all i have to say is...

[dark_one]

http://www.jeffiscool.com/pictures/President_Football.jpg

rock on!

i think this post will prolly be moved but sill...

[Gaan]

it will be a 3 way tie because of "The Nader Effect"

[Baron Sprite]

bush is a fucking retard, anyone that votes for him should be fucking shot. give me your address if you vvote for him so I can kill you.

[dark_one]

haha

well, as a fellow texan.....

ummm, err... *looks down at paper during speech* uhhhhh hmmm errr well... uhhhh hmmm errr but hmmm *cough* hmm

[sotonin]

They both suck ass, sorry but bush is better than retard kerry.

[mattmeck]

Bush = for the military
Kerry = against the military

Easy choice for me being a military family.

[KhaN]

Bush = Against the peace.
Kerry = For the peace.

Easy choice for me being a french.

On a more serious note, i live half in USA, i was in NYC during ground zero with my wife, i can trully understand how USA people was affected, but open your eyes and see that Bush is taking advantage of what happened during the 11 september to be elected.
Now im sure Bush will be elected again, and this is exactly what some islamic people with turbans are waiting for ...

[daeken_bb]

Bush = Against the peace.
Kerry = For the peace.

Easy choice for me being a french.

On a more serious note, i live half in USA, i was in NYC during ground zero with my wife, i can trully understand how USA people was affected, but open your eyes and see that Bush is taking advantage of what happened during the 11 september to be elected.
Now im sure Bush will be elected again, and this is exactly what some islamic people with turbans are waiting for ...

I would have a lot less of an issue with Bush if he did two things:
1) Gives us reasonable reasons to attack countries, rather than putting everything under the guise of terrorism.
and 2) Stopps accusing Kerry of flip-flopping. People should hold firm to their core beliefs, but their ideas on what is going on in the world should be able to change. Being stuborn does nothing.

Either way, it's too flippin' early for me to get into a political conversation, so I'm out :P

[Melwin]

Off Topic.

Kerry is the lesser of two evils here.

[dark_one]

They both suck ass, sorry but bush is better than retard kerry.


exactly how i see it :shock:

[dark_one]

darn i wish it would stay in eqemu cause no one scrolls way down here...



but who voted for nader? lol :?

[Farrenz]

Walter Brown for President!

[Xabob]

Nader lets all get high :D

[RangerDown]

It doesn't matter which way I vote.


No, it really doesn't. I'm in Texas so it's a no-brainer all the electoral votes here are going to Bush.

So, somebody tell me a good write-in candidate to use?

[sotonin]

Arnold Schwartzenegger =)

[govtcheeze]

Write in Deeznutz Onyachin...works for me

[Cisyouc]

Bush all the way. If we're attacked I don't know about you but I think its better for homeland security to defend ourselves instead of waiting years for the UN's support. :roll:

[dark_one]

Bush all the way. If we're attacked I don't know about you but I think its better for homeland security to defend ourselves instead of waiting years for the UN's support. :roll:

agree thx cisyouc

[Melwin]

Bush all the way. If we're attacked I don't know about you but I think its better for homeland security to defend ourselves instead of waiting years for the UN's support. :roll:

fyi you never need UN approval to defend yourself but good job on appealing to emotion out of ignorance nonetheless :O

[dark_one]

meh, the United Nations is only words anyways.... America Obviously didn't need their help, the media makes it seem like we lost the war in iraq when this one of the least amount of casualties for how long we've been there.

also, im sure this is the only war that our troops have been be-headed (bullshit)


America needs to accept that NO ONE likes them and just do things on their own... plus other countries complain about us when they have worse problems on hand.

so fuck off you hypocrite bastards (not melwin or wiz or anyone, im talking to the countries not specific people)

[Scorpx725]

Bonus points if you spell it right when writing it.

[sotonin]

fyi you never need UN approval to defend yourself but good job on appealing to emotion out of ignorance nonetheless :O


if thats not a flame directed straight at cisyouc i dont know what is. How is it you don't apply to the forum rules? "out of ignorance"

[Melwin]

fyi you never need UN approval to defend yourself but good job on appealing to emotion out of ignorance nonetheless :O


if thats not a flame directed straight at cisyouc i dont know what is. How is it you don't apply to the forum rules? "out of ignorance"

Stating a fact that is not a matter of opinion (whether or not someone is a mature adult is an example of something that is a matter of opinion) is not the same as what you did.

The definition of ignorance is not knowing. He was not aware that you did not require UN approval to defend yourself; therefore ignorance. Feel free to postulate any undeniable truths however you want, but when they are subjective, they easily descend into flaming or trolling.

I hope that clears it up for you. :)

[Edgar1898]

So, somebody tell me a good write-in candidate to use?

LethalEncounter for president! :)

[Edgar1898]

He was not aware that you did not require UN approval to defend yourself; therefore ignorance. Feel free to postulate any undeniable truths however you want, but when they are subjective, they easily descend into flaming or trolling.


Actually, I believe he was referring to our invasion of Iraq, which we didnt get UN support. I say any country that doesnt support our country shouldnt expect our support. That includes the billions we spent on financial aid. Its a two way street, country X doesnt like or support us, we dont support country X. If they are invaded by another country, just let the UN and France take care of it :roll:

[Melwin]

Actually, I believe he was referring to our invasion of Iraq, which we didnt get UN support. I say any country that doesnt support our country shouldnt expect our support. That includes the billions we spent on financial aid. Its a two way street, country X doesnt like or support us, we dont support country X. If they are invaded by another country, just let the UN and France take care of it :roll:

He was clearly referencing a hypothetical situation.

I agree with you apart from that.

Edit: Unless you actually happen to be one of the elusive people who still think Iraq was a threat to the US, in which case I'd love to hear your argumentation in favor of it :O

[Memener]

but who voted for nader? lol


I did i was the frist Person to vote for him...

I never Liked Karry. Was going to vote for bush an-tell that BS prisoner Thing...

... See a whole lot of yall Dont know whats going on... What really goes on and why..


Well this is the end of my pointless reply....

[dark_one]

So, somebody tell me a good write-in candidate to use?

LethalEncounter for president! :)


Cough?

edit: in a good way

[Shadow-Wolf]

Lethal for the win!

[Cisyouc]

fyi you never need UN approval to defend yourself but good job on appealing to emotion out of ignorance nonetheless :OYou can't possibly tell me that we have to pass a "Global Test" (Kerry's Words) in order to defend ourselves.

[joshuaes]

nothing against either one of the candidates. but they both SUCK. i just vote kerry cause after i saw fahrenheight 9/11. bush's credibility went down. not saying i believe it though... but it's just opinion.

[mattmeck]

i just vote kerry cause after i saw fahrenheight 9/11. bush's credibility went down.

ROFL now thats funny!!!!!

That was so full of out right lies it should have been Kerry making it :lol:

[Edgar1898]

This has nothing to do with his politics, but I HATE michael moore. That bastard is one of the few people that I outright hate. That "documentary", a term which I use loosely in this case, wasnt out to tell the truth, it was made to bend the truth to fit his (moore's) agenda.

BTW for all you people thinking about voting for Kerry:
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=52639&st=0

That page (if true) shows Kerry commited a number of crimes, including Treason. Whatever you think of the candidates, Bush is the lesser of true evils.

[Melwin]

Changing your opinion based on anything Michael Moore has said or done should be illegal.

And Lethal, you should know better than to trust a site named "RightNation.us". Guess who it's biased against ;)

Edit: And on further inspection, my suspicions that the post in question contained no evidence whatsoever to back up its claims were confirmed. Big surprise.

[Edgar1898]

Or this one as well:

http://www.lesjones.com/posts/001213.shtml

These are far more relevent than some fat ass's "documentary"

[Melwin]

Internet blogs and forum posts are the definition of credibility.

http://humme.dk/img/psyduck.gif

[Edgar1898]

and some fat ass's "documentary" is yours?

[ltlruss]

This is all I got to say
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/AndTheLoserIs-X.gif

[Melwin]

Where'd you get that idea, Lethal?

Changing your opinion based on anything Michael Moore has said or done should be illegal.

[Muuss]

Khan :
Bush = Against the peace.
Kerry = For the peace.

Easy choice for me being a french.


Speak for yourself, sir :)
Bush is far from being totally unapproved in France. As example, here at work (in a University, lair of the socialism in France!), at least 20 to 30% of the people would vote for him if they could !:)

[Melwin]

Khan :
Bush = Against the peace.
Kerry = For the peace.

Easy choice for me being a french.


