PDA

View Full Version : this is really worrying (re US election and this board)


Fingon
Nov 10th, 2004, 12:57 AM
I truely hope this board isn't a representation of the general population (I don't think it is).

What I mean is how many posters, that claim to be liberals or progressive, behave exactly the opposite way.

I believed that if you were liberal you would support things like freedom of thought and expression, respect, tolerance, but it seems to be the other way around.

Bush's supporters have been called dumb, stupid, bigot, narrow-minded, etc.

Many posters said they wanted to leave the United States (not that I think they will), I thought in democracy you accept the majority's decision? :confused: or if it doesn't go your way then you don't want democracy?

I read some outrageous remark, some posters were praying for a terrorist attack to happen in the US. Some said they would not drop a tear if it happened (interesting though, if Bush is the president it doesn't matter if thousand of innocent civilians die, like the bombs would only kill evil Bush supporters).

Some even suggested it would be good to have a nuclear bomb dropped on the White House (I can only hope they just have no clue what they are talking about).

All Bush's supporters have to be religious fanatic, racist, homophobes, these people have never heard of balance, or perspective.

Some posters have even suggested that Bush won because they committed fraud, that would mean that really Kerry won but the evil republicans twisted the results. That sounds awfully familiar to the nazis theories that Germany really won WWI but was betrayed by the politicians. Interesting that are the liberals who sustain those theories.

Some are calling for extreme measures, illegal or dirty tactics to win the elections. I mean, if they republicans did use dirty tactis, and you do the same, does it make you better than them? then what's the difference?

Some people show a remarkable ignorance of recent history. They criticize the war in Iraq on the base it wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations and thus, it was illegal, and praised France or Germany for opposing it.
The thing is, the Kosovo war, under the Clinton (democrat) administration was just as illegal, there wasn't any UN mandate, yet, except for the Serbians, nobody cared. Sure, it looked more legitimate because the European countries did participate and Yugoslavia does not have oil, so it didn't look as a greedy war. but Yugoslavia didn't respresent any danger for any of the Nato countries, not even potentially, but I guess if you don't have oil then it's fine to kill civilians.
I am not saying the Iraq war is right or the Kosovo war was wrong, I am saying either they are both right or both wrong.

Those who think of a conspiracy to take power fail to see the real reasons why Bush won. They said Bush was good in convincing americans he is the only one that can protect them, I would say it wasn't Bush, it was Kerry who did that, and thugs like Michael Moore that with his rants only hurt Kerry's cause.

How much space has been wasted arguing whether Kerry was in Vietnam, Bush wasn't? nobody stopped to think it was irrelevant? that having held a rifle doesn't make you better to conduct a country?

Has anybody mentioned the main flaw in this (and all american elections)? the fact that the winner takes all, that really discorages participation.

The democrats got like 30% or something like that in Texas, they were literally wasted votes, because unless you get the majority you get nothing, many people surely couldn't be bothered (the same can said of republicans in California). If it was proportional that 30 % could mean something and people could feel their vote had a value and then, maybe it would have been 40%. Nobody criticized that, they prefered the witch hunt.

I really have many reasons to criticize Bush, but if my only source of news were this board, I would be blindly behind Bush, because his detractors were so irrational, so full of hatred and intolerance that they would make me think Bush had something good after all (kind of the Michael Moore's effect). It is ironic that the conservative republicans look moderate and tolerant while the progressive liberals look the opposite. I wonder if they can realize that.

Justeenium
Nov 10th, 2004, 01:39 AM
well said, and most of the incredibly stupid remarks come from either Bacardi or Jigglypuff, I find most of them not that bad. but you're right, if the board influenced any undecided people, it was probably towards Bush, because it doesn't help Kerry when a bunch of ignorant morons bash Bush.

edit: after seeing some other posts, i'm going to add LucasArg and ys to the list.

Lee-Waters' Boy
Nov 10th, 2004, 01:46 AM
well said.

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 01:48 AM
What can I say? When liberals don't get their way their stupidity shines forth. I don't have to worry about that because I am a conservative and I accept a defeat. ;)

Martian Willow
Nov 10th, 2004, 01:51 AM
Many posters said they wanted to leave the United States (not that I think they will), I thought in democracy you accept the majority's decision? :confused: or if it doesn't go your way then you don't want democracy?

I agree with most of what you said (or at least the first four paragraphs, didn't read the rest) but I don't see why people shouldn't leave a country if they don't like it's government. That's nothing to do with not wanting democracy.

Justeenium
Nov 10th, 2004, 01:53 AM
this sums up the board perfectly..
http://iupload.net/102004/crybabysupporter.jpg

Martian Willow
Nov 10th, 2004, 01:54 AM
Yes, remote linking prohibited, says it all. :awww:

Philbo
Nov 10th, 2004, 01:56 AM
the thing is Fingon - I dont think we (we meaning liberals) do need to have respect and tolerance for a point of view which is PREACHING NON TOLERANCE!

Should the nazi's have respected the germans point of view back in WW2 - simply because they believed in tolerance and understanding?

What do you do if you are in favour of tolerance and equal rights etc, yet your political leaders are PROMOTING Intolerance and judgment when it comes to who you are?

Do you expect me as a gay liberal to respect a point of view which basically preaches hate towards people like me??

That idea is laughable.

I can respect differences of opinion on the war in iraq, on the best way to combat terrorism, on fiscal responsibility etc etc.

But when it comes to being 'tolerant' of a differing point of view which is 'intolerant' - you have to be joking.

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:05 AM
I was joking in my first post. :lol: In all seriousness, I think most liberals have a difficult time in accepting defeat or failure. They come from the "everyone is a winner" culture and they just cannot accept defeat.
Being moderate/conservative, I view most far left wing liberals with disdain. Most seem to have very little if any moral clarity and they tend to think that people should be given things. I am somewhat of a rugged individualist. You either work hard to obtain what you want or you do without!! I don't believe in the hand out system that many liberals adhere to.
As I have said before,there are several reasons why I am labeled a "conservative":

1. I am Pro-religion. I think people should have a right to worship and shouldn't have to be afraid to say God,Jesus,Krisna, Buddha or any other religious figure or deities name. I am definitely all about extroverted spirituality.

2. I am Pro-Life. I think the only time abortion should EVER be considered is in situations of life and death and perhaps rape.

3. I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a Man And A Woman!! Period.

4. I think kissing the U.N's ass is totally unnecessary.

These are the reasons that I am a conservative.

Justeenium
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:06 AM
Yes, remote linking prohibited, says it all. :awww:
:confused: I can see it

DelMonte
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:13 AM
I was joking in my first post. :lol: In all seriousness, I think most liberals have a difficult time in accepting defeat or failure. They come from the "everyone is a winner" culture and they just cannot accept defeat.
Being moderate/conservative, I view most far left wing liberals with disdain. Most seem to have very little if any moral clarity and they tend to think that people should be given things. I am somewhat of a rugged individualist. You either work hard to obtain what you want or you do without!! I don't believe in the hand out system that many liberals adhere to.
As I have said before,there are several reasons why I am labeled a "conservative":

1. I am Pro-religion. I think people should have a right to worship and shouldn't have to be afraid to say God,Jesus,Krisna, Buddha or any other religious figure or deities name. I am definitely all about extroverted spirituality.

2. I am Pro-Life. I think the only time abortion should EVER be considered is in situations of life and death and perhaps rape.

3. I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a Man And A Woman!! Period.

4. I think kissing the U.N's ass is totally unnecessary.

These are the reasons that I am a conservative.

Do you believe in family planning and contraception (ie pill, condoms etc)?

LucasArg
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:13 AM
I truely hope this board isn't a representation of the general population (I don't think it is).

What I mean is how many posters, that claim to be liberals or progressive, behave exactly the opposite way.

I believed that if you were liberal you would support things like freedom of thought and expression, respect, tolerance, but it seems to be the other way around.

Bush's supporters have been called dumb, stupid, bigot, narrow-minded, etc.

I donīt agree 100% with you Fingon, Should I remind you that most of the population in this world is against Bush? I think that a culture guy as you, should ve noted this. If you think this board is not represented in that way you are wrong. At least in my country Bush is not better than Osama Bin Laden.Expect Colombia , the rest of America is against Bush as the entire world except Israel is. No surprisesabout it.

You re right, nobody's should call retarded or dumb a person who voted or supported Bush, but we all know how rude these supporters are, for example Ive recieved a lot of bad reps from those people telling me I was an argentinian trash, poor guy, typical behavior:confused: I donīt care if they insult me or my country , cos I know how sick they are indeed.

LucasArg
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:19 AM
I read some outrageous remark, some posters were praying for a terrorist attack to happen in the US. Some said they would not drop a tear if it happened (interesting though, if Bush is the president it doesn't matter if thousand of innocent civilians die, like the bombs would only kill evil Bush supporters).

Some even suggested it would be good to have a nuclear bomb dropped on the White House (I can only hope they just have no clue what they are talking about).

.
I hear it everyday in my country, when Bush won the election people were saying, they DESERVE to be attacked, they are asking for it.


I know it is awful, but it is the air around the USA now, Many people in the world are really pissed off since the war on Iraq has begun.

Martian Willow
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:19 AM
:confused: I can see it

That's because it's cached on your hard drive.

Justeenium
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:20 AM
You re right, nobody's should call retarded or dumb a person who voted or supported Bush, but we all know how rude these supporters are, for example Ive recieved a lot of bad reps from those people telling me I was an argentinian trash, poor guy, typical behavior:confused: I donīt care if they insult me or my country , cos I know how sick they are indeed.IIRC, you were the one who said that Bush supporters should keep it to themselves and see a doctor.

