY of childless married couples out there to back me up.

JudgeDredd, you are one of the most homophobic people I have ever had contact with. I really pity you.

[JudgeDredd425]

WOW. What a real douchebag thing to say. Who are YOU to say what marriage is for everyone?

Instead of continuing to make trollish comments and insults, why don't you try posting something truly meaningful one way or another. To the best of my knowledge you have never said much more than "it sucks, you/it scares me, you suck," or similar such claptrap in three sentences or less and usual less. Try to contribute a little more to the discussion or stay out of it if that is beyond you.

BTW, marriage has not been personally defined by me, that was done for me by biology, history, religion, and general customs of my society.

[GWARrior]

Instead of continuing to make trollish comments and insults, why don't you try posting something truly meaningful one way or another. To the best of my knowledge you have never said much more than "it sucks, you/it scares me, you suck," or similar such claptrap in three sentences or less and usual less. Try to contribute a little more to the discussion or stay out of it if that is beyond you.

BTW, marriage has not been personally defined by me, that was done for me by biology, history, religion, and general customs of my society.


Everything Ive said was meaningful, to at least me. I really DO pity you!

[TraciJo67]

Things are as they are. It is a fact that homosexuals can work around the issues of not being legally recognized as man and woman to obtain the same end result. There is no magic. Setting aside the issue of marriage for homosexuals, what real right under the law have you been denied? The answer is none. You have the same Constitution and the same Bill of Rights in it.

The point of marriage is to produce offspring and to raise them. This cannot happen for biological reasons between homosexuals. And for homosexuals to demand they be treated as if they were something that they are not is a matter of denying them the same rights, it is to not deny the reality of the situation that they are in fact something else entirely.

No matter what the law happens to say about marriage, two homosexuals can get together and pretty much do as they please. Please provide any example of a "marriage benefit" that cannot be achieve by any other means except for an actual marriage that is denied to homosexuals.

Unmarried couples cannot, by and large, provide insurance for each other via an employer's program. This is a very big deal to a lot of un/under-insured people, JudgeDredd.

Unmarried couples do not have the same rights & privileges afforded to them, should the relationship end badly (say, for joint visitation of a non-biological child or for alimony or a fair distribution of assets).

In some states & via some employers, unmarried couples cannot name each other as beneficiary of pension plans. Unmarried couples cannot make a Social Security claim based on a working partner's income, nor do they typically have access to annuities.

Unmarried couples do not have the same access to tax shelters/benefits -- especially write-offs for home ownership.

Unmarried couples do not have 'next of kin' status or a legally sanctioned right to make decisions for an incapacitated partner. There are many widely publicized examples of this, JudgeDredd. Imagine finding out that your companion of 15 years was involved in a devastating accident and is now comatose and unable to make decisions for him/herself. Blood relatives have more rights than you do. What happens if the parents or siblings cannot accept your role in your partner's life?

Unmarried couples do not usually have access to bereavement pay or even sick leave to care for an unrelated partner.

Unmarried couples cannot file for spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home.

Unmarried couples cannot file for residency or legal alien status protection for a partner who is not a U.S. citizen.

Unmarried couples cannot usually get joint insurance policies for auto, home or health benefits.

I could go on and on ... and on. I think you get the point, though.

[GWARrior]

I could go on and on ... and on. I think you get the point, though.

He gets it, but probably won't admit to it.

[TraciJo67]

He gets it, but probably won't admit to it.

Or he will claim that they could get these benefits in some other way (such as a living will for the 'next of kin' issue ... but unfortunately, blood relatives can and do challenge such things).

The fact is, for most of the issues that I listed above, unmarried couples cannot make private, legal arrangements for these benefits.

[Miss Vickie]

Excellent points, Traci. And also there's a more intangible issue, too. Same sex partners cannot refer to each other as their spouse, and have that whole emotional je ne sais qua that occurs in marriage. There are some very emoational reasons for marrying, for those of us who choose to do so. It's not just the legal issues, but the cultural backing and understanding that the term "marriage" provides. It's hard to understand unless you've both cohabitated and married. But many people report a real difference (for the positive!) in the relationship.

We have the option to choose to marry. Same sex couples do not. Therefore, they do NOT have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

[NFA]

Things are as they are. It is a fact that homosexuals can work around the issues of not being legally recognized as man and woman to obtain the same end result. There is no magic. Setting aside the issue of marriage for homosexuals, what real right under the law have you been denied? The answer is none. You have the same Constitution and the same Bill of Rights in it.

Ah. More MAGIC! Point of fact, there are limits to what private contracts can do with regards to replicating marriage rights. They are band-aid at best. Where they are even allowed. Ohio has probably outlawed them, for instance. And you are right that the US Constitution doesn't provide marriage rights for anyone. But once provided, they need to be provided equally. Marriage is itself a civil right and it is being denied to people on the basis of their sexual orientation. In many states, that's clearly unconstitutional. It is always immoral and unethical.

The point of marriage is to produce offspring and to raise them. This cannot happen for biological reasons between homosexuals. And for homosexuals to demand they be treated as if they were something that they are not is a matter of denying them the same rights, it is to not deny the reality of the situation that they are in fact something else entirely.

So, then you support revoking marital privlages to people who are unable to concieve. Indeed, your logic would demand that no liscences be issued to any infertile person. That seems awfully harsh. Why on Earth would you propose legally punishing people because their biology doesn't allow them to bare children? Or because they have reached an age where they are infertile? So, I guess that means automatic divorces for any woman when she undergoes menopause.

But you aren't suggesting that, are you? Of course not. No one could ever suggest that and get away with it. But if you apply your logic consistantly, that is precisely what must be done. That's what happens when you try to come up with logical smokescreens or irrational moral judgements.

No matter what the law happens to say about marriage, two homosexuals can get together and pretty much do as they please. Please provide any example of a "marriage benefit" that cannot be achieve by any other means except for an actual marriage that is denied to homosexuals.

No, they cannot do as they please. They cannot get married. You've still provided no sane reason to deny the legal rights of marriage to people because they are gay. The burden is not on the discriminated to show why they shouldn't be discriminated against. It is on you to show why they should be. So far, all you've offered is "because I say so." Just seems like a magic show to me.

[Elfcat]

The whole Canada terrorist arrest thing.

What did Canada do to the Islamonutjobs to deserve this? The left keeps saying it's all AMERICA'S fault.

Please help me understand this.

They got the U.S. to wreck their treasury on wars halfway around the world.

Maybe they think the Canadians will fall for it too.

[HappyFatChick]

The cost of a U.S soldier: $9/hour

The cost of the war: billions

The cost of freedom: priceless

[JudgeDredd425]

Unmarried couples cannot, by and large, provide insurance for each other via an employer's program. This is a very big deal to a lot of un/under-insured people, JudgeDredd.

Unmarried couples do not have the same rights & privileges afforded to them, should the relationship end badly (say, for joint visitation of a non-biological child or for alimony or a fair distribution of assets).

In some states & via some employers, unmarried couples cannot name each other as beneficiary of pension plans. Unmarried couples cannot make a Social Security claim based on a working partner's income, nor do they typically have access to annuities.

Unmarried couples do not have the same access to tax shelters/benefits -- especially write-offs for home ownership.

Unmarried couples do not have 'next of kin' status or a legally sanctioned right to make decisions for an incapacitated partner. There are many widely publicized examples of this, JudgeDredd. Imagine finding out that your companion of 15 years was involved in a devastating accident and is now comatose and unable to make decisions for him/herself. Blood relatives have more rights than you do. What happens if the parents or siblings cannot accept your role in your partner's life?

Unmarried couples do not usually have access to bereavement pay or even sick leave to care for an unrelated partner.

Unmarried couples cannot file for spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home.

Unmarried couples cannot file for residency or legal alien status protection for a partner who is not a U.S. citizen.

Unmarried couples cannot usually get joint insurance policies for auto, home or health benefits.

I could go on and on ... and on. I think you get the point, though.

Most of what you list here is at best semi-valid. When you complain about the issue of insurance, that is not a government matter. That is a question of what employer provides what benefits. There are no government mandates that I'm aware of that cover homosexuals and yet I do know there are companies who provide those benefits to homosexuals.

Many other complaints can easily be handled by filing the appropriate legal paperwork such as wills, power of attorneys, setting up trusts. It does require a little more work but the end result is the same. Same sex partners get the money and the control where and when appropriate.

[Blackjack]

The cost of a U.S soldier: $9/hour

The cost of the war: billions

The cost of freedom: priceless

Posting a complete non sequitir: Dozens of people scratching their heads in confusion.

[JudgeDredd425]

Or he will claim that they could get these benefits in some other way (such as a living will for the 'next of kin' issue ... but unfortunately, blood relatives can and do challenge such things).

The fact is, for most of the issues that I listed above, unmarried couples cannot make private, legal arrangements for these benefits.

If there are any legal challenges to be made by anyone then they will be made just as if it were a heterosexual couple. Plenty of heterosexual people have had their rights challenged by others in and out of their families.

[JudgeDredd425]

Ah. More MAGIC! Point of fact, there are limits to what private contracts can do with regards to replicating marriage rights. They are band-aid at best. Where they are even allowed. Ohio has probably outlawed them, for instance. And you are right that the US Constitution doesn't provide marriage rights for anyone. But once provided, they need to be provided equally. Marriage is itself a civil right and it is being denied to people on the basis of their sexual orientation. In many states, that's clearly unconstitutional. It is always immoral and unethical.



So, then you support revoking marital privlages to people who are unable to concieve. Indeed, your logic would demand that no liscences be issued to any infertile person. That seems awfully harsh. Why on Earth would you propose legally punishing people because their biology doesn't allow them to bare children? Or because they have reached an age where they are infertile? So, I guess that means automatic divorces for any woman when she undergoes menopause.

But you aren't suggesting that, are you? Of course not. No one could ever suggest that and get away with it. But if you apply your logic consistantly, that is precisely what must be done. That's what happens when you try to come up with logical smokescreens or irrational moral judgements.



No, they cannot do as they please. They cannot get married. You've still provided no sane reason to deny the legal rights of marriage to people because they are gay. The burden is not on the discriminated to show why they shouldn't be discriminated against. It is on you to show why they should be. So far, all you've offered is "because I say so." Just seems like a magic show to me.

Well then we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm not the one attempting to change anything here or be something that I'm not. Marriage remains by definition the union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals can do anything except marry as far as I'm concerned as long as it is not a mal per se criminal act.

[MisticalMisty]

Well then we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm not the one attempting to change anything here or be something that I'm not. Marriage remains by definition the union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals can do anything except marry as far as I'm concerned as long as it is not a mal per se criminal act.
Why do you care if they get married or not..if they aren't sleeping in your bed...I really don't see where it becomes any of your business.

[TraciJo67]

If there are any legal challenges to be made by anyone then they will be made just as if it were a heterosexual couple. Plenty of heterosexual people have had their rights challenged by others in and out of their families.

By law, a spouse will ALWAYS have legal precedent over parents or siblings. Case in point, Terri Schiavo.

The same is absolutely not true of unmarried couples.

Just admit it, JudgeDredd -- you're wrong. Married couples are afforded more rights and more legal protection than are unmarried ones.

[NFA]

Well then we will just have to agree to disagree. I'm not the one attempting to change anything here or be something that I'm not. Marriage remains by definition the union between a man and a woman. Homosexuals can do anything except marry as far as I'm concerned as long as it is not a mal per se criminal act.

So you have no response to the obvious logical gaps in your previous justification? Will you then admit that your reproduction arguement is completely baseless, or will you explain how it isn't? You're the one who wants to prevent post-menopausal women and infertile men and women from marrying. There is no reason for the current system of special privlages for heterosexual couples. That is why things need to be changed for the sake of equality.

[Elfcat]

The cost of a U.S soldier: $9/hour

Please tell me this isn't including combat duty differential.

Because if it is, I support the troops holding a strike vote!

The cost of the war: billions

"Pentagon officials say the new plan is aimed at adding manpower to improve security in the short term -- when troop numbers will increase from the current 130,000 to as many as 180,000"

130,000 * 9/hr * 24 (let's be "liberal") * 365 * 3 = about $31 billion.

When I think where our politicians have shoved the rest of the money they've "supplementalled" out of the hard working American's pocket....

The cost of freedom: priceless

.. or is that "unavailable at any price"?

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Gee, Dredd, along with the right of marriage, I can also be fired from my job JUST FOR BEING A DYKE. That's comforting. I don't have the right to raise a family with my non-legal wife. As a result of being an unprotected minority under the law, I get treated worse by some private citizens and people are less willing to stick their necks out for me. This was especially true when I was a minor.

You know, unless you've been GLBTQ, you can't imagine the world of shit we have to live with everyday as second class citizens. Even the president is allowed to openly express we shouldn't have equal rights. And unlike your ex-girlfriends, just saying, "You're wrong," doesn't solve our problems.

[Friday]

And for homosexuals to demand they be treated as if they were something that they are not is a matter of denying them the same rights, it is to not deny the reality of the situation that they are in fact something else entirely.

When you run in circles like this, do you keep going just until you're dizzy or do you persist until you bite yourself in the ass?

If he comes up with anything worth reading in response (I realize how doubtful that is), somebody quote it for me. I won't bother to ask why people are allowed to be married for 50 or 60 years when obviously they aren't reproducing that long.

[TraciJo67]

Most of what you list here is at best semi-valid. When you complain about the issue of insurance, that is not a government matter. That is a question of what employer provides what benefits. There are no government mandates that I'm aware of that cover homosexuals and yet I do know there are companies who provide those benefits to homosexuals.

Many other complaints can easily be handled by filing the appropriate legal paperwork such as wills, power of attorneys, setting up trusts. It does require a little more work but the end result is the same. Same sex partners get the money and the control where and when appropriate.

It is a Government matter, in that it is the Government that is blocking same-sex couples the right to wed.

And, as I mentioned, living wills & power of attorney can be and have been challenged by blood relatives. It is difficult -- as we've seen with Terri Schiavo's case, nearly impossible even WITH judicial interference, for spousal rights to be terminated. Not so with unmarried, otherwise unrelated couples.

Please explain to me where a same-sex companion can file for Social Security benefits using his partner's income as a basis for the request. Or how to get access to a pension or annuity. I am telling you, with absolute certainty, that it is impossible.

Just admit it. You are wrong.

[MisticalMisty]

Just admit it. You are wrong.
Looks for ice skates for all the liberals..in case hell freezes over..LMFAO

[MisticalMisty]

But we are free are we not?? Look at the big picture and the future..How can you even think this way. Don't you believe in any boundries?
What type of boundaries? Preventing death, pain and persecution..those are pretty damn important to me.

[Tina]

Dan, just because Misty draws her boundaries differently than you do, it's wrong to assume she has none. Not just wrong, but silly.

[dan]

So basically? You got nothin'. Okay, that's what I thought. Nice dodge,though. Nice deflection, making this about how I hate the military. That's what people do when they can't actually argue the point.

But hey, whatever gets you through the night.
They should get the benefit of the doubt, till proven guilty Right..That is all we have.. The Constitution.