Speak for yourself, sir :)
Bush is far from being totally unapproved in France. As example, here at work (in a University, lair of the socialism in France!), at least 20 to 30% of the people would vote for him if they could !:)

http://humme.dk/img/france.gif

[Muuss]

http://cimdev.c2m.univ-st-etienne.fr/alexis/melwin.jpg

[govtcheeze]

I see an empty swedish shot glass...what is the zinger?

[Melwin]

I see an empty swedish shot glass...what is the zinger?

Who knows? http://humme.dk/img/psyduck.gif

[Wumpas]

I really don't like either of the choices however im going to stick with the guy that has been doing this for 4 years and has more experiance over a new guy.

Bush : :noob: :kerry

And about my address as soon as Im in Iraq ill pm you Baron so you can come kick my ass lol.

[Muuss]

I guess that crying frog on a french flag was an attempt to describe my post. That empty and swedish glass is its answer, swedish for Melwin, empty for the effect of his picture.

[Muuss]

I see an empty swedish shot glass...what is the zinger?

I hope that you don't mind if i don't lose my time trying to explain you.

[Melwin]

I guess that crying frog on a french flag was an attempt to describe my post. That empty and swedish glass is its answer, swedish for Melwin, empty for the effect of his picture.

Okay...but, I'm not Swedish.

[Muuss]

Ok, well, then it really has no sense :lol:

[dark_one]

Changed pic sense the otehr didnt work 4 life thanks.

[tegratami]

http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler/shirts1-sameshit.jpg

'NUFF SAiD !

[dark_one]

http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler/shirts1-sameshit.jpg

'NUFF SAiD !


..... i have no idea how bush is an any way shape or form related to hitler...

other than going to war, but if your doing it by that... take a lot of other presidents/kings throughout all of time...















dumbass.

[Melwin]

hay doods let's keep it civil before we go Central kay http://humme.dk/img/psyduck.gif

[Draupner]

http://www.republique.ch/betisier/anti-bush/pope_bush.jpg http://www.republique.ch/betisier/anti-bush/pic19952.jpg
http://www.republique.ch/betisier/anti-bush/335.jpg.jpg

[Xabob]

Rofl thats great

[tegratami]

..... i have no idea how bush is an any way shape or form related to hitler...

other than going to war, but if your doing it by that... take a lot of other presidents/kings throughout all of time...
...so and this makes the shit those persons do/did any better ?

open your eyes...




smarta$$

[Cisyouc]

..... i have no idea how bush is an any way shape or form related to hitler...

other than going to war, but if your doing it by that... take a lot of other presidents/kings throughout all of time...
...so and this makes the shit those persons do/did any better ?

open your eyes...




smarta$$Right, right. Defending yourself is wrong, I forgot.

Also, the $'s arent fooling the mods. :D

[joshuaes]

I've fond a pic of the enemy bush tried to get accross at the debates...beware. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v423/negasonic/tali-tubby.jpg

[Malignus Wingnut]

Unfortunately Bush would be a better president than Kerry. I dont want to go into long-winded speeches about it, however that is my opinion.

[sotonin]

http://maddox.xmission.com/tictacs.html

All that said. I'm still voting for bush over kerry. =)

[VivaLaBam]

Bush and kerry, is there a good choice? other than some different thoughts, it's like which side of the dog crap you like.

[dark_one]

on a new subject who watched the second debates...

George bush f(reak)ing owned kerry


even though Greta Von fullofsh(ee)ten's poll said taht:

64% Kerry won
35% Bush won
1% i didnt watch teh debate

^BS if you watched the debate...

george bush actually did good at public speaking for once, and beat kerry. why can't bush haters just admit that they lost for once? i admit bush was a piece of sh(ee)t the first debate... no one eles seems to want to admit when they get owned.

:roll:
da(ng) you greta... get your mouth fixed.



edit: saved from strike 2?

[Melwin]

General Internet consensus is pretty much that the debate was rather even, with each candidate usually having between 5 and 10% advantage in the polls, which is really within the margin of error.

Unless you happen to think Faux News is a credible source or something.

Note that I didn't actually WATCH the debate, I'm just reporting - you decide! :eng:

[Cisyouc]

on a new subject who watched the second debates...

George bush f(reak)ing owned kerry


even though Greta Von fullofsh(ee)ten's poll said taht:

64% Kerry won
35% Bush won
1% i didnt watch teh debate

^BS if you watched the debate...

george bush actually did good at public speaking for once, and beat kerry. why can't bush haters just admit that they lost for once? i admit bush was a piece of sh(ee)t the first debate... no one eles seems to want to admit when they get owned.

:roll:
da(ng) you greta... get your mouth fixed.



edit: saved from strike 2?so true

-edit-
And Edwards in the VP debate... Good lord, are we running for student council children or what?

[dark_one]

General Internet consensus is pretty much that the debate was rather even, with each candidate usually having between 5 and 10% advantage in the polls, which is really within the margin of error.

Unless you happen to think Faux News is a credible source or something.

Note that I didn't actually WATCH the debate, I'm just reporting - you decide! :eng:

thats true melwin, but i watched the debate and if bush would of lost i would have told you, most all media sources are liberal and will always say kerry won :roll:


-edit-
And Edwards in the VP debate... Good lord, are we running for student council children or what?


lol, apparently :D

[Melwin]

thats true melwin, but i watched the debate and if bush would of lost i would have told you, most all media sources are liberal and will always say kerry won :roll:

That's a myth.

Did you know that Fox News has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined?

I'm far more inclined to believe a few hundred thousand random people than I am to believe any single person who is decidedly pro-Bush or pro-Kerry, at any rate. It's probably not a conscious choice, but your perception of the debate was and is skewed by your political views and prejudices against the candidates. So's everyone else, of course, which is why listening to a lot of people is better than listening to a single person.

[Cisyouc]

I'd be happy to listen to anything Kerry has to say...IF HE WOULD SAY IT!

Interviewer: How will you fix Medicare?
Kerry: I have a plan to make a federal healthcare system.

Interviewer: How?
Kerry: My plan will not tax people who make under $200k/yr.

Interviewer: What about the people who make over $200k/yr.?
Kerry: My plan...screws them over.

Interviewer: What would you do in Iraq?
Kerry: I have a plan to get allies in the war.

Interviewer: How does your plan work?
Kerry: My plan will get an international summit and get allies.

Interviewer: So how does the plan work?
Kerry: Its alot better than bush, take my word on it.

The "Kerry" Plan-- Its alot better then Bush (Take Kerry's word on it)

[dark_one]

thats true melwin, but i watched the debate and if bush would of lost i would have told you, most all media sources are liberal and will always say kerry won :roll:

That's a myth.

Did you know that Fox News has more viewers than CNN and MSNBC combined?

I'm far more inclined to believe a few hundred thousand random people than I am to believe any single person who is decidedly pro-Bush or pro-Kerry, at any rate. It's probably not a conscious choice, but your perception of the debate was and is skewed by your political views and prejudices against the candidates. So's everyone else, of course, which is why listening to a lot of people is better than listening to a single person.


thats not truei am not, "skewed" because i admit Bush did a horrible job the first debate, ill be the first one to tell you. but i do think he won the second debate, he backed his statements up with something and you can trust bush to do it, kerry will swich his views 10+ times before finnaly deciding, then he will change again.

[Cisyouc]

kerry will swich his views 10+ times before finnaly deciding, then he will change again.Kerry cant finish a sentence without flip-flopping.

[Melwin]

thats not truei am not, "skewed" because i admit Bush did a horrible job the first debate, ill be the first one to tell you. but i do think he won the second debate, he backed his statements up with something and you can trust bush to do it, kerry will swich his views 10+ times before finnaly deciding, then he will change again.

To say your view isn't skewed is just pure naivety. Everyone has a skewed view of everything. You said that Bush "owned" Kerry, which may be what you think, but evidently there's a lot of dissent on that. When I hold an opinion that many people find wrong, it makes me consider if it's correct and my basis for it, but hey. :v:

oh also:

KERRY IS A FLIPFLOPPER LOL
BUSH IS HITLER LOL

these jokes are still funny you see

[sotonin]

KERRY IS A FLIPFLOPPER LOL
BUSH IS HITLER LOL

these jokes are still funny you see

Uh... it's not much of a joke. If you listened to Kerry speak it's very clear he flip-flops all over the place on just about every issue.

[Melwin]

KERRY IS A FLIPFLOPPER LOL
BUSH IS HITLER LOL

these jokes are still funny you see

Uh... it's not much of a joke. If you listened to Kerry speak it's very clear he flip-flops all over the place on just about every issue.

If you had a clue about politics beyond what Karl Rove and Faux News tells you, you would know that isn't true. :eng:

I'd love to educate you and all but there's a ton of source material out there. You can try reading factcheck.org a bit for starters.