Talk about Pot Kettle Black.
You deserve badreps for comments like that.

Justeenium
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:21 AM
That's because it's cached on your hard drive.i've posted stuff from iupload before that gave me hotlinking not allowed, but I see this one just fine:confused:

LucasArg
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:22 AM
I really have many reasons to criticize Bush, but if my only source of news were this board, I would be blindly behind Bush, because his detractors were so irrational, so full of hatred and intolerance that they would make me think Bush had something good after all (kind of the Michael Moore's effect). It is ironic that the conservative republicans look moderate and tolerant while the progressive liberals look the opposite. I wonder if they can realize that.
There will be extremist opinions on both sides, of course, there always be, I still would ve voted for Kerry, even if my only source is this board.

Philbo
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:32 AM
Yep .... straight from the horses mouth.

The idea that Czechfan would ever even respect other people's opinions is indeed a laughable one .... :lol:
That applies to you more than anyone. Respecting your opinion is laughable.

DeDe4925
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:37 AM
i've posted stuff from iupload before that gave me hotlinking not allowed, but I see this one just fine:confused:
But, you are the only one and that's just fine. :)

DeDe4925
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:40 AM
There will be extremist opinions on both sides, of course, there always be, I still would ve voted for Kerry, even if my only source is this board.
I agree. :worship: :worship: :worship:

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:40 AM
Do you believe in family planning and contraception (ie pill, condoms etc)?
I do believe in the usage of a condom. Certainly. The usage of the pill is debateable because it can cause many problems for a lovely lady when she finally does decide to have a child. However,it is irrelevant as to whether I believe in contraception because contraception is a prevention tactic, not a tactic to be used after the fact. Abortion is a tactic which is used after the fact that a woman is pregnant.

DeDe4925
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:40 AM
That applies to you more than anyone. Respecting your opinion is laughable.
:worship: :worship: :worship: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Philbo
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:43 AM
:confused: ..... weren't we talking about you respecting other people's opinions, how does that apply to me .... are you saying I don't respect other's opinions?


I rest my case :angel: ..... :lol:
You are a perfect example of the homophobic, intolerant sort of asswipe who's opinion I will never respect. When your opinion is one of hate and intolerance, I wont respect that. Liberal or not.

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:49 AM
You are a perfect example of the homophobic, intolerant sort of asswipe who's opinion I will never respect. When your opinion is one of hate and intolerance, I wont respect that. Liberal or not.
Well,I guess since you would probably label me "homophobic" that you do not respect my opinion either. No wonder why you never respond to anything I say. :rolleyes:

Infiniti2001
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:50 AM
Are you a Republican masquerading as a Canadian?? :shrug: Anyway, one of their tactics is to accuse the "liberals" of saying all sort of hateful things that turn people off their cause when of course in an average day, the right-wingers are spewing tohusands of times more hatred and nastiness than the Democrats could even THINK of in their lifetimes.( Fox TV with Sean Hannity, Bil O'Reilly, Ann Coulter , Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson to name a few) . Pretty much all the negativity and attacks are going one way and if the Democrats even dare to defend themselves, they get tripe, just for failing to be total doormats. :tape:

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:51 AM
Ok Im homophobic because I don't like you :confused: ..... yes hun we've all heard those allogations before :lol: .... now begone and don't let the door hit ur ass on the way out.
Ayla,you always put it the way it is,babe. :lol: :lol:

Philbo
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:51 AM
Just me? You've told me gays belong the same level as dogs on society's social pyramid. You show your true colours when you are pissed off, or trying to piss someone (me) off.

Just fess up you dog.

DeDe4925
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:53 AM
Are you a Republican masquerading as a Canadian?? :shrug: Anyway, one of their tactics is to accuse the "liberals" of saying all sort of hateful things that turn people off their cause when of course in an average day, the right-wingers are spewing tohusands of times more hatred and nastiness than the Democrats could even THINK of in their lifetimes.( Fox TV with Sean Hannity, Bil O'Reilly, Ann Coulter , Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson to name a few) . Pretty much all the negativity and attacks are going one way and if the Democrats even dare to defend themselves, they get tripe, just for failing to be total doormats. :tape:
Ain't that the truth.

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:54 AM
Are you a Republican masquerading as a Canadian?? :shrug: Anyway, one of their tactics is to accuse the "liberals" of saying all sort of hateful things that turn people off their cause when of course in an average day, the right-wingers are spewing tohusands of times more hatred and nastiness than the Democrats could even THINK of in their lifetimes.( Fox TV with Sean Hannity, Bil O'Reilly, Ann Coulter , Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson to name a few) . Pretty much all the negativity and attacks are going one way and if the Democrats even dare to defend themselves, they get tripe, just for failing to be total doormats. :tape:
How do you figure? Need I name names? Like:

Al Franken
Barbara Streisand
Whoopi Goldberg

et ecetera

Where have you been? All of these liberals spill nothing but hatred all of the time!!! :rolleyes: :mad:

DeDe4925
Nov 10th, 2004, 02:59 AM
How do you figure? Need I name names? Like:

Al Franken
Barbara Streisand
Whoopi Goldberg

et ecetera

Where have you been? All of these liberals spill nothing but hatred all of the time!!! :rolleyes: :mad:
ILS, you've got to be kidding? :lol: I've hardly heard anything in the mainstream from them during this election. Maybe a tidbit every now and then. Name a liberal talk show.

Infiniti2001
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:00 AM
How do you figure? Need I name names? Like:

Al Franken
Barbara Streisand
Whoopi Goldberg

et ecetera

Where have you been? All of these liberals spill nothing but hatred all of the time!!! :rolleyes: :mad:

Uh how often do Whoopi and Barbara get on the airwaves to spill hatred?? Do you ever listen to talk radio?? Al Fraken is only on the air to try to balance the shit the conservative hosts spew day in day out :rolleyes:

DeDe4925
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:01 AM
Ok firstly, I didn't mean that when I said that.

:lol:
Translation = I lie.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:03 AM
What can I say? When liberals don't get their way their stupidity shines forth. I don't have to worry about that because I am a conservative and I accept a defeat. ;)

Are you purposefully contributing stupdity to the thread? :confused:

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:03 AM
ILS, you've got to be kidding? :lol: I've hardly heard anything in the mainstream from them during this election. Maybe a tidbit every now and then. Name a liberal talk show.
Uh,I can do better than that I can name a liberal radio station for you. It's called NPR,National Public Radio, they are always talking left-wing shit on there.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:03 AM
Yes, remote linking prohibited, says it all. :awww:

:lol:

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:06 AM
Are you purposefully contributing stupdity to the thread? :confused:
Canuck,did you even bother to read what I said in my second post? You and I are about to have it out!! :p :D ;)

DeDe4925
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:08 AM
Darling, If I meant to say that I lied then I would. I always say what I mean.
"Ok firstly, I didn't mean that when I said that."

Were you lying then or are you lying now?

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:09 AM
I was joking in my first post. :lol:

Oh, thank goodness. You can ignore my last post then.

In all seriousness, I think most liberals have a difficult time in accepting defeat or failure. They come from the "everyone is a winner" culture and they just cannot accept defeat.

Nope, I take it back. I meant it. Are you puposefully littering this thread with stupidity? Fingon just wrote an entire rant on how liberals on this board have been acting intollerant and ignorant (troof, in some cases), and you respond with "WORD! LIBERALS ARE ALL THE SAME" (note: paraphrasing ;)) !!

Being moderate/conservative, I view most far left wing liberals with disdain.

I view the "far" anything with a certain degree of disdain ;)

1. I am Pro-religion. I think people should have a right to worship and shouldn't have to be afraid to say God,Jesus,Krisna, Buddha or any other religious figure or deities name. I am definitely all about extroverted spirituality.

I'm not religious myself, but I agree. As long as people don't want to smear their religion into my face, they can be as extroverted about it as they please ;)

3. I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a Man And A Woman!! Period.

Great. Then could you please tell men and women to stop shitting all over it? Marriage stopped being a "sacred" bond long before gay rights activists came along.


4. I think kissing the U.N's ass is totally unnecessary.

Maybe, but I don't think that flipping the bird to everybody else is a great idea in the long run either :)

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:09 AM
Canuck,did you even bother to read what I said in my second post? You and I are about to have it out!! :p :D ;)
I was replying as you wrote this :angel:

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:13 AM
What I personaly find worrying is how some republicans think it would have been the end of the world if Kerry would have won; just like some democrats think it's the end of the world that Bush are reelected.

Yes, it goes both ways. People would be crying about how the USA doesn't have any morals anymore, boo hoo! John Kerry eats babies! Democrats are going to knock up your teenage daughter! And then give her an abortion! Then she's going to get killed by an anti-abortionists bomb! There is great comedy on both sides of the fence.

I don't think it makes that much of a difference (for history) that Bush got reelected instead of Kerry. What would truly make a difference is other alternatives.