[DrDetroit]

I'll just pick one name off your silly list. Al Franken...what makes him anti-american?

Al Franken has travelled to Iraq, multiple times! Why would a known liberal do this if not to give aid and comfort to America's enemies!

(Note to the fact-based among you: Al Franken travelled to Iraq to perform for our troops with the USO.)

http://www.uso.org/

[HappyFatChick]

The only reason Franken does anything is for attention. Can you say photo op? He has no interest in the well-being of our troops. He hates the military, the U.S., the president, Republicans, unborn babies, and God. I know. I've read his books and heard his show enough to be permanently nauseated.

He is political wannabe, an actor/writer who couldn't cut it, a coward, a treasonist, a traitor, and doesn't deserve another minute of my thought. :(

[dan]

Dan, just because Misty draws her boundaries differently than you do, it's wrong to assume she has none. Not just wrong, but silly.Tina ,Silly IYHO because you two probably agree. BTW Misty really should pull up a chair with us at our table and discuss this over a 5 course meal of her pleasure,,

[MisticalMisty]

Tina ,Silly IYHO because you two probably agree. BTW Misty really should pull up a chair with us at our table and discuss this over a 5 course meal of her pleasure,,
No thank you, I've heard enough to sicken me for years.

[JudgeDredd425]

By law, a spouse will ALWAYS have legal precedent over parents or siblings. Case in point, Terri Schiavo.

The same is absolutely not true of unmarried couples.

Just admit it, JudgeDredd -- you're wrong. Married couples are afforded more rights and more legal protection than are unmarried ones.

There is nothing here to admit except that you and others here are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same fruit. Upholding the sanctity of marriage is about upholding our society's values as they have been establish long since before any of was even close to being born. Marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Same sex couples do not have the right to claim that status by definition. But as I have pointed out with a little bit of extra work on their part they can achieve the same end results in terms of money, insurance, and control.

As to a matter of law, if a power of attorney has been given to a same sex partner then it is they who have control in a medical situation no matter what other relationships are coming into play. If someone chooses to attempt to legally challenge that, it will just have to be fought in court like any other bogus lawsuit.

[JudgeDredd425]

So you have no response to the obvious logical gaps in your previous justification? Will you then admit that your reproduction arguement is completely baseless, or will you explain how it isn't? You're the one who wants to prevent post-menopausal women and infertile men and women from marrying. There is no reason for the current system of special privlages for heterosexual couples. That is why things need to be changed for the sake of equality.

It is not a baseless claim. That was the primary purpose. Obviously people get older, eventually both will not be able to reproduce beyond a certain age, but that does not invalidate the marriage or the concept. And for the last time it is not special rights for heterosexuals. Just a legal choice to be made if desired. One that they have had since the beginning of recorded history. It is homosexuals trying to get special rights. Same sex couples cannot have a marriage by definition. It is no different than complaining that fish can breathe underwater and people can't. It is all about the biology. It is not the same. Just as a same sex couple and a heterosexual couple, both are different and not the same.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

There is nothing here to admit except that you and others here are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same fruit. Upholding the sanctity of marriage is about upholding our society's values as they have been establish long since before any of was even close to being born. Marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Same sex couples do not have the right to claim that status by definition. But as I have pointed out with a little bit of extra work on their part they can achieve the same end results in terms of money, insurance, and control.

As to a matter of law, if a power of attorney has been given to a same sex partner then it is they who have control in a medical situation no matter what other relationships are coming into play. If someone chooses to attempt to legally challenge that, it will just have to be fought in court like any other bogus lawsuit.

Equal rights didn't used to include women. Most of society thought slavery and sex with young teenage girls was okay. Don't you think we should try to better society? The definition of marriage no longer works in a changing society. Marrying a 13 y/o girl was okay 200 years ago. Do you think we should get to do that now?

The point is this: When you've got two women or men, they shouldn't be running around having to pay extra money to establish their rights to power of attorney when straight people get that for free.

[JudgeDredd425]

Gee, Dredd, along with the right of marriage, I can also be fired from my job JUST FOR BEING A DYKE. That's comforting. I don't have the right to raise a family with my non-legal wife. As a result of being an unprotected minority under the law, I get treated worse by some private citizens and people are less willing to stick their necks out for me. This was especially true when I was a minor.

You know, unless you've been GLBTQ, you can't imagine the world of shit we have to live with everyday as second class citizens. Even the president is allowed to openly express we shouldn't have equal rights. And unlike your ex-girlfriends, just saying, "You're wrong," doesn't solve our problems.

The only thing I have said is that homosexuals can't marry by definition. Not that you should be fired or suffer in any other way. I can like a person, maybe if I got to know you I could even like you, but that does not mean that I would not disagree with some of the choices you have made or would like to make.

Homosexuality is not the norm, nor is it ever going to be. By going against the norm you will have to accept certain things like the fact that as a same sex couple you are not in a position to marry under our society's laws, customs, and religious traditions. We should not be forced to accommodate what we see as a perversion of nature. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce and keep our species alive this is not something that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can do. If things were to go gay then that puts our species' very survival on the line. That is just the way it is.

[MisticalMisty]

We should not be forced to accommodate what we see as a perversion of nature. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce and keep our species alive this is not something that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can do. If things were to go gay then that puts our species' very survival on the line. That is just the way it is.
First question..who is we?

Second question..are you a Christian?

[TheSadeianLinguist]

The only thing I have said is that homosexuals can't marry by definition. Not that you should be fired or suffer in any other way. I can like a person, maybe if I got to know you I could even like you, but that does not mean that I would not disagree with some of the choices you have made or would like to make.

Homosexuality is not the norm, nor is it ever going to be. By going against the norm you will have to accept certain things like the fact that as a same sex couple you are not in a position to marry under our society's laws, customs, and religious traditions. We should not be forced to accommodate what we see as a perversion of nature. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce and keep our species alive this is not something that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can do. If things were to go gay then that puts our species' very survival on the line. That is just the way it is.

Perversion of nature? Like blue eyes and other recessive traits? Things DO go gay in nature. Look at giraffes, elephants, and bonobos. It's natural. Sorry. This country is about freedom for the individual, and it's denying some of its citizens that.

Look at the world. There are plenty of people! Reproduction is not an issue.

NO ONE goes gay or straight or bisexual. You think if gay marriage were legalized tomorrow that you'd feel the pressure to go out and marry a dude?

[TraciJo67]

There is nothing here to admit except that you and others here are trying to compare apples to oranges. They are not the same fruit. Upholding the sanctity of marriage is about upholding our society's values as they have been establish long since before any of was even close to being born. Marriage is the union between one man and one woman. Same sex couples do not have the right to claim that status by definition. But as I have pointed out with a little bit of extra work on their part they can achieve the same end results in terms of money, insurance, and control.

This is where the real issue lies. You're a bigot. You don't wish to see homosexuals marry, so you pull out the "sanctity of marriage" card. Next, you'll claim something equally ridiculous, such as the purpose of marriage is for procreat -- uh, never mind :D You've already dealt that hand.

JudgeDredd, are you divorced? Ever been divorced? Have family members who are going on a second or third marriage? Know of anyone who had a bit too much to drink, and woke up to find him/herself married to a stranger? :doh: Point here is that marriage is anything but sacred.

Marriage is traditionally defined as the union between a man and a woman. Heck, slavery was traditionally defined as the right to own black people (and they weren't actually considered people). Women were traditionally defined as 2/3 of a person and the property of their husbands. I can dig up lots more equally ridiculous examples of what our society once found to be completely, traditionally acceptable. Tradition is not a compelling reason to stand in the way of social change. If two gay men are allowed to marry each other tomorrow, how does that affect you? Answer: Not at all. It exists outside of your comfort zone (coz you're a bigot) and because it's *your* comfort that we're discussing, you're going to stand on some ridiculously outdated ceremony.

I have yet to see you explain how someone can collect Social Security, a pension, or an annuity from the estate of his/her same sex partner. You cannot explain it, because ... (say it with me :D ) ... you're wrong. Just admit it. You're wrong.

[JudgeDredd425]

First question..who is we?

Second question..are you a Christian?


The we I refer to is general society.

And yes I am a Christian.

[JudgeDredd425]

Perversion of nature? Like blue eyes and other recessive traits? Things DO go gay in nature. Look at giraffes, elephants, and bonobos. It's natural. Sorry. This country is about freedom for the individual, and it's denying some of its citizens that.

Look at the world. There are plenty of people! Reproduction is not an issue.

NO ONE goes gay or straight or bisexual. You think if gay marriage were legalized tomorrow that you'd feel the pressure to go out and marry a dude?

No pressure would be felt, but a bad example would be set. I cannot for reasons already mentioned many times over personally approve of changing the definition of marriage, and I'm not the only one who feels that way.

But what homosexuals want to do with one another behind closed doors is their business as far as I'm concerned. The way I see it, as I have also pointed many times now, is that with a little bit more work homosexual couples can achieve the same end results of a heterosexual married couple if that is want they want to do. Everything except officially being "recognized" as a married couple by society/government.

[MisticalMisty]

The we I refer to is general society.

And yes I am a Christian.
Do you believe that God makes mistakes?

[Anguisette]

Just for the record, not that it matters... A LOT of conservatives are civil liberatarians and support gay marriage. I'm one of them.

I genuinely believe the biggest problem in this country is partisan rhetoric. It allows morons to dictate a completely fictional "party line" that then sways them to vote a party rather than issues, intellect, even philosophy. We end up with idiots who vote not for candidates, but single issues.

Every time I see one of those ads begging people to register and vote I want to scream "F*CK NO, STAY HOME, A$$HOLE, you aren't responsible enough or educated enough!"

There should be a test or something. I swear to god/dess if they elected NOTHING but liberals for the rest of my lifetime that would be fine if I knew people voting for them weren't snot nosed frat boys who registered to get the free t-shirt.

[TraciJo67]

There should be a test or something.

I couldn't agree more. I think that before people vote, they should show at least a minimum knowledge of current political issues & the platforms of all the candidates.

[JudgeDredd425]

This is where the real issue lies. You're a bigot. You don't wish to see homosexuals marry, so you pull out the "sanctity of marriage" card. Next, you'll claim something equally ridiculous, such as the purpose of marriage is for procreat -- uh, never mind :D You've already dealt that hand.

JudgeDredd, are you divorced? Ever been divorced? Have family members who are going on a second or third marriage? Know of anyone who had a bit too much to drink, and woke up to find him/herself married to a stranger? :doh: Point here is that marriage is anything but sacred.

Marriage is traditionally defined as the union between a man and a woman. Heck, slavery was traditionally defined as the right to own black people (and they weren't actually considered people). Women were traditionally defined as 2/3 of a person and the property of their husbands. I can dig up lots more equally ridiculous examples of what our society once found to be completely, traditionally acceptable. Tradition is not a compelling reason to stand in the way of social change. If two gay men are allowed to marry each other tomorrow, how does that affect you? Answer: Not at all. It exists outside of your comfort zone (coz you're a bigot) and because it's *your* comfort that we're discussing, you're going to stand on some ridiculously outdated ceremony.

I have yet to see you explain how someone can collect Social Security, a pension, or an annuity from the estate of his/her same sex partner. You cannot explain it, because ... (say it with me :D ) ... you're wrong. Just admit it. You're wrong.

Being a bigot is not necessarily a bad thing depending upon what it is you are talking about. Merriam Webster defines bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." I'm also a bigot where criminals who are assaulting, raping, robbing, and murdering people is concerned. I'm against all that too! But again it is not just my position here that we are talking about. This is the position of the majority in this society vis a vis homosexuality.

And no I'm not divorcing or have ever been divorced. I do know people who have, and many who have had multiple marriages. Obviously in most cases they did not make good choices nor did they honor the commitment they made. I do regret that. Despite that, marriage is still a sacred commitment to those of us who believe in God.

As far as your tangent on slavery et al you are a bit off the mark. Here is a link to some very good information: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:4Rsif6-HrCMJ:www.pointsouth.com/csanet/confederate_flag.htm+Confederacy+Slavs+Slavery&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Women were never considered 2/3 of a person, that was blacks and only for purposes of census counts. And you are right that some traditions have changed, but some have not nor should they ever. As a person who has zero practical experience with social security save having money from my paycheck stolen to pay for it, I cannot speak to that point. But if that is a problem then perhaps a change of law other than legalizing gay marriage is the answer. As to the non-government benefits issue, designating a trust and setting that up to pass out your money after death if you can't outright do it for the person you want fixes this problem.

Since you are so concerned about who is right and who is wrong, I don't suppose you have taken at least a second or two to consider whether or not you are the one who is wrong here have you?

[JudgeDredd425]

Do you believe that God makes mistakes?

This is truly not meant to be insulting but that is possibly the dumbest question I have ever heard. God by definition is incapable of making mistakes.

[TraciJo67]

Being a bigot is not necessarily a bad thing depending upon what it is you are talking about. Merriam Webster defines bigot as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." I'm also a bigot where criminals who are assaulting, raping, robbing, and murdering people is concerned. I'm against all that too! But again it is not just my position here that we are talking about. This is the position of the majority in this society vis a vis homosexuality.

And no I'm not divorcing or have ever been divorced. I do know people who have, and many who have had multiple marriages. Obviously in most cases they did not make good choices nor did they honor the commitment they made. I do regret that. Despite that, marriage is still a sacred commitment to those of us who believe in God.

As far as your tangent on slavery et al you are a bit off the mark. Here is a link to some very good information: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:4Rsif6-HrCMJ:www.pointsouth.com/csanet/confederate_flag.htm+Confederacy+Slavs+Slavery&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Women were never considered 2/3 of a person, that was blacks and only for purposes of census counts. And you are right that some traditions have changed, but some have not nor should they ever. As a person who has zero practical experience with social security save having money from my paycheck stolen to pay for it, I cannot speak to that point. But if that is a problem then perhaps a change of law other than legalizing gay marriage is the answer. As to the non-government benefits issue, designating a trust and setting that up to pass out your money after death if you can't outright do it for the person you want fixes this problem.

Since you are so concerned about who is right and who is wrong, I don't suppose you have taken at least a second or two to consider whether or not you are the one who is wrong here have you?

Well, I have to give credit where it is due. You certainly are articulate & well able to defend your position. We'll never really come to an agreement here, though -- you are approaching this issue from a religious perspective. I am not religious, and I have to say, I deeply resent having Christian values forced down my throat. What I don't understand is this: Why not let *God* sort the sinners from the saints? What business is it of yours if gay people wish to marry each other? Why do you believe that your "right" to claim sanctity of marriage trumps the rights of other people to marry?

If I am wrong, and there is a Conservative Christian God ruling from the heavens, then I will be judged by Him. But you know what? If he is anything like the cruel, judgmental God that you & HFC worships, I think I'd rather pack my bags & head South.

[Miss Vickie]

If I am wrong, and there is a Conservative Christian God ruling from the heavens, then I will be judged by Him. But you know what? If he is anything like the cruel, judgmental God that you & HFC worships, I think I'd rather pack my bags & head South.

I'll pack the sunscreen. You bring the palm fronds, 'k?