Edit: Not that Kerry doesn't flip flop at all, but everyone does.

[m0oni9]

To say your view isn't skewed is just pure naivety. Everyone has a skewed view of everything.
To have a skewed view means to not see things as they really are. That is quite a statement you are making there.

[sotonin]

If you had a clue about politics beyond what Karl Rove and Faux News tells you, you would know that isn't true

Man that was a direct insult. Are you completely ignoring the no flaming policy these days Melwin? Seriously. this is the second time in the past 2 weeks you've posted things like this. Who are you to assume what I know about politics, you don't know me? Bashing me because you "think" what you say is absolute fact, just makes you look like scum.

Really, I see now though Melwin, your word is fact. Everybody else is wrong. It must be nice to be a king in your own private delusional world.

[dark_one]

KERRY IS A FLIPFLOPPER LOL
BUSH IS HITLER LOL

these jokes are still funny you see

Uh... it's not much of a joke. If you listened to Kerry speak it's very clear he flip-flops all over the place on just about every issue.

If you had a clue about politics beyond what Karl Rove and Faux News tells you, you would know that isn't true. :eng:




Kerry:

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."

__________________________________________________ ____

NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “Do you believe that we should reduce funding that we are now providing for the operation in Iraq?”
Kerry: “No. I think we should increase it.”(NBC’s “Meet The Press,” 8/31/03)

“We Are 90 Percent Of The Casualties And 90 Percent Of The Cost: $200 Billion – $200 Billion That Could Have Been Used For Health Care, For Schools, For Construction, For Prescription Drugs For Seniors, And It’s In Iraq.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

__________________________________________________ ____


“You Don’t Send Troops To War Without The Body Armor That They Need.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)


Kerry Voted Against Senate Passage Of Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction Package That Included “Money For Body Armor For Soldiers.” (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay; “Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures,” The Associated Press, 10/17/03)

__________________________________________________ ____

“The President Says That I’m Denigrating These Troops. I Have Nothing But Respect For The British, Tony Blair, And For What They’ve Been Willing To Do.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

“Well, the fact is that those countries are really window dressing to the greatest degree. And they weren’t there in the beginning when we went in, and they’re not carrying the cost of this war.” (CNN’s “American Morning,” 3/2/04)

__________________________________________________ ____

“I’ve Had One Position, One Consistent Position, That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

“We Now Know That Iraq Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Posed No Imminent Threat To Our Security.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)

__________________________________________________ ____

is it so bad that Fox News tells the truth? i mean damn one media company that exposes the downfalls of both leaders... ludacris. :D

[Melwin]

sotonin: I'm not going to dignify that with a response. You can file a complaint to a developer if you think I'm out of line.

Faux News Quotation

The problem with Fox News is that much like Michael Moore, they report out-of-context quotes and half-truths that change the meaning of what was said. So, even though he did really say those things, he also elaborated on them and in that context, his quotes do make sense.

Ever seen Outfoxed, by the way?

Edit: Basically, if you take Fox News as a credible source of information, you have to take Michael Moore as a credible source of information because they use the same technique and backing for their reportings.

[Cisyouc]

Not one person on this earth can POSSIBLY look me in the eye and say...
“I’ve Had One Position, One Consistent Position, That Saddam Hussein Was A Threat.” (Sen. John Kerry, First Presidential Debate, Miami, FL, 9/30/04)

“We Now Know That Iraq Had No Weapons Of Mass Destruction, And Posed No Imminent Threat To Our Security.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04) ...was not a direct, HUGE, flip-flop.

[Melwin]

I'm too lazy to look into the specifics of that quote, but ASSUMING IT IS CORRECT, how does a single incident warrant something like


Kerry cant finish a sentence without flip-flopping.


?

[Cisyouc]

I'm too lazy to look into the specifics of that quote, but ASSUMING IT IS CORRECT, how does a single incident warrant something like


Kerry cant finish a sentence without flip-flopping.


?


No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

[Melwin]

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

I'm confused. That's not a flipflop.

He's saying that while he reserves the right to preemptively attack a nation in defense of the US, he's probably not going to do it without international backing. :eng:

Edit: Yeah, I get the vibe that a lot of this flipflop rumoring comes from people who buy into Rupert Murdoch's propaganda and then start actively interpreting things as flipflopping.

[Edgar1898]

Quote:
If you had a clue about politics beyond what Karl Rove and Faux News tells you, you would know that isn't true


Man that was a direct insult. Are you completely ignoring the no flaming policy these days Melwin? Seriously. this is the second time in the past 2 weeks you've posted things like this. Who are you to assume what I know about politics, you don't know me? Bashing me because you "think" what you say is absolute fact, just makes you look like scum.


I agree with him, if you dont like what someone else is saying dont comment on it. You stated your opinion and he stated his, dont attack him personally by saying his doesnt know what he is talking about. That goes for everyone, especially the mods and admins. We should be leading by example. For all you know he could be a political science professor.

[Melwin]

Fair enough.

[mattmeck]

there was a poll done for military members for the army times 11 october 2004 edition,

First question "if the presidential election were held today for whome would you vote" 72% sayd Bush 17% sayd Kerry

"do you approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq" 60% sayd yes, 23% sayd no

"Dose George Bush's actions wile in the national Guard make you more or less likely to vote for him?" 73% not much effect 12% less likely

"dose Kerry's combat esperiene in Vietnam make you more likely to vote for him?" 58% not much effect 12% more likely 21% less likely

"Do Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from serving in Vietnam make you less likely to vote for him?"65% less likely 24% not much effect


There was a few more polls done but these give the picture, there is also a lot of quotes from soldiers who have been / are deployed / family members of soldiers killed. Some supporting Bush some supporting Kerry, but the common theme is, the reasons for the war that were given may have been wrong, but the fact we needed to go there cant be denied by anyone who has been there.

There is also a huge number of Soldiers mad that so many people are using the war in a negitive manner, the common theme there is, how can you say the war is badly led when the majarity of soldiers and civilians over there say its being run well?

at the same time there is a huge tone that says Bush should have made sure he had the correct information and shouldnt have sent the soldiers in there till he was sure.


The basics are - Most non-military are using military reasons to bash bush, wile the Military who are living it every day use those same reasons to vot FOR him, More Military use Kerry's anti-war setiment to prove he wouldnt be a good Military leader, and more Non-military use that as a reason to vote FOR him.


Pure and simple, do your own reading, search the net, search official voting records, you will see that Kerry is anti military, he voted against military spending then uses the lack of military funds in his campain against Bush.

If your going to use military issues to judge the election dosent the opinion of the military, those who live with this dicision more then any civilian ever will, matter?

[Melwin]

Unfounded stuff

Read this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20794-2004Oct9.html

For instance:
Sometimes I see no reason why we're here


Or, just in the next paragraph:
In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt terms their frustrations with the way the war is being conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is being waged.

"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years

Sounds like these marines believe in both the war and the way it's being handled, eh?

I'd like to hear your sources for your claims, too. :v:

[Cisyouc]

No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you‘re doing what you‘re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

I'm confused. That's not a flipflop.

He's saying that while he reserves the right to preemptively attack a nation in defense of the US, he's probably not going to do it without international backing. :eng:...
has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect .... But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test
Right. So hes saying that if the world doesnt see us going to attack for legit reasons, he wont attack.

You know why France didnt join us in the war? Look up France and Russia's involvement in the Oil-For-Food scandal, where they made BILLIONS of dollars off of Iraq. If Kerry is going to have to pass a 'global test' to defend the US, looks like we're going to be taken over and all converted to Islam, eh?

[Melwin]

Cisyouc, I read it the first time. It's still not a flipflop. He's not saying he wouldn't do it at all anywhere. Moreover, Saddam was never a threat to the US, as anyone is aware of by now, so maybe doing something like letting the inspectors do their job instead of going to a war that's headed in Vietnam's direction would be a good idea. The evidence of WMD was dubious at best, discardable at worst.

John Kerry will make for a shitty president, but he's just not on Bush's level.

[Cisyouc]

Cisyouc, I read it the first time. It's still not a flipflop. He's not saying he wouldn't do it at all anywhere.Where does he say it 'should' pass the test? No, it says and implies it 'has to'.

Saddam was never a threat to the US, as anyone is aware of by now, so maybe doing something like letting the inspectors do their job instead of going to a war that's headed in Vietnam's direction would be a good idea.Lmao-- the UN inspectors. Right. It was proven that Saddam was capable of making weapons AND that he was harboring terrorists. News flash-- Summits don't kill terrorists. Saddam was intentionally ignoring the UN resolutions. Saddam is not stupid, I believe as others he moved his weapons program WHICH DID EXIST mind you, to Iran.