Whether or not it makes a difference, I think, depends on who you are. To a point you're probably right ;)

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:15 AM
Are you a Republican masquerading as a Canadian?? :shrug: Anyway, one of their tactics is to accuse the "liberals" of saying all sort of hateful things that turn people off their cause when of course in an average day, the right-wingers are spewing tohusands of times more hatred and nastiness than the Democrats could even THINK of in their lifetimes.( Fox TV with Sean Hannity, Bil O'Reilly, Ann Coulter , Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson to name a few) . Pretty much all the negativity and attacks are going one way and if the Democrats even dare to defend themselves, they get tripe, just for failing to be total doormats. :tape:

Canada has conservatives too, you know. We just try to keep them quiet by sending them all to Alberta ;)

Fingon
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:15 AM
Are you a Republican masquerading as a Canadian?? :shrug: Anyway, one of their tactics is to accuse the "liberals" of saying all sort of hateful things that turn people off their cause when of course in an average day, the right-wingers are spewing tohusands of times more hatred and nastiness than the Democrats could even THINK of in their lifetimes.( Fox TV with Sean Hannity, Bil O'Reilly, Ann Coulter , Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson to name a few) . Pretty much all the negativity and attacks are going one way and if the Democrats even dare to defend themselves, they get tripe, just for failing to be total doormats. :tape:
I think you need to re-read (or read) what I said. I said the democrats behave this way in this board, I haven't seen the same behaviour by republicans in this board, I didn't know that Sean Hannity or Bill O'Really posted here :confused:

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:15 AM
Oh, thank goodness. You can ignore my last post then.



Nope, I take it back. I meant it. Are you puposefully littering this thread with stupidity? Fingon just wrote an entire rant on how liberals on this board have been acting intollerant and ignorant (troof, in some cases), and you respond with "WORD! LIBERALS ARE ALL THE SAME" (note: paraphrasing ;)) !!



I view the "far" anything with a certain degree of disdain ;)



I'm not religious myself, but I agree. As long as people don't want to smear their religion into my face, they can be as extroverted about it as they please ;)



Great. Then could you please tell men and women to stop shitting all over it? Marriage stopped being a "sacred" bond long before gay rights activists came along.




Maybe, but I don't think that flipping the bird to everybody else is a great idea in the long run either :)
Canuck,you must always challenge me. :lol: Don't you know that neither one of us are going to win because both of us are going to feel the same way when it is over? :lol: :lol: I enjoy it though.

Let me ask you something. What is the difference between someone throwing religion in someones face and two gay people throwing their sexuality in someones face? Answer me that,please.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:16 AM
Fingon commented this particular board infiniti.

And why being afraid with words? Any person who is against gay marriage IS, by definition, homophobic. Homophobic means you see gay men and gay women with contempt. If you don't see them as inferior, there is no reason to be against gay marriage and to give them equal rights.
This I agree with. I've asked many times on other boards for an explanation on why it's *not* homophobic - I want to be open minded, but on this, I really just can't see it any other way :confused:

DeDe4925
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:19 AM
:lol:

Mean in the first post = I didnt mean (really believe) that when I said/wrote that (however I did mean (intentionally) to write it).
Mean in the second post = I mean what I say (everything written is written intentionally)

= BULLSHIT!!! :lol:

Fingon
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:21 AM
What I personaly find worrying is how some republicans think it would have been the end of the world if Kerry would have won; just like some democrats think it's the end of the world that Bush are reelected.
I agree, but republicans don't claim to be liberal and open-minded.

People are too emotive, lack objectivity and have too much a simplistic view of reality.
I agree too, sadly, that's part of the reasons why the general iq level is a lot lower than tests say.

I don't think it makes that much of a difference (for history) that Bush got reelected instead of Kerry. What would truly make a difference is other alternatives.
what other altenatives?

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:22 AM
You have a really big forehead.
:o :lol: :lol: :lol: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:23 AM
Canuck,you must always challenge me. :lol: Don't you know that neither one of us are going to win because both of us are going to feel the same way when it is over? :lol: :lol: I enjoy it though.

Seeing as the object isn't to make you see the world differently, but to kill some time, I don't see this ss a problem.

Let me ask you something. What is the difference between someone throwing religion in someones face and two gay people throwing their sexuality in someones face? Answer me that,please.

Forgive me, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've been asked all day. Week? Probably.

I don't know about you, but I've never had gay people "throw" their sexuality in my face. I've seen straight people practically dry hump in front of me before, and frankly, I found it a little offensive. Haven't seen gay people do that, but if they did (and I'm sure that, like straight people, some do), I would be equally offended. If I wanted to see people dry hump I would buy softcore porn, yo. I don't need to see that on the bus after a stressful day.

Furthermore, I've never had a gay person tell me that I:
1) Lack morals
2) Need to stop being me and be more like them
3) If I don't be like them I'm disgusting
4) I'm going straight to Hell for my sins
5) I don't buy into their belief? Tough shit! I'm going to have to listen to it and have my rights ignored anyways!

The day that a gay person treats me with the same prejudiced and contempt that they are treated with by some religious homophobes, is the day that your question will actually make sense. At the moment it's so ridiculous that I actually had to laugh out loud.

I'm sorry that people living their lives as they please is considered "throwing their *insert word here* " in your face. Frankly, seeing as you want to limit how other people live based on *your* beliefs, not giving a flying fuck what anybody elses are, I really don't think that you have a leg to stand on here.

Next question.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:24 AM
You have a really big forehead.
I get that a lot.

I Love Sharapova
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:29 AM
Seeing as the object isn't to make you see the world differently, but to kill some time, I don't see this ss a problem.



Forgive me, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've been asked all day. Week? Probably.

I don't know about you, but I've never had gay people "throw" their sexuality in my face. I've seen straight people practically dry hump in front of me before, and frankly, I found it a little offensive. Haven't seen gay people do that, but if they did (and I'm sure that, like straight people, some do), I would be equally offended. If I wanted to see people dry hump I would buy softcore porn, yo. I don't need to see that on the bus after a stressful day.

Furthermore, I've never had a gay person tell me that I:
1) Lack morals
2) Need to stop being me and be more like them
3) If I don't be like them I'm disgusting
4) I'm going straight to Hell for my sins
5) I don't buy into their belief? Tough shit! I'm going to have to listen to it and have my rights ignored anyways!

The day that a gay person treats me with the same prejudiced and contempt that they are treated with by some religious homophobes, is the day that your question will actually make sense. At the moment it's so ridiculous that I actually had to laugh out loud.

I'm sorry that people living their lives as they please is considered "throwing their *insert word here* " in your face. Frankly, seeing as you want to limit how other people live based on *your* beliefs, not giving a flying fuck what anybody elses are, I really don't think that you have a leg to stand on here.

Next question.
Ah,I see. So,you think that it is okay that two gay men goes in front of a T.V camera in front millions of viewers and kisses one another is okay? You don't think that is throwing the shit in peoples faces? Get a fucking room!!! I don't give a damn about what they do in their personal lives but I damn sure don't want to see it!!


Next rant,Canuck ;) :p

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:30 AM
But, you don't have any gay guys "throwing" their sexuality in your face.

You're giving them a big target.

Sorry, I'm just purposely contributing to the stupidity of this thread. :)

It's all good. It's working towards my amusement *and* killing time. Excellent!

Mrs. Peel
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:31 AM
Let me ask you something. What is the difference between someone throwing religion in someones face and two gay people throwing their sexuality in someones face? Answer me that,please.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Gays haven't told me that I am going to burn in hell because I didn't believe in his saviour Jesus Christ and because I have gay friends :mad: :rolleyes: I have been told that to my face by some born again Christians. Born agains who were fucking hypocrites who smoked, drank and fucked everything before they found GOD.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:32 AM
Ah,I see. So,you think that it is okay that two gay men goes in front of a T.V camera in front millions of viewers and kisses one another as okay? You don't think that is throwing the shit in peoples faces? Get a fucking room!!! I don't give a damn about what they do in their personal lives but I damn sure don't want to see it!!


Next rant,Canuck ;) :p

It's just okay for gay people to kiss on TV as it is for straight people to do it. If you don't want to see it, don't fucking watch it. Maybe they should start tipping viewers off prior to the "gay activity" by putting a disclaimer: "if you're a homophobe, you might want to tune out right ... about.... now..." But we don't give racists those disclaimers, so why on earth should we give it to you?

And you do give a shit what they do with their personal lives, or you would not be opposed to them getting married. Don't lie.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:33 AM
Your amusement? :hehehe:

Maybe we can play together. :)
I think we were already doing that!

Martian Willow
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:43 AM
Your amusement? :hehehe:

Maybe we can play together. :)


:sad:

Philbo
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:45 AM
You are beyond pathetic I love Sharapova.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:46 AM
I don't think so.

You're so inexperienced with these sorts of things.
I'm probably too good for you anyways.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:50 AM
I know.

I'm not the one asking for serious advice on this board.
Who is asking for serious advice? I'm asking Americans for general comments on particular schools. There is a key difference there. I'm not aksing them which one I should go to, if any. I'm hoping that one of the two people I actually respect around here will look at it and know the answer.

Martian KC
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:52 AM
No truer words have ever been written on this board. Thank you, Fingon.:o

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:53 AM
I guarantee that you'll end up fighting with someone in said thread.
Probably.

Crazy Canuck
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:53 AM
No truer words have ever been written on this board. Thank you, Fingon.:o
Oh, come on now, I wouldn't go that far. All the times that I called certain posters "dumbass", my words were at least equally true to Fingon's here.

Martian Willow
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:55 AM
I said I liked cheese once, which is very true. Like 100% true.

Martian Willow
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:56 AM
You can't get more true than that.

Martian KC
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:58 AM
Oh, come on now, I wouldn't go that far. All the times that I called certain posters "dumbass", my words were at least equally true to Fingon's here.

Becca, you glory hog. Give Fingon some of the spotlight. ;)

Richie77
Nov 10th, 2004, 06:09 AM
Forgive me, but this is the most ridiculous thing I've been asked all day. Week? Probably.

I don't know about you, but I've never had gay people "throw" their sexuality in my face. I've seen straight people practically dry hump in front of me before, and frankly, I found it a little offensive. Haven't seen gay people do that, but if they did (and I'm sure that, like straight people, some do), I would be equally offended. If I wanted to see people dry hump I would buy softcore porn, yo. I don't need to see that on the bus after a stressful day.
I couldn't have said this any better :worship:

ys
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:18 PM
I truely hope this board isn't a representation of the general population (I don't think it is).