And BTW I don't see anything positive about being "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices." That just doesn't sound like a positive thing to me. I think it's one thing to be against actions, policies and behavior that harms other people, but in general that's not what most people talk about when they talk about bigotry. Wanting social order is usually considered a good thing, because without social order we have anarchy. But denying a class of people the same rights that another class has (like denying fat people appropriate medical care, let's just say for argument) is, to me, bigotry. And that's what happens when you deny homosexuals the right to marry.

[JudgeDredd425]

Well, I have to give credit where it is due. You certainly are articulate & well able to defend your position. We'll never really come to an agreement here, though -- you are approaching this issue from a religious perspective. I am not religious, and I have to say, I deeply resent having Christian values forced down my throat. What I don't understand is this: Why not let *God* sort the sinners from the saints? What business is it of yours if gay people wish to marry each other? Why do you believe that your "right" to claim sanctity of marriage trumps the rights of other people to marry?

If I am wrong, and there is a Conservative Christian God ruling from the heavens, then I will be judged by Him. But you know what? If he is anything like the cruel, judgmental God that you & HFC worships, I think I'd rather pack my bags & head South.

I am not a perfect Christian, but I try to be the best one I can in light of all my other beliefs. It is not a perfectly Christian attitude not to try and convert all non-Christians, but it is also my belief that people have free will and that my beliefs should not be "forced" down others throats, but many of those beliefs are firmly intertwined with the law and general customs of our society, country, and civilization. I see no way on the face of it in separating the two (religious belief/society's structure and law) without free falling into utter chaos. So for now I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

[Littleghost]

Some of the left who are really starting to look anti-American include Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Al Franken, the Clintons, Al Gore, George Soros, and too many more to name.
This always confuses me (not that it matters much when dealing with right wing-nuts); Micheal Moore is extreme left?? He loves america very much, enough to actually try fixing things when they're broken! The only things he hates are big corporations that abuse their power, and the bush administration. Bowling for Columbine (if you actually saw it) didn't have any overwhelming agenda, it didn't even really answer the question of "why is america violent?" He's never said much of anything as remotely extreme as Ward Churchill (left) or Ann Coulter (right) and yet he gets lumped in with the extremists; because it's apparently wrong to have an opinion different than the simple. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

You talk so much about the 'Left' to try to distract people from your bias, but it just becomes more and more blindingly obvious of your extremism.
--Littleghost

[TraciJo67]

I'll pack the sunscreen. You bring the palm fronds, 'k?



Well, OK -- but who's going to pack the buff, delectably young 25-year-old cabana boys? Or girls. Whatever the case may be :D

[Littleghost]

The only reason Franken does anything is for attention. Can you say photo op? He has no interest in the well-being of our troops. He hates the military, the U.S., the president, Republicans, unborn babies, and God. I know. I've read his books and heard his show enough to be permanently nauseated.

He is political wannabe, an actor/writer who couldn't cut it, a coward, a treasonist, a traitor, and doesn't deserve another minute of my thought. :(
As opposed to ann coulter?? She throws together 'footnotes' and 'references' to support her wild ad-hoc attacks because she doesn't care about the means so much as the ends. And talk about attention hungry.

[Miss Vickie]

Well, OK -- but who's going to pack the buff, delectably young 25-year-old cabana boys? Or girls. Whatever the case may be :D

Oh never fear, my dear. With the typical partying lifestyle of the average cabana boy or girl, I think we'll be in good company. ;)

[Mini]

This is truly not meant to be insulting but that is possibly the dumbest question I have ever heard. God by definition is incapable of making mistakes.

Then your God is either a sadistic bastard or... well, no, he's pretty much a sadistic bastard.

[TraciJo67]

Then your God is either a sadistic bastard or... well, no, he's pretty much a sadistic bastard.

That's it, Mini. You're going to hell. In a handbasket, even.

[Mini]

That's it, Mini. You're going to hell. In a handbasket, even.

At least I'll have some company. :)

[Miss Vickie]

That's it, Mini. You're going to hell. In a handbasket, even.

Climb on in, Mini. Plenty of room for everyone.

http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/230275/1219930/0/1108969102.jpg

[Mini]

Climb on in, Mini. Plenty of room for everyone.

http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/230275/1219930/0/1108969102.jpg

I couldn't even fit a foot in that thing. :p

[TraciJo67]

Climb on in, Mini. Plenty of room for everyone.

http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/230275/1219930/0/1108969102.jpg

Damn, Vickie - that's one hideous handbasket. I refuse, on general principle, to climb in.

I was thinking of something more, I dunno, taupe toned. Pleathery, too.

[Friday]

To Hell with handbaskets (no pun intended), I wanna take the Magic Bus!

[gypsy]

Homosexuality is not the norm, nor is it ever going to be. By going against the norm you will have to accept certain things like the fact that as a same sex couple you are not in a position to marry under our society's laws, customs, and religious traditions. We should not be forced to accommodate what we see as a perversion of nature. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce and keep our species alive this is not something that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can do. If things were to go gay then that puts our species' very survival on the line. That is just the way it is.

Wait a minute, spare the confused Canadian in this. Where did "religious traditions" come into this? The American constitution states that anyone can practice their own religion in peace, but now it's being used as a crutch to say that a gay or lesbian couple shouldn't be married? That's a load. And as for reproduction, yeah, maybe that worked 200 years ago when the USA was born, because you *needed* more babies to make the more patriots for the country...but what about now when overpopulation is rampant in North America? Did you ever think that the growing gay/lesbian population might just be...*gasp*...EVOLUTIONARY in nature? The fact that the Earth cannot sustain so many people concentrated in one area, so evolution is trying to cull the population gently?

My best friend is gay. I would NEVER say to him "Ya know, you shouldn't ever get married. You are such an abomination. You don't deserve to wed the person you love just because of what sex you prefer to have dalliances with." That is just like saying he is less of a person than the rest of us. I have many gay and lesbian friends, and I totally agreed with Ontario's decision to legalize same-sex marriage. In fact, I have personally seen way more same-sex couples together and in much healthier relationships, whether it be married or not, who demonstrate the true spirit of "marriage and companionship" - a dedication to their true soul mate and life-guide.

I guess the whole point in this is, something scares people who are so rigid and unaccepting of others that they just want to DESTROY what they do not UNDERSTAND.

I think this answers any questions!

[TraciJo67]

To Hell with handbaskets (no pun intended), I wanna take the Magic Bus!

You mean this one?

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y128/TraciJo67/Magic-Bus.gif

Sorry, but as you can see, we're full up :D

[MisticalMisty]

This is truly not meant to be insulting but that is possibly the dumbest question I have ever heard. God by definition is incapable of making mistakes.
Well...you're the one who said that homosexual were a perversion..if God doesn't make mistakes..homosexuals can't be a perversion..therefore..you must believe that God makes mistakes.

[Mini]

Misty, you should know by now that it's dangerous to introduce logic to a fundie. :)

[MisticalMisty]

Misty, you should know by now that it's dangerous to introduce logic to a fundie. :)
Yeah well..lol..I had to try.

Here's the deal Judge. You say God doesn't make any mistakes..I completely agree..I'm sure we would both agree that God is the creator of ALL man and that each person is made in His image.

I'm sure this is where we will begin to disagree..but I'm right. lol

The Bible is man's interpretation of God's word. The Bible has been interpreted for thousands of years..there's no guarantee that everything in the Bible is God's word.

Some believe that homosexuality is a choice. If you actually knew a homosexual and interacted, conversed, all the things you normally do with another human being, you'd realize that the majority of them..ohh..probably 90% or so, wouldn't have chosen a life where it's pretty much guaranteed that they will be persecuted in one form or the other. They will be shunned by family members, friends and society. Most of them struggle so much with coming out the closet. Why? Why would they choose such a life if homosexuality is a choice?

The answer..it isn't. Their attraction to the same sex is as natural as your attraction to the opposite sex. I don't know what causes it...they are saying maybe a misfire of testosterone in the womb..etc.

All I know is that MY GOD doesn't make a mistake..and I know that he wouldn't create any person and condemn them to damnation from the get go. You do realize that most homosexuals feel their initial attractions before puberty?

So, if you are a Christian..as you claim to be...I don't understand your animosity towards homosexuals.

When you and I are in line on judgement day..I really hope you don't get sent south for doing someone else's job..passing judgement is neither your place or mine.

[JudgeDredd425]

Well...you're the one who said that homosexual were a perversion..if God doesn't make mistakes..homosexuals can't be a perversion..therefore..you must believe that God makes mistakes.

Free Choice. If people decide to sin then the consequences of that decision are going to be upon them. God made the people not the homosexuality.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

God made the gay giraffes and bonobos and elephants and dolphins. Or did they just watch too much MTV and think being gay was cool?

[MisticalMisty]

Free Choice. If people decide to sin then the consequences of that decision are going to be upon them. God made the people not the homosexuality.
I disagree..I believe that homosexuality isn't learned....and I really think if you actually knew a homosexual person..you'd believe that as well.

[Tina]

The only reason Franken does anything is for attention. Can you say photo op? He has no interest in the well-being of our troops. He hates the military, the U.S., the president, Republicans, unborn babies, and God. I know. I've read his books and heard his show enough to be permanently nauseated.

He is political wannabe, an actor/writer who couldn't cut it, a coward, a treasonist, a traitor, and doesn't deserve another minute of my thought. :(

As a charicature, you're darn good entertainment, HFC!

http://www.tcdesign.net/smilies/smileyrofl.gif http://www.tcdesign.net/smilies/popc1.gif

[kilo riley]

The only reason Franken does anything is for attention. Can you say photo op? He has no interest in the well-being of our troops. He hates the military, the U.S., the president, Republicans, unborn babies, and God. I know. I've read his books and heard his show enough to be permanently nauseated.

He is political wannabe, an actor/writer who couldn't cut it, a coward, a treasonist, a traitor, and doesn't deserve another minute of my thought. :(

:rolleyes: like I thought. Not one example to back up your claim.

just alot of hate and smear

[fatlane]

STOP ARGUING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY IN NATURE AFTER THIS POST.

It happens all the damn time. Turns out, ALL ANIMALS HAVE SEX FOR FUN. When you see squirrels chasing each other, do not assume it is automatically a male-female relationship. Got that? Same for chipmunks. Chippy gonna go for ANY CANKLE HE SEES!

Ducks are particularly randy: they'll even get down to homosexual necrophilia. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,1432991,00.html BAM!

I've read of documented homosexual relationships among alligators, as well. That's mammals, avians, and reptiles so far. I'll leave research into amphibians, fish, and sexual invertebrates to the students out there.

This stuff occurs in nature ALL THE DAMN TIME. And you know what? GOD DOES NOT CARE. HE MADE EVERY ONE OF 'EM THAT WAY.

Now, if you believe homosexuality's not right in your religion, then settle that in your religion. If someone isn't part of your religion and is gay as all get-out, TOO DAMN BAD. He's here, he's queer, get used to it. But don't tell him it ain't natural, unless you're ready to take some insane bets on squirrel couples in the local park... good luck to whoever does the sexing on the critters, too!

OK, got that? ANIMALS WILL GO AT IT LIKE THE SEX-CRAZED BEASTS THAT THEY ARE. Sure, you can find a few exclusive pairs out there in the animal kingdom, but DAMN IF THEY DON'T ALL BE GETTING DOWN WITH THEY'S BAD SELVES!!!

Now do something other than argue about the origins of homosexuality. How about the origins of stupidity? I personally believe God is very angry with stupid people who refuse to learn and grow in their knowledge. Those are the kinds of people who died in the wilderness after leaving Egypt/nailed Jesus to some wood/performed other acts of violent stupidity...

I'll say stupidity is not natural. It is learned behavior, and can be addictive.

[HappyFatChick]

And this thread WAS about Canada, their terrorists, and now new info that the terrorists wanted to cut the heads off of the new conservative party.
Until it got hijacked (as usual):(

[fatlane]

Hey, there's animal homosexuality in Canada, if that helps get it back on topic.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

The only reason Franken does anything is for attention. Can you say photo op? He has no interest in the well-being of our troops. He hates the military, the U.S., the president, Republicans, unborn babies, and God. I know. I've read his books and heard his show enough to be permanently nauseated.

He is political wannabe, an actor/writer who couldn't cut it, a coward, a treasonist, a traitor, and doesn't deserve another minute of my thought. :(
Here's part of a transcript from an interview Al Franken did with Paula Zahn after one of his many USO trips to Iraq. Show me where he says he hates the US and hates our troops, HFC:

ZAHN: Let's talk a little bit about the reaction of the troops to your visit and your reaction to them.

FRANKEN: Well, this is my fourth USO tour, and I love doing the tours. This is my first time in an active theater of battle. I was in Kosovo in '99, but it was very different.

It was very moving, to see these guys who are -- and women -- who are in harm's way. And also very moving to see -- like on the first show we did in Kuwait, we sang "God Bless America" every night at the end of the
show. And looking at the guys in the front row, I saw there was a black soldier with his arm linked with a white soldier, with a woman, and going back and -- and swaying back and forth, and really, this was America to me. And thinking that, you know, the military can really teach a lot of college campuses a lot about affirmative action.

ZAHN: Can teach us all a lot of things.

FRANKEN: Yeah.

ZAHN: Let me ask you this: You've been highly critical of the president, as this march to war went on. What do you say to the folks who in spite of your history of doing these USO tours, found your appearance in Iraq disingenuous in some way?

FRANKEN: I don't know anyone who has. I know that the USO invited me, and when they did, I said yes immediately. They don't know me. I mean, I support our troops. I'm from the Vietnam generation. I didn't serve.
This is my way of serving. I tell a few jokes and leave very quickly. I was there eight days. These guys are there for nine months.

The soldiers themselves -- and there are soldiers who came up to me and said, I don't agree with anything you say politically, but I really appreciate your coming. And that, you know, then I say, well, it's my honor. And they'd say, no, it's my honor. And then I'd say, no, no, no, it's my honor. And they'd say, no, it's my honor. And it went on like that for hours, until I said, let's stop it.

ZAHN: You can see from the pictures how moved they were and how moved you were as well.

FRANKEN: Well, I was more moved -- I don't know if they were moved. They appreciated it, and they laughed. And we did a very, kind of Bob Hope, very -- I brought Andy Breckman, who is a great comedy writer, who was a
colleague of mine on "SNL" and did "Monk," and we wrote a very Bob Hope-type variety show, and we went with -- there were country singers, Darryl Worley, who's great. And I had a fantastic time.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/01/05/cnna.franken/


HFC, I'm calling you on what you've posted. I want to see you post definitive proof (NOT just some mindless drivel from Free Republic or World Nut Daily) that PROVES that Al Franken "hates the military, the U.S., the president, Republicans, unborn babies, and God." You say that you know, but it's obvious that you don't know squat about Al Franken. He's a Harvard graduate, and accomplished author and actor, an Emmy winner, and a devout Jew. Last time I checked, Jews did not "hate God", as you maintain.

I've read his books and heard his show enough to be permanently nauseated.
I've felt the same way after seeing Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and the most thoroughly useless, tax evading, lying, sorry excuse for a human being, Benny Hinn - the man with the worst hair west of Donald Trump.