The evidence of WMD was dubious at best, discardable at worst. We know they had a developed weapons program, whether they actually made the weapons we're not sure.

I personally tend to believe the 'Warrior on the biggest horse' (Bin Laden's words) theory. By retaliating in Iraq, in a country that harbored a terrorists and a developed weapons program, we sent a shockwave to the terrorists. I believe if we went into Iran we'd have Saddam delivered to us within 48 hours. The Administration doesnt want to explain it like this for PR reasons. This however is just a theory of mine and is based on no direct facts.

If Kerry is elected President, I recommend Canada :|.

[dark_one]

by the way, i wouldnt trust the UN as far as i could throw them...

i mean look at the food for oil program, never know they could of been paid off before

Lmao-- the UN inspectors. Right. It was proven that Saddam was capable of making weapons AND that he was harboring terrorists. News flash-- Summits don't kill terrorists. Saddam was intentionally ignoring the UN resolutions. Saddam is not stupid, I believe as others he moved his weapons program WHICH DID EXIST mind you, to Iran.


this would make sense... considering he had 3 months in between to move them next door to iran or wherever he wanted..

[mattmeck]

I'd like to hear your sources for your claims, too

there was a poll done for military members for the army times 11 october 2004 edition,

very first thing i put.

Now look at the statistics i wrote again

"do you approve of the way President Bush is handling the situation in Iraq" 60% sayd yes, 23% sayd no

No saing that, if you take the 23% and just put there quote in what would it look like?

The same newspaper but the October 4th edition had a statment from the Commanding General in Iraq stating his frustration with the american media in Iraq. "During a bad situation wether its deaths or setbacks the american media is first there and first to ask questions, however when there is something good like a hospital opening or when americans save a life the american media is nowhere to be seen wile other countries are there in force."


My wife was doing some PR work, couldnt discuss much with me but this was a major consern of hers, I have many pictures of events that the american media never even mentioned, hospital openings, school openings, trash and sewer for the first time ever.

Maby its the fact i live on a military instilation and see more good stuff on the local news, and newspapers, as well as I get more information then the average person from the FRG, but what the news reports is so far from the truth.

I have had many conversations with family and friends from back home in PA, the news they see reported is so diferent from whats reported here, I would realy like just ONE realy source of information that isnt biased in one way or another, sourting through the BS is a full time job.





And Mel i did state right in my post that there was soldiers who were dissatisfied, there ALWAYS are. You will always be able to find soldiers with diferent opinions, however did that artical even have one quote from one of the many soldiers that agree with us being there or was it all one sided?

[mattmeck]

As to the Saddam issue, the first troops that went into Iraq had bodies of children and the elderly piled up to block there progress, Saddam was committing acts that made Hitler look like a kitten, but we were justified in taking hitler out but not Saddam? Hitler was attacking our allies so was Saddam, Saddam was allowing terrorests to train in his country, could go on and on about some of the stuff but if anyone wants to know they can look it up and read it.


Once again Saddam wasnt a direct threat to the US, but someone needed to take him out to protect the people who couldnt protect themseles...Why the US? well why not nobody else was gonna do it.

[Richardo]

Everyone here is sexy!!!!

[Draupner]

cept u :p
jk

[Melwin]

Lmao-- the UN inspectors. Right. It was proven that Saddam was capable of making weapons AND that he was harboring terrorists. News flash-- Summits don't kill terrorists. Saddam was intentionally ignoring the UN resolutions. Saddam is not stupid, I believe as others he moved his weapons program WHICH DID EXIST mind you, to Iran.

We know they had a developed weapons program, whether they actually made the weapons we're not sure.

I personally tend to believe the 'Warrior on the biggest horse' (Bin Laden's words) theory. By retaliating in Iraq, in a country that harbored a terrorists and a developed weapons program, we sent a shockwave to the terrorists. I believe if we went into Iran we'd have Saddam delivered to us within 48 hours. The Administration doesnt want to explain it like this for PR reasons. This however is just a theory of mine and is based on no direct facts.

If Kerry is elected President, I recommend Canada :|.

Sources, people. Where are you getting all this? "It was proven that Saddam was capable of making weapons AND that he was harboring terrorists." - none of that was proven. Bush said it, yes, but that doesn't mean it was proven because Bush was dead wrong on a lot of issues (minor artillery tubes that could ONLY be used for nuclear crap anyone?)

At any rate, considering the only one who has cited a somewhat credible source in here is mattmeck (which I'm just going to believe because I don't have the time to discredit The Army Times - although I can't imagine a military magazine pumping out primarily negative news about the war) and I'm entirely too lazy to discredit them all, I'm just going to call it here.

No doubt that Saddam was a fucking asshole, but why not go after someone actually dangerous like North Korea?

[mattmeck]

Thats a very good question Mel. Thats one of the best questions I have seen here,

However using that same question, explain how Kerry wanting to pull ALL troops outa South Korea is going to help with that situation at all?


But then again how is Bush pulling troops from South Korea to Iraq helping?

[Cisyouc]

No doubt that Saddam was a fucking asshole, but why not go after someone actually dangerous like North Korea?Are you accusing Bush of doing in North Korea what Kerry said he'd have like to have done with Iraq? (Not to mention what we DID do what Kerry has suggested and it failed the first time around.)

And its not only Bush, its the entire Administration. And it WAS proven that Terrorists were training in Iraq. Nobody can deny the training camps FOUND.

I do not agree with the whole 'we went to Iraq to liberate them'. Its a PR diversion. I think thats one of the Administration's biggest mistakes...we went from 'disabling a union harboring terrorists' to 'disarming a union with WMD' to 'liberating the people of Iraq' and now back to 'disarming a union with WMD'. Stick with the first one, Bush!!

[Melwin]

No doubt that Saddam was a fucking asshole, but why not go after someone actually dangerous like North Korea?Are you accusing Bush of doing in North Korea what Kerry said he'd have like to have done with Iraq? (Not to mention what we DID do what Kerry has suggested and it failed the first time around.)

And its not only Bush, its the entire Administration. And it WAS proven that Terrorists were training in Iraq. Nobody can deny the training camps FOUND.

I do not agree with the whole 'we went to Iraq to liberate them'. Its a PR diversion. I think thats one of the Administration's biggest mistakes...we went from 'disabling a union harboring terrorists' to 'disarming a union with WMD' to 'liberating the people of Iraq' and now back to 'disarming a union with WMD'. Stick with the first one, Bush!!

lol flip flop

[mattmeck]

Actualy is was England who told Bush that Iraq had WMD's, the CIA confirmed this at that time. So the reason Bush gave for going into Iraq may have been false but Bush did NOT know this at that time. This has already been beaten to death and proven.

[Cisyouc]

Actualy is was England who told Bush that Iraq had WMD's, the CIA confirmed this at that time. So the reason Bush gave for going into Iraq may have been false but Bush did NOT know this at that time. This has already been beaten to death and proven.And thats EXACTLY why the Democrats try and focus on the point of time where the focus was on WMD, not 'you're either with us or you're with the terrorists'

[Cisyouc]

and how is that a flipflop, Melwin?

[Melwin]

was a joke, señor

[eq_addict_08]

Kerry >> Bush. Bush lost popular vote to Gore, who sucked largness. Kerry, being much more well received in general, is gonna roast him...

Melwin, you have my backing. In general, most "conservative republicans" I ever get into debates with don't even know the basic facts, they just spew out GOP rhetoric. Kinda sickens me. Read and fookin' educate yourselves...

[Cisyouc]

Kerry >> Bush. Bush lost popular vote to Gore, who sucked largness. I hate when people talk about this. Why? Because thats not how the U.S. holds its elections, and it never has, so its pointless to bring it up.

Kerry, being much more well received in general, is gonna roast him...Agree to disagree?

[dark_one]

Kerry >> Bush. Bush lost popular vote to Gore, who sucked largness. Kerry, being much more well received in general, is gonna roast him...

Melwin, you have my backing. In general, most "conservative republicans" I ever get into debates with don't even know the basic facts, they just spew out GOP rhetoric. Kinda sickens me. Read and fookin' educate yourselves...

i love how he says "don't even know the basic facts, they just spew out GOP rhetoric. Kinda sickens me. Read and fookin' educate yourselves..."


we arnt the ones that just come in saying,
"KeRrY > BuSh !~11/`1/ fOr nO rEaSoN JUsT CuZ!~/2."

that could be a little paraphrase but was close enough ? :roll:



also, "In general, most "conservative republicans" I ever get into debates with"
how many have you had a conversation with, you sound like your 10 years old.