What I mean is how many posters, that claim to be liberals or progressive, behave exactly the opposite way.

The Internet is a place for open-minded, meaning it is very liberal by definition..


Bush's supporters have been called dumb, stupid, bigot, narrow-minded, etc.
Could you remind me whether those NSDAP voters were called that too back in 1933?

Many posters said they wanted to leave the United States (not that I think they will), I thought in democracy you accept the majority's decision? :confused: or if it doesn't go your way then you don't want democracy?
Exactly.. Accept the electoral decision and enjoy democracy.. Just like Germans did in 1933..

I read some outrageous remark, some posters were praying for a terrorist attack to happen in the US. Some said they would not drop a tear if it happened (interesting though, if Bush is the president it doesn't matter if thousand of innocent civilians die, like the bombs would only kill evil Bush supporters).Would Bush drop a tear? Mind you, if it was not for 9/11, he would not have had a chance in hell to win these elections..

Some even suggested it would be good to have a nuclear bomb dropped on the White House (I can only hope they just have no clue what they are talking about).Well, you can't keep insane folks from posting.. It's .. freedom..

All Bush's supporters have to be religious fanatic, racist, homophobes, these people have never heard of balance, or perspective.
First.. Who ever said "All"?.. Second, many of those supporters indeed are religious fanatics or racist or homophobes..Do you honestly doubt it?

Some posters have even suggested that Bush won because they committed fraud, that would mean that really Kerry won but the evil republicans twisted the results. I am not sure about Bush and Kerry, though I would not be surprised. I am pretty damn sure about Bush and Gore..

Some are calling for extreme measures, illegal or dirty tactics to win the elections. I mean, if they republicans did use dirty tactis, and you do the same, does it make you better than them? then what's the difference?
You mean, when you fight someone by the rules of classic boxing and suddenly he kicks you in your balls, you would not do the same? Of course..


Those who think of a conspiracy to take power fail to see the real reasons why Bush won. There was only one real reason for that - Bush campaign playing gay marriage card into the minds of ignorant electorate. Period. Everything else in this campaign was really secondary..

Justeenium
Nov 10th, 2004, 03:55 PM
the stupidity of your post amazes me



The Internet is a place for open-minded, meaning it is very liberal by definition..

Could you remind me whether those NSDAP voters were called that too back in 1933?

Exactly.. Accept the electoral decision and enjoy democracy.. Just like Germans did in 1933..

Would Bush drop a tear? Mind you, if it was not for 9/11, he would not have had a chance in hell to win these elections..

Well, you can't keep insane folks from posting.. It's .. freedom..

First.. Who ever said "All"?.. Second, many of those supporters indeed are religious fanatics or racist or homophobes..Do you honestly doubt it?

I am not sure about Bush and Kerry, though I would not be surprised. I am pretty damn sure about Bush and Gore..

You mean, when you fight someone by the rules of classic boxing and suddenly he kicks you in your balls, you would not do the same? Of course..


There was only one real reason for that - Bush campaign playing gay marriage card into the minds of ignorant electorate. Period. Everything else in this campaign was really secondary..i'm not even going to comment on your comparisons to nazi germany.

Would Bush drop a tear? Mind you, if it was not for 9/11, he would not have had a chance in hell to win these elections
what a :retard: do you have anything to back that up? economic trends pointed to an easy bush victory months ago


First.. Who ever said "All"?.. Second, many of those supporters indeed are religious fanatics or racist or homophobes..Do you honestly doubt it?
religious fanatics, homophobes? ok i'll give you that. But I guarantee you that more racist people voted for Kerry than Bush.


Bush campaign playing gay marriage card into the minds of ignorant electorate. Period
pull your head out of your ass. think about it from a religous standpoint, it wasn't about gay marriage.

Fingon
Nov 10th, 2004, 06:13 PM
The Internet is a place for open-minded, meaning it is very liberal by definition..

really? that's news for me, like for example the terrorists the behead civilians on the internet?

That's a silly comment, at best, it's an idea taken for internet infancy, when it was limited to very selected group of individuals, mostly in the academic environment, the internet is nothing like it was back then.

Could you remind me whether those NSDAP voters were called that too back in 1933?
NSDAP? enlight me, I don't know what it has to do with anything anyway.


Exactly.. Accept the electoral decision and enjoy democracy.. Just like Germans did in 1933..
come on ys, you are more intelligent than that, stupid generalizations don't answer questions and you know that, you can't seriously compare Bush with Hitler or the US with nazi Germany, and in fact, that's either ignorance or just sloppy thinking.


Would Bush drop a tear? Mind you, if it was not for 9/11, he would not have had a chance in hell to win these elections..
so, because Bush is an asshole we all have to be assholes?, I guess we should go out and shoot people because others do, and I don't know what the 9/11 reference has to do with anything, nevermind.


Well, you can't keep insane folks from posting.. It's .. freedom..
that was exactly my point, and I am not trying to keep them from posting, just pointing out they are insane.


First.. Who ever said "All"?.. Second, many of those supporters indeed are religious fanatics or racist or homophobes..Do you honestly doubt it?
quite a few, no screw that, the majority put all Bush's supporters in the same basquet.

And of course I have no doubts there are fanatic, racist or homophobes among Bush's supporters, and I am sure there are a lot of good people as well, that's the point, you are going to the extremes, I am not saying that ALL Bush's supporters are good, I am saying that NOT all of them are bad, there is a difference.


I am not sure about Bush and Kerry, though I would not be surprised. I am pretty damn sure about Bush and Gore..
well I am not, in any case, the difference in votes between Bush and Kerry makes it look unlikely that it would change the result.


You mean, when you fight someone by the rules of classic boxing and suddenly he kicks you in your balls, you would not do the same? Of course..
certainly, I think we should go out with guns in our waist, like in the far west. Using a fight as an analogy for a political process is dangerous and stupid. Or are you encouraging disgrunted voters to engage in terrorist activities? (because that's what some posters implied).




There was only one real reason for that - Bush campaign playing gay marriage card into the minds of ignorant electorate. Period. Everything else in this campaign was really secondary..do you really believe that shit?, then stop taking drugs, now it's gay marriage the big issue, whatever, the big issue is, was and will be in the next 50 years TERRORISM AND SECURITY, all the rest is secondary, most americans think that all freedoms are worthless if you are dead

Cybelle Darkholme
Nov 10th, 2004, 06:34 PM
People, people you liberals have got it all wrong. Don't you know you must respect the people who want to kill you? Thats the way it goes.

Don't you know that its not incongrous to be pro-life and pro-death penalty its christian!

Don't you know that gay marriage is wrong and good christian americans should mobilize to fight! Meanwhile, these same christian americans turn a blind eye to starvation, poverty, and a poor educational system.

Dont you know that the 1000 soldiers dead in Iraq are more important than then hundreds of thousands dead from inner city violence? Funny how these christian republicans cant talk about the violence in our own back yard. Funny how these christian republicans want to save the people of iraq but cant be bother to save their own citizens.

Dont you know that faith based initiatives funded by government money is great because it discriminates against gays and anyone who doesnt want to accept the lord jesus christ as their savior? Got a drug problem, suzy? Dont you worry we can help, whoops your a lesbian? Well hunny we would like to help you with our faith based initiative funded by the governement but your a lesbo and god dont like lesbos and neither do we so you go ahead keep snorting that coke unless you want to convert to heterosexuality?

The list goes on and on and on.

Republicans are bastards. Trust me I know, half my family are republicans. ITs not the good half.

Cybelle Darkholme
Nov 10th, 2004, 06:43 PM
For the record this election was decided on so called moral reasons.



abortion and gay marriage

if you are a good christian citizen you are prolife and against gay marriage


its funny how these fanatics run out screaming and hollering and protesting to save these unborn lives but cant be bothered to save the lives already here on the earth who are dying day by day minute by minute.


Also if this election truly came down to terrorism and security the people wouldnt have put a ex coke head cheerleader c minus student back in the whitehouse. This is supposed to be serious politics not a bad episode of melrose place.

Hulet
Nov 10th, 2004, 07:11 PM
I truely hope this board isn't a representation of the general population (I don't think it is).

What I mean is how many posters, that claim to be liberals or progressive, behave exactly the opposite way.

I believed that if you were liberal you would support things like freedom of thought and expression, respect, tolerance, but it seems to be the other way around.



As Rumsfeld said,
As we know, there are some liberals who tolerate tolerance; these are the one's who tolerate those that practice tolerance. There are other liberals who also tolerate intolerance; that is to say they tolerate those who won't tolerate their tolerance. On the other hand, there are also liberals who intolerate intolerance -- the ones that don't tolerate those who won't tolerate their tolerance.
:)

tterb
Nov 10th, 2004, 09:04 PM
People honestly should learn critical thinking skills. Radicalism on either side rarely is the way to go. Not all Republicans are evil, nor are all Democrats evil. On many issues, they aren't even all that different. I lean slightly left myself overall (definitely more left on gun control, civil rights, the environment). Comments like this worry me, though (especially since you really seem to believe you're being objective):

Ah,I see. So,you think that it is okay that two gay men goes in front of a T.V camera in front millions of viewers and kisses one another is okay? You don't think that is throwing the shit in peoples faces? Get a fucking room!!! I don't give a damn about what they do in their personal lives but I damn sure don't want to see it!!
Lots of things to point out here.