BTW, HFC - I did a Google search for this interview with Al Franken, and saw many right-wing sites that called Al Franken a traitor and said it was a travesty that the USO would send him to Iraq. That must be where you got your
"information", HFC. But the facts prove otherwise. For the sake of everyone here, I wish you'd get your facts straight before posting any more right-wing garbage on this board. It would make you look better, and be a lot more constructive.

But then again, if you only posted facts, we'd never hear from you again.....

[Wayne_Zitkus]

And this thread WAS about Canada, their terrorists, and now new info that the terrorists wanted to cut the heads off of the new conservative party.
Until it got hijacked (as usual):(
Of course it was hijacked. No one cares about any of these crappy subjects you keep posting....

:D

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Well...you're the one who said that homosexual were a perversion..if God doesn't make mistakes..homosexuals can't be a perversion..therefore..you must believe that God makes mistakes.
He sure does - they're called "closed-minded conservatives".

:D

[fatlane]

http://recycling.stanford.edu/images/compost/manure2.jpg

Just for the record, the above image is a load of horse manure. Just in case anyone was using a reference to a load of horse manure without knowing exactly what it looked like.

Can't post the smell, though... you're on your own for that.

OK, yes, this is a hijack post.

[Blackjack]

http://recycling.stanford.edu/images/compost/manure2.jpg

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/4343/jeffgoldblum6wz.jpg
"That is one big pile of shit."

[Tina]

And this thread WAS about Canada, their terrorists, and now new info that the terrorists wanted to cut the heads off of the new conservative party.
Until it got hijacked (as usual):(

It was hijacked because you started it with one of your usual ill-informed, ignorant blanket statements, where you *claimed* to want to understand. Really, the last thing you want is to understand if it gets in the way of a good insult towards liberals. Gee, wonder why it's not 'on topic'?:rolleyes:

[Friday]

I honestly don't know why y'all keep trying. There's nobody home.

[isotope]

Typical liberal thought process.

Being right doesnt mean having 'facts' to back up your claims.

'Facts' are in fact a creation between the alliance of liberals and terrorists.

[GWARrior]

Typical liberal thought process.

Being right doesnt mean having 'facts' to back up your claims.

'Facts' are in fact a creation between the alliance of liberals and terrorists.


Que? Crazy talk!

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Typical liberal thought process.

Being right doesnt mean having 'facts' to back up your claims.

'Facts' are in fact a creation between the alliance of liberals and terrorists.

Question: How much pot did you have to smoke to come up with that idea?

You're right. Facts are nothing but a creation for the alliance of liberals and terrorists. Grass being green? It's about terrorism. Gravity existing? Terrorism. Ice cream being cold? You bet that's terrorism.

[isotope]

Ice cream being cold is the American way.

Dont you ever let some whacky liberal try and say runny ice cream is better.

[TraciJo67]

I honestly don't know why y'all keep trying. There's nobody home.

But ... but ... the lights are on! :D

[Jane]

But ... but ... the lights are on! :D
Those are reflections from the house next door.

[Zandoz]

[COLOR="Purple"]You say God doesn't make any mistakes..I completely agree.

Free Choice. If people decide to sin then the consequences of that decision are going to be upon them. God made the people not the homosexuality.

If not mistakes, maybe accidents?

Was the duck billed platypus an oooops?

Could it be that giving us free will was a really BIG ooooppps?

But wait! For those Christaians in the studio audiance could it be as simple as:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." (NIV, Luke 10:25-??)

Hmmmm....nothing about doing this...not doing that...or any other conditions and qualifications.

Could it be that god doesn't really give a holy squat who's boink'n who, how or why?

[NFA]

Free Choice. If people decide to sin then the consequences of that decision are going to be upon them. God made the people not the homosexuality.

If you had any gay friends, you would quickly come to the unavoidable conclusion that this IS who they are and not something they've chosen to do for fun.

But given the standards you've set, I'm curious to know what its like living by every single law in Leviticus. I'd think that might be tough, but perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all on how you manage your life according to the laws in Levitcus. Point by point, please.

For instance, you always check the clothing you buy to make sure its only woven of one material? What's that like? I'm sure its easy to avoid eating rock badger, but is it inconvienent to avoid eating pork? Do you wish you could eat Lobster? Do you always take a bath after sex? Showers don't seem to cut it, after all. If you are married, does your wife kill two pigeons whenever she has her period? Where do you get the pigeons? It was nice of God to specifically forbid tripping blind people. Is that a challenge for you to uphold? Do you face any social issues wearing a beard? Have you ever wanted a tattoo? Oh, and I trust you are very welcoming of all immigrants and treat them with complete respect and dignity.

[GWARrior]

If you had any gay friends, you would quickly come to the unavoidable conclusion that this IS who they are and not something they've chosen to do for fun.




something tells me he doesnt...

[fatlane]

Ice cream being cold is the American way.

Dont you ever let some whacky liberal try and say runny ice cream is better.

Damn straight, that's what I'm talkin' about.

[Blackjack]

For instance, you always check the clothing you buy to make sure its only woven of one material? What's that like? I'm sure its easy to avoid eating rock badger, but is it inconvienent to avoid eating pork? Do you wish you could eat Lobster? Do you always take a bath after sex? Showers don't seem to cut it, after all. If you are married, does your wife kill two pigeons whenever she has her period? Where do you get the pigeons? It was nice of God to specifically forbid tripping blind people. Is that a challenge for you to uphold? Do you face any social issues wearing a beard? Have you ever wanted a tattoo? Oh, and I trust you are very welcoming of all immigrants and treat them with complete respect and dignity.

No no no... that's the OLD Testament. It only applies to JEWS, not to Christians.
(Yes, I have heard that as a response to your particular argument.)

[HappyFatChick]

zan- while your scrpture choice was good and accurate, the BIG one is Romans 10:10 that says: Believe in your heart (about Jesus) and you're right with God. Confess(say it) with your mouth and you are saved.

God does care about adultry. That's why at least one of His commandments forbids it.

And He doesn't have any accidents.

[Zandoz]

zan- while your scrpture choice was good and accurate, the BIG one is Romans 10:10 that says: Believe in your heart (about Jesus) and you're right with God. Confess(say it) with your mouth and you are saved.

Ummmm...not seeing anything there about god caring about who's boink'n who, how, or why.


God does care about adultry. That's why at least one of His commandments forbids it.

If I'm right in assuming that you are referring to the whole "adultery" thing. The word "Adultery" has many meanings to many people...and even raises a lot of questions about translations on top of interpretations, on top of more translations, to even get to that word.

"Do this and you will live." does not leave a whole lot of room for addendum's, additions, qualifications, conditions, or "See chapter and verse ___". Very succinct, very to the point, no room for ambiguity, no room for mistranslations.

And He doesn't have any accidents.

But does he have a sense of humor? If he does, it explains a lot.

[HappyFatChick]

He has an AWESOME sense of humor. After all, He created the people on here!:D

[Zandoz]

He has an AWESOME sense of humor. After all, He created the people on here!:D

Having a sense of humor kinda goes hand in hand with "Not sweating the little things".

Seems to me that in the "big picture" for the almighty supreme creator of all, the sex lives of we humans is likely to be one of the little things...is spite of all the porn evidence to the contrary.

[JudgeDredd425]

God made the gay giraffes and bonobos and elephants and dolphins. Or did they just watch too much MTV and think being gay was cool?

I don't know. I was and technically still am unknowledgeable about homosexuality in animals. I did however follow up on that and was surprised at what I did find. It does give me some pause I will admit, and does deserve more research, but I'm not sure at the end of the day that it really changes anything. But after more research maybe I will alter my position. But I do say only maybe. There are still important religious questions that need to be satisfactorily answered. It may just simply be a matter of defect in the animals in question due to natural genetic anomalies or due to the effects of pollution in the animals environment and/or food chain. However if when all is said and done and I find convincing enough evidence I will reevaluate my position on homosexuality.

[JudgeDredd425]

He sure does - they're called "closed-minded conservatives".

:D


Not of course to be confused with "closed-minded liberals" that are out there in the world.

[JudgeDredd425]

If not mistakes, maybe accidents?

Was the duck billed platypus an oooops?

Could it be that giving us free will was a really BIG ooooppps?

But wait! For those Christaians in the studio audiance could it be as simple as:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." (NIV, Luke 10:25-??)

Hmmmm....nothing about doing this...not doing that...or any other conditions and qualifications.

Could it be that god doesn't really give a holy squat who's boink'n who, how or why?

Maybe or maybe not. There are certainly a lot more questions than there are concrete provable facts. That is why it is a matter of faith.

[JudgeDredd425]

If you had any gay friends, you would quickly come to the unavoidable conclusion that this IS who they are and not something they've chosen to do for fun.

But given the standards you've set, I'm curious to know what its like living by every single law in Leviticus. I'd think that might be tough, but perhaps you'd like to enlighten us all on how you manage your life according to the laws in Levitcus. Point by point, please.

For instance, you always check the clothing you buy to make sure its only woven of one material? What's that like? I'm sure its easy to avoid eating rock badger, but is it inconvienent to avoid eating pork? Do you wish you could eat Lobster? Do you always take a bath after sex? Showers don't seem to cut it, after all. If you are married, does your wife kill two pigeons whenever she has her period? Where do you get the pigeons? It was nice of God to specifically forbid tripping blind people. Is that a challenge for you to uphold? Do you face any social issues wearing a beard? Have you ever wanted a tattoo? Oh, and I trust you are very welcoming of all immigrants and treat them with complete respect and dignity.

Your going off the deep end here. I'm a Christian not a Jew. Not everything that applies to the Jews (as a religious group) applies equally to Christians. We do get some leeway you know.

[TraciJo67]

I don't know. I was and technically still am unknowledgeable about homosexuality in animals. I did however follow up on that and was surprised at what I did find. It does give me some pause I will admit, and does deserve more research, but I'm not sure at the end of the day that it really changes anything. But after more research maybe I will alter my position. But I do say only maybe. There are still important religious questions that need to be satisfactorily answered. It may just simply be a matter of defect in the animals in question due to natural genetic anomalies or due to the effects of pollution in the animals environment and/or food chain. However if when all is said and done and I find convincing enough evidence I will reevaluate my position on homosexuality.

I'm surprised to see you admit to even the possibility that you may be wrong. JudgeDredd, I really dislike your political views (and I know that the feeling is mutual) but I do appreciate the obvious fact that you put some thought into what you say. This world would be a boring place if we all agreed with each other. I do appreciate the opportunity to have a civil discussion about opposing viewpoints in this forum. Even if those of us on opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum NEVER come to an understanding or any kind of agreement, sometimes it's just nice to reflect on why we feel the way we do.

[JudgeDredd425]

I'm surprised to see you admit to even the possibility that you may be wrong. JudgeDredd, I really dislike your political views (and I know that the feeling is mutual) but I do appreciate the obvious fact that you put some thought into what you say. This world would be a boring place if we all agreed with each other. I do appreciate the opportunity to have a civil discussion about opposing viewpoints in this forum. Even if those of us on opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum NEVER come to an understanding or any kind of agreement, sometimes it's just nice to reflect on why we feel the way we do.

Thank you for the compliment. It was very gracious of you to say so in light of some of our previous exchanges.

[CurvaceousBBWLover]

Let me list some typical rights that the average American takes for granted:

1. Being able to make medical decisions for your partner if he or she becomes incapacitated.

2. Being able to walk down a street without being harrassed, assaulted, run out of town or killed.

3. Being able to rent an apartment and not be discriminated against.

None of these rights are "special rights." There is no reason for someone to be denied equal rights in the year 2006 because of whom they sleep with.

You have exactly the same rights as any other citizen under the law. Not more not less, and to claim otherwise is to lie. Your bisexuality or homosexuality as it may be have nothing to do with your Constitutional rights or their exercise by you. You can be angry all you want, but in point of fact it is special rights you want above and beyond what everyone else has to accommodate your choices and desired lifestyle.

[CurvaceousBBWLover]

If you were describing a young couple in their late teens, 20s or 30s, this might be true. But a lot of people in that age range get married and don't want children. On the other hand, there are a lot of older people who get married and don't have children. Surely, therefore, the purpose of marriage must be companionship as well as two people sharing property with one another.


The point of marriage is to produce offspring and to raise them. This cannot happen for biological reasons between homosexuals. And for homosexuals to demand they be treated as if they were something that they are not is a matter of denying them the same rights, it is to not deny the reality of the situation that they are in fact something else entirely.

[CurvaceousBBWLover]

I think each state and the federal government should guarantee the rights you listed to all unmarried couples, gay and straight.



Unmarried couples cannot, by and large, provide insurance for each other via an employer's program. This is a very big deal to a lot of un/under-insured people, JudgeDredd.

Unmarried couples do not have the same rights & privileges afforded to them, should the relationship end badly (say, for joint visitation of a non-biological child or for alimony or a fair distribution of assets).

In some states & via some employers, unmarried couples cannot name each other as beneficiary of pension plans. Unmarried couples cannot make a Social Security claim based on a working partner's income, nor do they typically have access to annuities.

Unmarried couples do not have the same access to tax shelters/benefits -- especially write-offs for home ownership.

Unmarried couples do not have 'next of kin' status or a legally sanctioned right to make decisions for an incapacitated partner. There are many widely publicized examples of this, JudgeDredd. Imagine finding out that your companion of 15 years was involved in a devastating accident and is now comatose and unable to make decisions for him/herself. Blood relatives have more rights than you do. What happens if the parents or siblings cannot accept your role in your partner's life?

Unmarried couples do not usually have access to bereavement pay or even sick leave to care for an unrelated partner.

Unmarried couples cannot file for spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home.

Unmarried couples cannot file for residency or legal alien status protection for a partner who is not a U.S. citizen.

Unmarried couples cannot usually get joint insurance policies for auto, home or health benefits.

I could go on and on ... and on. I think you get the point, though.

[CurvaceousBBWLover]

No one should have to fear being fired from a job because of sexual orientation. The time has come for government to guarantee equal rights to the GLBT community.


Gee, Dredd, along with the right of marriage, I can also be fired from my job JUST FOR BEING A DYKE. That's comforting. I don't have the right to raise a family with my non-legal wife. As a result of being an unprotected minority under the law, I get treated worse by some private citizens and people are less willing to stick their necks out for me. This was especially true when I was a minor.

You know, unless you've been GLBTQ, you can't imagine the world of shit we have to live with everyday as second class citizens. Even the president is allowed to openly express we shouldn't have equal rights. And unlike your ex-girlfriends, just saying, "You're wrong," doesn't solve our problems.

[CurvaceousBBWLover]

America is a large country of almost 300 million people. If this country can accommodate people of all races and religions, I so no reason why this country cannot accommodate homosexuals.

Who are you to say who is and is not normal? There are people in the ordinary public who think that we FAs are perverts or fetishists because we have non-mainstream sexual preferences. But we consider our preferences to be normal because they are our preferences. The GLBT community feels the same way.