[Cisyouc]

Bush OWNED in the third debate. No question.
Anything anyone else says is just spin.

[dark_one]

i didnt get to see it :cry:

but im glad to hear he did good, maybe he can improve his speech ability now? :D

[eq_addict_08]

Well, I missed debate. Was working my great job created by this booming economy, (**cough** less than half what I should be at with my training..) But cnn says kerry won this one too..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.html

[Cisyouc]

Well, I missed debate. Was working my great job created by this booming economy, (**cough** less than half what I should be at with my training..) But cnn says kerry won this one too..

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/14/snap.poll/index.htmlCNN always goes for Kerry.

[Edgar1898]

My problem with Kerry, especially in the debates is that he never says what HE will do. He is always like "This administration has failed the american people, blah, blah blah" (I wonder how many times he said that in the last debate). In fact in almost every issue that was asked about during the debates, he blamed on Pres Bush, but he never said how he would fix it. He just says stuff like "I have a plan to fix medicare", "I will create new jobs", "I wont raise middle class's taxes", and "I will stop talking like a jackass and actually answer a question to the point". How is he going to do all the stuff he promised? I wonder if he even knows how he will keep his election promises if he wins. If you watch the debates (I recorded the last one), he never describes any of his plans in detail, which might be caused by the fact that his "plans" are nothing more than quick ways to grab votes and have no substance....

[Cisyouc]

My problem with Kerry, especially in the debates is that he never says what HE will do. He is always like "This administration has failed the american people, blah, blah blah" (I wonder how many times he said that in the last debate). In fact in almost every issue that was asked about during the debates, he blamed on Pres Bush, but he never said how he would fix it. He just says stuff like "I have a plan to fix medicare", "I will create new jobs", "I wont raise middle class's taxes", and "I will stop talking like a jackass and actually answer a question to the point". How is he going to do all the stuff he promised? I wonder if he even knows how he will keep his election promises if he wins. If you watch the debates (I recorded the last one), he never describes any of his plans in detail, which might be caused by the fact that his "plans" are nothing more than quick ways to grab votes and have no substance....Yes I agree. I quote something I heard on the radio, "I'd be happy to listen to Kerry's plans if he would say them...and he better start soon."

[VivaLaBam]

Bush :(
Kerry :(
Conan O'Brian :D

[dark_one]

Bush :(
Kerry :(
Conan O'Brian :D

ain't that the truth...


btw i like neither one of these canidates and cannot wait till either bush or kerry is done in 4 years....




but then we have hillary on our hands, ill be sure to start another post on that election........................
devil women

[Cisyouc]

but then we have hillary on our hands, ill be sure to start another post on that election........................
devil womenCurse you for saying the Devil's true name.

[dark_one]

but then we have hillary on our hands, ill be sure to start another post on that election........................
devil womenCurse you for saying the Devil's true name.

it must be heard... :(

[Daeklaz]

DEATH TO ALL WHO VOTE FOR KERRY ... DEATH TO ALL






and a happy new year

[XxMadHatterxX]

That was a little...Nevermind.

Bush projected the same amount of money we now no longer own. Except for those in the top 1% of the country. =\.

The scarriest thing about the man is...DOMA(Defense of Marriage Act). I want one factual reason Same-Sex marriage should be banned. I don't see any reason for it. Please, if someone knows a factual legitimate reason why Same-Sex Marriage should be banned, inform me. Educate me. Any reason...Aside from anything stated in any religion. The only reason I see Same-Sex marriage banned is because of religious reasons. Whatever happened to seperation of church and state? ::shrugs::

Don't get me wrong, Kerry's no better. He's just as big a fool as Bush'll ever be, neither of them are the right choice to lead this country. I'm voting for Kerry, only because...well...I hate this, I've always hated this, this is a terrible reason to vote for someone but right now is not the time to be voting for Nader...(::laughs hysterically:: Man that was funny shit...) But Kerry is the lesser of two evils. ::Sighs:: I know, I know. Cliche.

That whole Dick Cheney's Daughter thing? BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION. You're not the only parents with a homosexual child.

As for Fox News...::Sighs:: If "267 DAYS 'TIL PRESIDENT BUSH IS RE-ELECTED" isn't partisan, I don't know what is. And Bill O'Reiley, man don't get me star--

Bill O'Reiley: "SHUT UP! SHUT UP! SHUT UP! CUT HIS MIC! PULL THE PLUG FROM THE CPU! SHUT UP!"

Edit: Oh, By the way...John Kerry looks like a muppet...<.<...>.>

[sotonin]

bush for prez :wink:

[Cisyouc]

I want one factual reason Same-Sex marriage should be banned. I don't see any reason for it. Please, if someone knows a factual legitimate reason why Same-Sex Marriage should be banned, inform me. Educate me.Id be EVER so glad to do so. Same-sex couples cannot procreate. Not by nature, not by science, nothing. The minute they can, then I'd be fine. I know that marrage isnt soley for procreation, however, allowing same-sex marrage would be promoting an unnatural communion that should not be supported.

[sotonin]

dont agree on the marriage thing. If you like sticking ur wang in some other guy it's your business. and as long as you both love each other it's none of the government's concern if you want to get married. You can argue all you want,. but seperation of church and state is what it boils down too. There's no reason for gays NOT to get married, nothing thats not based on religion.

unnatural communion

who are you to say what's natural and un-natural?

Same-sex couples cannot procreate. Not by nature, not by science, nothing

Women can still get pregnant, ever hear of a little thing in SCIENCE called Artificial Insemination?

As for guys, guess how many orphans there are that need adopting. quite a few. Your points are all invalid. Marriage was never about having children per-say, it's about finding somebody you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, same sex or not.

[Cisyouc]

dont agree on the marriage thing. If you like sticking ur wang in some other guy it's your business. and as long as you both love each other it's none of the government's concern if you want to get married. You can argue all you want,. but seperation of church and state is what it boils down too. There's no reason for gays NOT to get married, nothing thats not based on religion.

unnatural communion

who are you to say what's natural and un-natural?Nature?

Same-sex couples cannot procreate. Not by nature, not by science, nothing

Women can still get pregnant, ever hear of a little thing in SCIENCE called Artificial Insemination?Wheres the semen coming from? Not the other partner.

As for guys, guess how many orphans there are that need adopting. quite a few.Right, but that doesnt mean they need to get married by law. Your points are all invalid. Marriage was never about having children per-say, it's about finding somebody you love and want to spend the rest of your life with, same sex or not.And I said that. "I know that marrage isnt soley for procreation" Do I think they should get more rights? Yes. Do I think they should be able to get married? No.

I would usually type out a longer arguement to this, but ill get to it tomorrow when I have more time and energy.

[XxMadHatterxX]

I'm sorry for not understand where you're coming from, Cisyouc. I still don't understand or see a reason why not. If someone wishes to profess their love in the eyes of their god - or wishes to have their union be blessed by that of their gods, why shouldn't they be married? And as for under the law - why not? If heterosexual couples are allowed to be married under law than why not homosexual couples? Aren't all men created equal? Aren't we all entitled to the pursuit of happiness?

Sotonin: who are you to say what's natural and un-natural?
Cisyouc: Nature?

If nature is the deciding factor of what's natural and unnatural (Which I completly agree, it is. It is nature...so obviously -- nevermind.) Then why isn't it natural? Artificial insemination may not be natural, but why is Same-Sex marriage unnatural? I still don't understand, sorry. Please explain.

[sotonin]

Sotonin: who are you to say what's natural and un-natural?
Cisyouc: Nature?

Ok, sure we'll go with this.

Artificial Insimination is not "natural" yet it is legal. Why? it doesn't hurt anybody and can help people who can't have children "naturally". So any arguement you have based on whats "natural" and not is null and void. I'm waiting for a real reason here, you've given nothing substantial but "its not right, so it shouldnt be" which is simply your narrow-minded opinion, nothing more nothing less.

[eq_addict_08]

Eqaddicts stances....

Pro-Choice, it is her choice, not yours a-hole.

Pro-Gay "equal rights" ie if goverment issues marriage certificates, it cannot discriminate. If it only issues something else (and lets churches do marriing) so be it. But has to do it fairly.

Pro gun rights.

Pro Tax Reform to stop exodus of US jobs, importing of overly cheepified goods. (Shut down the Wallmarts of the world)

Pro welfare reform, BOTH individual AND corporate welfare.