A. Sexuality is a part of your identity. As such, you should not be forced to keep it hidden.
B. However, there is a time and place for certain behavior. This applies to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Any kind of sexual display in the media or in public can be offensive to some people.
C. Unless you are equally as offended by heterosexual sexual displays on TV as you are by homosexual displays, you are setting a double standard.
D. The media (and the government) represent all U.S. citizens (well... they strive to, I guess ;)), including many of different religious backgrounds. Thus, your double standard cannot be validly defended by citing your personal moral/religious beliefs.
E. Your beliefs about the religious aspect of marriage should have no bearing on others' rights to the legal benefits of marriage, whether they be a gay or straight couple. Seeing as we have one of those tiresome secular governments.
F. As gay marriage certainly doesn't have any effect on your life, and furthermore doesn't harm anybody, why should you have the right to disallow someone else similar legal rights?
G. Let me again emphasize, we're talking equal legal rights that come with marriage. Your church doesn't have to recognize loving gay couples, but why shouldn't the secular government? It already did with civil unions, this only adds equal rights to the plate. Besides, as I stated, the government (theoretically ;)) is about promoting equal rights and freedom for ALL of its citizens.
H. I know it's difficult to think that two men or two women in a committed relationship might actually have the same legal status as a straight marriage *gasp* *shudder*, but don't worry, it won't prevent you from continuing to look down on gay people :D. The First Amendment will allow you to keep on practicing your religion and keep on praying for the sinners (as long as you keep it out of schools and government buildings ;)).

Oh, and by the way... "sanctity" of marriage? :scared:
Don't check out the divorce stats anytime soon... :sad:

Philbo
Nov 10th, 2004, 09:16 PM
I wanna know where all thes people who go on and on about the 'sanctity of marriage' are when Brittany Spears gets married for 2 minutes and gets it anulled..Or countless other str8 people who totally abuse the 'sancicty' of marriage..

where is the moral outrage over that?

Infiniti2001
Nov 10th, 2004, 10:36 PM
I wanna know where all thes people who go on and on about the 'sanctity of marriage' are when Brittany Spears gets married for 2 minutes and gets it anulled..Or countless other str8 people who totally abuse the 'sancicty' of marriage..

where is the moral outrage over that?


She's a republican, so it's okay :tape:

Circe
Nov 11th, 2004, 02:37 AM
did we really need another thread that was guaranteed to descend into a slanging match?

for the record i dont agree much with Fingon's observations, conservatives, though there arent many of them around are just as frightening as the far-left liberals. if there are more anti-Bush threads/posts around here it merely reflects that there are more liberals on this board, nothing more or less.

yes, some posters - well only bacardi and to a lesser extent Volcana seem to have over-reacted with their calls for regicide and what not, but at least for now i think i'll give them he benefit of "heat-of-the-moment" reactions. can't we just let this simmer down? its important to keep a sense of perspective and balance, yknow, and if not that at least a sense of humor.

ys
Nov 11th, 2004, 03:10 AM
really? that's news for me, like for example the terrorists the behead civilians on the internet?
For them it is just a method to get heard.. But other than media? Those who read Internet on daily basic? Predominantly liberal people, I am sure..




NSDAP? enlight me, I don't know what it has to do with anything anyway.

come on ys, you are more intelligent than that, stupid generalizations don't answer questions and you know that, you can't seriously compare Bush with Hitler or the US with nazi Germany, and in fact, that's either ignorance or just sloppy thinking.
Who is comparing Hitler with Bush? Or US with nazi Germany? I do compare US with pre-nazi Germany, where dumb, ignorant and fooled electorate paved the road for bad people to the power in a very democratic way..

That is an obvious that democracy can lead to catastrophy, from both wings, ultra-right ( Hitler ) and left ( Allende ). Therefore, when people are very unhappy about some elections results, it is a legitimitate concern, it is still an open-ended development.. You never know what's going to happen, and Bush did show some potential..

When was the last time that people in all world were so much in favor of one of candidates in democratic elections in another country... Perhaps in 1933..

Once again.. I am not worried about particular outcome, I don't like Kerry at all, though still wold prefer him to Bush simply because of far superior intelligence. What worried me is that elections were won on non-issues, rather than on serious issues that did exist..

Terrorism? Applying to Bush policy, it is non-issue, because he keeps resources of the country focused on pounding the country that has never been a terrorist threat, while the real threat is growing. For average person from "red" states? Terrorism is as much of a threat as Martians..

Moral values? Again, non-issue. It's not that Kerry and Edwards had sex wit each other on TV screens.. Their position on moral values is no different than Bush one.. And even then, the gay marriage is hardly an important issue for a heartland resident.

But real issues, such as poor economy, such as deteriorating healthcare, such as education, such as environmental problems, such as dismal relationships with the rest of the world..

Unlike Bush, Dems at least tried to address those issues, in vain, of course.. Because Bush simply scared the electorate by terrorism and gay marriages into voting for him .. That thing, that elections can be won so easily on non-issues by manipulating ignorant electorate, that is scary.. Here there are some certain parallels with Germany-1933.

Fingon
Nov 11th, 2004, 04:23 AM
For them it is just a method to get heard.. But other than media? Those who read Internet on daily basic? Predominantly liberal people, I am sure..

again, I don't think that's true, there are hundred of millions of internet users, I don't think they are predominantly anything.


Who is comparing Hitler with Bush? Or US with nazi Germany? I do compare US with pre-nazi Germany, where dumb, ignorant and fooled electorate paved the road for bad people to the power in a very democratic way..

well, the situation in the US today is very different than it was in pre-nazi Germany, and the nazis used several tacticts to take control of the country, especially the SA. Plus, Hitler inmediately stopped democracy when he was in power, Bush can't do that. Of course many times democracy has a bad result, but if people are going to reveal or leave every time they don't like it, well obviouslsy is not going to work.

That is an obvious that democracy can lead to catastrophy, from both wings, ultra-right ( Hitler ) and left ( Allende ). Therefore, when people are very unhappy about some elections results, it is a legitimitate concern, it is still an open-ended development.. You never know what's going to happen, and Bush did show some potential..
again, those are extreme cases, in many cases there have been "bad" democratic government that did not destroy the country and peacefully were succeeded by another.

When was the last time that people in all world were so much in favor of one of candidates in democratic elections in another country... Perhaps in 1933..
so then what the majority think is right? I don't think what people around the world think is relevant to this case, and it's been greately exagerated, here in Toronto, most people don't give a damn, sure, you see in the newspapers comments in favour and against Bush, but the common people don't give a shit.

Once again.. I am not worried about particular outcome, I don't like Kerry at all, though still wold prefer him to Bush simply because of far superior intelligence. What worried me is that elections were won on non-issues, rather than on serious issues that did exist..

Terrorism? Applying to Bush policy, it is non-issue, because he keeps resources of the country focused on pounding the country that has never been a terrorist threat, while the real threat is growing. For average person from "red" states? Terrorism is as much of a threat as Martians..

I have to agree on this one, really when I supported the war in Iraq I thought Iraq did have wmd, if Bush knew that wasn't true and that Iraq did not have links to Al Quaeda, then attacking Iraq was not only wrong, but stupid
I just wonder some times, how the americans allowed the terrorists to take Fallujah for example, what if it was to make a problem out of it and justify a later attack to Syria for example, I really don't know but I agree, the war in Iraq has weakened the war against terrorism.

Moral values? Again, non-issue. It's not that Kerry and Edwards had sex wit each other on TV screens..
*throwing out*

Their position on moral values is no different than Bush one.. And even then, the gay marriage is hardly an important issue for a heartland resident.
I agree, it's an issue for gays, and not even for all of them.

But real issues, such as poor economy, such as deteriorating healthcare, such as education, such as environmental problems, such as dismal relationships with the rest of the world..

Unlike Bush, Dems at least tried to address those issues, in vain, of course.. Because Bush simply scared the electorate by terrorism and gay marriages into voting for him .. That thing, that elections can be won so easily on non-issues by manipulating ignorant electorate, that is scary.. Here there are some certain parallels with Germany-1933.
and that's Kerry's fault, he concentrated in the wrong issues, the issues you mentioned weren't at the centre of the campaigns, Kerry rather tried to concentrate in his Vietnam record, which is irrelevant or the war in Iraq, where he couldn't show a coherent position and there it's IMO where he lost it.

first, he said it was the wrong war, at the wrong time and for the wrong reasons, then when asked if he would have supported the war if he had known what he did he said yes, it was like :confused: , and you can't be :confused: in this issues. Then, he said he didn't oppose the war because he thought it was the president's prerrogative, which shows a total ignorance of what the congress is for and more importantly, lack of character.

Bush with all his deffects (that are many) at least you know what he wants, and what he stands for, with Kerry that was far from clear and that was the problem.

Maybe Kerry should have fired is campaign chief, or director or whatever, I saw an interview to him during election day and the guy IS an idiot.

Volcana
Nov 11th, 2004, 05:44 AM
Plus, Hitler inmediately stopped democracy when he was in power, Bush can't do that.If you were in any way objective and programmed computers for a living, you wouldn't say that.

"The people who cast the votes do not decide an election, the people who count the votes do." - Josef Stalin

Fingon
Nov 11th, 2004, 05:57 AM
If you were in any way objective and programmed computers for a living, you wouldn't say that.

"The people who cast the votes do not decide an election, the people who count the votes do." - Josef Stalin
stupid quote of the day.

I am a programmer, that's what I do for a living :haha:

what you want to know? inheritance, polymorphism? data structures? what C++, C#, Java?

oh, and Josef Stalin is your source, without a doubt Stalin should be put with Aristotele, Socrates or Kant as one of the great thinkers in the history of human kind.