Homosexuality is not the norm, nor is it ever going to be. By going against the norm you will have to accept certain things like the fact that as a same sex couple you are not in a position to marry under our society's laws, customs, and religious traditions. We should not be forced to accommodate what we see as a perversion of nature. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce and keep our species alive this is not something that a man and a man or a woman and a woman can do. If things were to go gay then that puts our species' very survival on the line. That is just the way it is.

[CurvaceousBBWLover]

The only way homosexuals will receive the same standing as a heterosexual married couple is if homosexuals receive legal recognition from the government.

But what homosexuals want to do with one another behind closed doors is their business as far as I'm concerned. The way I see it, as I have also pointed many times now, is that with a little bit more work homosexual couples can achieve the same end results of a heterosexual married couple if that is want they want to do. Everything except officially being "recognized" as a married couple by society/government.

[CurvaceousBBWLover]

Shocking, isn't it? But even when this country was in its nascent stage, there were puritanical Christians who thought that America was established so that one group of people could practice one particular religion. That was not what the founders intended at all.

I'm not surprised that people use religion to justfy refusing to accept homosexual marriages. People also used religion to justify slavery, segregation, lynching and the subordination of American women.


Wait a minute, spare the confused Canadian in this. Where did "religious traditions" come into this? The American constitution states that anyone can practice their own religion in peace, but now it's being used as a crutch to say that a gay or lesbian couple shouldn't be married? That's a load.

[Blackjack]

Your going off the deep end here. I'm a Christian not a Jew. Not everything that applies to the Jews (as a religious group) applies equally to Christians. We do get some leeway you know.

WHO CALLED IT? Who called it?

I did!

[NFA]

Your going off the deep end here. I'm a Christian not a Jew. Not everything that applies to the Jews (as a religious group) applies equally to Christians. We do get some leeway you know.

You don't know much about Jews if you think many are Biblical literalists. My point, is that you are picking and choosing what is holy and what you can disregard. It is inappropriate to use the bible to condemn people while being unwilling to live up to more inconvienent sections in the exact same book.

Leviticus is the justification for a biblical condemnation of gays. If its good for that, why isn't good for anything else? Jesus never commented on homosexuality, after all. So clearly, you think some of the Old Testament is absolutely unassailable. You just want to pick and choose when its convenient for you.

[Wagimawr]

Shocking, isn't it? But even when this country was in its nascent stage, there were puritanical Christians who thought that America was established so that one group of people could practice one particular religion. That was not what the founders intended at all.
Exactly -- PURITANS came here as one group of people to practice one particular religion. The Founders learned from what they were escaping in England (much of the same restrictions that the Puritans fled from), and opened things up with religious freedom.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Not of course to be confused with "closed-minded liberals" that are out there in the world.
There's no such thing as a "closed-minded liberal" - by definition, a liberal mind is open to all the possibilities and potential solutions. Conservatives, OTOH, are the ones whose narrow little minds are closed to only what fits into their pathetic agenda.

Sound familiar, JD?? That describes you to a "T".

[Wayne_Zitkus]

If you had any gay friends, you would quickly come to the unavoidable conclusion that this IS who they are and not something they've chosen to do for fun.
I'd be surprised if JD has ANY friends - gay or otherwise.

[ScreamingChicken]

There's no such thing as a "closed-minded liberal" - by definition, a liberal mind is open to all the possibilities and potential solutions. Conservatives, OTOH, are the ones whose narrow little minds are closed to only what fits into their pathetic agenda.

Sound familiar, JD?? That describes you to a "T".
Not all conservatives possess "narrow little minds." A bit harsh there, wouldn't you say?

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Not all conservatives possess "narrow little minds." A bit harsh there, wouldn't you say?
Well, maybe not all of them have narrow little minds - but a lot of them do.

[JudgeDredd425]

There's no such thing as a "closed-minded liberal" - by definition, a liberal mind is open to all the possibilities and potential solutions.

Yes, Liberals are certainly open to solutions that work like requiring people who vote to actually show a valid ID at the polls, like they are open to securing the borders and rounding up all the illegal criminals and shipping them out of this country if they don't owe us any prison time first, like they are open to racially profile the criminals that we are fighting and trying to round up, like they are open to making English the official language of the U.S., like they are open to cutting taxes and not raising them, like they are open to not spending more money than the government has at any given time, and we could go on and on, but I don't think it is necessary. We can all see how open the liberal mind is to all Possibilities and potential solutions.

[JudgeDredd425]

I'd be surprised if JD has ANY friends - gay or otherwise.

I do have friends Wayne. Not whole lot of them because I'm very careful in how I use the term friend, but the friends I do have are real friends who can count on me and who I know that I can count on if need be.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

1) When I had to vote, I had to show my ID, and I was living in a college town that was uber-liberal. I didn't mind. I have no problem with showing my ID.

2) I have no problem discussing options about illegal aliens. Although you seem to think there is only ONE answer, I'm willing to look at all of the options.

3) I'm not open to racial profiling because we get stupid about it. An East Indian American family consisting of a husband, wife, and two children under age six on their way to Disneyland for a vacation does not need to be pulled aside and profiled because they're dark. I'm not kidding. This happened to friends of my family's. Point is, you can't go around bothering private citizens because of their race exclusively. If a Middle Eastern guy is acting suspicious, then by all means, check him out. I've got no issue there.

4) English is the official and only language of the US. I don't know what you mean here.

5) Cutting taxes for what? I'm open to any ideas for discussion. But when people say "cutting taxes," they fail to acknowledge that takes money out somewhere.

6) Actually, the bank breakers here lately have been your conservative pals with this war.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Yes, Liberals are certainly open to solutions that work like requiring people who vote to actually show a valid ID at the polls, like they are open to securing the borders and rounding up all the illegal criminals and shipping them out of this country if they don't owe us any prison time first, like they are open to racially profile the criminals that we are fighting and trying to round up, like they are open to making English the official language of the U.S., like they are open to cutting taxes and not raising them, like they are open to not spending more money than the government has at any given time, and we could go on and on, but I don't think it is necessary. We can all see how open the liberal mind is to all Possibilities and potential solutions.

And we can all see how closed YOUR mind is to everything that doesn't fit your agenda. There are so many times that your threads seem like nothing more than a series of right-wing talking points strung together with commas and conjunctions.

[JudgeDredd425]

1) When I had to vote, I had to show my ID, and I was living in a college town that was uber-liberal. I didn't mind. I have no problem with showing my ID.

I'm glad to hear that you were required to show an idea, but unfortunately that is very much the exception around the country not the general rule. Many liberals around the country have publicly staked out positions against requiring ID for bogus reasons because they do want illegals to be able to vote them or their candidates.

2) I have no problem discussing options about illegal aliens. Although you seem to think there is only ONE answer, I'm willing to look at all of the options.

There is only one right answer in this situation. If I rob a bank, would you want to talk about how I can avoid going to jail and keep the money I took? If I decide to break into your home and move into one of your rooms, do you want to talk about under what conditions I'm going to be staying? These alien criminals, and that is what they are, have no right to be here, and their criminal behavior should be punished not rewarded in any way. They all need to be given the boot, that is the only right answer to the problem.

3) I'm not open to racial profiling because we get stupid about it. An East Indian American family consisting of a husband, wife, and two children under age six on their way to Disneyland for a vacation does not need to be pulled aside and profiled because they're dark. I'm not kidding. This happened to friends of my family's. Point is, you can't go around bothering private citizens because of their race exclusively. If a Middle Eastern guy is acting suspicious, then by all means, check him out. I've got no issue there.

Racial profiling works. It is a very valuable tool that has been used in the past by American police and is used today in other countries with great success. Most of the claims made against this tool are completely bogus and without merit. Just because some may have abused it does not mean that it should not still be used. People have gotten into their automobiles, driven drunk, and killed other people, but I don't think you are willing to give up your car because of what someone else did wrong with theirs, are you?

4) English is the official and only language of the US. I don't know what you mean here.

The United States does not have an official language. Clearly we speak English here and it should be made official, but many liberals find that to be devisive and racist of us to want to make it so. All government business should be conducted in English only. An example here is that in California they have their voting ballots printed in at least seven different languages.

5) Cutting taxes for what? I'm open to any ideas for discussion. But when people say "cutting taxes," they fail to acknowledge that takes money out somewhere.

This was just a general point. Liberals seem to be against all tax cuts for any reason just as they like to raise taxes so that they can keep spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.

6) Actually, the bank breakers here lately have been your conservative pals with this war.

The people who are pushing this war in Washington are no friends of mine no matter what party they want to claim membership in. Those Republicans that are spending like they are Democrats are not real Republicans because no real Republican would go against their principles on this matter.

[JudgeDredd425]

And we can all see how closed YOUR mind is to everything that doesn't fit your agenda. There are so many times that your threads seem like nothing more than a series of right-wing talking points strung together with commas and conjunctions.

Wayne, I'm very proud to say that I'm firmly closed minded about giving up my country to foreign invaders, that I'm against rewarding criminals for their criminals acts no matter if they are native born or not, that I'm against any and all government actions, and the creation of any new law, that violates the Constitution and the principles for which it stands. If you want to call that "a series of right-wing talking points strung together with commas and conjunctions," then so be it.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

I'm glad to hear that you were required to show an idea, but unfortunately that is very much the exception around the country not the general rule. Many liberals around the country have publicly staked out positions against requiring ID for bogus reasons because they do want illegals to be able to vote them or their candidates.

All I can do is judge situations I've been in. I've never seen that happen, and never heard of that happening on a personal level. Shady things have been done on both sides though. I won't pull punches there.

There is only one right answer in this situation. If I rob a bank, would you want to talk about how I can avoid going to jail and keep the money I took? If I decide to break into your home and move into one of your rooms, do you want to talk about under what conditions I'm going to be staying? These alien criminals, and that is what they are, have no right to be here, and their criminal behavior should be punished not rewarded in any way. They all need to be given the boot, that is the only right answer to the problem.


Wait a minute. We were talking simply about illegal aliens whose primary crime was illegally coming to the US. Let's not change horses halfway through the race. Most of these people are not committing dangerous crimes.

Racial profiling works. It is a very valuable tool that has been used in the past by American police and is used today in other countries with great success. Most of the claims made against this tool are completely bogus and without merit. Just because some may have abused it does not mean that it should not still be used. People have gotten into their automobiles, driven drunk, and killed other people, but I don't think you are willing to give up your car because of what someone else did wrong with theirs, are you?

Human nature will lead to racial profiling. That can't be helped. But I don't think we should institutionalize something that can be so easily abused. Most child predators are white men who identify as heterosexual, but I don't think that means we should question every white straight man who wants to be a school teacher.

If we start bothering every semi-swarthy person who decides to get on a plane, I see big problems ahead.

The United States does not have an official language. Clearly we speak English here and it should be made official, but many liberals find that to be devisive and racist of us to want to make it so. All government business should be conducted in English only. An example here is that in California they have their voting ballots printed in at least seven different languages.

It's generally accepted that English is our only national language. Nonetheless, I don't think Anglocentrism is all that terrific. If I can read the ballot, I'm happy.

This was just a general point. Liberals seem to be against all tax cuts for any reason just as they like to raise taxes so that they can keep spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave.

Both sides are pretty guilty of this. Look at what conservatives generally want to cut too.


The people who are pushing this war in Washington are no friends of mine no matter what party they want to claim membership in. Those Republicans that are spending like they are Democrats are not real Republicans because no real Republican would go against their principles on this matter.

That's the frustration of the Democratic party. There are people like Howard Dean acting to represent the whole, saying things on The 700 Club like the Democratic party never supported gay marriage, etc. Well, he's pretty obviously a sleazebag. But if conservatives are being misrepresented, perhaps you could consider the same thing is happening to liberals?
__________________

[NFA]

So, Judge, I take it then that the Bible's command to be welcoming to immigrants is one of the ones you get to disregard. Funny. Its right there in Leviticus with the bit about gays you've raised such a fuss over.

Oh, and while you're going on about your anglocentric obsessions, you might want to recall that the vast majority of this nation was settled by non-English speakers. And I'm just talking about the Europeans. Our founders saw fit to reject the call to make English our national language. I see every reason to maintain their position.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Wayne, I'm very proud to say that I'm firmly closed minded about giving up my country to foreign invaders, that I'm against rewarding criminals for their criminals acts no matter if they are native born or not, that I'm against any and all government actions, and the creation of any new law, that violates the Constitution and the principles for which it stands. If you want to call that "a series of right-wing talking points strung together with commas and conjunctions," then so be it.
So if you're truly "against any and all government actions, and the creation of any new law, that violates the Constitution and the principles for which it stands", then I assuming you're gonna be joining with us liberals and progressives in fighting the gay marraige amendment, since that serves to do nothing other than deny rights to an entire group of citizens.

No, wait - you've already said you have no problem making gays and lesbians second-class citizens. Yet more right-wing hypocrisy from our resident racially-profiling bigot.

[HappyFatChick]

It's still mind-boggling that anyone could support illegal immigration. With all the proof of the disaster it's wreaking on us, how can anyone be so naive?

I think the presidential candidate with the loudest anti-illegal alien stance
will win big. Unless of course, the issue is resolved by then.

p.s. The "racist/bigot" jabs are getting old.

[NFA]

What proof would that be, exactly? Because the economic FACT is that illegal immigration has no impact on anyone's wages with the sole exception of high school drop-outs. And even there, the impact is nominal. Overall, the impact of immigration on our economy has been a minor advantage. Put simply, illegal immigrants put in more to our economy than they take out.

We need to reform immigration in this country, but not from a groundless and xenophobic mindset.

[HappyFatChick]

CONTAMINATING AMERICANS with communicable diseases

DRAINING OUR school systems

STEALING BILLIONS of dollars from OUR healthcare system

committing VIOLENT crimes

ROBBING our welfare system

RIPPING OFF our foodstamp program

Driving without licenses, causing FATAL accidents, fleeing the scenes

OVERPOPULATING our jails

OVERBURDEN OUR law enforcement personnel

BREAKING OUR (!) LAWS

I say close the borders, arrest and deport illegals, build the fence/wall,deploy the guard,use the cameras, and ENFORCE OUR LAWS!!

[TheSadeianLinguist]

And PULLING "FACTS" OUT OF THEIR ASSES! Damn those immigrants... Oh, wait, it's you doing that.

[JudgeDredd425]

What proof would that be, exactly? Because the economic FACT is that illegal immigration has no impact on anyone's wages with the sole exception of high school drop-outs. And even there, the impact is nominal. Overall, the impact of immigration on our economy has been a minor advantage. Put simply, illegal immigrants put in more to our economy than they take out.

We need to reform immigration in this country, but not from a groundless and xenophobic mindset.



Please read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12157299/

and
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/king/stories/060106.html

and http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

Illegals are a drain. They do not provide, they take. By definition they are parasites and ones that we should not have to put up with in light of the fact that the have no right to be here or legitimate expectation that we should take care of them.

[Zandoz]

What proof would that be, exactly? Because the economic FACT is that illegal immigration has no impact on anyone's wages with the sole exception of high school drop-outs. And even there, the impact is nominal. Overall, the impact of immigration on our economy has been a minor advantage. Put simply, illegal immigrants put in more to our economy than they take out.