Pro tighter border control. Have our millitary patrol there, not fricken BFE. And 86 ALL illegals, even senator soandso's cook...

edit- on this last one, I think it is a crock o shite when people claim we need to let illegals mantain their status because they do jobs "normal" American won't do. NO... They are just willing to do a job that an american won't for the wage that is paid. Get rid of illegals, and wages will have to increase to get people to do those jobs. Law of supply and demand has been broken by business, people demand higher wages, so business supplies illegals to do it for less..

this is a start, but sure to think of more...

[Daeath]

Pro-Choice, it is her choice, not yours a-hole.
Pro-Choice: hmm... a choice if another human being lives or dies. Fine, I'd like that choice to pop a cap into anyone I see unfit of sharing my oxygen - starting with everyone who's "Pro-Choice".

Pro-Gay "equal rights" ie if goverment issues marriage certificates, it cannot discriminate. If it only issues something else (and lets churches do marriing) so be it. But has to do it fairly.
Pro-Gay: Well, neither the Gods nor Darwin favor homosexuality. Don't know of too many species that thrived once Adam married Steve. Homosexuality is a state-of-mind, a growing epidemic that either God or natural-selection will eventually exterminate. Why should we foster or encourage it? Let's just proliferate a nuclear arsenal to anyone who wants it - I mean, we're only helping each other reach inevitable doom.

Pro gun rights. Fair 'nuff. That way I can exercise "Pro-Choice".

Pro Tax Reform to stop exodus of US jobs, importing of overly cheepified goods. (Shut down the Wallmarts of the world) Wow, where'd you get the degree in macroeconomics? Must've missed that CrackerJack box... Your so-called 'exodus' of US jobs isn't based on taxes. It's founded on our economy's last 20-year ideology: a paradigm shift from manufacturing/agriculture to technology development and production (mainly medicine and electronics). By foregoing industry and farming, we tried to corner the market in the wonderful world of MRI's and semiconductors. But the rest of the world has caught up, and can do it for less since thier's is a culture where quality time is spent at home with the family, and not pursuing the next big-ticket purchase for the home or driveway. Want to keep jobs in the US? Re-shift our focus to something the rest of the world can't do for less. <Lots of great ideas out there, from focus on small buisness to mass production of a petroleum energy substitute>

Pro welfare reform, BOTH individual AND corporate welfare. Excellent idea! Wow, something I wish one of our several think-tank genius' who quietly boast an IQ greater than your Social Security Number had thought of... And what is your specific plan?

Pro tighter border control. Have our millitary patrol there, not fricken BFE. And 86 ALL illegals, even senator soandso's cook... Have you served in the military? We're stretched so thin as it is - I'd hate to have to be called in for another expeditionary rotation away from my family to monitor Florida's southern coastline. Unless your family's name sounds something like "Bear-Claw" or "Stands-with-a-fist", chances are you live in this superpower because an ancestor migrated over with a hope for a better life, or for a taste of that freedom our military is literally dying to give Iraqi's and Afghan's. Who the hell are you to tell someone they can't freely enjoy that simple dream to freely be whatever you want? And I'm proud to have served in "BFE" - because there we're treated like both tyrants and kings. Those good people were grateful, more than the common American I pass on the street here, for the Coalition blood that quenched thier burning sands.

edit- on this last one, I think it is a crock o shite when people claim we need to let illegals mantain their status because they do jobs "normal" American won't do. NO... They are just willing to do a job that an american won't for the wage that is paid. Get rid of illegals, and wages will have to increase to get people to do those jobs. Law of supply and demand has been broken by business, people demand higher wages, so business supplies illegals to do it for less.. Scripture, that is. Inspired holy writ! Amen! You're darn right - why should I have to go sweat in a tomato field for 12 hours at $2/hr when welfare pays over $40k/year? "Supply and Demand"? Think about what would happen to supply and demand of US agricultural products if farmers had to pay more than quadruple what they do now to have someone pick/sort/inspect thier produce? Would right-minded "normal" Americans pay $5 for a US apple, when China imports 'em for under a nickle? Go back to your Tax Reform ideology. We deserve our immigrants, and they deserve a chance to become American.

this is a start, but sure to think of more...Oh, please - don't. Stick with EQ economics and politics and let's leave the real world to the real smarties who know a heck alot more than me and you and have access to endless sources of information that we don't even know exist -

I like the Matrix.

[Draupner]

Pro-Gay: Well, neither the Gods nor Darwin favor homosexuality. Don't know of too many species that thrived once Adam married Steve. Homosexuality is a state-of-mind, a growing epidemic that either God or natural-selection will eventually exterminate. Why should we foster or encourage it? Let's just proliferate a nuclear arsenal to anyone who wants it - I mean, we're only helping each other reach inevitable doom.


Go kill yourself kkthx

[eq_addict_08]

Daeath, are there guys in white hoods and swastikas running around your neighborhood?

[sotonin]

Daeath, are there guys in white hoods and swastikas running around your neighborhood?

lmfao. well said

[Daeath]

No, at least not openly - why do you ask?

[Cisyouc]

Daeath, I think said it pretty 'okay'.
Well, neither the Gods nor Darwin favor homosexuality. Don't know of too many species that thrived once Adam married Steve. Homosexuality is a state-of-mind, a growing epidemic that either God or natural-selection will eventually exterminate. Why should we foster or encourage it?

I think this gay marriage thing is about acceptance, they want to be accepted just like married straight people. The problem is gaining the right to marriage will not solve this, and in addition, they would be supporting an unnatural communion. (How many gay animals have you seen?)

If you remember, when before homosexual acts were legalized, there were two sides to the issue. There were people who wanted them to be legalized, and there were people that didn't, who said that if they were given this, in decades to come they will want to have equal rights as married couples.

I'm all for having more same-sex couples rights, like as Kerry likes to bring up, "being able to see your sick partner in the hospital", however lawfully, I don't think they should get the right to marriage.

Just my 2cp.

[sotonin]

(How many gay animals have you seen?)


i seriously can't beleive you used this as part of your arguement. I have a gay dog and i've known many other people with gay animals. You are seriously grasping now. Come on man, give us a break. You don't think gay marriages are right and thats your only reason, they are wrong bad, ok. whatever. Quit trying to pretend there's an actual reason besides "Jesus says its wrong".

You've never seen a dog that constantly tries to hump another male dog? get out more. it happens a lot. They aren't raised to beleive that being gay is bad, so it happens naturally. yes NATURALLY. So there goes the society created it theory and the "it's a choice" theory as well.

[Daeath]

There are two prevailing sources apon which all modern ideologies are founded: religion, and science.

In the case of homosexuality, religion is very black/white with its stand: homosexuality is an abberation to mankind. God/aliens/mice created two distinct sexes for the reason of procreation and a continuation of life. Religion goes on to state that homosexual acts are thus an open defiance to the will of "God(s)", making mankind unfit for whatever future thus designed for them. Religion bases the motivating factor (for the most part) of homosexuality on Evil/Satan/Yang/Darkness - the enemy/opposite force to God/good. In the eyes of religion, homosexuality is like having a tendency for murder/stealing/lying in that it stems from temptation by that enemy to God/opposite force to good.

Science too, understands the purpose of our sexual distinction. The most basic and primal instinct each living organism carries in its cellular makeup is the need to procreate: a continuation of genetic material. Science recognizes the existance of homosexual orientation, and is trying to understand why it exists. Practically every scientist believes that homosexuality is not mearly a 'choice', nor stems from a single factor - but rather a combination of factors such as enviroment, genetics, chemical imbalances, etc... However, to base your ideals on science is to accept natural selection. In the eyes of science, homosexuality too is like mental/physical disorders - unnatural, but exsistant due to mental/physical factors promoting such behaviors.

Weither you are religious or scientific (or a combination of the two), homosexuality is NOT natural by any whim of the imagination. We weren't created/stemed from homosexual ancestors. Homosexuality exists, even in the animal kingdom. I recently watched a nature show on MSNBC about homosexual primates that live near Mt. Fuji, Japan (mostly females). But I doubt my great-grandchildren will ever see a live Japanese snow monkey if they continue thier homosexual trends. Should mankind continue to encourage homosexualty within its genus, the future of mankind looks bleak - either from lack of future generations, or bringing down the wrath of God.

Now marriage, however, is a religious practice. Yes - it has been proven by anthropologists of all learned periods of human history that the institution of marriage is something steeped from the sacred and/or the divine. You cannot include a conversation about marriage without religious overtones. The very definition of marriage is to conjoin the two opposite sexes into a union of one, out of respect for the sacred. How can we institutionalize homosexual marriage, unless we first create a purely homosexual religion? There really is no such thing as state marriage - the forms of government got the idea first from religion and thought it a good thing and has tried to implement it into its doctrines.