Who are you going to quote next, Idi Amin? :haha:

Volcana
Nov 11th, 2004, 06:38 AM
Who are you going to quote next, Idi Amin?No. I thought Stalin summed up Bush's position quite nicely.

Sam L
Nov 11th, 2004, 07:17 AM
I was joking in my first post. :lol: In all seriousness, I think most liberals have a difficult time in accepting defeat or failure. They come from the "everyone is a winner" culture and they just cannot accept defeat.
Being moderate/conservative, I view most far left wing liberals with disdain. Most seem to have very little if any moral clarity and they tend to think that people should be given things. I am somewhat of a rugged individualist. You either work hard to obtain what you want or you do without!! I don't believe in the hand out system that many liberals adhere to.
As I have said before,there are several reasons why I am labeled a "conservative":

1. I am Pro-religion. I think people should have a right to worship and shouldn't have to be afraid to say God,Jesus,Krisna, Buddha or any other religious figure or deities name. I am definitely all about extroverted spirituality.

2. I am Pro-Life. I think the only time abortion should EVER be considered is in situations of life and death and perhaps rape.

3. I believe marriage is a sacred bond between a Man And A Woman!! Period.

4. I think kissing the U.N's ass is totally unnecessary.

These are the reasons that I am a conservative. I'll tell you why I have a problem with conservatives by responding to your 4 points.

1. Correct me if I'm wrong but is any religious faith in America constricted? :confused: Are Christians not allowed to worship? Why is this even an issue?

2. If you're a woman and you don't want to have an abortion or if you're a man and you don't want your child aborted, FINE! But why do YOU care about what a woman say in New York, whom you've never met does? :confused: As long as she's not harming anyone else? (The baby is a part of her body.) Let's accept that shall we?

3. Again, see #2. Why do you care? If you believe marriage is about marrying the opposite sex, go ahead. But don't stop someone else from doing it especially when they're NOT harming anyone else.

4. Well I'll give you that. You have a right to determine your country's foreign policy, which is why I rarely criticise Bush because of the war on Iraq.

So what it comes down is why do you care what these gays, lesbians and women who abort their children are doing? Are they harming anyone else? NO.

Sam L
Nov 11th, 2004, 07:29 AM
What it comes down to is "equal rights". Republicans and conservative people don't want to give people that are different from them, equal rights. They don't want to give choice to women and marriage to homosexuals, just like they wanted and failed to deny the rights of African-Americans.

I mean come on, let's be honest here, there is racism in America and having a mostly conservative stronghold on government is seen as a way to keep the minorities down.

You can deny all you want, but the Nile will keep on flowing and flowing. :)

Sam L
Nov 11th, 2004, 08:05 AM
It is ironic that the conservative republicans look moderate and tolerant while the progressive liberals look the opposite. I wonder if they can realize that.
Sometimes liberalism and social progression can only be achieved through violence and war. So be it! You'd only have a problem with it, as you do now, if you preferred the status quo.

I mean let's face it, if I was racist white and blacks didn't have any rights, what would I need to be angry about? I have it good, I have what I want. So of course, I'm going to look moderate and tolerant. I JUST WON'T SAY ANYTHING. :confused: Whereas the blacks will be pretty angry, don't you think? Surely you can see this?

Sam L
Nov 11th, 2004, 08:13 AM
Also, why is it an unfair assumption that to be a liberal means you have to be a doormat and you can't fight back? :confused:

And one more thing. Being liberal means to be open-minded. Yes, but towards things like social equality and social progression. It DOES NOT mean, we have to accept everyone's opinions. And liberals have ALWAYS been criticised for not accepting EVERYONE's beliefs. I've never understood why, because it's really simple.

Should we as liberals be open-minded towards someone who shows clear racism? I mean by you guys are saying, we should be open-minded towards those people too. But the problem is those are the type of people we are opposing, so been liberal DOES NOT mean you must be open-minded towards EVERYONE's opinions.

I mean I thought it was really simple, but I guess it's not for some. :confused:

Sam L
Nov 11th, 2004, 08:16 AM
If you were in any way objective and programmed computers for a living, you wouldn't say that.

"The people who cast the votes do not decide an election, the people who count the votes do." - Josef Stalin
Volcana, I know exactly you meant. Don't worry about it.

gentenaire
Nov 11th, 2004, 09:06 AM
It's really worrying indeed! If htis thread shows one thing it's that the Bush lovers aren't any better than the liberals they're attacking.

Circe
Nov 11th, 2004, 02:54 PM
It's really worrying indeed! If htis thread shows one thing it's that the Bush lovers aren't any better than the liberals they're attacking.
you actually thought they were? :p

Fingon
Nov 11th, 2004, 03:48 PM
Sometimes liberalism and social progression can only be achieved through violence and war. So be it! You'd only have a problem with it, as you do now, if you preferred the status quo.
I may not like the statu quo, but I might prefer to maintain it rather than going to a civil war

I mean let's face it, if I was racist white and blacks didn't have any rights, what would I need to be angry about?
Of course, if you were racist and black didn't have any right, you wouldn't be angry, you would be happy, that's why you are a racist.

But you can be white, wealthy, and not be a racist, in that case you are fine, your life is fine, the suffering of blacks or other minorities does not affect YOU, but you can be a sensitive person and worry about that, and try to do something about that, even if it's a tiny little bit

I have it good, I have what I want. So of course, I'm going to look moderate and tolerant. I JUST WON'T SAY ANYTHING. Whereas the blacks will be pretty angry, don't you think? Surely you can see this?
so, what you basically are saying is that it's not about what's right or wrong, but who holds the power and the goods.

So if the situation was the opposite, if they were blacks who were in power and whites discriminated, whites would be angry and blacks would be happy, is that it?

Well, then call it as it is, a power struggle, not by any means with any social connotations, then you don't want equal rights for black because it's the right thing to do, because they are human beings but because you belong to that particular group and will be benefitted from that.

According to your theory, all whites don't give a shit for blacks, because after all they are not black and they are not their jobs or right being affected.

I really could not think of the more racist idea, it's about power isn't it? then all the liberals are hypocrite, they claim to be looking for equality when in reality they are only looking for power.

I don't know what white liberals do, but they don't seem to fit in your definition.

A final word, although Volcana has made a good job convincing people that this election was about whites vs blacks, it was not.

Sam L
Nov 12th, 2004, 11:53 PM
Well, then call it as it is, a power struggle, not by any means with any social connotations, then you don't want equal rights for black because it's the right thing to do, because they are human beings but because you belong to that particular group and will be benefitted from that.

According to your theory, all whites don't give a shit for blacks, because after all they are not black and they are not their jobs or right being affected.

I really could not think of the more racist idea, it's about power isn't it? then all the liberals are hypocrite, they claim to be looking for equality when in reality they are only looking for power.
1. I'm not black so I don't "belong" to that group.

2. I never said all whites don't give a shit for blacks. But there are many who doesn't and you don't need to be a KKK member. Let's say there's a referendum on whether to give blacks the right to vote and let's say it's not compulsory to vote. By you not turning up, that's not giving a shit. So you don't need to be racist to not care but there are many who doesn't care because they're NOT a minority. They have no empathy. And once again, I never said ALL whites are like that.

3. Some liberals are probably looking for power but that's good for them. I'd rather a liberal with power who would grant equal rights to all people in the community than a conservative with power who would look to take away those rights and pander to the hatred of the majority. And again, what just because you're a liberal you should've want power?

Fingon
Nov 13th, 2004, 01:54 AM
1. I'm not black so I don't "belong" to that group.

2. I never said all whites don't give a shit for blacks. But there are many who doesn't and you don't need to be a KKK member. Let's say there's a referendum on whether to give blacks the right to vote and let's say it's not compulsory to vote. By you not turning up, that's not giving a shit. So you don't need to be racist to not care but there are many who doesn't care because they're NOT a minority. They have no empathy. And once again, I never said ALL whites are like that.

3. Some liberals are probably looking for power but that's good for them. I'd rather a liberal with power who would grant equal rights to all people in the community than a conservative with power who would look to take away those rights and pander to the hatred of the majority. And again, what just because you're a liberal you should've want power?
my whole point is that your are describing the whole thing as a clash of classes, there is no ideology, there are no policies, just self interest.

Even with all the rights that still are denied to them, there is no doubt that blacks are better now than they were some time ago (of course they are far from being equal to whites but it's undeniable that they are better than in the past). Being a minority in the US, do you think they could have adquired any rights if everyone only thought of his/her own well being?

Mariangelina
Nov 13th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Tolerance means accepting the opinions of others; it does not mean pretending you agree with them on everything.

I'm a liberal; I also have very strong opinions on most things. I support everyone being able to express their opinions, stupid or not, whether I like them or not. It's called freedom of speech.

I have not read posts advocating terrorist attacks on the US, but if they're there in some thread I haven't read, that's just pathetic. You may be a political radical who thinks all Bush supporters deserve an awful fate, but hoping for the destruction of innocent civilians just to teach some people a lesson is just terrible. :sad:

I find fanatics of whatever political persuasion quite frightening. Being a liberal hardly absolves you of fanaticism.

I Love Sharapova, as you may or may not recall, I am gay. If I turn on the TV and see a chick and a dude kissing, it doesn't turn me on, I may not be very interested, but I recognize they have a perfect right to do this. It's not throwing their sexuality in my face, and I'm not offended. I see making out in the school halls on a daily basis, and that does annoy me a little bit, but that's because it's often just flaunting the fact that these people have someone to make out with, and many of the other losers walking by do not. I would find that offensive regardless of the gender of the participants.