We need to reform immigration in this country, but not from a groundless and xenophobic mindset.

No matter how one feels about how illegal immigration should or should not be handled, in some cases the impact on wages are very real. I personally know 3 drywallers who are out of work, and their work is now being done by illegal immigrants. It's a big problem in the construction and other non-minimum wage trades here...to the point that illegal immigrants being busted on job sites is becoming a regular feature of the news.

[DrDetroit]

The only thing I have said is that homosexuals can't marry by definition. Not that you should be fired or suffer in any other way.

You'd be willing to write that into the law, right?

Homosexuality is not the norm, nor is it ever going to be.

Indeed, homosexuals are a pretty small minority of the population. The exact percentage depends on who you ask, who you trust, and what your standard is. (If some kid had one gay experience in college, is he gay? Not exactly. Is he straight? Not completely.)

Being homosexual is not the norm.

Reading Shakespeare is also not the norm. Only a small percentage of the population reads Shakespeare, especially if not forced to for a class.

Voting for a third party like the Libertarians or the Greens is not the norm.

Being home schooled is not the norm.

Joining the SCA or participating in a renaissance fair (not just going to one) is not the norm.

Learning to read Latin or Greek is not the norm.

Being an FA is not the norm.

The question is, is there anything morally or ethically wrong with any of these things? Not what their statistical distribution is in the population at large.

Gay people are perfectly fine with me. Ditto for all the other items above.

Homosexuality is not the norm, nor is it ever going to be. ... If things were to go gay then that puts our species' very survival on the line.

Since, as you point out, it is never going to be the norm, then that isn't actually a real concern, is it?

[DrDetroit]

Could it be that giving us free will was a really BIG ooooppps?

I think you'd really dig Raymond Smullyan's essay Is God a Taoist?

http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

I highly recommend it.

[Zandoz]

I think you'd really dig Raymond Smullyan's essay Is God a Taoist?

http://www.mit.edu/people/dpolicar/writing/prose/text/godTaoist.html

I highly recommend it.

I'll have to take a gander.

[fatlane]

CONTAMINATING AMERICANS with communicable diseases

DRAINING OUR school systems

STEALING BILLIONS of dollars from OUR healthcare system

committing VIOLENT crimes

ROBBING our welfare system

RIPPING OFF our foodstamp program

Driving without licenses, causing FATAL accidents, fleeing the scenes

OVERPOPULATING our jails

OVERBURDEN OUR law enforcement personnel

BREAKING OUR (!) LAWS

I say close the borders, arrest and deport illegals, build the fence/wall,deploy the guard,use the cameras, and ENFORCE OUR LAWS!!


Actually, that sounds like the typical American teenager more than anyone else I can think of.

[DrDetroit]

What proof would that be, exactly? Because the economic FACT is that illegal immigration has no impact on anyone's wages with the sole exception of high school drop-outs. And even there, the impact is nominal.

Nominal means 'in name only', except for the way NASA uses it where it seems to mean something like 'standard' or 'expected'. You mean 'minimal', I think.

Illegal immigration has an effect on everyone's wages. A negative, downward effect. The only reason for it is that companies want cheap labor, and the effect is to lower wages and the standard of living for all Americans.

Imagine you were running a restaurant. If the main economy in the area was made up of illegals making sub-minimum wage with no benefits, how would that affect your business? What if the area was instead made up of union workers making $18 to $25 an hour with full benefits?

What kind of restaurant could you have in each case? An upscale joint with fillet mignon? A greasy spoon? What could you afford to pay your waitstaff? If you did have to pay them less, what effect would that have on their spending in the community? On other businesses in the area?

This whole they-took-our-jobs vs. jobs-americans-won't-do debate misses the overall effect they have on the system, quite apart from any direct effect on any one individual's job.

Illegal immigration, or the "guest worker program", its moral equivalent, is an attempt to reduce the US labor market to third world levels. In concert with a number of trends that are grinding out the domestic middle class, it is a return to feudalism.

In the words of the billionaire investor Warren Buffett:

It's class warfare. My class is winning.

Good wages create a rising tide that lifts all boats. Low wages are an ebb tide that will leave all boats aground in muck and mire.

[snuggletiger]

:)

I just get so pissed with the passing on of blatant lies. Damn. I mean, what Saddam Hussein did was bad enough. There's no REASON to exaggerate. The guy is a dick, an embarrassment to the species, and a blight on humanity. All that being said, I believe -- in my heart of hearts -- that the Iraqi people are worse off now because we've been unable to control the insurgents in that area. Add to that the damage done by coalition forces and you have a people who are paying for freedom (freedom they may or may not want) at the end of the barrel of a gun. Sure, they can vote. But do the people they're voting for having any control?? It doesn't seem that way. So... the voting feels like a huge farce to me.

Yeah, Saddam Hussein has been neutered. But in his place are many would-be despots who are using the power vacuum in the area to vie for control. And who's paying the price? I think we know the answer to that.

It would have been easier to remove Saddam and withdraw, and let the Sunnies, Kurds, and other religious factions to fight it out amongst themselves. We can't control the region and if we are going to be there to occupy the nation then we should have just secured the oil fields and placed them in a trust for the people like we did with the Native Americans. Then in a few generations from now a Sheik and a Chief can talk about how they got shafted by "the Man"

[Tina]

But if we would have done that, we wouldn't have had Halliburton and the military to protect the oil fields, which is a large part of what the military was doing over there. If Sadaam had had WMD, our military wouldn't have just gone in there. It was because he didn't have them that it was easier for our forces to go in and do what they did. They knew full well and without a doubt that there were no WMD.

This admin was not interested in taking out a bad guy; they were not interested in stabilizing the area; they were interested in oil and power plays.

[HappyFatChick]

Saddam Hussein violated 16 UN resolutions. The only reason he allowed the search is that we had him surrounded by 100,000 troops and warships. He had ordered UN inspectors out and refused to let them search. The wmd are well-hidden and some moved to Syria. Some have been found.

We had troops in the desert and on ships for up to 8 months while
"negotiating" and "diplomacy" were tried (as countries like France undercut
our efforts.)

Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He is a terrorist.

[Tina]

Invading Iraq was not warranted. There have been far, far worse "terrorists" and we don't go over there and bomb them into the stone age.

[Miss Vickie]

Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He is a terrorist.

And since we gave him the means to gas his own people, what does that make us? Chopped liver?

[Zandoz]

Saddam Hussein violated 16 UN resolutions.

Since it's supposedly our prerogative to ignore UN mandates, the same standard must apply to every other nation, no matter if it is in our favor or not. And certainly not grounds for a US invasion. There are a lot of other nations around the world who have been and/or are doing the same...the US included.

The only reason he allowed the search is that we had him surrounded by 100,000 troops and warships. He had ordered UN inspectors out and refused to let them search.

Yup...after the first gulf war, we spanked him and sent him to his sandbox...where he still was when we started round two. With those troops there, relatively out of harms way compared to now, he could not do much but play the sandbox bully...all bluster and taunt, but no bite.

The WMD are well-hidden and some moved to Syria.

We've had satellite and other surveillance technology since the days of Vietnam, that back then made it possible to identify a person riding through the jungle in a Jeep. With the advances in technology during the 30 years between, it's amazing that we've lost the ability to see something the size of WMDs...in a quantity to be meaningful...being moved/hidden across largely open terrain.

If they were indeed moved to Syria, does not the same justification for this invasion now apply to Syria?

Some have been found.

News to me and most of the rest of the world. Verified sources please. And I don't mean left over traces of what was there before round one.

We had troops in the desert and on ships for up to 8 months while "negotiating" and "diplomacy" were tried

That's generally referred to as saber rattling, not diplomacy. And a pretty well guaranteed tactic for getting an egotistical bully to strut and bluster more.

Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He is a terrorist.

This effects US security how? And if so, why have we not declared war on the Palestinians? By now it's pretty obvious that Israel can stick up for itself. Matter of fact, based on their past history, if there really was a WMD threat, they probably would have taken care of that themselves to.

[Sandie S-R]

Saddam Hussein violated 16 UN resolutions. The only reason he allowed the search is that we had him surrounded by 100,000 troops and warships. He had ordered UN inspectors out and refused to let them search. The wmd are well-hidden and some moved to Syria. Some have been found......

HFC...

The republicans, including Bush have acknowledged that there were no WMDs. Why are you still hanging on to a lie that they themselves have acknowledged?
It's time to let go and move on. There were no WMDs in Iraq.

[GenericGeek]

By now it's pretty obvious that Israel can stick up for itself. Matter of fact, based on their past history, if there really was a WMD threat, they probably would have taken care of that themselves to.

Actually, Israel CAN'T stand up for herself. She needs the US to invade Iran to rout out THEIR WMD program.

OK, fine. But Israel must renounce HER nuclear weapons, as well. Otherwise, no deal!

[Wayne_Zitkus]

HFC...

The republicans, including Bush have acknowledged that there were no WMDs. Why are you still hanging on to a lie that they themselves have acknowledged?
It's time to let go and move on. There were no WMDs in Iraq.
C'mon, Sandie - you can't expect HFC to admit the truth, can you? After all the lies she's been fed by her right-wing "trusted news sources"????

:D

[Zandoz]

Actually, Israel CAN'T stand up for herself. She needs the US to invade Iran to rout out THEIR WMD program.

June 7, 1981: "An undisclosed number of F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter bombers destroyed the Osirak reactor 18 miles south of Baghdad, on the orders of Prime Minister Menachem Begin. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

Past actions speek for themselves, but you are entitled to your opinion.

OK, fine. But Israel must renounce HER nuclear weapons, as well. Otherwise, no deal!

JMHO...The nuclear cat is pretty well out of the bag...and there really is no way to put it back without the cat-fights we supposedly want to prevent. We can no more expect countries to give up their nuclear programs than we can expect them to renounce gun powder and go back to swords and arrows. There is no way to stop knowledge...and when it comes right down to it, any country with the knowledge and the will to do so, can go nuclear.

[HappyFatChick]

WMD was not the only reason we went to Iraq. We went to remove a terrorist. We removed him and now his barbaric followers are making it hard for the decent Iraqis to have a life.

I know there are/were wmd. I know some are still there. I know some went to Syria and possibly Pakistan. I have very little "proof" and even less site support. I Googled 'wmd found' and see a few:

www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

[TheSadeianLinguist]

The head of the U.S. team conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq announced on Thursday that his group has uncovered at least ten more artillery shells

You know:

1) Shells by themselves are worthless.

2) Shells have a shelf life. These had long since been expired, since the 1980's. So unless someone has a time machine, we're pretty safe.

[Zandoz]

WMD was not the only reason we went to Iraq. We went to remove a terrorist. We removed him and now his barbaric followers are making it hard for the decent Iraqis to have a life.

I know there are/were wmd. I know some are still there. I know some went to Syria and possibly Pakistan. I have very little "proof" and even less site support. I Googled 'wmd found' and see a few:

www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml


The sources you site account for 12 maybe 13 nerve gas shells, if accurate....not remotely a capability for mass destruction. Certainly not anything ole Sadam could have threatened anybody outside his sandbox with. The sited sources also state that the president himself says there have not been any WMDs found.

Believe what you want...tis your right...but the portrayal of beliefs as facts does not make them so.

[Zandoz]

WMD was not the only reason we went to Iraq. We went to remove a terrorist. We removed him and now his barbaric followers are making it hard for the decent Iraqis to have a life.


Again, there is no proof tying Sadam to the 9/11 acts of terrorism...this has been admitted by the president, and repeatedly confirmed by other sources. Any acts of terrorism and barbarism committed in his own sand box, though despicable, are no more justification for us invading that it is, has been, and will be, for us invading any of the worlds perpetual supply of countries and regions ruled by those committing barbaric acts. To put it simply, that justification is nothing but desperate grabbing for straws, when the old excuses sank.

[Blackjack]

WMD was not the only reason we went to Iraq. We went to remove a terrorist. We removed him and now his barbaric followers are making it hard for the decent Iraqis to have a life.

I love this. It's sort of similar to in 1984 where something happens- being at war with such-and-such, for example- and that's how it's always been. Even if yesterday we were at war with Eurasia, somebody got it wrong! We've always been at war with Eastasia, and Eurasia is our ally!

Of course, here it's something like this.

First they say, "Iraq has WMD's. That's why we're there."

Then it goes, "Saddam harbored terrorists. That's why we went there in the first place. It had nothing to do with WMD's."

And then we heard that "We went there in the first place to take Saddam out of power and give the people democracy. There's no proof of any sort of WMD research in the recent years and ties to terrorist groups are debatable."



Your point would be a bit more valid, HFC, if it wasn't disproved so easily by things that have happened.

The weapons? Gone. There really hasn't been any definite proof that Saddam had a whole lot of research going on for that kind of stuff since Desert Storm.

The links to terrorists? Fairly inconclusive, I think. Not to mention that there are many other places that are harboring terrorists- Iraq is just one of many, and not nearly as much of a threat as some other countries.

Bringing democracy to the people? A noble effort, but it seems more like imperialism than anything else, which is something that isn't really an intelligent move in this day and age. There really isn't a place for it.

[Sandie S-R]

WMD was not the only reason we went to Iraq. We went to remove a terrorist. We removed him and now his barbaric followers are making it hard for the decent Iraqis to have a life.

I know there are/were wmd. I know some are still there. I know some went to Syria and possibly Pakistan. I have very little "proof" and even less site support. I Googled 'wmd found' and see a few:

www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1528363,00.html

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213

www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/25/114037.shtml

This would be funny HFC, were it not so pitiful. :)

You seem to know things that the repubs and Bush don't even know about the WMDs. WOW....you should contact them...I'm sure they would give you a high powered job in the administration, just to prove to everyone that there were WMDs.

:rolleyes:


There's a reason why you find "very little proof" for your allegations.

Because there is none. (No proof, and no WMDs).

[Jane]

The reason, the reason, the real reason we are there?

Those Iraqis are living on top of Our Oil. How dare they?

[saucywench]

The reason, the reason, the real reason we are there?

Those Iraqis are living on top of Our Oil. How dare they?
That might explain why we haven't gone after these guys (I mean, if WMD have proven to be a non-issue and the intent of the U.S. is to democratize the rest of the world):

Let’s not lose sight of those heads of state who terrorize and abuse the rights of their own people.
PARADE’s Annual List Of...The World’s 10 Worst Dictators

By David Wallechinsky
Published: January 22, 2006
A “dictator” is a head of state who exercises arbitrary authority over the lives of his citizens and who cannot be removed from power through legal means. The worst commit terrible human-rights abuses. This present list draws in part on reports by global human-rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Freedom House, Reporters Without Borders and Amnesty International. While the three worst from 2005 have retained their places, two on last year’s list (Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya and Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan) have slipped out of the Top 10—not because their conduct has improved but because other dictators have gotten worse.