So the gays want to live together? Fine. They want a piece of paper to make thier unnatural union feel more natural? I believe that falls under the definition of "psychotic", but I guess it doesn't hurt me none. I just feel they're only trying to fit in - like some high school teenager and all the stupid things they do to feel 'normal'. If you're gonna be gay, BE GAY - don't try to be like your heterosexual ancestors.

[Edgar1898]

My view:
First of all I dont accept or condone that kind of behavior. I have met people who were openly gay and as long as they dont try to flirt with me I dont care what they do behind closed doors. Is it natural? Of course not. Is it right? Thats between you and whoever you call God. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". I dont agree with it, but who am I to say "your going to hell because your a fag, but I'm not even though I am having sex without marriage"? The only issue I have with them getting married (besides it being wierd to refer to a males spouse as 'your husband' or a females spouse as 'your wife') is the extra benefits like tax breaks, price reductions, etc that come with getting married. That might sound stupid to some, but thats the only legit reason (all prejudices aside) I dont want it to be legalized.

[XxMadHatterxX]

What a disgusting display of ignorance. I'm sorry, I never thought I'd be that critical either. How dare you claim that homosexuality is not a natural occurance? My theory? I believe it's genetic. Just like everything else. I believe it's an imbalance in hormones. Why are people being born homosexuals? People years ago were not as accepting as our generation has (or apparently claims...) to be. Homosexuals were forced to take part in sexual acts with the opposite sex because to even think about contact between the same gender was a crime punishable by the highest authority - their diety. So, by procreating they passed their genes to the next generation, and sure it isn't always the dominant trait. In fact, I think it was...86% does have - or has had homosexual fantasies or experiences, and still claim to be heterosexual.

This is my huge question: Why would ANYONE choose to be a homosexual? Why chose to have a social stigma follow you wherever you go? Why chose to be a "Deviance" among your peers, your friends, and your gods? I just don't understand it. Teenage suicide is very high these days, and a vast majority of these suicides are homosexual teens that have found no acceptance. How dare anyone say we should stop encouraging homosexuality as a normal thing? A professor of mine - and also a very close friend - has just recently realized he is a homosexual - after getting married and having a child. The man was a wreck, he felt he had ruined his wife's and his child's life forever. Why would anyone wake up one morning and say "Hmmmm...I'm gay now. Yup! Sounds great!" How terribley ignorant.

Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to be married? This is starting to sound like a Phelp's(He's not a Reverand to me. He does not represent my religion - at all.) conversation. "You don't like that attribute of God. God's hatred is pure!" But isn't God's love pure as well? And just because one religion views homosexuality as a sin, it doesn't mean all the other's do too. I believe same-sex marriage should be legalized. If a certain church would not allow homosexuals to get married - that's fine. I have no qualms with that. That'd be like saying "Me and my girlfriend are Jewish, we'd like to get married in a menonite church." No. But because of one groups views they are not to profess their love - and the wish to share a sacred union - to become one to any god? What are we here - England 1500's?

And it actually is proven that there are numerous amounts of animals that are homosexual.

All it boils down to is that President Bush is trying to push the beliefs of one religion upon the entire free nation, and that is against the Constitution.

[m0oni9]

You've never seen a dog that constantly tries to hump another male dog? get out more. it happens a lot. They aren't raised to beleive that being gay is bad, so it happens naturally. yes NATURALLY. So there goes the society created it theory and the "it's a choice" theory as well.
Well, dogs will hump anything, living or not. Having a hole in the behind makes it that much easier. :oops: Hmm.. now I am wondering how many lesbian dogs there are.

[eq_addict_08]

There are two prevailing sources apon which all modern ideologies are founded: religion, and science.

I think there is at least a third, if not more. Basic Morality/Ethics that transcend any religion and a basic respect for human life.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberty&x=17&y=15

liberty-1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice

[Cisyouc]

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberty&x=17&y=15

liberty-1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choiceOh dont give me that. According to that definition drugs (meaning marijuana, heroin..) are legal.

[sotonin]

We're being sidetracked, the issue was marriage. And the fact is, marriage offers tax breaks and other benefits, marriage is and always has been between 2 people that love each other. i don't care what gender they are, the government should have no say in it, what-so-ever. It's none of their business, that's the simple truth.

People get married every day just to stay in our country, at least these homosexuals actually respect the communion of marriage unlike those immigrants.

[eq_addict_08]

Oh dont give me that. According to that definition drugs (meaning marijuana, heroin..) are legal.

Hehe, quick back-offtopic. Well, imo, by the strict definitions this country was set up under, ie declaration and constitutuion, drugs should be legal as well as a number of other currently illegal activities. Basically if you are able to do something without depriving any other citizen of thier rights, you should be able to...

[m0oni9]

marriage offers tax breaks and other benefits
Would you be against same-sex unions, with the same benefits of marriage? Something like that would seem more likely to appease both sides.
marriage is and always has been between 2 people that love each other
I think history might argue with that oversimplification, but anyway..
i don't care what gender they are, the government should have no say in it, what-so-ever. It's none of their business
I am not talking about you here specifically, but when I hear this I have to wonder what one's view on polygamy, beastiality (not to be too graphic), etc, is. Just about everyone has certain moral lines that they hold to, but those lines differ between us. It is okay for them to say one is bad, and another is not, but then to turn and say that it is not okay for someone else to say one is bad, and another is not?

People get married every day just to stay in our country, at least these homosexuals actually respect the communion of marriage unlike those immigrants.
And there is plenty of domestic violence between couples. Does poor behavior justify any other behavior, good or bad, soley on the fact that it exists? At least those immigrants respect marriage enough not to marry someone of the same sex. Anyway, soto, you know I love you, but sometimes I feel inclined to be the opposition. :D

Now I am going to simplify with my own little tangent, and since it's a political season -- There are two factions, the right and the left.

The right compares past and present, noting values that have been lost through time. They look to the future, and see one with a confused direction. Many of our new freedoms are not freedoms at all, but vices.

The left compares past and present, and sees how far we have come with acceptance, freedom, and diversity. There is always a line that must be crossed, or a goal that must be obtained, in order to progress.

There is always talk of partisans coming together, uniting the country. Does anyone believe this will happen, under any leadership? Woof, a longer post than intended. Sorry!

[Daeath]

Well, since we're trying to come up with a solution...

Why don't we propose that the government come up with it's own form of marriage? I mean, for tax purposes/death benefits/etc... Let 'marriage' fall under the definitions and bounds of religion, and the 'legal' binding of two orgainisms (that way Adam West can still hitch his right hand) fall under sole government jurisdiction. That way religionists don't feel like thier marriage vows are being mocked or cheapened, and everyone else gets thier tax breaks/citizenship.

eq_addict_08: we can't have total freedom in this country. I believe that falls under the chants and vows of Anarchists. We have the courts to establish a standard of morals: what will be considered right and wrong, since we don't all adhere to the same belief system (ie. the various religions and sciences). But the beautiful thing about democracy (or a republic, as we reside in) is that the people ultimately choose what those standards are. Its when the minority has the say that democracy has failed (minority as in those who yell the loudest, or those who have the biggest payoff to the lawmakers, or those who can force thier will on the majority - not so much as in the minority races/cultures/lifestyles).

If America as a whole feels that homosexuals deserve an equal standing as the heterosexual family, then I personally feel we've let down the human race that has sacrificed so much to bring us to this point. We already allow them to live together, so I don't care if they're allowed the same tax benefits as myself - but I just feel that my heratige and family are mocked if homosexual marriage, in the fullest sense of the word, is constitutionalized.

[eq_addict_08]

Daeath, we are in agreement. I would also say best solution is to get government completely out of marriage and let the churches etc have it. The government would only issue something else.

And, as far as second paragraph goes, anarchy is only "bad" because we have been programmed to think so. Red scare 1950s? I am not an anarchist, nor a socialist, but I do believe that many of those two "sects" thoughts are more in line with how a government should be, than the corporate payoff government that has 22 billion laws for every little friggen thing, that we currently have.

Edit- also, democratic morals would be a VERY bad thing. You can NOT legislate morality upon anyone.

The best rule/law set would be one that is only based upon ones actions harming another. Anything more is taking away a bit of what America was supposed to be in the first place.