Whatever you think of homosexuality, you do not have the right to be shielded from things that do not turn you on or that you are not interested in, provided it's not hurting anybody. Two girls kissing on a street corner are not hurting anybody, they're not trying to "convert" anyone or flaunt anything, they're just in love and don't feel ashamed and obligated to hide it from the world.

And your reasons for being a conservative- I'd say your first reason as a reason why I'm a liberal! The position of a lot of government stuff and public education, just trying to sweep religion under the carpet and pretend it's not there- I deeply disagree with that, and you can't really place it politically in any category besides "chicken." It's certainly not what I would call a liberal viewpoint. But that doesn't mean the state should be dictated according to the whims of a particular religion.

Being pro-life is your right. But you can't seem to come up with anything better for your third reason than thinking two guys kissing is gross. I'm sorry, but if those two guys are in love and committed to each other, and they want to get married, can you think of a decent legal reason for not letting them? If you can, I'd like to hear it; I don't think I've encountered one yet.

Sam L
Nov 13th, 2004, 01:32 PM
Being a minority in the US, do you think they could have adquired any rights if everyone only thought of his/her own well being?
No of course not. They were supported by others who weren't minorities - they're call 'liberals'. And the same is happening with gay marriage and abortion now. And yes it's about self-interest but about trying to gain equal rights. What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't we be outspoken towards people who are trying to stop others from gaining equal rights?

Sam L
Nov 13th, 2004, 01:37 PM
Tolerance means accepting the opinions of others; it does not mean pretending you agree with them on everything.
Very well said. Also regarding 'accepting the opinions of others', should we liberals accept the opinions of the KKK or Nazis? Of course not. It's about been open-minded in social issues, about the way people live and respecting their private lives. It doesn't mean we're doormats and we just accept any opinion that's thrown at us.

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 04:27 AM
Ain't that the truth.
No.

It isn't.

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 04:41 AM
Any person who is against gay marriage IS, by definition, homophobic. Homophobic means you see gay men and gay women with contempt. If you don't see them as inferior, there is no reason to be against gay marriage and to give them equal rights.
Phobia = fear. Disagreeing with someone doesn't by default mean you fear them. This is leftist propaganda, pure and simple.

Gay marriage is not about "equal rights". It is about a minority of people trying to force the majority not just to accept, but to endorse their aberration/perversion of human sexuality. Most people don't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms, myself included.

The rights homosexuals claim they are being denied(hospital visitation, probate, etc.) are all available to them under current law. Most Americans see through this smokescreen, which is why gay marriage has been repeatedly vetoed in even the most liberal states like Oregon and California.

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 05:05 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


Gays haven't told me that I am going to burn in hell because I didn't believe in his saviour Jesus Christ and because I have gay friends :mad: :rolleyes: I have been told that to my face by some born again Christians. Born agains who were fucking hypocrites who smoked, drank and fucked everything before they found GOD.
You mean born-agains who were sinners like everyone else?! :eek:

Sam L
Nov 21st, 2004, 05:17 AM
Gay marriage is not about "equal rights". It is about a minority of people trying to force the majority not just to accept, but to endorse their aberration/perversion of human sexuality.
It is about equal rights, because marriage should be about a union between two people. Gays aren't asking anyone to endorse anything. It's just about accepting that the concept of marriage which is staying true and sharing your life with someone else can and does happen between two people of the same sex too.

Oh and regarding 'phobia' been a fear and disagreeing with someone. A lot of the time you disagree with other people, it's because there is an underlying fear.

For example, I disagree with someone who says that we should get rid of anti-discrimination laws because I fear that there will be discrimination. See, I'm just not simply disagreeing with him.

You should understand that in complex issues such as these, people just don't 'disagree', there are always underlying fears and prejudices.

I disagree with my sister's decision to wear a black dress on a hot summer day. That's disagreeing simply. I don't have any phobias or fears about black dresses.

But when you disagree with gay marriage. You're talking about a deeper issue and something that affects the lives of other people. Minorities. Fears and prejudices play a factor. If you don't believe this, you're in a denial.

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 05:39 AM
2. If you're a woman and you don't want to have an abortion or if you're a man and you don't want your child aborted, FINE! But why do YOU care about what a woman say in New York, whom you've never met does? :confused: As long as she's not harming anyone else? (The baby is a part of her body.) Let's accept that shall we?
No. Not true. The baby is a separate "person", guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the Declaration of Independence and not to be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" by the Constitution. Abortion is a denial of that right. Scott Peterson was convicted of a double homicide. How is it that you are too obtuse to recognize the dichotomy there?


So what it comes down is why do you care what these gays, lesbians and women who abort their children are doing? Are they harming anyone else? NO.
Yes. No one is telling them they cannot continue doing what they're doing. They are telling US we must endorse what they are doing.

Sam L
Nov 21st, 2004, 05:57 AM
No. Not true. The baby is a separate "person", guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness by the Declaration of Independence and not to be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" by the Constitution. Abortion is a denial of that right. Scott Peterson was convicted of a double homicide. How is it that you are too obtuse to recognize the dichotomy there?
No. You are too obtuse to understand simple science. The baby is a part of the woman's body. It's her right to do whatever she likes to it. Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide means squat. Sure, I recognize it's a human, so sure he can be convicted of double homicide. BUT as long as that child is in the womb of the woman, it is HER right what decide the child's fate. Do you understand this? If you were put inside my body (somehow, don't ask how), then it's my right to abort you from my body if even if it means you will die. Because it's MY body, it's for me to decide.

If I wanted to keep you in my body, and if another person kills me, and thus kills us both. Then they'll be and should be charged with double homicide. It's apples and oranges really.

It's not that hard.

Yes. No one is telling them they cannot continue doing what they're doing. They are telling US we must endorse what they are doing.
What's this "endorse"? Were black people asking white people to endorse them when they just wanted to vote? If a straight couple can get married, so should a gay couple. End of story. If a white person can vote, so should a black person. End of story.

You make things complicated because you live in your fears and prejudices. You can't cope with the fact that all people are equal and the same. So you must differentiate yourselves somehow. By giving gays the right to marry, you're recognizing them as the same. You don't want that. You want to be a part of a special group that's allowed to marry, just like your ancestors wanted to be the only ones who could vote when only white males could vote and wanted to keep it that way.

bionic71
Nov 21st, 2004, 06:48 AM
Phobia = fear. Disagreeing with someone doesn't by default mean you fear them. This is leftist propaganda, pure and simple.

Gay marriage is not about "equal rights". It is about a minority of people trying to force the majority not just to accept, but to endorse their aberration/perversion of human sexuality. Most people don't care what homosexuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms, myself included.

The rights homosexuals claim they are being denied(hospital visitation, probate, etc.) are all available to them under current law. Most Americans see through this smokescreen, which is why gay marriage has been repeatedly vetoed in even the most liberal states like Oregon and California.
Leftist propaganda...what nonsense.
It is clearly about equality...equality and access to marriage (and the legal by-products) for all people.

There is nothing "conservative" about such a perspective from where I stand...Human sexuality should have nothing to do with two people being able to marry. Once again...too many hang ups and far too much interest in the sex lives of others...

My sexuality, a sexuality that others focus on far more than I do, is far from a perversion...this is a term that others attempt to impose, a term stepped in religious interpretation, misinformation and gulit about sex in general....that is the only perversion and distortion of truth that I can see.

My sexuality is only one minor component of ME, it is certainly not the most interesting or important aspect....

As I have posted before....I am gay, my partner and I have been together 11 years, we have a mortgage together, I am a school teacher, I pay my taxes....my sexuality is no concern of anybody.
However, I am unable to marry my partner....
I could marry a female if I wanted though, any female (just to prove a point)......yet I cannot marry my partner of 11 years...it is ludicrous.

My relationship needs no such validation, however if it meant that we did not have to go through complex and expensive legalities to secure our superannuation entitlements and propery ownership then we would certainly consider it.

The notion of marriage for same sex couples is also a symbolic one. For as long as access to such a basic choice as marriage is denied then others will continue to view gay people as second rate citizens. Denying marriage, unfortunately gives justification for continued vilification.

I suspect that many people who support denying marriage access to same sex couples have never really sat down with a gay couple and discussed how such legislation effects them.....it would be a niceway to develop a well rounded perspective and some accurate information. Information from real people, real citizens, who are simply demanding equality.....nothing more, nothing less.

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 06:59 AM
No. You are too obtuse to understand simple science. The baby is a part of the woman's body. It's her right to do whatever she likes to it. Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide means squat. Sure, I recognize it's a human, so sure he can be convicted of double homicide. BUT as long as that child is in the womb of the woman, it is HER right what decide the child's fate. Do you understand this? If you were put inside my body (somehow, don't ask how), then it's my right to abort you from my body if even if it means you will die. Because it's MY body, it's for me to decide.

If I wanted to keep you in my body, and if another person kills me, and thus kills us both. Then they'll be and should be charged with double homicide. It's apples and oranges really.

It's not that hard.
You clearly do not understand the law. And if there is any circumstance under which you claim murder(the taking of innocent life, which is the biblical definition of murder, by the way) is wrong, you are a hypocrite.


What's this "endorse"? Were black people asking white people to endorse them when they just wanted to vote? If a straight couple can get married, so should a gay couple. End of story. If a white person can vote, so should a black person. End of story.
To equate the gay marriage issue to a civil rights issue is a denial of the basic fact that so-called gay people are individuals who are giving into a sexual impulse, not merely asking society to accept them as they physically are. This argument is a non-starter and many black people are offended by it. And rightfully so.