1) Omar al-Bashir, Sudan. Age 62. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 1

Since February 2003, Bashir’s campaign of ethnic and religious persecution has killed at least 180,000 civilians in Darfur in western Sudan and driven 2 million people from their homes. The good news is that Bashir’s army and the Janjaweed militia that he supports have all but stopped burning down villages in Darfur. The bad news is why they’ve stopped: There are few villages left to burn. The attacks now are aimed at refugee camps. While the media have called these actions “a humanitarian tragedy,” Bashir himself has escaped major condemnation. In 2005, Bashir signed a peace agreement with the largest rebel group in non-Islamic southern Sudan and allowed its leader, John Garang, to become the nation’s vice president. But Garang died in July in a helicopter crash, and Bashir’s troops still occupy the south.


2) Kim Jong-il, North Korea. Age 63. In power since 1994. Last year’s rank: 2

While the outside world focuses on Kim Jong-il’s nuclear weapons program, domestically he runs the world’s most tightly controlled society. North Korea continues to rank last in the index of press freedom compiled by Reporters Without Borders, and for the 34th straight year it earned the worst possible score on political rights and civil liberties from Freedom House. An estimated 250,000 people are confined in “reeducation camps.” Malnourishment is widespread: According to the United Nations World Food Program, the average 7-year-old boy in North Korea is almost 8 inches shorter than a South Korean boy the same age and more than 20 pounds lighter.


3) Than Shwe, Burma (Myanmar). Age 72. In power since 1992. Last year’s rank: 3

In November 2005, without warning, Than Shwe moved his entire government from Rangoon (Yangon), the capital for the last 120 years, to Pyinmana, a remote area 245 miles away. Civil servants were given two days’ notice and are forbidden from resigning. Burma leads the world in the use of children as soldiers, and the regime is notorious for using forced labor on construction projects and as porters for the army in war zones. The long-standing house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, winner of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize and Than Shwe’s most feared opponent, recently was extended for six months. Just to drive near her heavily guarded home is to risk arrest.


4) Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe. Age 81. In power since 1980. Last year’s rank: 9

Life in Zimbabwe has gone from bad to worse: It has the world’s highest inflation rate, 80% unemployment and an HIV/AIDS rate of more than 20%. Life expectancy has declined since 1988 from 62 to 38 years. Farming has collapsed since 2000, when Mugabe began seizing white-owned farms, giving most of them to political allies with no background in agriculture. In 2005, Mugabe launched Operation Murambatsvina (Clean the Filth), the forcible eviction of some 700,000 people from their homes or businesses—“to restore order and sanity,” says the government. But locals say the reason was to forestall demonstrations as the economy deteriorates.


5) Islam Karimov, Uzbekistan. Age 67. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 15

Until 2005, the worst excesses of Karimov’s regime had taken place in the torture rooms of his prisons. But on May 13, he ordered a mass killing that could not be concealed. In the city of Andijan, 23 businessmen, held in prison and awaiting a verdict, were freed by their supporters, who then held an open meeting in the town square. An estimated 10,000 people gathered, expecting government officials to come and listen to their grievances. Instead, Karimov sent the army, which massacred hundreds of men, women and children. A 2003 law made Karimov and all members of his family immune from prosecution forever.


6) Hu Jintao, China. Age 63. In power since 2002. Last year’s rank: 4

Although some Chinese have taken advantage of economic liberalization to become rich, up to 150 million Chinese live on $1 a day or less in this nation with no minimum wage. Between 250,000 and 300,000 political dissidents are held in “reeducation-through-labor” camps without trial. Less than 5% of criminal trials include witnesses, and the conviction rate is 99.7%. There are no privately owned TV or radio stations. The government opens and censors mail and monitors phone calls, faxes, e-mails and text messages. In preparation for the 2008 Olympics, at least 400,000 residents of Beijing have been forcibly evicted from their homes.


7) King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia. Age 82. In power since 1995. Last year’s rank: 5

Although Abdullah did not become king until 2005, he has ruled Saudi Arabia since his half-brother, Fahd, suffered a stroke 10 years earlier. In Saudi Arabia, phone calls are recorded and mobile phones with cameras are banned. It is illegal for public employees “to engage in dialogue with local and foreign media.” By law, all Saudi citizens must be Muslims. According to Amnesty International, police in Saudi Arabia routinely use torture to extract “confessions.” Saudi women may not appear in public with a man who isn’t a relative, must cover their bodies and faces in public and may not drive. The strict suppression of women is not voluntary, and Saudi women who would like to live a freer life are not allowed to do so.


8) Saparmurat Niyazov, Turkmenistan. Age 65. In power since 1990. Last year’s rank: 8

Niyazov has created the world’s most pervasive personality cult, and criticism of any of his policies is considered treason. The latest examples of his government-by-whim include bans on car radios, lip-synching and playing recorded music on TV or at weddings. Niyazov also has closed all national parks and shut down rural libraries. He launched an attack on his nation’s health-care system, firing 15,000 health-care workers and replacing most of them with untrained military conscripts. He announced the closing of all hospitals outside the capital and ordered Turkmenistan’s physicians to give up the Hippocratic Oath and to swear allegiance to him instead.


9) Seyed Ali Khamane’i, Iran. Age 66. In power since 1989. Last year’s rank: 18

Over the past four years, the rulers of Iran have undone the reforms that were emerging in the nation. The hardliners completed this reversal by winning the parliamentary elections in 2004 —after disqualifying 44% of the candidates—and with the presidential election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June 2005. Ultimately, however, the country is run by the 12-man Guardian Council, overseen by the Ayatollah Khamane’i, which has the right to veto any law that the elected government passes. Khamane’i has shut down the free press, tortured journalists and ordered the execution of homosexual males.


10) Teodoro Obiang Nguema, Equatorial Guinea. Age 63. In power since 1979. Last year’s rank: 10

Obiang took power in this tiny West African nation by overthrowing his uncle more than 25 years ago. According to a United Nations inspector, torture “is the normal means of investigation” in Equatorial Guinea. There is no freedom of speech, and there are no bookstores or newsstands. The one private radio station is owned by Obiang’s son. Since major oil reserves were discovered in Equatorial Guinea in 1995, Obiang has deposited more than $700 million into special accounts in U.S. banks. Meanwhile, most of his people live on less than $1 a day.

Contributing Editor David Wallechinsky has reported on world figures for PARADE, including an interview with Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi. For more on the worst dictators, visit parade.com on the Web.

[saucywench]

Sudan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html)
41,236,378

Korea, North (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html)
23,113,019

Burma (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bm.html)
47,382,633

Zimbabwe (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html)
12,236,805

Uzbekistan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uz.html)
44 27,307

China (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html)
1,313,973,713

Saudi Arabia (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html)
27,019,731

Turkmenistan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tx.html)
5,042,920

Iran (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html)
68,688,433

Equatorial Guinea (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ek.html)
540,109

Iraq (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html)
26,783,383

[TraciJo67]

Sudan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/su.html)
41,236,378

Korea, North (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/kn.html)
23,113,019

Burma (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/bm.html)
47,382,633

Zimbabwe (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/zi.html)
12,236,805

Uzbekistan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uz.html)
44 27,307

China (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ch.html)
1,313,973,713

Saudi Arabia (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/sa.html)
27,019,731

Turkmenistan (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tx.html)
5,042,920

Iran (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html)
68,688,433

Equatorial Guinea (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ek.html)
540,109

Iraq (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html)
26,783,383



Wow. I see that we're going to be very busy, pre-emptively invading all of these countries and ridding the poor, oppressed citizens of their evil dictators. :D

[HappyFatChick]

Anyone who thinks these latest 500 shells full of mustard and sarin aren't dangerous is invited to store them for us in their garage.

[Friday]

Wow. I see that we're going to be very busy, pre-emptively invading all of these countries and ridding the poor, oppressed citizens of their evil dictators.

LOL. If they've got nothing our government wants they aren't oppressed, they're suffering the consequences of their own bad choices doncha know.

[Miss Vickie]

Anyone who thinks these latest 500 shells full of mustard and sarin aren't dangerous is invited to store them for us in their garage.

Not saying they're not dangerous. Just saying they're not relevant to proving that Saddam Hussein had a current chemical weapons manufacturing program going on.

As for dangerous, do you know how many land mines the US has left around the world? And how many children are maimed or killed every day because of them? And do you know what our government is doing about it?

Just sayin'...

[Robin Rocks]

Anyone who thinks these latest 500 shells full of mustard and sarin aren't dangerous is invited to store them for us in their garage.

I've got a better idea. We should place them around New Orleans and then maybe it will become that island you were hoping for.

[fatlane]

Anyone who thinks these latest 500 shells full of mustard and sarin aren't dangerous is invited to store them for us in their garage.

That's dangerous, unless the gases are degraded. Then that's just nasty and I'll get ticketed by my local code enforcement lady.

Nice try, HFC, but I'm not fallin' for it.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Anyone who thinks these latest 500 shells full of mustard and sarin aren't dangerous is invited to store them for us in their garage.

Having a garage full of poop is dangerous and unhealthy. Expired weapons, not good for you, but not enough to go to war, much like the garage full of poop.

[HappyFatChick]

If the shells are so useless why are the insurgents and Iranians desperately trying to buy them?

[Miss Vickie]

If the shells are so useless why are the insurgents and Iranians desperately trying to buy them?

Link please?

[TraciJo67]

Link please?

www.evilradicalconservativethinktanks.com

[fatlane]

If the shells are so useless why are the insurgents and Iranians desperately trying to buy them?

Not the old useless ones. The good ones, with live HE rounds in them. Those make the IEDs.

Chemical weapons are not a good idea to go a-terroristing with. There's a very high chance they do nothing or, worse, kill the guys on your side. Same for biological weapons. You want to hit a specific target? Conventional rounds are the way to go.

Now, back to the conventional rounds... the US forces did not secure the Iraqi army depots in the invasion. They got looted, so that ammo is on the streets because the US did not go in with enough troops to do the job right. US troop levels are only 40,000 higher today than they were in 1999. There aren't enough soldiers to go around without instituting some form of mandatory recruitment. A proper occupation force in Iraq would require 500,000+ soldiers over an 8-13 year period.

[Miss Vickie]

www.evilradicalconservativethinktanks.com

Just as I thought. ;)

:wubu:

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Last night, HFC posted the following on this thread:

Anyone who thinks these latest 500 shells full of mustard and sarin aren't dangerous is invited to store them for us in their garage.


I just found the following in the description of last night's "Hannity & Colmes" show on the "NewsHounds" web site:

Colmes must have been getting under Hannity’s skin. As he ended the segment, he (Hannity) said “Great job!” to Santorum and Hoekstra and “jokingly” continued, “If they’re so confident they’re degraded, maybe we can drop it off at a liberal’s house, see if they’ll store it in their garage.”

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/06/22/sean_hannityand_rick_santorum_cling_to_discredited _finding_of_wmd_in_iraq.php


I'm publicly calling on HFC to stop engaging in plagiarism when participating in these discussions. Last week, Jes caught you posting Ann Coulter's comments on "The Tonight Show" as your own, and two days ago I caught you lifting an entire page about John Murtha from the "Texas Rainmaker" site. And now this.

I guess you've run out of arguments, and now have to resort to stealing the thoughts and words of others and presenting them as your own. How sad...

[NYEmtEsq]

Rather than attack the particular metaphor HFC chose to use, and from where the imaginative spark for that metaphor came, why don't you answer the question: would you like these "degraded" munitions stored in your basement, in your closet, in your shed, in your town, or anywhere else near you? Would you like these "degraded" munitions in the hands of someone who has demonstrated his will to use the factory-fresh variety on unsuspecting, innocent people? I say hell no.

Also, keep in mind that "degraded" simply means that it probably won't kill as many people as it was designed to (i.e.: its kill warranty has expired). It does nothing to indicate that these munitions are now harmless duds.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

If someone soaked a gun and ammunition in water for a year, I wouldn't want them aiming it at my head. On the other hand, if the the gun was pretty obviously ruined, they weren't planning to kill me with it.

[Jane]

Rather than attack the particular metaphor HFC chose to use, and from where the imaginative spark for that metaphor came, why don't you answer the question: would you like these "degraded" munitions stored in your basement, in your closet, in your shed, in your town, or anywhere else near you? Would you like these "degraded" munitions in the hands of someone who has demonstrated his will to use the factory-fresh variety on unsuspecting, innocent people? I say hell no.

Also, keep in mind that "degraded" simply means that it probably won't kill as many people as it was designed to (i.e.: its kill warranty has expired). It does nothing to indicate that these munitions are now harmless duds.
Nor would I want DU around me, but we're sending soliders over to deal with it every day.

[CleverBomb]

Let's be real about this. If Saddam had dug all of these up and gathered them into a single secret bunker for a "Dr. Evil" moment... "Behold -- my terrifying Arsenal -- of Weapons! of Mass Destruction!!!! I demand One MEELYIN Dollars! Bwahahaha!" he'd have been laughed at, not invaded.

-Rusty
(Jane, this wasn't a direct reply to you, I just went with "quick reply" out of sheer laziness. -R. )

[Jane]

Unless you quote me, I seldom think it is....unless it's a bad day...and then I want One Meeeellliiiiion Dollars.

And if you quote me, it pisses off everyone who has me on ignore.

[Zandoz]

Anyone who thinks these latest 500 shells full of mustard and sarin aren't dangerous is invited to store them for us in their garage.

Ammonium Nitrate, a common use farm chemical, would not be welcome in my garage either. And it has nothing to do with it's potential for misuse. It's just a common sense good idea not to have some things laying around....regardless of their original intent/safety/potential.

Even back in the day when we absolutely knew Saddam had and was actually using those weapons, we did not see it as justification for invasion. To try and use them as an excuse aproximately 15 years later is just grasping at straws.

[Zandoz]

If the shells are so useless why are the insurgents and Iranians desperately trying to buy them?

It could be that they do not have a grasp of the old saying "caveat emptor".

Or seeing that they supposedly currently have weapons programs of their own, maybe they just want them for their value as "classics" or collectors items. Just look at the one time desperate buying of Beanie Babies...just because there are folks desperately wanting to buy, has no bearing on their real worth or functionality

[Egbert Souse]

I have long suspected that i know the true identity of HFC and i am now convinced that my suspicions are correct.

Happy Fat Chick is, in reality, Anita Bryant.

The next time you feel the urge to pumult her, i suggest you contemplate this first:

How would you feel if YOU built a 7-figure career as spokesperson for such commodities no less than Orange Juice, Conservative Christian Republicanism, Homo Condemnation and the Proper Place of Women out of being a Ms. America Runnerup, only to have your husband/manager come out as a homosexual?

I'm guessing YOU'D be a little on edge, too.

THINK about it, people.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Rather than attack the particular metaphor HFC chose to use, and from where the imaginative spark for that metaphor came, why don't you answer the question: would you like these "degraded" munitions stored in your basement, in your closet, in your shed, in your town, or anywhere else near you? Would you like these "degraded" munitions in the hands of someone who has demonstrated his will to use the factory-fresh variety on unsuspecting, innocent people? I say hell no.

Also, keep in mind that "degraded" simply means that it probably won't kill as many people as it was designed to (i.e.: its kill warranty has expired). It does nothing to indicate that these munitions are now harmless duds.
What I'd rteally like, NYEmt, is some intellectual honesty around here - something that seems to be lacking a bit of late....