Edit #2-

The right compares past and present, noting values that have been lost through time. They look to the future, and see one with a confused direction. Many of our new freedoms are not freedoms at all, but vices.
Moon, it is my belief (most likely true :D ) that values have remained fairly constant throughout history, if not have goten better over time. There have been select gorups, pilrims, mormans, etc who have fled areas that had values and whatnot that they did not believe in. They fled to "uncharted lands" to start "their" way of life. But enough time has passed that the world is becoming more homogenized, thus we are seeing things that we had sheltered ourselves from. Though those things have ALWAYS occured. Imo, there are just some people who haven't ever evolved into as state of acceptance of others. They have no choice any more. WE all will need to evolve, myself included; seeing how there are plenty of things which I have been sheltered from within my life.

[Draupner]

If America as a whole feels that homosexuals deserve an equal standing as the heterosexual family, then I personally feel we've let down the human race that has sacrificed so much to bring us to this point. We already allow them to live together, so I don't care if they're allowed the same tax benefits as myself - but I just feel that my heratige and family are mocked if homosexual marriage, in the fullest sense of the word, is constitutionalized.

So gays that are currently paying the taxes that are covering your tax benefits for marriage should be denied the same right? If u want to make some new marriage thing thats controlled by govternment then stop making gays pay for straight people's marriage benefits.

[movieman]

we can't have total freedom in this country. I believe that falls under the chants and vows of Anarchists

Anarchy doesn't mean 'no rules', it means 'no rulers'. One of the closest societies to a real anarchy was medieval Iceland, and they still had agreed rules of conduct (e.g. if you killed someone in self-defence you had to announce it soon after the killing or be treated as a murderer): you could break the rules, but then you became an outlaw and no-one had to obey the rules when dealing with you.

Of course there's also left-wing 'anarchy', which isn't much different to other kinds of left-wing authoritarianism, giving the state^H^H^H^H'workers councils' total control over individuals.

I am not an anarchist, nor a socialist, but I do believe that many of those two "sects" thoughts are more in line with how a government should be, than the corporate payoff government that has 22 billion laws for every little friggen thing, that we currently have.

Big government and big business are indispensable comrades: you can't have one without the other. Within limits, the less government you have, the less you need to worry about that government stealing your money to give to their cronies in big business. Socialism and communism are the worst offenders in that sense, since big government and big business become pretty much the same thing.

[movieman]

If u want to make some new marriage thing thats controlled by govternment then stop making gays pay for straight people's marriage benefits.

Fine, provided that straight people are no longer expected to pay for AIDS treatment for gays.

Of course in a rational world the government wouldn't be interfering with marriage at all, and this wouldn't be an issue.

[eq_addict_08]

Fine, provided that straight people are no longer expected to pay for AIDS treatment for gays.

Uh, AIDS is not a gay disease.

[Draupner]

If u want to make some new marriage thing thats controlled by govternment then stop making gays pay for straight people's marriage benefits.

Yea dumbfuck more straight people have AIDS then gays

[Daeath]

Anarchy is not a practical solution to our modern age of civility. It doesn't matter how you define it - be it no rules or no rulers - society cannot thrive if there are no people who are generally accepted as the rule makers/intrepreters and the rule enforcers.

To say that there should be no law except the general rule of don't hurt your fellow man is fine and dandy - but being too generalistic is a quick recipe for disaster. I could intrepret that to mean that I can't hurt anyone on a physical level - but I can steal, lie, cheat, or trespass all I want. In an anarchy, who would intrepret the specifics of acceptable behavior? Who would enforce it? Who would punish violators?

One of my favorite philosophers, an ancient American Indian, once said: "And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not, there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Now weither you accept the religious aspects or not, without the law and those who interpret/enforce it we have no justice. If you can't keep the law you can't break it. And if you can't break it, you can't be punished (nor condoned for keeping it).

I'm proud of our form of government. It's not perfect, but it could be MUCH worse. IMHO it's the best system on the face of this planet (currently). It sucks that the citizens of Afghanistan are more democratic than us, in that they have a direct vote in thier Commander-in-Chief whereas ours is picked thru electorial vote (I feel bad for all you Democratic-Party Texans!). But I do live in the most 'free-est' of nations on this planet. How cool is that?

[dark_one]

my god... what have i created?

i should never had made this topic heh..

[Zisct1]

Im sick of those stupid "Vote for the president" things interrupting my MTV shows...Make's you want to stab someone!

[sotonin]

You know, i might actually listen to Kerry if he actually said anything that was worthless dribble. I watched the debate for a few minutes before getting up and leavnig when Kerry started.

I have a plan for this, that will make the world perfect yadda yadda, better than bush, really, i promise.

"How does this plan work?"

My plan will make the world perfect and give everybody millions of dollars, people will live in happiness forever.

"But how does it work?"

It's better than bush's take my word.


Yes its an exaggeration, but it gets the point across. if he would just EXPLAIN one of his plans in detail, i and many others might go, hey that sounds pretty good. But since he won't he most likely has no plans at all and just wants to sound good to get elected.

vote bush

[Edgar1898]

Yup, thats exactly the same issue I have with Kerry. I dont agree with a lot of the stuff Bush does/did and I would be willing to vote for someone else. The only problem is, like you said Kerry is just telling the people what they want to hear. He hasnt mentioned any of the specifics of his "plans". I'm not going to vote for someone unless I know what they stand for and Kerry has YET to convince me that he stands for anything I believe in. He reminds me of a used car salesman, just trying to sale himself by exploiting the unsuspecting voters. He is blaming all of the voters problems on the "current administration", but he doesnt have any details about how he will fix their problems. The sad thing is that most people will vote for him not knowing anything about his no called "plans" just because they either dont like Bush or they are fooled by Kerry's exploits. I would rather vote for someone I know versus someone who is just feeding the voters deceipt with a side of uncertainty.

[m0oni9]

Yea dumbfuck more straight people have AIDS then gays
How did you come to that conclusion? An overwhelming portion of HIV/AIDS positive patients are male, around 40% of the total carriers homosexual. How many people do you think are gay -- 100%? Insurance companies do not want to cover homosexuals, especially male, due to their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

[eq_addict_08]

http://detfalskested.dk/bush/en/?bush=I'll%20drink%20to%20that!

[Draupner]

How did you come to that conclusion? An overwhelming portion of HIV/AIDS positive patients are male, around 40% of the total carriers homosexual. How many people do you think are gay -- 100%? Insurance companies do not want to cover homosexuals, especially male, due to their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

Ok so 40% are homosexual, which means 60% aren't. AKA still proving my point that there are more straight people with AIDS then gays.

[mattmeck]

AIDS Statistics
At the end of the December 2002, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates1 that 384,906 persons were living with AIDS in America.

Of these,

37% were white
42% were black
20% were Hispanic
1% were of other race/ethnicity.
Of the 298,248 men (13 years or older) who were living with AIDS,

58% were men who had sex with men (MSM)
23% were injection drug users (IDU)
10% were exposed through heterosexual contact
8% were both MSM and IDU.
Of the 82,764 adult and adolescent women with AIDS,

61% were exposed through heterosexual contact
36% were exposed through injection drug use.
An estimated 3,893 children were living with AIDS at the end of 2002.


found http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm

If your going to quote statistics show were your getting them

[Draupner]

you do know that straight guys do get drunk and occasionally have sex with eachother? So that statistic isn't entirely accurate. It does just say male to male, which doesn't just include people who are actuall gay.

[m0oni9]

Ok so 40% are homosexual, which means 60% aren't. AKA still proving my point that there are more straight people with AIDS then gays.
Oy.. I have 100 people, 10 of which like the color blue. 4 of this subset has red hair, out 10 red-haired people overall. Thus, 40% of the red-haired people like blue. The remaining 90 all have brown hair, 6 of which like the color blue. 7% of the brown-haired people like blue. Overall, 10% like blue, 6% of them brown-haired, and 4% red-haired.

Sorry -- I had to run to class, and didn't have time to quote a source, so I made my number conservative. :(

[bobby15]

Draupner: I'm not arguing with your statement about men getting drunk and having sex with other men. Think about this, would you have sex with someone if you got drunk if they were gay and you were not? Sure, but I (yes me) would not have sex with a man if i were drunk... just a thought. So your statement about the statistics can be very off. What % of americans get drunk and have sex? Hell i don't know. Probably alot. But for the most part its your fault for getting drunk and getting the AIDS and the fact that most AIDS is spread through male-to-male sexuality. I in my opinion, don't really care about gays. Now about gays getting married, what LE said, the thing about saying "my wife" or "my husband" isnt normal. There will always be gays and there will always be straights, but why would gays want to get married? Then I think about how would straights want to get married? Well they love each other no doubt, but is there more behind this than we think. Like everyone has been saying about the marriage benefits and such. Could this be the reason the gays want married? Who am I to judge what they are thinking and what their intentions are? I, myself, am straight. But my opinion on gays overall is: dont flirt with me and i wont argue with you being gay.