You make things complicated because you live in your fears and prejudices. You can't cope with the fact that all people are equal and the same. So you must differentiate yourselves somehow. By giving gays the right to marry, you're recognizing them as the same. You don't want that. You want to be a part of a special group that's allowed to marry, just like your ancestors wanted to be the only ones who could vote when only white males could vote and wanted to keep it that way.
There is no truth here. :shrug:

Rollo
Nov 21st, 2004, 07:16 AM
Hi there Sam:wavey: Please don't take what I'm about to say personally.....


Let me state my biases up front: I'm a moderate-having voted for a Democrat, Republican, and even Nadar in past presidential elections.

From what I've read that makes me a pretty rare bird around here.

I don't go to church.
I'm not against gay marriage
I'm pro-choice
I'm horrified by what Reagen/Bush did/do to the environment.

And yet I voted for Bush this time around.

Democrats really better start listening up to moderates IMO, because we're trending away from them.

And it's the magical 10% of "swingers" like me who decide elections.

Want to know why we're switiching?

1. regarding 'accepting the opinions of others', should we liberals accept the opinions of the KKK or Nazis? Of course not.Huh? Sit back and REALLY look at that. So if I'm white and a Rep. I'm a Nazi or rascist? This turns people off so quickly. If this rhetoric worked Jews, blacks, and Hispanics wouldn't have increased their support for Bush this time around.

These words lose their sting when they are trotted out every day. Save them for when the targets are truly deserving.

2. I have no problem with gay marriage. Having said this, most Americans do.

It was STUPID to ask Americans to accept homosexual marriage [as the courts did in Mass. without a vote by the state] when most Americans are just coming around to accepting civil unions.

Even Democrats as a group won't go for it. Clinton signed a bill against it. When Massachesetts [the most lib of all US states] votes on the issue Gay marriage will be defeated.

So why push the issue just BEFORE an election? It played right into GOP hands.

3. I don't go to church. But that doesn't mean I want to hear leftists
demonizing those who go to church any more than I want to
hear rightists demonize my liberal/homosexual friends. Deeds speak louder
than words-and both liberal and conservative churches do more to help
the poor or disadvantaged than a lot of groups I know.

4. I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I want the government to pay for
abortions. And I'm not comfortable with just calling what's aborted a
"fetus".

If you look at why Clinton won IMO he understood those 4 points while still being slightly liberal.

I beg of Democrats to follow his example of a big tent.

Until you do-you'll continue to lose moderates.

A final question: Where do Deomocrat stand on 9/11 and Iraq?

Is it?

1. Bush's kick-ass approach?
2. Anti-war leftist leaning Howard Dean?

or 3-the mixed mess message Kerry tried?

#1 was an option. War is good but Bush bungled it.
#2 might get Democrats clobbered IMO, but at least it would be honest and MIGHT have won.

A mixed message was the worst route to take in a time of war. Kerry's own staff was debating if he should be "for" or against" the war in mid September.

That was fatal.

jelena4me
Nov 21st, 2004, 07:17 AM
To equate the gay marriage issue to a civil rights issue is a denial of the basic fact that so-called gay people are individuals who are giving into a sexual impulse, not merely asking society to accept them as they physically are. This argument is a non-starter and many black people are offended by it. And rightfully so.
What!? I cant be bothered to detail a response to that.

Sam L
Nov 21st, 2004, 07:24 AM
You clearly do not understand the law. And if there is any circumstance under which you claim murder(the taking of innocent life, which is the biblical definition of murder, by the way) is wrong, you are a hypocrite. Is that the best you could do, call me a hypocrite? :lol: I presented a logical scenario of how different the two situations were and how you bringing up Scott Peterson meant shit to the case of deeming abortion as illegal and this is ALL you could manage? :lol:

To equate the gay marriage issue to a civil rights issue is a denial of the basic fact that so-called gay people are individuals who are giving into a sexual impulse, not merely asking society to accept them as they physically are. This argument is a non-starter and many black people are offended by it. And rightfully so.
Again, you don't understand the science behind sexual psychology. I'm not even going to argue with you about it, because it'll be like trying to talk Shakespeare with someone who doesn't even know the English alphabet. :shrug:

Plus I'm not equating the gay marriage issue to a civil rights issue. It's about "equal rights" for all and here it's very relevant.

There is no truth here. Deny all you want. And lol is that all you can manage? There is no truth here? LOL.

Sam L
Nov 21st, 2004, 07:26 AM
What!? I cant be bothered to detail a response to that. I know what you mean. You should see what I wrote:

"Again, you don't understand the science behind sexual psychology. I'm not even going to argue with you about it, because it'll be like trying to talk Shakespeare with someone who doesn't even know the English alphabet."

:hehehe:

jelena4me
Nov 21st, 2004, 07:28 AM
I know what you mean. You should see what I wrote:

"Again, you don't understand the science behind sexual psychology. I'm not even going to argue with you about it, because it'll be like trying to talk Shakespeare with someone who doesn't even know the English alphabet."

:hehehe:
Yeah, you might as well try and have a serious discussion with the Muppet Show

Rollo
Nov 21st, 2004, 07:34 AM
Question for you JustineTime: When the choice is between the life of the child or the mother-would you consider ti murder to spare the mother?

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:03 AM
Is that the best you could do, call me a hypocrite? :lol:
It was qualified. Are you saying you meet the criteria?

I presented a logical scenario of how different the two situations were and how you bringing up Scott Peterson meant shit to the case of deeming abortion as illegal and this is ALL you could manage? :lol:
There is no difference under the strict interpretation of the law. The only difference is that you are saying that Lacy Peterson should have the right to kill her child because it is physically located in her body and Scott Peterson should not because it is not. Isn't Scott being denied his basic parental rights? Flip the coin: should Lacy want an abortion and Scott disagree, shouldn't he have the right to force her to "come to term" with his position? :confused: Under current law he has no persona standi in judicio. Who is being hypocritical here?


Again, you don't understand the science behind sexual psychology. I'm not even going to argue with you about it, because it'll be like trying to talk Shakespeare with someone who doesn't even know the English alphabet. :shrug:
Right! Because clearly I lack the intellectual capacity for cogent debate.

Plus I'm not equating the gay marriage issue to a civil rights issue.
Yes you are. Who do you think you're kidding?

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:04 AM
Question for you JustineTime: When the choice is between the life of the child or the mother-would you consider ti murder to spare the mother?
No.

Sam L
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:17 AM
It was qualified. Are you saying you meet the criteria?


There is no difference under the strict interpretation of the law. The only difference is that you are saying that Lacy Peterson should have the right to kill her child because it is physically located in her body and Scott Peterson should not because it is not. Isn't Scott being denied his basic parental rights? Flip the coin: should Lacy want an abortion and Scott disagree, shouldn't he have the right to force her to "come to term" with his position? :confused: Under current law he has no persona standi in judicio. Who is being hypocritical here?
No it wasn't qualified because as I've explained to you already, it's two different situations.

1. A person kills another person with a person inside it.

2. A person kills the person inside her.

1. is murder of two people. 2. is not murder because it's her right to get rid of whatever life is inside her.

You don't understand this because you want to deny the basic rights of people. That's what it comes down to.

Yes you are. Who do you think you're kidding?
I'm not equating because I'm not saying that their situations were identical. Blacks couldn't hide the fact that they were black. Gays can. BUT I'm arguing for "equal rights". Blacks wanted equal rights then and a lot of people wanted to deny them. Now gays want equal rights too but a lot of people are trying to deny them. That's the only comparison. That's NOT equating civil rights issues with gay marriage issues. You need an English lesson if you think they are. :cuckoo:

Sam L
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:19 AM
Right! Because clearly I lack the intellectual capacity for cogent debate.
No you don't. But clearly your prejudice and hate is clouding your thought processes. I know you don't like to admit it but it's true. Most racist people don't like to see themselves as "racist". It's a dirty word. But they're not going to give up their prejudices, they just hide behind other agendas.

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:26 AM
If you're a woman and you don't want to have an abortion or if you're a man and you don't want your child aborted, FINE!
I missed this excellent point that you made. I apologize. :) But current law still deprives a) the father of paternal rights, and b) the baby, a lawful citizen of the United States, of the right to life without due process of law.

Sam L
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:31 AM
I missed this excellent point that you made. I apologize. :) But current law still deprives a) the father of paternal rights, and b) the baby, a lawful citizen of the United States, of the right to life without due process of law.
Well that father should get HIS rights to keep his child too. I agree.

But all I'm saying is abortion has to be legal. The choice HAS to be there for those who want to abort.

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:33 AM
No you don't. But clearly your prejudice and hate is clouding your thought processes. I know you don't like to admit it but it's true. Most racist people don't like to see themselves as "racist". It's a dirty word. But they're not going to give up their prejudices, they just hide behind other agendas.
I have expressed hate for no one. You unfairly ascribe hatred to me because my viewpoint is not in line with your agenda.

Could it be that you are a Christaphobe? :confused:

After all, you are not in line with my agenda! :(

JustineTime
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:36 AM
Well that father should get HIS rights to keep his child too. I agree.

But all I'm saying is abortion has to be legal. The choice HAS to be there for those who want to abort.
At what point in its development should the child be afforded its legal rights? :confused:

Sam L
Nov 21st, 2004, 08:47 AM
At what point in its development should the child be afforded its legal rights? :confused:
When it's born. When it starts to live its life as a separate entity.

You need to understand that carrying a child is not an easy thing. And neither is abortion. Women don't have abortions for fun. Do you have any idea how traumatic the experience is? :confused:

Which is why I support the rights and actions of women who decide to abort this life that's living in them. It's about their longterm emotional, psychological, financial and physcial health. It has to do with a lot of factors and decisions to have abortions aren't quick and easy decisions like buying a new pair of shoes.

It's a fundamental women's right to abort any life living inside of them.