[UberAris]

What I'd rteally like, NYEmt, is some intellectual honesty around here - something that seems to be lacking a bit of late....

All this reminds me of a George Carlyon (sp???) quote:

"I am completely for the seperation of church and state... I mean they screw us up enough individualy, just think of whawt they would do togeather"

[RedVelvet]

I have long suspected that i know the true identity of HFC and i am now convinced that my suspicions are correct.

Happy Fat Chick is, in reality, Anita Bryant.

The next time you feel the urge to pumult her, i suggest you contemplate this first:

How would you feel if YOU built a 7-figure career as spokesperson for such commodities no less than Orange Juice, Conservative Christian Republicanism, Homo Condemnation and the Proper Place of Women out of being a Ms. America Runnerup, only to have your husband/manager come out as a homosexual?

I'm guessing YOU'D be a little on edge, too.

THINK about it, people.

My theory is that HFC is actually "Steven Colbert: Too Hot for Tee Vee!"

[HappyFatChick]

LOL Egbert. I read your post and forgot where it was when I had time to reply. I just now found it. She sure was an interesting one, huh? But no. I'm not her. I'm blonde and MUCH cuter.:D

And Zandoz- what you said was interesting but I'm way past that story and on to the latest one tonite. We haven't heard the end of that wmd story. It just got buried by everything else today.

[GenericGeek]

Anyone who thinks these latest 500 shells full of mustard and sarin aren't dangerous is invited to store them for us in their garage.

Even if they happen to be your next-door neighbor?

[HappyFatChick]

That would never happen. I live in Paradise. There are no liberals here.:)

[Jane]

Dammit, you didn't tell us you were in Oklahoma.

We'll do brunch at Pearl's some Sunday, after church.

FL, you can pick Misty up on the way and meet us.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

That would never happen. I live in Paradise. There are no liberals here.:)

That's a ridiculous, bigoted statement, HFC. Conservatives aren't the only ones in asylums.

[MisticalMisty]

That's a ridiculous, bigoted statement, HFC. Conservatives aren't the only ones in asylums.
LMFFAO :D

[fatlane]

Dammit, you didn't tell us you were in Oklahoma.

We'll do brunch at Pearl's some Sunday, after church.

FL, you can pick Misty up on the way and meet us.

And we'll all get together at the Freeway Church of Christ
Praise the Lord and pass the plate on by...

-- Ray Wylie Hubbard, "Freeway Church of Christ"

There really was one in Waco. Loved driving past it and singing the song.

[Jane]

The people from.....

Yep, everyone, that was the post that blew it.

Sorry you had to go so far, but I tend to take most people at face value until they prove you can't.

[GWARrior]

The people from....

YOU SUCK AT LIFE.

[RedVelvet]

Yep, everyone, that was the post that blew it.

Sorry you had to go so far, but I tend to take most people at face value until they prove you can't.


Wait....does this mean what I think it means?....Damn, just when I was getting an evil plan in motion.

[Jane]

It simply went over the hate-filled line into ludicrous to me, Velvet.

I no longer choose to suspend my disbelief.

[TheSadeianLinguist]

Horseshit. No one would think any of that was okay at a funeral. What radio show?

You assumed wrong. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Zandoz]

Just for the record, ANY protest, intentional disruption, or anything remotely of the sort at any funereal is simply WRONG!

[Wayne_Zitkus]

The whole.....

Why am I not surprised that HFC would find a way to "justify" the actions of Fred Phelps and his roving band of homophobes.

With each post you make, HFC, you reveal a little more about the person you really are. And it's not a pretty picture, IMHO.

And I will continue to criticize Bush as often as I please, whether you like it or not.

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Rather than attack the particular metaphor HFC chose to use, and from where the imaginative spark for that metaphor came, why don't you answer the question: would you like these "degraded" munitions stored in your basement, in your closet, in your shed, in your town, or anywhere else near you? Would you like these "degraded" munitions in the hands of someone who has demonstrated his will to use the factory-fresh variety on unsuspecting, innocent people? I say hell no.

Also, keep in mind that "degraded" simply means that it probably won't kill as many people as it was designed to (i.e.: its kill warranty has expired). It does nothing to indicate that these munitions are now harmless duds.
Three things, NYEmt:

1 - When someone claims 20-year-old munitions are evidence of an ongoing WMD program (and they're not), it's intellectually dishonest.

2 - When someone posts other's people's words as their own (as HFC has done lately on numerous occasions), it's intellectually dishonest.

3 - When people like you defend HFC simply because you agree with her politically, that's also intellectually dishonest.

[NYEmtEsq]

3 - When people like you defend HFC simply because you agree with her politically, that's also intellectually dishonest.

No, Wayne, I do not defend people here. I do nothing more than defend my beliefs, and challenge others to attack those beliefs in a spirited debate. I extended a challenge to you on this topic which, in typical fashion, has been ducked.

Defending your truly held beliefs with facts, and challenging others to see if they can attack those beliefs is hardly intellectually dishonest. What's intellectually dishonest is to resort to ad hominem attacks when you can no longer respond on topic. That is the point which I have made to you numerous times in the past, and which you seem incapable of picking up. In addition to your duck of my latest intellectual challenge, I recall challenging you to debate the issue of how abortion was the only "pro-choice" position in the Democratic party, and for real political innovations you have to look to Republicans. Instead of responding intelligently, you went off the handle and broke out the Nazi references. TO DATE, I have yet to get a thought out response to this challenge. Between you and I, if you are more comfortable turning tail and hiding when challenged to a debate on the facts--and not the hysterics--such is your business. You have long ago revealed that this is the person you really are. In my opinion, it's not a pretty picture....intellectual cowardice never is. However, the hypocrisy of your placing a challenge to another poster in this forum--in your sig line, no less--is not only intellectually dishonest, its appalling. How the mods can let that slide, yet harass others for defending the concept of profiling as a legitimate tool of law enforcement, is beyond me. Maybe one moderator from each side of the aisle, but that's a post for another time.

[Friday]

You're no better. Those things aren't WMD and weren't even before they degraded. Full of it tho' you may be, you obviously aren't stupid. Do I want them in my garage? Hell no. Nor would I want large quantities of bleach and ammonia stored in my garage. What's your point?

[Wayne_Zitkus]

Defending your truly held beliefs with facts, and challenging others to see if they can attack those beliefs is hardly intellectually dishonest.
I didn't say it was. Posting stuff you copy from another web site virtually word-for-word (without crediting the source) or mindlessly parroting what you hear on talk radio is what I call intellectual dishonesty. And when I read things in your posts that are virtually word-for-word transcripts of what I hear when I occasionally listen to the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity radio pukefests, I have to ask myself - is that REALLY what this guy thinks, or is he simply acting like a tape recorder on playback?


What's intellectually dishonest is to resort to ad hominem attacks when you can no longer respond on topic. That is the point which I have made to you numerous times in the past, and which you seem incapable of picking up. In addition to your duck of my latest intellectual challenge, I recall challenging you to debate the issue of how abortion was the only "pro-choice" position in the Democratic party, and for real political innovations you have to look to Republicans. Instead of responding intelligently, you went off the handle and broke out the Nazi references. TO DATE, I have yet to get a thought out response to this challenge. Between you and I, if you are more comfortable turning tail and hiding when challenged to a debate on the facts--and not the hysterics--such is your business. You have long ago revealed that this is the person you really are. In my opinion, it's not a pretty picture....intellectual cowardice never is.
You must have missed the posts where I talked about my wife and I getting ready to move from Colorado to Texas. Quite frankly, I have neither the time nor the desire to engage in a debate with you. Besides, that "pro-choice" argument you're advancing is right out of Sean Hannity's radio program, so I'm still not convinced that you're thinking this stuff out for yourself.


However, the hypocrisy of your placing a challenge to another poster in this forum--in your sig line, no less--is not only intellectually dishonest, its appalling. How the mods can let that slide, yet harass others for defending the concept of profiling as a legitimate tool of law enforcement, is beyond me. Maybe one moderator from each side of the aisle, but that's a post for another time.
HFC has ignored my requests for a response to what was obvious plagiarism. I will keep that in my sig line until "she" responds, or the mods ask me to remove it.

And that's not hypocrisy - it's a call for personal responsibility, something that Republicans like HFC claims to be are supposed to be calling for all the time. I'm just looking for a display of personal responsibility from HFC - so far, nada.

I'm done responding with you, NYEmt - I just don't have the time - nor the desire. Unless you can post something constructive that's not just right-wing talking points, don't bother responding to my posts; I'll just ignore them anyway.

[fatlane]

NYEmtEsq is the baby you don't want to throw out with the dirty bathwater. Back away, take two chill pills, and call him in the morning. He's not liberal-baiting, nor is he a broomstick propping up the lean-to shack in the middle of the Okeefenokee Swamp that is HFC's intellectual empire... He deserves to be engaged in a thoughtful manner, sans histrionics from either side.

For the record, I just tossed out a bag of degraded fertilizer. That's some nasty stuff, and I'm sure if I dumped it into someone's water stroage tower, I'd mess up a lot of lives in a bad bad way. The chemicals in the degraded rounds, while maybe not capable of destroying thousands of lives, nevertheless contain some NASTY-ASS chemicals. They should be disposed of properly, absolutely.

But, are they a weapon of choice? I don't think so.

I think more concerning is the spread of meth usage among soldiers in Iraq: keep an eye on terrorist weaponry. When they start shooting the US forces with US-made weapons, it's over. That means the troops are swapping their guns for drugs, which happened in Vietnam and to the USSR soldiers in Afghanistan.

[TraciJo67]

NYEmtEsq is the baby you don't want to throw out with the dirty bathwater. Back away, take two chill pills, and call him in the morning. He's not liberal-baiting, nor is he a broomstick propping up the lean-to shack in the middle of the Okeefenokee Swamp that is HFC's intellectual empire... He deserves to be engaged in a thoughtful manner, sans histrionics from either side.


Very much agreed.

[Miss Vickie]

I agree, fatlane. NYEMTEsq is a conservative who actually listens to the other side and provides some insightful arguments. I don't always -- or even often -- agree with him, but I'm always interested in what he has to say because he's so damn smart.

[NYEmtEsq]

Thanks Fatlane, TraciJo, and Fatlane for the kind words, and for having my back on this one.

As to Wayne, let me first and foremost assure you, for the record, that I do my own thinking, and that every word I type on this board (or say to someone's face) is my own thought, and not merely a "taking-point" parroted from others. Your attempt to dodge a legitimate debate by dismissing what I argue by simply noting that prominent conservative commentators agree with me is nothing short of intellectual cowardice, for it is these innovative ideas which Democrats, like it or not, must face if they ever wish to seriously contest a presidential race. If others have (wisely) come to the same conclusions that I have reached, then kudos to them. By your analogy, I would routinely dodge debate of Democrat issues simply because the support therefor was pulled from that sewer that is moveon.org....everyone here can easily note that I do no such thing. (By the way, I don't know what your fascination with Hannity is, but the last time I heard his radio show was September 11, 2001, and that was only because someone was blaring it on a boom box in the triage center that was the Staten Island Ferry Terminal. As far as Limbaugh, the last time I listened his pompous shtick was back when he was doing "caller abortions".....HFC, does he still do those?). Personally, when I listen to non-music and non-sports radio, it is usually something irreverent like Opie and Anthony or Imus, and I use it as a distraction from engaging thought to start my day. When I do occasionally listen to political talk radio, it's from your side of the aisle (to see what you guys are thinking....it is wise to know the ways of one's adversary).

As far as the promptness (rather than the lack of) your responses, yes, I've read the Sandie's posts that you're moving, and I wish the two of you all the best. I understand that your schedule is cramped, as is mine. I never asked for you to respond to my intellectual challenges at the snap of my fingers. Hell, I've let some go by myself because I'm in the middle of preparing for a trial, or a deposition, or something more mundane (or riding my ambulance, or just living my personal life). I've just noted that since you currently have the time to post about such crap stories as the president signing an American flag, or taking a walk on the wild side with Condi Rice, and have the time to call others out as if you were the copyright police, I would engage in a little bit of turnabout and note that you've left more than one of my challenges dangling. (By the way, unless you're talking about the mass distribution of copyrighted material, HFC's re-posting of (c) material is a civil matter for the copyright owner to pursue, not for you to enforce using tactics taken from the RIAA/MPAA copyright police handbook.) Unlike your calling out HFC, however, I do not resort to hysterics, hyperbole, or personal insults.

In futuro, sir, if you choose to hide behind the skirt of the "ignore" feature and take an ostrich-esque approach on a political debate board, such is your perogative. In fact, I quite expect that you will take such a cowardly course of action. Your actions have clearly indicated that you are not interested in reasoned debate, just hysterical blustering and diatribe. In the event that you disappear into the ether, I am happy that I can still look forward to vigorous debates with Miss Vickie, TraciJo, and even Tina and Sandie.

Good day sir.

[HappyFatChick]

I seldom listen to Rush or all the other talking heads. Especially now when I'm so busy.

It's almost comical to watch some people misunderstand/exaggerate/accuse
/get hysterical over something I said without knowing (or bothering to ask) what I really meant.

After I've explained some things on PM's, they were cleared up.

[GenericGeek]

And we'll all get together at the Freeway Church of Christ
Praise the Lord and pass the plate on by...

-- Ray Wylie Hubbard, "Freeway Church of Christ"

There really was one in Waco. Loved driving past it and singing the song.

Is that the one sung by Paul Newman in Cool Hand Luke?

"I don't care if it rains or freezes
'cos I got my plastic Jesus
Sittin' on the dashboard of my car..."

[GenericGeek]

NYEmtEsq is the baby you don't want to throw out with the dirty bathwater. Back away, take two chill pills, and call him in the morning. He's not liberal-baiting, nor is he a broomstick propping up the lean-to shack in the middle of the Okeefenokee Swamp that is HFC's intellectual empire... He deserves to be engaged in a thoughtful manner, sans histrionics from either side.

Agreed. NYEmtEsq's posts are of great merit. Welcome, NYEmtEsq!


For the record, I just tossed out a bag of degraded fertilizer. That's some nasty stuff, and I'm sure if I dumped it into someone's water stroage tower, I'd mess up a lot of lives in a bad bad way. The chemicals in the degraded rounds, while maybe not capable of destroying thousands of lives, nevertheless contain some NASTY-ASS chemicals. They should be disposed of properly, absolutely.


And nowhere near anyone's garage. I wonder what they'll do with them. Send them to Hermiston, Oregon? Or maybe Hanford, Washington? We still haven't figured out how to dispose of our old WWI vintage gas shells, f'r Chrissake! And that plume of WWII atomic bad karma keeps stealthily making it's way to the Columbia River...


I think more concerning is the spread of meth usage among soldiers in Iraq: keep an eye on terrorist weaponry. When they start shooting the US forces with US-made weapons, it's over. That means the troops are swapping their guns for drugs, which happened in Vietnam and to the USSR soldiers in Afghanistan.

I wasn't aware of any meth abuse stats on OIF troops. Are there credible reports out there?